Participants' informed consent in adaptive, platform drug trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Not all approaches are ethically acceptable.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dal-Re R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9236980 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Participants' informed consent in adaptive, platform drug trials in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Not all approaches are ethically acceptable.
Dal-Ré Rafael R Caplan Arthur L AL Voo Teck Chuan TC
European journal of internal medicine 20220628
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe information provided to participants of adaptive platform trials assessing therapies for COVID-19 inpatients is unknown. We aim to evaluate it by reviewing participant information sheets/informed consent forms (PIS/ICFs).MethodsWe searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 March 2022) to identify non-industry-sponsored adaptive platform phase 2+ trials with publicly available protocols and PIS/ICFs, selecting versions closest to the initial one. We assessed the elements of information included in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki as present, absent, or deficient (incompletely described).ResultsWe included PIS/ICFs of 11 trials (ACCORD-2, ACTIV-1IM, Bari-SolidAct, CATALYST, Discovery, HEAL-COVID, ITAC, RECOVERY, REMAP-COVID, Solidarity and TACTIC-R), which were 4-32 pages long (median (md) = 11). Between two and 11 (md = 6) of the 25 different elements of information assessed were omitted or deficiently described in the PIS/ICFs of the 11 trials. Information about providing trial results, investigators' conflicts of interest, post-study provisions, payment to and anticipated expenses for participants, number of participants, and on whether participants will receive new information that could impact their decision on staying in the trial, were omitted or deficiently described in at least five PIS/ICFs.ConclusionsInvestigators failed to include a few important elements of information in the trial's PIS/ICF deemed relevant by international standards. In protocols of future trials, investigators should explain why elements of information specified in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and/or by the Declaration of Helsinki were omitted from the PIS/ICFs.
| S-EPMC10173897 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cognitive impairment is a characteristic of schizophrenia. This impairment may affect the retention of information required for ongoing knowledgeable participation in clinical trials. This study monitored retention of study-related knowledge-including assessment of therapeutic misconception-in people with stable, DSM-IV schizophrenia during participation in placebo-controlled clinical trials of adjunctive agents. Stability was defined as being on an antipsychotic with no change in medication or dose over the previous 4 weeks.This longitudinal study assessed retention of clinical trial-related consent information. Individuals enrolling in 1 of 8 clinical trials were approached for participation. Participants came from research clinics and community mental health centers. At baseline, clinical trial consent forms were reviewed and study knowledge assessed. Participants were randomized to follow-up assessments at weeks 1, 4, and 8; weeks 4 and 8; or at week 8 only. Clinical trial consent forms were not rereviewed at any follow-up visit.Fifty-nine participants were enrolled; analysis included 52 participants with at least 1 follow-up visit. Study knowledge did not decrease meaningfully in any group. Therapeutic misconception was not observed in participants during the study. The group assessed most frequently demonstrated significant improvement over baseline (t44 = 3.43, P = .001). Retention of study knowledge was not related to symptoms but had a weak correlation with cognitive capacity (R = 0.28, P = .07). Performance did not differ between participants from research clinics and those from community mental health centers.Clinically stable people with schizophrenia enrolling in a placebo-controlled adjunctive medication study, once determined to have capacity to consent to a clinical trial, retained appropriate study knowledge for at least 8 weeks. In the absence of a specific reason to suspect a loss of decisional capacity, there appears to be no need to routinely reevaluate participants during this type of clinical trial.
| S-EPMC4482016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough phase I clinical trials are the gateway to progress in cancer therapies, this setting poses ethical challenges to ensure that patients provide consent free from misunderstandings of therapeutic intent or unrealistic expectations of benefit. The design of phase I oncology trials has evolved rapidly over time and today includes more targeted agents and combinations of experimental drugs with standard drugs, which may further complicate how patients understand phase I research participation.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews regarding motivations, decision making, and understanding of trial purpose nested within a phase I clinical trial of a novel PI3kinase inhibitor combined with a standard oral chemotherapy in 18 participants.ResultsFewer than half of patients correctly identified the safety and dosing objectives. The inclusion of a targeted agent was attractive to participants and was perceived as an indicator of less toxic or more efficacious therapy, with less appreciation for added risks. The significance of a cellular drug target, without a known predictive biomarker of response, was unclear to patients. The inclusion of a standard drug in the regimen attracted patients with more treatment options than traditional first-in-human participants. Patients frequently expressed a realistic understanding of prognosis and uncertainty of benefit, but simultaneous hopes for extraordinary outcomes.ConclusionNovel phase I oncology trial designs may attract patients with less constrained treatment options, but the inclusion of targeted drugs and combinations including standard chemotherapies is likely to complicate understanding of safety and dosing objectives and likelihood of personal benefit for purposes of informed consent.
| S-EPMC5640413 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Informed consent is critical for protecting vulnerable individuals interested in research participation, like those with psychotic disorders (e.g. schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, schizophreniform disorder, etc.). Individuals with psychotic disorders may have fluctuating capacity to consent and capacity assessment prior to research participation can help determine decisional status. However, there is little research on how, or if, these assessments are conducted in clinical research. A systematic review of randomized medication or device trials that specifically recruited individuals with psychotic disorders to understand the use and reporting of capacity assessment to consent was conducted. A total of 646 articles were reviewed using a developed questionnaire on ethical reporting of consent practices and capacity assessment. Less than 10% (n = 34; 5.3%) of the studies reported an assessment of capacity to provide informed consent and less than half of those used a standardized assessment. Sixty-four (9.9%) of the articles reported capacity to provide informed consent in the study's inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, 66 (10.2%) of the articles did not provide a statement about institutional review board (IRB) approval; and given the large number of medication and device trials, one out of five articles (n = 134; 20.7%) reported no statement about potential conflicts of interest. Future research should continue to examine these issues and to better understand the benefits and challenges of research participation with psychotic individuals and their decisional capacity in this context.
| S-EPMC11520818 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10760836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformed consent is the cornerstone of research ethics. One of its goals is that participants enter research with an understanding of what their participation entails. This paper is a study on how researchers understand the informed consent process. Previous studies have looked at this topic from a research participant perspective. However, few studies focus on the perspectives of the researchers. Therefore, this is an important paper that highlights an important issue (informed consent) from the perspective of those who administer it during research.MethodsIn-depth interviews were conducted with 18 researchers from 3 different research centers in Malawi working in clinical trials. The data was analyzed using open code utilizing the thematic approach to qualitative data.ResultsThis study identified that researchers have good awareness of the role of informed consent, how important it is for participants to understand the given information and ways to adjust their practice accordingly when obtaining it in order to enhance participant understanding. According to the research staff, most participants do not really understand all the concepts of the study at the initial visit, they gain more understanding during subsequent visits. It was emphasized that the best method of facilitating informed consent is reading the informed consent to the participant, thus a face-to-face conversation. Long and complex informed consent was identified as one of the barriers to participant understanding of the informed consent. Shortening the informed consent form and having additional conversation with the participants was suggested as one way of improving participant comprehension.ConclusionMost of the participants understand much of the information during subsequent visits as you keep reminding them since informed consent is an ongoing process. Existing relationship or trust between a participant and a researcher, may influence participants' decision and misguide their understanding on the purpose of the study. Adequate time should be allocated to informed consent discussions. Shortening the informed consent forms and having additional conversations with potential participants may help improve their understanding.
| S-EPMC11438391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Final Rule regulations were developed to allow exception from informed consent (EFIC) to enable clinical trial research in emergency settings where major barriers exist for informed consent. There is little known evidence of the effect of the Final Rule in minority enrollment in clinical trials, particularly in traumatic brain injury (TBI) trials. A clinical trial funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke was conducted to study the effects of erythropoietin on cerebral vascular dysfunction and anemia in subjects with TBI. There were periods of time when EFIC was and was not available for enrollment into the study.PurposeTo explore the effect of EFIC availability on TBI trial enrollment of minority versus non-minority subjects.MethodsMinority status of screened (n = 289) and enrolled (n = 191) TBI subjects was determined for this study. We tested for the presence of a minority and EFIC availability interaction in a multiple logistic regression model after controlling for EFIC and minority group main effects and other covariates.ResultsAn interaction between the availability of EFIC minority and non-minority enrollment was not detected (odds ratio = 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.29-5.16).LimitationsOur study was conducted at a single site, and the CI for the EFIC and minority interaction term was wide. Therefore, a small interaction effect cannot be ruled out.ConclusionEFIC increased the odds of being enrolled regardless of minority status.
| S-EPMC3974159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInformed consent is an accepted ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet there is no standardised method of assessing patient understanding for informed consent. The participatory and informed consent (PIC) measure was developed for application to recruitment discussions to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding. Preliminary evaluation of the PIC indicated the need to improve inter-rater and intra-rater reliability ratings and conduct further psychometric evaluation. This paper describes the assessment, revision and evaluation of the PIC within the context of OPTiMISE, a pragmatic primary care-based trial.MethodsThis study used multiple methods across two phases. In phase one, one researcher applied the existing PIC measure to 18 audio-recorded recruitment discussions from the OPTiMISE study and made detailed observational notes about any uncertainties in application. Appointments were sampled to be maximally diverse for patient gender, study centre, recruiter and before and after an intervention to optimise information provision. Application uncertainties were reviewed by the study team, revisions made and a coding manual developed and agreed. In phase two, the coding manual was used to develop tailored guidelines for applying the PIC to appointments within the OPTiMISE trial. Two researchers then assessed 27 further appointments, purposively sampled as above, to evaluate inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, content validity and feasibility.ResultsApplication of the PIC to 18 audio-recorded OPTiMISE recruitment discussions resulted in harmonisation of the scales rating recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding, minor amendments to clarify wording and the development of detailed generic coding guidelines for applying the measure within any trial. Application of the revised measure using these guidelines to 27 further recruitment discussions showed good feasibility (time to complete), content validity (completion rate) and reliability (inter- and intra-rater) of the measure.ConclusionThe PIC provides a means to evaluate the content of information provided by recruiters, patient participation in recruitment discussions and, to some extent, evidence of patient understanding. Future work will use the measure to evaluate recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding both across and within trials.
| S-EPMC10155434 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4117650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFormal checks of participant understanding are now widely recommended to improve informed consent processes. However, the views of the participants these assessments are designed to protect are rarely considered. In this paper the findings of a qualitative study aimed at documenting community reactions to a semi-structured questionnaire ('quiz') are reported. The quiz was administered to 189 mothers after consenting for their children to participate in a malaria vaccine trial on the Kenyan Coast.MethodsOnce the malaria vaccine trial was underway, focus group discussions were held with some of these mothers (nine groups; 103 mothers), and with community-based field staff attached to the malaria vaccine trial (two groups of five workers). Individual interviews with other trial staff were also held.ResultsThe quiz prompted community members to voice concerns about blood sampling and vaccine side-effects, thereby encouraging additional discussions and interactions between the research team and potential study participants. However, it also caused significant upset and concern. Some of the quiz questions, or the way in which they were asked, appeared to fuel misconceptions and fears, with potentially negative consequences for both the study and community members.ConclusionFormal approaches to checking study understanding should be employed with sensitivity and caution. They are influenced by and impact upon complex social relationships between and among researchers and community members. Adequate consideration of these contexts in assessments of understanding, and in responding to the issues raised, requires strong social science capacity.
| S-EPMC2204020 | biostudies-literature