Search

Importance: Information to be included in advance informed consent forms for health care-associated pneumonia treatment trials remains to be determined., Objective: To identify and determine how to describe information to be included in an advance informed consent form for an early-enrollment noninferiority hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: A Delphi consensus process with stakeholders in HABP/VABP clinical trials was conducted using qualitative semistructured telephone interviews from June to August 2016, followed by 2 online surveys, the first from April to May 2017, and the second from September to October 2017. All stakeholders who participated in the interview were invited to participate in the first survey. Stakeholders who participated in the first survey were invited to participate in the second survey. Stakeholders were patients at risk of pneumonia, caregivers, representatives of institutional review boards, investigators, and study coordinators., Main Outcomes and Measures: Description and consensus of information to be included in advance informed consent forms for early enrollment in noninferiority HABP/VABP clinical trials., Results: Suggestions from 52 stakeholders about what key informed consent concepts to include and how to explain them were used to create 3 categories to be included in an advance consent form: (1) reassurances on patient health and treatment, (2) rationale for advance consent and early enrollment, and (3) an explanation of noninferiority. At the end of the Delphi process, at least 80% consensus was reached among the 40 stakeholders who participated in the second online survey on each of the statements to include in the proposed consent text. Throughout the process, however, describing and reaching consensus on statements about noninferiority was more problematic than the other categories., Conclusions and Relevance: The stakeholders endorsed consent language to be used in combination with a strategy for enrolling patients at highest risk for pneumonia before infection onset. Data-driven consent language may help potential participants make informed decisions about their involvement in clinical research and improve enrollment rates, which are necessary to evaluate new treatments and improve patient care. The proposed consent language may be adapted for other trials using an early enrollment strategy and for noninferiority trials.

Cancer is not one disease. Outcomes and endpoints in trials should incorporate the therapeutic modality and cancer type because these factors affect clinician and patient expectations. In this Review, we discuss how to: define the importance of endpoints; make endpoints understandable to patients; improve the use of patient-reported outcomes; advance endpoints to parallel changes in trial design and therapeutic interventions; and integrate these improvements into trials and practice. Endpoints need to reflect benefit to patients, and show that changes in tumour size either in absolute terms (response and progression) or relative to control (progression) are clinically relevant. Improvements in trial design should be accompanied by improvements in available endpoints. Stakeholders need to come together to determine the best approach for research that ensures accountability and optimises the use of available resources., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Clinical investigators in oncology are increasingly interested in using molecular analysis of cancer tissue to understand the biologic bases of response or resistance to novel interventions and to develop prognostic and predictive biomarkers that will guide clinical decision making. Some scientific questions of this nature can only be addressed, or may best be addressed, through the conduct of a clinical trial in which research biopsies are obtained from all participants. However, trial designs with mandatory research biopsies have raised ethical concerns related to the risk of harm to participants, the adequacy of voluntary informed consent, and the potential for misunderstanding among research participants when access to an experimental intervention is linked to the requirement to undergo a research biopsy. In consideration of the ethical and scientific issues at stake in this debate, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B Ethics Committee proposes guidelines for clinical trials involving mandatory research biopsies. Any cancer clinical trial that requires research biopsies of participants must be well designed to address the scientific question, obtain the biopsy in a way that minimizes risk, and ensure that research participants are fully informed of the risks, rationale, and requirements of the study, as well as of treatment alternatives. Further guidelines and discussions of this issue are specified in this position paper. We feel that if these principles are respected, an informed adult with cancer can both understand and voluntarily consent to participation in a clinical trial involving mandatory research biopsy for scientific end points.

Despite recent interest on the part of advocates and researchers of oncology clinical trials in sharing study results, participants in these trials are not routinely informed about the results. We identified oncology physicians and nurses through the Cancer and Leukemia Group B database and surveyed them about sharing clinical trial results with participants. Of 1977 eligible members, 796 (40.3%) responded to the mailed survey, 497 (62.4%) of whom reported that they offer trial results to participants less than one-fifth of the time. A total of 576 (72.4%) of responders believed that most patients want to know the results of studies, and 634 (79.7%) of responders expressed willingness to offer results to most study participants in the future, believing that most patients want to know trial results and that routinely offering results would not have a negative effect on patients. Concerns of some responders about routinely offering trial results included negative emotional effect on patients, patient difficulty understanding the information, and resources required to offer the results. Of concern, 16.2% (129/796) of responders believed an obligation to offer results to study participants would make them less likely to enroll patients on studies. Future studies should consider sharing trial results with patients and evaluating the process and its effect on both patients and clinicians.