Search

SUMMARY ABSTRACT Community consultation (CC) is a requirement for exception from informed consent (EFIC) research. This article explores the issue of how representative such consultations can and should be, with particular reference to the use of media-based activities. Interactive, media-based CC strategies are gaining traction, because they have much greater reach than traditional methods, but the increasing use of such methods has also led to calls to ensure that those contacted are representative of the community at risk. However, this is more complex than at first apparent. This article examines the question of how the "trauma community" should be defined, and what characteristics might be used to assess whether a sample of this community is representative. It also considers what data are actually available in order to satisfy such requirements.

Background: The current global pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in the blood supply network. Given the recent shortages, there must be a civilian plan for massively bleeding patients when there are no blood products on the shelf. Recognizing that the time to death in bleeding patients is less than 2 h, timely resupply from unaffected locations is not possible. One solution is to transfuse emergency untested whole blood (EUWB), similar to the extensive military experience fine-tuned over the last 19 years. While this concept is anathema in current civilian transfusion practice, it seems prudent to have a vetted plan in place. Methods and Materials: During the early stages of the 2020 global pandemic, a multidisciplinary and international group of clinicians with broad experience in transfusion medicine communicated routinely. The result is a planning document that provides both background information and a high-level guide on how to emergently deliver EUWB for patients who would otherwise die of hemorrhage. Results and Conclusions: Similar plans have been utilized in remote locations, both on the battlefield and in civilian practice. The proposed recommendations are designed to provide high-level guidance for experienced blood bankers, transfusion experts, clinicians, and health authorities. Like with all emergency preparedness, it is always better to have a well-thought-out and trained plan in place, rather than trying to develop a hasty plan in the midst of a disaster. We need to prevent the potential for empty shelves and bleeding patients dying for lack of blood.

Genome sequencing is often pivotal in the diagnosis of rare diseases, but many of these conditions lack specific treatments. We describe how molecular diagnosis of a rare, fatal neurodegenerative condition led to the rational design, testing, and manufacture of milasen, a splice-modulating antisense oligonucleotide drug tailored to a particular patient. Proof-of-concept experiments in cell lines from the patient served as the basis for launching an "N-of-1" study of milasen within 1 year after first contact with the patient. There were no serious adverse events, and treatment was associated with objective reduction in seizures (determined by electroencephalography and parental reporting). This study offers a possible template for the rapid development of patient-customized treatments. (Funded by Mila's Miracle Foundation and others.).

Background There has been debate about the role of consent in pragmatic trials comparing qualitatively similar interventions. Consent preferences may differ in acute care contexts, given severe illness, time constraints, and other barriers to consent. In addition, studies have not assessed the impact of disclosing financial considerations as a justification for trials. This study was designed to assess preferences of the general public regarding consent for a pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Methods This survey was completed using an online, probability-based panel representative of the US population. It incorporated a randomized, experimental (2 × 2) design assessing (1) preference for written consent versus an alternative (notification after enrollment or brief verbal consent) and (2) impact of including cost as a motivating factor for the trial. The survey used a scenario based on a recent pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Primary independent variables were personal preference and recommendation as a member of a review board regarding written consent versus the assigned alternative strategy and personal attitude toward trial enrollment. Descriptive analyses were conducted using post-stratification weights. Regression models were created to examine relationships between demographic variables and consent preference and willingness to enroll. Provision of cost information was incorporated into a regression model to examine its impact on consent preference. Results The study included 2027 participants. Of those participants, 51.1% versus 45.8% stated a personal preference for written consent versus notification after enrollment; however, 60.0% versus 35.5% preferred brief verbal consent to written consent. Even among respondents stating they would be unlikely to enroll in the trial if asked, more respondents (50.6%) preferred brief verbal consent. The preference for verbal consent was generally shared across demographic categories, although lower educational attainment was associated with reduced acceptance (p = 0.001 for trend). Respondents were more likely to support an alternative to written consent when asked their personal preference than when asked their recommendation as a member of a review board. The provision of cost information did not have a meaningful effect on consent preferences, attitudes toward enrollment, or views about the study. Conclusion Respondents generally supported prospective involvement in enrollment decisions in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and were particularly supportive of brief verbal consent. This support persisted across demographic categories. The finding that individuals were more likely to support alternatives to written consent when asked for a personal preference rather than as a “committee member” suggests that conservative institutional approaches to consent could hinder implementation of more patient-centered approaches. The role of cost transparency in consent discussions warrants further study.

Inclusion of children in medical decision making, to the extent of their ability and interest in doing so, should be the default position, ensuring that children are routinely given a voice. However, optimizing the involvement of children in their health care decisions remains challenging for clinicians. Missing from the literature is a stepwise approach to assessing when and how a child should be included in medical decision making. We propose a systematic approach for doing so, and we apply this approach in a discussion of two challenging clinical cases. The approach is informed by a literature review, and is anchored by case studies of teenagers' refusal of clinical care, regulatory requirements for research assent, and the accepted approach to involving cognitively impaired adults in medical decisions.

Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.

Background Informed consent for acute myocardial infarction and stroke research is challenging. Time for enrollment decisions is limited, patients and family are usually stressed, and being asked to participate in research is often unexpected. Despite these barriers, patients and surrogates have reported a preference for prospective involvement in research decisions and generally positive views of the consent process. It is unknown what drives positive or negative consent experiences. These data are crucial to making consent processes more context appropriate. Methods and Results We conducted a qualitative interview study with 27 patients and surrogates enrolled in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials in the past 5 years. Purposive sampling from the P‐CARE (Patient‐Centered Approaches to Research Enrollment) study was based on participant characteristics and responses to initial patient‐centered interviews. In‐depth interviews used open‐ended questions to explore factors influencing consent experiences. Qualitative descriptive analysis was performed utilizing a multilevel coding strategy. Participants identified specific researcher behaviors as important, including expressions of respect, professionalism, and nonpressuring communication. Participants preferred consent conversations focused on risks/benefits and the trial protocol. They had varying views of consent forms and communicated several reasons the form was valuable unrelated to informational content. Participants also valued postenrollment interactions as opportunities to ask questions and learn about the study. Conclusions Barriers to consent in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials are unavoidable, but participants identified productive ways to demonstrate respect for patients during enrollment conversations. These include key researcher behaviors, concentrating consent discussions on what participants find most important, and structured postenrollment follow‐up.

Background Emergent informed consent for clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke is challenging. The role and value of consent are controversial, and insufficient data exist regarding patients’ and surrogates’ experiences. Methods and Results We conducted structured interviews with patients (or surrogates) enrolled in AMI or acute stroke trials at 6 sites between 2011 and 2016. Primary domains included trial recall, consent experiences, and preferences regarding involvement. Descriptive and test statistics were used to characterize responses and explore relationships between key domains and characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between key covariates and consent preferences. There were 176 (84 stroke, 92 AMI) completed interviews. Most stroke respondents (82%) were surrogates; all AMI respondents were patients. Average time from trial enrollment to interview was 1.9 years (stroke) and 2.8 years (AMI); 89% of stroke and 62% of AMI respondents remembered being in the trial, and among these respondents, 80% (stroke) and 44% (AMI) remembered reading some of the consent form. Over 90% reported not feeling pressure to enroll, being treated in a caring way, and being treated with dignity. A minority (16% stroke and 26% AMI) reported they would have preferred not to be asked for consent. Just over half (61% stroke and 53% AMI) recalled a postenrollment conversation about the study. Conclusions Most respondents felt they were treated respectfully and were glad they had been asked for consent. Trial recall was relatively low, and many respondents recalled little postenrollment discussion. Further development of context‐sensitive approaches to consent is important.

Barriers to informed consent are ubiquitous in the conduct of emergency care research across a wide range of conditions and clinical contexts. They are largely unavoidable; can be related to time constraints, physical symptoms, emotional stress, and cognitive impairment; and affect patients and surrogates. US regulations permit an exception from informed consent for certain clinical trials in emergency settings, but these regulations have generally been used to facilitate trials in which patients are unconscious and no surrogate is available. Most emergency care research, however, involves conscious patients, and surrogates are often available. Unfortunately, there is neither clear regulatory guidance nor established ethical standards in regard to consent in these settings. In this report—the result of a workshop convened by the National Institutes of Health Office of Emergency Care Research and Department of Bioethics to address ethical challenges in emergency care research—we clarify potential gaps in ethical understanding and federal regulations about research in emergency care in which limited involvement of patients or surrogates in enrollment decisions is possible. We propose a spectrum of approaches directed toward realistic ethical goals and a research and policy agenda for addressing these issues to facilitate clinical research necessary to improve emergency care.

There is debate over the role of informed consent in pragmatic trials, which often compare qualitatively similar, standard treatments. In acute settings such as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), questions about consent are magnified by challenges related to severe illness and the

Introduction: Informed consent for clinical trials in acute stroke is challenging. Enrollment decisions must be made quickly, in stressful situations, and typically by a surrogate. Moreover, trials are complex and unfamiliar. Understanding patients’ and surrogates’ experiences may help maximize respect for them while facilitating important studies. Methods: Telephone interviews were conducted with consented patients or surrogates for patients enrolled in acute stroke trials at 3 US sites between 2011 and 2016. Interviews assessed trial recall, experiences with consent, and preferences regarding consent. Questions were primarily closed-ended. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and bivariate analyses (Fisher’s exact) were conducted to examine predictors of consent preference. Results: Eighty-four respondents (69 surrogates, 15 patients) across 3 sites and 10 trials were interviewed and included in final analysis. Nine did not recall enrollment, and only about half (53%) recalled that the trial involved an intervention. Of 75 respondents who remembered enrolling, 65 (87%) remembered signing a consent form, 52 (80%) of whom said they read at least some of it. Most respondents reported being treated respectfully during consent. Only 12 respondents (16%) wished they had been enrolled in the trial without prospective consent. Individuals with low health literacy were less likely to prefer enrollment without consent (p Conclusions: Patients and surrogates in stroke trials reported mostly positive consent experiences and generally appreciated having been asked for consent prior to enrollment. Recall of trial details, however, was low, and post-enrollment contact was recalled to be somewhat infrequent. Further work may help to identify the most context-appropriate strategies.

Pragmatic clinical trials can help answer questions of comparative effectiveness for interventions routinely used in medical practice. Pragmatic clinical trials may examine outcomes of one or more marketed medical products, and they are heterogeneous in design and risk. The Food and Drug Administration is charged with protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of individuals enrolled in clinical investigations, as well as assuring the integrity of the data upon which approval of medical products is made. The Food and Drug Administration has broad jurisdiction over drugs and medical devices (whether or not they are approved for marketing), and as such, clinical investigations of these products are subject to applicable Food and Drug Administration regulations. While many pragmatic clinical trials will meet the criteria for an exemption from the requirements for an investigational new drug application or investigational device exemption, in general, all clinical investigations of medical products that fall under Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction must adhere to regulations for informed consent and review by an institutional review board. We are concerned that current Food and Drug Administration requirements for obtaining individual informed consent may deter or delay the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials intended to develop reliable evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness of approved medical products that are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Under current regulations, there are no described mechanisms to alter or waive informed consent to make it less burdensome or more practicable for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials. We recommend that the Food and Drug Administration establish a risk-based approach to obtaining informed consent in pragmatic clinical trials that would facilitate the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials without compromising the protection of enrolled individuals or the integrity of the resulting data.

Background Despite the fact that many pregnant women are affected by a range of serious health conditions and take medications for these conditions, there is widespread reticence to include them in clinical intervention research. Hence, their clinical care is typically not informed by evidence derived from pregnant populations. Method In October 2010, the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women's Health convened a workshop to address ethical, regulatory, and scientific issues raised by the enrollment of pregnant women in clinical research. This report summarizes three areas that emerged from that meeting as important next steps to be taken to promote ethically responsible and scientifically sound research during pregnancy. Findings The three areas are: 1) Reclassify pregnant women from their current status in regulations as a “vulnerable” population to a scientifically “complex” population and change the presumption of exclusion to one of inclusion; 2) examine the institutional review boards' (IRB) gatekeeper role in interpreting regulations governing pregnancy research and identify steps to facilitate IRB approval of ethically informed pregnancy research; and 3) develop a pregnancy-focused research agenda that addresses pressing clinical needs, identifies opportunities to gather information from existing resources and studies, and encourages important new research areas. Conclusion Research is needed to address the therapeutic needs of pregnant women and to study pregnancy as it may shed light on a pregnant woman's later health and the health of her child.

The global H1N1 influenza pandemic disproportionately affected pregnant women, drawing attention to the fact that they have always been a marginalized study population. Dr. Sara Goldkind and colleagues argue that it is imperative that pregnant women be judiciously included in research.