Informed consent in clinical trials in critical care: experience from the PAC-Man Study

Trials using deferred consent in the emergency setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of stakeholders' attitudes

BACKGROUND

Patients with acute conditions often lack the capacity to provide informed consent, and narrow therapeutic windows mean there is no time to seek consent from surrogates prior to treatment being commenced. One method to enable the inclusion of this study population in emergency research is through recruitment without prior consent, often known as 'deferred consent'. However, empirical studies have shown a large disparity in stakeholders' opinions regarding this enrolment method. This systematic review aimed to understand different stakeholder groups' attitudes to deferred consent, particularly in relation to the context in which deferred consent might occur.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE, EMCare, PsychINFO, Scopus, and HMIC were searched from 1996 to January 2021. Eligible studies focussed on deferred consent processes for adults only, in the English language, and reported empirical primary research. Studies of all designs were included. Relevant data were extracted and thematically coded using a narrative approach to 'tell a story' of the findings.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were included in the narrative synthesis. The majority examined patient views (n = 19). Data from the members of the public (n = 5) and health care professionals (n =5) were also reported. Four overarching themes were identified: level of acceptability of deferred consent, research-related factors influencing acceptability, personal characteristics influencing views on deferred consent, and data use after refusal of consent or participant death.

CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that the use of deferred consent would be most acceptable to stakeholders during low-risk emergency research with a narrow therapeutic window and where there is potential for patients to benefit from their inclusion. While the use of narrative synthesis allowed assessment of the included studies, heterogeneous outcome measures meant that variations in study results could not be reliably attributed to the different trial characteristics. Future research should aim to develop guidance for research ethics committees when reviewing trials using deferred consent in emergency research and investigate more fully the views of healthcare professionals which to date have been explored less than patients and members of the public. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020223623.

Use of pre-enrollment randomization and delayed consent to maximize participation in a clinical trial of opt-in versus opt-out tobacco treatment

Background: Enrollment in smoking cessation trials remain sub-optimal. The aim of this analysis was to determine the effectiveness of a modified Zelen's design in engaging hospitalized patients who smoke in a pragmatic OPT-IN versus OPT-OUT tobacco treatment trial. Methods: At bedside, clinical staff screened smokers for eligibility, randomized eligible into study arms, and delivered the appropriate treatment approach. Study staff called randomized patients at one-month post-discharge, debriefed patients on the study design, and collected consent to participate. We used frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for quantitative variables to describe the characteristics of those who consented and were enrolled versus those who did not enroll. We also compared the characteristics of participants who consented and those who were reached and explicitly refused consent at one-month follow-up. We used the Cohen's d measure of effect size to evaluate differences. Results: Of the 1,000 randomized, 741 (74.1%) consented to continue in the study at one-month follow-up. One hundred and twenty-seven (12.7%) refused consent and 132 (13.2%) were unreachable. Cohen's d effect size differences between those who consented/enrolled (n = 741) and those who were not enrolled (n = 259) were negligible (<0.2) for age, gender, race/ethnicity, and most forms of insurance. The effect size was small for Medicaid (0.36), and other public insurance (0.48). After excluding those unreached at 1 month (12.7%), there were medium Cohen's d effect size differences between those who consented to participate (n = 741) and those who explicitly refused (n = 127) with respect to age (0.55) and self-pay or no insurance (0.51). There were small to negligible effect size differences with respect to sex, race/ethnicity, and other forms of health insurance. Conclusions: The modified Zelen's design resulted in successful enrollment of most participants who were initially randomized into the trial, including those not motivated to quit.

Exploring the inclusion of under-served groups in trials methodology research: an example from ethnic minority populations' views on deferred consent

BACKGROUND

Deferred consent is used to recruit patients in emergency research, when informed consent cannot be obtained prior to enrolment. This model of consent allows studies to recruit larger numbers of participants, especially where a surrogate-decision maker may be unavailable to provide consent. Whilst deferred consent offers the potential to promote trial diversity by including under-served groups, it is ethically complex and views about its use amongst these populations require further exploration. The aim of this article is to build upon recent initiatives to improve inclusivity in trials, such as the NIHR INCLUDE project, and consider whether trials methodology research is inclusive, focusing on ethnic minority populations' attitudes towards the use of deferred consent.

MAIN TEXT

Findings from the literature suggest that research regarding attitudes toward recruitment methods like deferred consent largely fail to adequately represent ethnic minorities. Many studies fail to report the composition of patient samples or conduct analyses on any differences between specific patient groups. In those that do, the categorisation of ethnic groups is ambiguous. Frequently diversely different groups are considered as more homogenous than they are. Whilst deferred consent is deemed generally acceptable, analysis of patient sub-groups shows that this attitude is not universal. Those from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds reported higher levels of unacceptability, which was impacted by previous first or second-hand experience of its use and historical mistrust in research. However, whilst deferred consent was found to increase the numbers of black participants enrolled in some trials, their over-enrolment in other trials may raise further concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusivity in clinical trials is important, as highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve this, we must ensure that methodological studies such as those exploring attitudes to research are inclusive. More effort is needed to understand the views of under-served groups, such as ethnic minorities, toward research in order to improve participation in clinical trials. Our findings echo those from the INCLUDE project, in that better reporting is needed and increasing the confidence of ethnic minority groups in research requires improving representation throughout the research process. This will involve diversifying research teams and ethics committees.

The Attitudes of Relatives of ICU Patients toward Informed Consent for Clinical Research

Background

Informed consent is a key ethical requirement for biomedical research that is implemented to ensure autonomy and voluntary participation. However, patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) may be unconscious or severely ill and thus lack the capacity for decisions about research participation. Thus, relatives or guardians are usually asked to provide informed consent prior to the inclusion of ICU patients in research.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the attitudes and preferences of relatives of ICU patients toward informed consent in biomedical research in Jordan. Subjects and Methods. A sample of 184 relatives with a critically ill next of kin in the ICU was anonymously surveyed regarding their attitudes and preferences toward giving informed consent for biomedical research on behalf of their patients.

Results

The study showed that the majority of relatives had a positive attitude toward the informed consent process on behalf of their patients in the ICU (72.3%). The perception that participation in research would be directly beneficial to their patient was the most significant reason to provide informed consent among relatives. The degree of relatedness to the patient was significantly associated with the decision to provide informed consent on behalf of the patients in the ICU. Additionally, more than 70% of the relatives strongly agreed to take part in clinical research if they were to be unconscious patients in the ICU. Moreover, the majority of the respondents agreed that their first-degree relatives would give consent on their behalf.

Conclusion

Relatives with a critically ill next of kin in the ICU had positive attitudes toward providing informed consent on behalf of their patients. This was motivated by the direct benefit from the research to their patient.

Barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies

Background

Clinical research in severely ill or injured patients is required to improve healthcare but may be challenging to perform in practice. The aim of this study was to analyse barriers and challenges in the process of including critically ill patients in clinical studies.

Methods

Data from critically ill patients considered for inclusion in an observational study of venous thromboembolism in Norway were analysed. This included quantitative and qualitative information from the screening log, consent forms and research notes.

Results

Among 279 eligible critically ill patients, 204 (73%) were omitted from the study due to challenges and barriers in the inclusion process. Reasons for omission were categorised as practical in 133 (65%), medical in 31 (15%), and legal or ethical in 40 (20%) of the patients. Among 70 included patients, 29 (41%) consents were from patients and 41 (59%) from their next of kin. Several challenges were described herein; these included whether patients were competent to give consent, and which next of kin that should represent the patient. Furthermore, some included patients were unable to recall what they have consented, and some appeared unable to separate research from treatment.

Conclusions

Barriers and challenges in the inclusion process led to the omission of near three out of four eligible patients. This analysis provided information about where the problem resides and may be solved. The majority of challenges among included patients were related to issues of autonomy and validity of consent.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03405766).

Emergency care research ethics in low-income and middle-income countries

A large proportion of the total global burden of disease is caused by emergency medical conditions. Emergency care research is essential to improving emergency medicine but this research can raise some distinctive ethical challenges, especially with regard to (1) standard of care and risk-benefit assessment; (2) blurring of the roles of clinician and researcher; (3) enrolment of populations with intersecting vulnerabilities; (4) fair participant selection; (5) quality of consent; and (6) community engagement. Despite the importance of research to improve emergency care in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the widely acknowledged ethical challenges, very little has been written on the ethics of emergency care research in LMICs. This paper examines the ethical and regulatory challenges to conducting emergency care research with human participants in LMICs. We outline key challenges, present potential solutions or frameworks for addressing these challenges, and identify gaps. Despite the ethical and regulatory challenges, conducting high-quality, ethical emergency care research in LMICs is possible and it is essential for global health.

Ethical challenges involved in obtaining consent for research from patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit

Clinical research remains a vital contributor to medical knowledge, and is an established and integral part of the practice of medicine worldwide. Respect for patient autonomy and ethical principles dictate that informed consent must be obtained from subjects before they can be enrolled into clinical research, yet these conditions may be difficult to apply in real practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). A number of factors serve to complexify the consent process in critically ill patients, notably decisional incapacity of the patient due to illness or sedation. Obtaining consent for research from a designated proxy or family member, commonly termed a "surrogate decision maker" (SDM) may be difficult, since SDMs dealing with the emotional, psychological and logistic impact of a sudden hospitalisation of their loved-one are not always receptive to the idea of research or emotionally equipped to reflect rationally on the opportunities being proposed to them. In addition, time constraints and workload pressures on the attending physician may render consent opportunities unfeasible, and the resulting loss of eligible patients could represent a bias in clinical trials, or limit the generalizability of their results. Alternative procedures such as deferred or waived consent have been used in the past and may be suitable alternatives in certain conditions, provided appropriate approval from institutional review boards (IRBs) can be obtained, in accordance with existing legislation. Some of the main questions inherent to the conduct of clinical research in critically ill patients are discussed in this review.

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES)

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation.

SETTING

Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

2400 eligible patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year.

RESULTS

By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups.

LIMITATIONS

Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year.

FUTURE WORK

Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Deferred Consent Model in a Prospective Observational Study Evaluating Myocardial Injury in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is a hallmark of ethical clinical research. An inherent challenge in critical care research is obtaining consent when patients lack decision-making capacity. One solution is deferred consent, which is often used for studies that are low risk or involve emergency interventions. Our objective was to describe a deferred consent model in a low-risk critical care study.

METHODS

Prognostic Value of Elevated Troponins in Critical Illness Study was a prospective, pilot observational study of critically ill patients in 3 intensive care units, involving serial electrocardiograms and cardiac biomarkers. Newly admitted patients were enrolled over 1 month. When possible, informed consent was obtained a priori from the patient or substitute decision maker (SDM); otherwise, consent was deferred until the patient regained consent capacity or until their SDM was available. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between patient's sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, study center, person providing consent (patient vs SDM), method of consent (telephone vs in person), and the provision or not of informed consent.

RESULTS

The overall consent rate was 80.1% (213 of 266 persons approached). Of the 53 persons declining consent, 37 (69.8%) agreed to the use of data collected up until that point. Over half of all consent encounters were with patients rather than SDMs. Median interval delay between enrollment and the consent encounter was 1 day. On multivariate analysis, the only variable associated with consent was male sex of the patient (odds ratio for males 2.59, confidence interval: 1.19-5.63).

CONCLUSION

Deferred consent facilitates implementation of time-sensitive research protocols until a consent encounter is possible. As a feasible alternative to exclusive a priori consent, the deferred consent model can be useful in low-risk studies in critically ill patients.

Research in Emergency and Critical Care Settings: Debates, Obstacles and Solutions

Research is an integral part of evidence-based practice in the emergency department and critical care unit that improves patient management. It is important to understand the need and major obstacles for conducting research in emergency settings. Herein, we review the literature for the obligations, ethics and major implications of emergency research and the associated limiting factors influencing research activities in critical care and emergency settings. We reviewed research engines such as PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for the last two decades using the key words "emergency department", "critical care", "research", "consent", and "ethics" as the search terms. Research within emergency settings is slow or non-existent due to time and financial constraints as well as the lack of a research tradition. There are several barriers to conducting research studies in emergency situations such as who, what, when, and how to obtain patient consent. The emergency environment is highly pressurized, emotional, and overburdened. The time taken for research is a particular risk that could delay the desired immediate interventions. Ethical issues abound, particularly relating to informed consent. Research in emergency settings is still in its infancy. Thus, there is a strong need for extensive research in the emergency setting through community awareness, resource management, ethics, collaborations, capacity building, and the development of a research interest for the improvement of patient care and outcomes. We need to establish a well-structured plan to assess and track the decision-making capacity, consider a multistep enrolment and consent strategy, and develop an integrated approach for recruitment into studies.

Protocolised Management In Sepsis (ProMISe): a multicentre randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early, goal-directed, protocolised resuscitation for emerging septic shock

BACKGROUND

Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidance for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited and uncertainty remains over its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to estimate the effect of EGDT compared with usual resuscitation on mortality at 90 days following randomisation and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. The secondary objectives were to compare EGDT with usual resuscitation for requirement for, and duration of, critical care unit organ support; length of stay in the emergency department (ED), critical care unit and acute hospital; health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and at 1 year; all-cause mortality at 28 days, at acute hospital discharge and at 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation.

SETTING

Fifty-six NHS hospitals in England.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1260 patients who presented at EDs with septic shock.

INTERVENTIONS

EGDT (n = 630) or usual resuscitation (n = 630). Patients were randomly allocated 1 : 1.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality at 90 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year.

RESULTS

Following withdrawals, data on 1243 (EGDT, n = 623; usual resuscitation, n = 620) patients were included in the analysis. By 90 days, 184 (29.5%) in the EGDT and 181 (29.2%) patients in the usual-resuscitation group had died [p = 0.90; absolute risk reduction -0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.4 to 4.7; relative risk 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20]. Treatment intensity was greater for the EGDT group, indicated by the increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs and red blood cell transfusions. Increased treatment intensity was reflected by significantly higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and more advanced cardiovascular support days in critical care for the EGDT group. At 1 year, the incremental net benefit for EGDT versus usual resuscitation was negative at -£725 (95% CI -£3000 to £1550). The probability that EGDT was more cost-effective than usual resuscitation was below 30%. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

Recruitment was lower at weekends and out of hours. The intervention could not be blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 90 days for EGDT compared with usual resuscitation among adults identified with early septic shock presenting to EDs in England. On average, costs were higher in the EGDT group than in the usual-resuscitation group while quality-adjusted life-years were similar in both groups; the probability that it is cost-effective is < 30%.

FUTURE WORK

The ProMISe (Protocolised Management In Sepsis) trial completes the planned trio of evaluations of EGDT across the USA, Australasia and England; all have indicated that EGDT is not superior to usual resuscitation. Recognising that each of the three individual, large trials has limited power for evaluating potentially important subgroups, the harmonised approach adopted provides the opportunity to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis, enhancing both knowledge and generalisability.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36307479.

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. 19, No. 97. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Reporting of consent rates in critical care studies: room for improvement

OBJECTIVES

Reporting of consent rates in published articles is important to determine potential sources of bias and validity and generalizability of results. Our objective was to determine the percentage of critical care studies for which the consent rate was reported.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed all articles published in eight medical journals in 2013. Studies meeting the following inclusion criteria were selected: (1) randomized controlled trial (RCT) or observational clinical study, (2) study population involving critically ill patients, and (3) part of the study occurring in an intensive care unit.

RESULTS

A total of 1,871 articles were screened of which 156 were included. The consent rate was discernable in 30.8% of articles (48/156, 95% confidence interval: 24.1, 38.4) with a median consent rate of 86.9% (interquartile range, 71.6, 94.1). A statement on Research Ethics Board approval was included in 96.8% of studies. There was a significant difference in reporting of consent rates between RCTs and non-RCTs (58.70% vs. 19.09%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Consent rates are reported in less than one-third of critical care studies. We encourage journals to require reporting of consent rates to improve interpretation, validity, and generalizability of critical care study results.

Trial of early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock

BACKGROUND

Early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) is recommended in international guidelines for the resuscitation of patients presenting with early septic shock. However, adoption has been limited, and uncertainty about its effectiveness remains.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized trial with an integrated cost-effectiveness analysis in 56 hospitals in England. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either EGDT (a 6-hour resuscitation protocol) or usual care. The primary clinical outcome was all-cause mortality at 90 days.

RESULTS

We enrolled 1260 patients, with 630 assigned to EGDT and 630 to usual care. By 90 days, 184 of 623 patients (29.5%) in the EGDT group and 181 of 620 patients (29.2%) in the usual-care group had died (relative risk in the EGDT group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.20; P=0.90), for an absolute risk reduction in the EGDT group of -0.3 percentage points (95% CI, -5.4 to 4.7). Increased treatment intensity in the EGDT group was indicated by increased use of intravenous fluids, vasoactive drugs, and red-cell transfusions and reflected by significantly worse organ-failure scores, more days receiving advanced cardiovascular support, and longer stays in the intensive care unit. There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes, including health-related quality of life, or in rates of serious adverse events. On average, EGDT increased costs, and the probability that it was cost-effective was below 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with septic shock who were identified early and received intravenous antibiotics and adequate fluid resuscitation, hemodynamic management according to a strict EGDT protocol did not lead to an improvement in outcome. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme; ProMISe Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN36307479.).

Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of VAsopressin versus Noradrenaline as Initial therapy in Septic sHock (VANISH)

INTRODUCTION

Vasopressin is an alternative vasopressor in the management of septic shock. It spares catecholamine use but whether it improves outcome remains uncertain. Current evidence suggests that it may be most effective if used early and possibly in conjunction with corticosteroids. This trial will compare vasopressin to noradrenaline as initial vasopressor in the management of adult septic shock and investigate whether there is an interaction of vasopressin with corticosteroids.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, factorial (2×2), randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. 412 patients will be recruited from multiple UK intensive care units and randomised to receive vasopressin (0-0.06 U/min) or noradrenaline (0-12 µg/min) as a continuous intravenous infusion as initial vasopressor therapy. If maximum infusion rates of this first study drug are reached, the patient will be treated with either hydrocortisone (initially 50 mg intravenous bolus six-hourly) or placebo, before additional open-label catecholamine vasopressors are prescribed. The primary outcome of the trial will be the difference in renal failure-free days between treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include need for renal replacement therapy, survival rates, other organ failures and resource utilisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol and information sheets have received a favourable opinion from the Oxford A Research Ethics Committee (12/SC/0014). There is an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee and independent membership of the Trial Steering Committee including patient and public involvement. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 20769191 and EudraCT 2011-005363-24.

Deferred consent in a minimal-risk study involving critically ill subarachnoid hemorrhage patients

INTRODUCTION

Alterations from first-party and surrogate decision-maker consent can enhance the feasibility of research involving critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of a deferred-consent model to enable participation of critically ill patients in a minimal-risk biomarker study.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in which serum biomarker samples were collected three times daily over the first 14 days following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Sample collection was initiated on intensive care unit admission and consent was obtained when research personnel could approach the patient or the patient's surrogate decision maker.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients were eligible for the study, of whom only five were capable of providing informed consent. Full consent was obtained for 21 (78%) patients through self- (n=4) and surrogate (n=17) consent. Partial consent or refusal (only permitting the collection of blood samples as a part of routine care or use of data) occurred in three patients. Among the 22 consents sought from surrogates, three (11%) refused participation. The refusals included the sickest patients in the cohort. Once consent was provided, no patient or surrogate withdrew consent before study completion.

DISCUSSION

Use of a deferred consent model enabled participation of critically ill patients in a minimal-risk biomarker study with no withdrawals.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research and enhanced awareness of the potential utility of hybrid models, including deferred consent in addition to patient or surrogate consent, in the conduct of low-risk and minimally interventional time-sensitive studies of critically ill patients are required.

An efficacy and mechanism evaluation study of Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS): protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Organ dysfunction consequent to infection ('severe sepsis') is the leading cause of admission to an intensive care unit (ICU). In both animal models and early clinical studies the calcium channel sensitizer levosimendan has been demonstrated to have potentially beneficial effects on organ function. The aims of the Levosimendan for the Prevention of Acute oRgan Dysfunction in Sepsis (LeoPARDS) trial are to identify whether a 24-hour infusion of levosimendan will improve organ dysfunction in adults who have septic shock and to establish the safety profile of levosimendan in this group of patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial. Adults fulfilling the criteria for systemic inflammatory response syndrome due to infection, and requiring vasopressor therapy, will be eligible for inclusion in the trial. Within 24 hours of meeting these inclusion criteria, patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio stratified by the ICU to receive either levosimendan (0.05 to 0.2 μg.kg⁻¹.min⁻¹ or placebo for 24 hours in addition to standard care. The primary outcome measure is the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score while in the ICU. Secondary outcomes include: central venous oxygen saturations and cardiac output; incidence and severity of renal failure using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria; duration of renal replacement therapy; serum bilirubin; time to liberation from mechanical ventilation; 28-day, hospital, 3 and 6 month survival; ICU and hospital length-of-stay; and days free from catecholamine therapy. Blood and urine samples will be collected on the day of inclusion, at 24 hours, and on days 4 and 6 post-inclusion for investigation of the mechanisms by which levosimendan might improve organ function. Eighty patients will have additional blood samples taken to measure levels of levosimendan and its active metabolites OR-1896 and OR-1855. A total of 516 patients will be recruited from approximately 25 ICUs in the United Kingdom.

DISCUSSION

This trial will test the efficacy of levosimendan to reduce acute organ dysfunction in adult patients who have septic shock and evaluate its biological mechanisms of action.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled trials ISRCTN12776039 (19 September 2013).

Harmonizing international trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock: methodology of ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe

PURPOSE

To describe and compare the design of three independent but collaborating multicenter trials of early goal-directed resuscitation for severe sepsis and septic shock.

METHODS

We reviewed the three current trials, one each in the USA (ProCESS: protocolized care for early septic shock), Australasia (ARISE: Australasian resuscitation in sepsis evaluation), and the UK (ProMISe: protocolised management in sepsis). We used the 2010 CONSORT (consolidated standards of reporting trials) statement and the 2008 CONSORT extension for trials assessing non-pharmacologic treatments to describe and compare the underlying rationale, commonalities, and differences.

RESULTS

All three trials conform to CONSORT guidelines, address the same fundamental questions, and share key design elements. Each trial is a patient-level, equal-randomized, parallel-group superiority trial that seeks to enroll emergency department patients with inclusion criteria that are consistent with the original early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) trial (suspected or confirmed infection, two or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, and refractory hypotension or elevated lactate), is powered to detect a 6–8 % absolute mortality reduction (hospital or 90-day), and uses trained teams to deliver EGDT. Design differences appear to primarily be driven by between-country variation in health care context. The main difference between the trials is the inclusion of a third, alternative resuscitation strategy arm in ProCESS.

CONCLUSIONS

Harmonization of study design and methods between severe sepsis trials is feasible and may facilitate pooling of data on completion of the trials.

Rates and determinants of informed consent: a case study of an international thromboprophylaxis trial

BACKGROUND

Successful completion of randomized trials depends upon efficiently and ethically screening patients and obtaining informed consent. Awareness of modifiable barriers to obtaining consent may inform ongoing and future trials.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to describe and examine determinants of consent rates in an international heparin thromboprophylaxis trial (Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial, clinicaltrials.gov NCT00182143).

DESIGN

Throughout the 4-year trial, research personnel approached eligible critically ill patients or their substitute decision makers for informed consent. Whether consent was obtained or declined was documented daily.

SETTING

The trial was conducted in 67 centers in 6 countries.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 3764 patients were randomized. The overall consent rate was 82.2% (range, 50%-100%) across participating centers. Consent was obtained from substitute decision makers and patients in 90.1% and 9.9% of cases, respectively. Five factors were independently associated with consent rates. Research coordinators with more experience achieved higher consent rates (odds ratio [OR], 3.43; 95% confidence interval, 2.42-4.86; P < .001 for those with >10 years of experience). Consent rates were higher in smaller intensive care units with less than 15 beds compared with intensive care units with 15 to 20 beds, 21 to 25 beds, and greater than 25 beds (all ORs, <0.5; P < .001) and were higher in centers with more than 1 full-time research staff (OR, 1.95; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.99; P < .001). Consent rates were lower in centers affiliated with the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group or the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group compared with other centers (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.77; P < .001). Finally, consent rates were highest during the pilot trial, lowest during the initiation of the full trial, and increased over years of recruitment (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Characteristics of study centers, research infrastructure, and experience were important factors associated with successfully procuring informed consent to participate in this thromboprophylaxis trial.

Enrollment into a time sensitive clinical study in the critical care setting: results from computerized septic shock sniffer implementation

OBJECTIVE

Recruitment of patients into time sensitive clinical trials in intensive care units (ICU) poses a significant challenge. Enrollment is limited by delayed recognition and late notification of research personnel. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of electronic screening (septic shock sniffer) regarding enrollment into a time sensitive (24 h after onset) clinical study of echocardiography in severe sepsis and septic shock.

DESIGN

We developed and tested a near-real time computerized alert system, the septic shock sniffer, based on established severe sepsis/septic shock diagnostic criteria. A sniffer scanned patients' data in the electronic medical records and notified the research coordinator on call through an institutional paging system of potentially eligible patients.

MEASUREMENT

The performance of the septic shock sniffer was assessed.

RESULTS

The septic shock sniffer performed well with a positive predictive value of 34%. Electronic screening doubled enrollment, with 68 of 4460 ICU admissions enrolled during the 9&emsp14;months after implementation versus 37 of 4149 ICU admissions before sniffer implementation (p<0.05). Efficiency was limited by study coordinator availability (not available at nights or weekends).

CONCLUSIONS

Automated electronic medical records screening improves the efficiency of enrollment and should be a routine tool for the recruitment of patients into time sensitive clinical trials in the ICU setting.

Early revascularization is beneficial across all ages and a wide spectrum of cardiogenic shock severity: A pooled analysis of trials

BACKGROUND

A pooled analysis in cardiogenic shock due to acute coronary syndromes is desirable to assess the effect of early revascularization (ERV) across all ages and a wide spectrum of disease severity.

METHODS

Only two randomized controlled trials (RCT), i.e. SMASH and SHOCK, met the inclusion criteria and were combined for a pooled analysis using individual patient data (n = 348).

RESULTS

SMASH patients (n = 54, 16%) had more severe disease than SHOCK patients (n = 294, 84%). After adjustment for age, anoxic brain damage, non-inferior myocardial infarction, prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, renal failure, systolic blood pressure, and selection for coronary angiography, one-year mortality was similar (relative risk SHOCK versus SMASH 0.87, 95% CI: 0.61-1.25). Relative risk of one-year death for ERV versus initial medical stabilization was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70-0.96). There was no significant difference in the treatment effect by age (≤75 years relative risk at one year 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99; > 75 years relative risk at one year 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.53; interaction P = 0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

Only two RCT have been published emphasizing the difficulty of enrolling critically ill patients. Despite large differences in shock severity, ERV benefit is similar across all ages and not significantly different for the elderly.

Attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

In many countries relatives are asked to consent on behalf of ICU patients prior to inclusion in clinical trials. However, the attitudes to drug trials among relatives of unconscious ICU patients are largely unknown.

METHODS

We performed a prospective questionnaire survey at two university hospital ICUs of the next-of-kin to 50 unconscious adult patients. They were asked to complete a questionnaire within 48 hours of the patients' acute ICU admission.

RESULTS

Forty-two relatives returned the questionnaire of which 41 were completed by direct family members and in one case by a friend to the patient.The majority of relatives (36/42) were positive/positive with some scepticism towards performing drug trials in unconscious ICU patients and 30/42 would most likely accept trial-participation by their relative. The majority (30/42) agreed that they should decide if their relative was to participate in a drug trial and 24 of these found that the treating clinician/ICU consultant should also consent. The majority (27/42) found that deferred consent would be acceptable if there was a limited time frame for initiation of treatment, however 8 respondents found this unacceptable when the intervention was a new drug.The majority of relatives stipulated that adherence to legislation, treatment benefit for the study patient and for future patients, no patient-risk or -discomfort and development of new drugs were important factors if their relative was to participate in an ICU drug trial. When questioned about doctors' motives for performing drug trials the wish for drug development and better patient care were highly rated among relatives.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, relatives to unconscious ICU patients expressed positive attitudes to drug trials in the ICU and the inclusion of their relative in drug trials. Consent by next-of-kin and deferred consent was acceptable to the majority of relatives.

Methodological challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of women's crisis houses compared with psychiatric wards: findings from a pilot patient preference RCT

There are several methodological difficulties to address when evaluating acute psychiatric services. This study explored potential methods in evaluating the effectiveness of women's crisis houses compared with psychiatric wards in a pilot patient preference randomized controlled trial. Women requiring voluntary admission to a psychiatric hospital or women's crisis house were asked to enter this pilot and different options for recruitment were explored, including different recruitment sites in the pathway to admission and methods for including women without capacity. Forty-one percent (n = 42) of women entering the study agreed to be randomized and 59% (n = 61) entered patient preference arms. Only 7% of women were recruited before admission and 1 woman without capacity entered the study, despite procedures to facilitate this. Recruitment of patients with acute psychiatric crises is therefore challenging; researchers evaluating acute services should establish a consensus on how ethically and practically to recruit patients in this setting.

Informed consent for and regulation of critical care research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Critical care is a special area in which research needs to take place, because of the severity of the diseases which are treated there, but it is also a place where research faces a lot of hurdles and difficulties. The main cause of difficulties is the consent issue, as most patients cannot consent for themselves. Recently, all national legislations in the countries of the European Union have been modified to include the provisions of directive 2001/20.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review article provides a summary of the recent literature concerning the issue of consent for clinical care research such as how the surrogate consent reflects the view of the patient and how time consuming and inaccurate can be the consultation of a community before the start of a trial with a waiver of consent. Another hurdle to research is the rigidity of our legislations concerning clinical research, especially the absence of a simplified way for low or no-risk research. This article shows how this situation is potentially deleterious and how it could ultimately forbid low-risk research.

SUMMARY

Critical research remains a domain in which research on patients is difficult and controversial. Regulation can be difficult to implement, largely inadequate or uselessly complicated. Intensive care physicians need to keep pressure on politicians and lawmakers to constantly explain the necessity and specificities of critical care research.

Improving clinical trials of long-term outcomes

There is an increasing evidence that survivors of critical illness suffer from impaired health-related quality of life. There are relatively few studies that have evaluated the effect of interventions in clinical trials to improve these long-term outcomes. Studies to improve long-term outcomes after critical illness face many of the same challenges encountered in studies designed to improve shorter term outcomes in the intensive care unit. These include an incomplete understanding of the causal mechanisms involved in post-intensive care unit impairment, trouble in identifying patients ill enough to benefit from an intervention but whose impairment is not fixed, and identifying proper outcome variables. There are, however, unique challenges to clinical trials including bias from competing mortality and incomplete follow-up. Research interest in developing interventions to improve long-term outcome after critical illness is in its infancy and it is too early to make strong clinical recommendations. Multiple potential treatment areas exist, both within the intensive care unit and after patients leave the hospital, for intensivists to target. Those interested in this area should collaborate to build on the lessons from effective multidisciplinary programs developed to treat other diseases.

Enrollment of intensive care unit patients into clinical studies: a trinational survey of researchers' experiences, beliefs, and practices

BACKGROUND

As critical care practice increases in scope, size, and complexity, enrollment of critically ill patients into clinical studies is increasing.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the experiences, beliefs, and practices of the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group regarding enrollment of critically ill children and adults into clinical studies.

METHODS

Survey items generated by the research team were formatted in four domains: experiences, beliefs, practices, and demographics. Five research coordinators and five physicians pretested the survey, providing feedback on clarity and completeness. Intrarater reliability (16 participants, 2 wks apart) was very good.

RESULTS

The response rate was 284 of 322 (88.2%). Respondents worked in intensive care units with a mean of 20.5 (SD 10) beds, caring for adults (72.2%), pediatric (18.8%), and both groups (9%) of critically ill patients. Clinical research was considered key to the future of improved clinical care. To enhance recruitment efficiency, respondents widely endorsed the effectiveness of increasing participating centers, after-hours, and weekend enrollment (all 3 scores 7 [6-7[sqb], reflecting median [interquartile range] on 1-7 scale). Overall, the effectiveness (6 [4-7]), feasibility (5 [4-6]) and ethics (5 [4-7]) of coenrollment into more than one randomized trial was endorsed. Half of respondents have adopted coenrollment with scientific and psychosocial provisos. Alternative designs, such as factorial and cluster randomized trials, were considered when suitable. Modifications to consent approaches (deferred consent (7 [6-7]), waived consent (7 [6-7]), or consent from two physicians in the absence of a substitute decision maker (6 [5-7])) were considered effective, but beliefs about the feasibility and ethics of some of these approaches varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical research is highly valued by these intensive care unit communities. Strategies to increase capacity involve enhancing recruitment efficiencies, considering alternative study designs and expanding consent procedures. Thoughtfully implementing these strategies may advance the care of critically ill adults and children.

Informed consent in the critically ill: a two-step approach incorporating delirium screening

OBJECTIVES

Sedation-agitation and delirium are common in critically ill patients and may be important barriers to informed consent. We describe a two-step process for informed consent and evaluate the natural history of patients' competency by repeated application of this process during their hospitalization.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Nine intensive care units (ICUs) in three teaching hospitals in Baltimore, MD.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty patients with acute lung injury.

INTERVENTIONS

Two-step process involving objective evaluation with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (step 1), followed by traditional assessment for competency (step 2) in those patients passing step 1.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

RASS and CAM-ICU assessments (during ICU stay, at consent and hospital discharge); cumulative proportion of patients providing consent at extubation and at ICU and hospital discharge. Of 150 patients, 86 (57%) survived and 77 (90% of survivors) provided consent. Patients were delirious/deeply sedated in 89% of daily assessments during mechanical ventilation. By extubation, 31 (44%) patients passed step 1 and 8 (11%) passed step 2 and were consented. By ICU and hospital discharge, these numbers were 50 (58%) and 18 (21%), and 81 (94%) and 67 (78%), respectively. The median (interquartile range) time to patient consent after acute lung injury diagnosis was 15 (9-28) days.

CONCLUSIONS

More than three fourths of critically ill patients are unable to provide informed consent throughout their ICU stay, even after extubation. Sedation-agitation and delirium are common barriers to consent. A two-step consent process, using validated instruments for sedation-agitation and delirium, provides a means of rapidly screening critically ill patients before a more detailed traditional assessment of competency is conducted.

Randomized Trials in Vulnerable Populations

Many persons enrolled in clinical trials can be considered vulnerable, and such trials often raise concerns because of the diminished ability of vulnerable persons to consider and protect their own interests. However, this research is necessary to answer important questions, such as which interventions are effective, which have no impact, and which do more harm than good. In this article, we identified six specific challenges associated with randomized clinical trials in vulnerable populations and have suggested several potential solutions to overcome these challenges. First addressed were macro issues, such as the scope of the problem, and research capacity in terms of funding and investigators. Next, we have addressed research ethics review, informed consent, regulatory hurdles, and serious adverse event reporting. As clinical trials are expanding globally, all stakeholders (investigators, granting agencies, REBs, DSMBs, regulatory bodies, universities, hospitals, clinicians, patients, and family members) should be aware of the challenges we have outlined, and work collaboratively toward effective solutions that improve the quality, quantity, safety, and relevance of clinical trials for vulnerable persons around the world. Clinical Trials 2008; 5: 61—69. http://ctj.sagepub.com

The impact of critical illness on perceived health-related quality of life during ICU treatment, hospital stay, and after hospital discharge: a long-term follow-up study

BACKGROUND

The time course of changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following discharge from the ICU and during a general ward stay has not been studied. We therefore studied the immediate impact of critical illness on HRQOL and its recovery over time.

METHODS

In a prospective study, all patients admitted to the ICU for > 48 h who ultimately survived to follow-up at 6 months were included. The Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form was used to measure HRQOL before ICU admission, at discharge from the ICU and hospital, and at 3 and 6 months following discharge from the ICU and hospital. An age-matched healthy Dutch population was used as a reference.

RESULTS

Of the 451 included patients, 252 could be evaluated at 6 months (40 were lost to follow-up, and 159 died). Pre-ICU admission HRQOL in survivors was significantly worse compared to the healthy population. Patients who died between ICU admission and long-term follow-up had significantly worse HRQOL in all dimensions already at ICU admission when compared to the long-term survivors. HRQOL decreased in all dimensions (p < 0.001) during ICU stay followed by a rapid improvement during hospital stay, gradually improving to near pre-ICU admission HRQOL at 6 months following ICU discharge. Physical functioning (PF), general health (GH), and social functioning (SF) remained significantly lower than pre-ICU admission values. Compared to the healthy Dutch population, ICU survivors had significantly lower HRQOL 6 months following ICU discharge (except for the bodily pain score).

CONCLUSIONS

A sharp multidimensional decline in HRQOL occurs during ICU admission where recovery already starts following ICU discharge to the general ward. Recovery is incomplete for PF, GH, and SF when compared to baseline values and the healthy population.

Doing research on the ethics of doing research

In the previous issue of Critical Care Chenaud and colleagues found that most intensive care unit patients who had given informed consent for their participation in a clinical trial could not recall either the purpose of the trial or its related risks several days later. These findings should remind us that informed consent is a process, not an event, but they should not be interpreted to mean that recall is, of itself, a useful criterion for evaluating either the validity or the quality of the informed consent process. On an entirely separate note, the decision of the authors not to obtain informed consent for this study itself raises interesting questions about the ethics of doing research on the ethics of doing research.

Emergency research: only possible if consent is waived?

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Emergency research is possible only if informed consent is waived. Recent legislations have specifically addressed this issue, both in the US and in Europe.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the US, a specific regulation was enacted in 1996. Due to the added complexity, few trials have used this design. The necessity to inform the community in which a trial is supposed to take place, though feasible, is burdensome and time consuming. In the EU, directive 2001/20/CE forgot to specify particular rules for research in emergency conditions. After 2004, national legislations were supposed to implement the directive in order to enhance homogeneity within Europe, but actually showed an extreme diversity, with some countries allowing waiver of consent in emergency situations and others refusing it.

SUMMARY

Due to the active lobbying of emergency and intensive care specialists, the situation is slowly improving, with most national legislations recognizing the specificities and difficulty of emergency research.