Rescuing Informed Consent: How the new "Key Information" and "Reasonable Person" Provisions in the Revised U.S. Common Rule open the door to long Overdue Informed Consent Disclosure Improvements and why we need to walk Through that door

What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Characterization of key information sections in informed consent forms posted on ClinicalTrials.gov

Introduction

Recent revisions to the US Federal Common Rule governing human studies funded or conducted by the federal government require the provision of a "concise and focused" key information (KI) section in informed consent forms (ICFs). We performed a systematic study to characterize KI sections of ICFs for federally funded trials available on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods

We downloaded ICFs posted on ClinicalTrials.gov for treatment trials initiated on or after the revised Common Rule effective date. Trial records (n = 102) were assessed by intervention type, study phase, recruitment status, and enrollment size. The ICFs and their KI sections, if present, were characterized by page length, word count, readability, topic, and formatting elements.

Results

Of the 102 trial records, 76 had identifiable KI sections that were, on average, 10% of the total length of full ICF documents. KI readability grade level was not notably different from other sections of ICFs. Most KI sections were distinguished by section headers and included lists but contained few other formatting elements. Most KI sections included a subset of topics consistent with the basic elements of informed consent specified in the Common Rule.

Conclusion

Many of the KI sections in the study sample aligned with practices suggested in the preamble to the revised Common Rule. Further, our results suggest that some KI sections were tailored in study-specific ways. Nevertheless, guidelines on how to write concise and comprehensible KI sections would improve the utility and readability of KI sections.

Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function.

A Modern History of Informed Consent and the Role of Key Information

Background: The concept of informed consent has evolved significantly with regard to both the practice of medicine and research conducted with human volunteers. Yet the process of informed consent used in clinical research and the lengthy consent documents that are difficult to comprehend have been criticized. Methods: We review the history of informed consent as a legal and regulatory concept and the intended impact of the new key information section, a requirement that was introduced in the 2017 revisions to the Common Rule. Results: The key information section is intended to be a concise and focused presentation at the beginning of the informed consent document that facilitates potential participants' comprehension of the research. However, the lack of regulatory guidance regarding content and length has been problematic. To avoid the risk of noncompliance, many institutions have sought safe harbor by following the limited format guidelines included in the preamble to the revisions to the Common Rule. Conclusion: Research examining formats for the key information section and aids to increasing potential participants' understanding of a research project should be conducted to ensure that the new regulations achieve the original intent rather than simply lengthening an already lengthy paper document. In addition, the human research protections community should evaluate whether the key information section increases research participants' understanding of what they will be undertaking in a particular study.

Using the concept of "deserved trust" to strengthen the value and integrity of biomedical research

It is commonplace for science leaders and others to claim that the future of biomedical research rests in large part upon the public's trust. If true, it behooves the biomedical research community to understand how it avoids taking chances with that trust. This commentary, which builds upon comments of noted trust scholar Russell Hardin about how best to enjoy trust, assumes that the key to being trusted is deserving to be trusted. Thus, it proposes using "deserved trust" to identify ways that the public's trust in biomedical research could be better supported. Employing deserved trust to support the public's trust leads us to consider what it is that the biomedical research community should be trusted to do, examine the evidence about the effectiveness of current safeguards meant to assure that those things routinely get done, and identify new ways to equip individual researchers, research teams, and research institutions to assure that the public's trust in their research is deserved rather than misplaced.