Dataset Information

Reconsidering 'minimal risk' to expand the repertoire of trials with waiver of informed consent for research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Progress in therapeutic research is slowed by the regulatory burden of clinical trials, which provide the best evidence for guiding treatment. There is a long delay from evidence generation to adoption, highlighting the need for designs that link evidence generation to implementation.

Objective

To identify clinical trial designs that confer minimal risk above that inherent in clinical care, to obviate the need for cumbersome consenting processes to enrol patients in prospective clinical research studies. These designs extend the scope of the Learning Healthcare System, a framework for leveraging retrospective 'big data' to advance clinical research, to include data collected from prospective controlled trials.

Summary

Pragmatic trials may use simplified eligibility criteria, unblinded interventions and objective outcome measures that can all be monitored through the electronic health records (EHR), to reduce costs and speed study conduct. Most pragmatic trials continue to suffer from substantial regulatory burden. Written consent to participate in research can be waived only if the research produces minimal risk above what is encountered in everyday life. However, the 'consent' processes for prescribing Federal Drug Administration-approved medications in clinical medicine are informal, even when they involve decisions of uncertain benefit and higher levels of risk. We propose that trial designs that mimic clinical decision-making in areas of uncertainty (clinical equipoise) and in which no data are generated outside of usual care (ideally by EHR embedding) confer minimal additional risk. Trial designs meeting this standard could, therefore, be conducted with minimal documentation of consent, even when interventions contain different risks. To align with risk encountered in clinical practice, allocation to treatment arms should change (adaptive randomisation) as data are collected and analysed. Embedding of informatics tools into the EHR has the additional benefit that, as adaptive randomisation progresses, evidence-generation transitions into implementation via decision-support tools-the ultimate realisation of the Learning Healthcare System.

SUBMITTER: Monach PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442055 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.This was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.Overall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.As in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Seeking consent for minimal risk research in the ICU poses challenges, especially when the research is time-sensitive. Our aim was to determine the extent to which ICU patients or surrogates support a deferred consent process for a minimal risk study without the potential for direct benefit. DESIGN:Prospective cohort study. SETTING:Five ICUs within a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS:Newly admitted ICU patients 18 years old or older. INTERVENTIONS:We administered an eight-item verbal survey to patients or surrogates approached for consent to participate in a minimal risk, ICU-based study. The parent study involved noninvasive collection of biosamples and clinical data at the time of ICU admission and again 3 days later. If patients had capacity at the time of ICU admission, or if a surrogate was readily available, consent was sought prior to initial sample collection; otherwise, a waiver of consent was granted, and deferred consent was sought 3 days later. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:One hundred fifty-seven individuals were approached for consent to participate in the parent study; none objected to the consent process. One hundred thirty-five of 157 (86%) competed the survey, including 94 who consented to the parent study and 41 who declined. Forty-four of 60 individuals (73%) approached for deferred consent responded positively to the question "Did we make the right choice in waiting until now to ask your consent?" three of 60 (5%) responded negatively, and 13 of 60 (22%) made a neutral or unrelated response. The most common reason given for endorsing the deferred consent process was the stress of the early ICU experience 25 of 44 (61%). CONCLUSIONS:Most patients and surrogates accept a deferred consent process for minimal risk research in the ICU. For appropriate ICU-based research, investigators and Institutional Review Boards should consider a deferred consent process if the subject lacks capacity and an appropriate surrogate is not readily available.

Project description:AimsPragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US.MethodsThe study took the form of a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives.ResultsA total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability-based online panel responded to the web-based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7-37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7-14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.ConclusionsThe results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low-risk pRCTs.

Project description:BackgroundInformed consent documents for clinical studies should disclose all reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits. Little guidance exists on how to navigate the complexities of risk-benefit communication, especially in early clinical research. Practice-oriented development of such guidance should be informed by evidence on what and how details of risks and benefits are currently communicated.MethodWe surveyed the responsible parties of phase I/II trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov that started 2007 or later and completed between 2012 and 2016 to sample informed consent documents from a broad spectrum of early phase clinical trials. Based on an assessment matrix, we qualitatively and quantitatively assessed the informed consent documents for details of risk-benefit communication.ResultsThe risk-benefit communication in the 172 informed consent documents differed substantially in several regards. The outcome, extent, and likelihood of health risks, for example, were described in 83%, 32%, and 63% of the informed consent documents. Only 45% of informed consent documents specified the outcome of mentioned health benefits, and the extent and likelihood of health benefits were never specified. From those informed consent documents reporting risk likelihoods, only 57% added frequency numbers to words such as "common" or "rare," and even in these cases, we found strong variations for presented frequency ranges. Substantial heterogeneity also exists for how informed consent documents communicate other risk and benefit types and related safeguards.ConclusionOur study points to several shortcomings and heterogeneities in how informed consent documents communicate risks and benefits to potential research participants. Health risks, for example, should be specified with frequency numbers, and health benefits should be specified at least by mentioning their outcomes. Further demand for research and policy development is needed to harmonize risk-benefit communication and to clarify ways to specify the likelihood of health benefits.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the extent to which authors of cluster randomised trials adhered to two basic requirements of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' uniform requirements for manuscripts (namely, reporting of research ethics review and informed consent), to determine whether the adequacy of reporting has improved over time, and to identify characteristics of cluster randomised trials associated with reporting of ethics practices.DesignReview of a random sample of published cluster randomised trials from an electronic search in Medline.SettingCluster randomised trials in health research published in English language journals from 2000 to 2008. Study sample 300 cluster randomised trials published in 150 journals.Results77 (26%, 95% confidence interval 21% to 31%) trials failed to report ethics review. The proportion reporting ethics review increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report ethics review than were trials that used routine data sources only (79% (n=151) v 55% (23); P=0.008). Trials that accounted for clustering in the design and analysis were more likely to report ethics review. The median impact factor of the journal of publication was higher for trials that reported ethics review (3.4 v 2.3; P<0.001). 93 (31%, 26% to 36%) trials failed to report consent. Reporting of consent increased significantly over time (P<0.001). Trials with interventions targeting participants at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were trials with interventions targeting the cluster level (87% (90) v 48% (41); P<0.001). Trials with data collection interventions at the individual level were more likely to report consent than were those that used routine data sources only (78% (146) v 29% (11); P<0.001).ConclusionsReporting of research ethics protections in cluster randomised trials is inadequate. In addition to research ethics approval, authors should report whether informed consent was sought, from whom consent was sought, and what consent was for.