What gives them the right? Legal privilege and waivers of consent for research

A response to Al et al. Trials 2023;24:233

In their recent paper, Al and colleagues (Trials 2023;24:233) argue that manipulation of the methods of recruitment using well-known techniques in order to increase enrollment can be ethically acceptable. This brief response challenges that notion as an affront to voluntariness and a devolution of the ethics of human subjects research to the "ethics" of the marketplace.

Practicalities of Impracticability: An Interim Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Impracticability is an ethical standard for waiver of informed consent in research. We examine how well the criterion of impracticability appears to have been fulfilled in a set of 36 completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that secured consent from some subjects or LARs and employed waivers to enroll others. These trials were identified among 155 RCTs using waivers of consent in a convenience sample drawn from 7 systematic reviews. Recruitment data were available for 19 of the 36 trials, revealing an average of 41.6% of subjects (range 0.2-98.7%, 95% CI: 24.8-58.4%) were enrolled without consent. Six trials enrolled less than 10% of subjects without consent and an overlapping set of 9 trials sought consent from all subjects or LARs at some sites while waiving consent at other sites. We question whether these trials were practicable without waivers and identify issues for consideration by investigators and ethics review boards.

Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent

BACKGROUND

Exception from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature.

METHODS

Scoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories.

RESULTS

Among 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two-way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what "communities" to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.

Variation in time to notification of enrollment and rates of withdrawal in resuscitation trials conducted under exception from informed consent

IMPORTANCE

Emergency research is challenging to do well as it involves time sensitive interventions in unstable patients. There is limited time to obtain informed consent from the patient or their legally authorized representative (LAR). Such research is permitted under exception from informed consent (EFIC) if specific criteria are met, including notification after enrollment. Some question whether the risks of EFIC outweighs its benefits. To date, there is limited empiric information about time to notification (TTN) and rates of withdrawal in such trials.

OBJECTIVE

To describe variation in TTN and rates of withdrawal among that patients enrolled in EFIC trials over a twelve-year period.

DESIGN

We performed post hoc descriptive analyses of data from five trials conducted under EFIC.

SETTING

Emergency medical services and receiving hospitals participating in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium in the United States and Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or life-threatening traumatic injury.

EXPOSURES

Notification strategies were specified at each site before initiation of enrollment by a local institutional review board. We monitored TTN within each site centrally throughout each study's enrollment period.

OUTCOMES

TTN was defined as time from randomization to first-reported notification of patient or LAR of enrollment. Withdrawal was defined as patient or LAR opt out of ongoing participation at the time of notification.

RESULTS

Of 35,442 patients enrolled in five trials, 33,805 had cardiac arrest; and 1636 had traumatic injury. TTN varied overall and by patient outcome. Among those with cardiac arrest, TTN ranged from median (5%ile, 95%ile) of 6 (1,27) days to 28 (2, 53) days across sites. 0.3% of notified patients with cardiac arrest withdrew. Among those with traumatic injury, TTN ranged from 0 (0, 5) days to 36 (5, 68) days across sites. 7.7% of notified patients with traumatic injury withdrew.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

There is large variation in TTN in trials conducted under EFIC for emergency research. This may be due to several factors. It may or may not be modifiable. Overall rates of withdrawal are low, which suggests current practices related to EFIC are acceptable to those who have participated in emergency research.

Adrenaline to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the PARAMEDIC2 RCT

BACKGROUND

Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use.

DESIGN

This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices.

SETTING

This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation.

RESULTS

From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest.

LIMITATIONS

The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS.

FUTURE WORK

Further research is required to better understand patients' preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Refusal rates and waivers of informed consent in pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic and comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aim to be highly generalizable studies, with broad applicability and flexibility in methods. These trials also address recruitment issues by minimizing exclusions. The trials may also appeal to potential subjects because of lower risk and lower burdens of participation. We sought to examine rates of refusal and uses of waivers of informed consent in pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs.

METHODS

A systematic review of pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs performed wholely or in part in the United States and first published in 2014 and 2017.

RESULTS

103 studies involving 105 discrete populations were included for review. Refusal data was collected for 71 RCTs. Overall, studies reported an average rate of 31.9% of potential subjects refused participation; on an individual basis, 38.4% of people asked to take part refused at some point during recruitment. 23 trials (22%) were performed, at least in part, with a waiver of informed consent, 7 (30%) of which provided any form of notice to subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall refusal rates for pragmatic and comparative effectiveness RCTs appear roughly the same as other types of research, with studies reporting about a third of people solicited for participation refuse. Moreover, informed consent was waived in 22% (95% Binomial exact Confidence Interval 13.9-30.5%) of the trials, and further study is needed to understand when waivers are justified and when notice should be provided.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials

Background:

Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent.

Methods:

A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings.

Results:

Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%–77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%–68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk.

Conclusion:

Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

The ethical challenges raised in the design and conduct of pragmatic trials: an interview study with key stakeholders

Background

There is a concern that the apparent effectiveness of interventions tested in clinical trials may not be an accurate reflection of their actual effectiveness in usual practice. Pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed with the intent of addressing this discrepancy. While pragmatic RCTs may increase the relevance of research findings to practice they may also raise new ethical concerns (even while reducing others). To explore this question, we interviewed key stakeholders with the aim of identifying potential ethical challenges in the design and conduct of pragmatic RCTs with a view to developing future guidance on these issues.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with clinical investigators, methodologists, patient partners, ethicists, and other knowledge users (e.g., regulators). Interviews covered experiences with pragmatic RCTs, ethical issues relevant to pragmatic RCTs, and perspectives on the appropriate oversight of pragmatic RCTs. Interviews were coded inductively by two coders. Interim and final analyses were presented to the broader team for comment and discussion before the analytic framework was finalized.

Results

We conducted 45 interviews between April and September 2018. Interviewees represented a range of disciplines and jurisdictions as well as varying content expertise. Issues of importance in pragmatic RCTs were (1) identification of relevant risks from trial participation and determination of what constitutes minimal risk; (2) determining when alterations to traditional informed consent approaches are appropriate; (3) the distinction between research, quality improvement, and practice; (4) the potential for broader populations to be affected by the trial and what protections they might be owed; (5) the broader range of trial stakeholders in pragmatic RCTs, and determining their roles and responsibilities; and (6) determining what constitutes “usual care” and implications for trial reporting.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest both the need to discuss familiar ethical topics in new ways and that there are new ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs that need greater attention. Addressing the highlighted issues and developing guidance will require multidisciplinary input, including patient and community members, within a broader and more comprehensive analysis that extends beyond consent and attends to the identified considerations relating to risk and stakeholder roles and responsibilities.

Researching the Appropriateness of Care in the Complementary and Integrative Health Professions Part 2: What Every Researcher and Practitioner Should Know About the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and Practice-based Research in the United States

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes a process for ensuring and documenting Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) compliance in clinical practice-based research.

METHODS

The Center of Excellence for Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine was funded by National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health to develop the methods for researching the appropriateness of care in complementary and integrative health, which previously was known as complementary and alternative medicine. We recruited 125 participating chiropractic clinics for enrolling patients and gathering their data via the online surveys. Chiropractic clinics completed the following: (1) obtained the files of patients who provided prior consent (the prospective sample), (2) obtained the files of the patients selected randomly using specified randomization procedures (the retrospective sample), and (3) transferred all patient data to the RAND Corporation via an encrypted file.

RESULTS

Most of the doctors of chiropractic from clinical practices had no concerns about obtaining and transferring the files of patients who provided informed consent. However, some doctors were uneasy about allowing the researchers to access the randomly selected files of patients who had not provided prior authorization. This led us to develop a set of forms to provide clinics about HIPAA compliance.

CONCLUSION

For this study, we provided clinics with information about the rules under HIPAA, demonstrated how the study complied with those rules, explained the logic behind the necessity for collecting files from both the prospective and retrospective samples, and, if requested, provided clinics with a confidentiality agreement signed by the study principal investigator and an organizational contracts representative. The process we developed may assist other complementary and integrative health researchers and practitioners in future studies.