Patient and Surrogate Postenrollment Perspectives on Research Using the Exception From Informed Consent: An Integrated Survey

Perspectives of ICU Patients on Deferred Consent in the Context of Post-ICU Quality of Life: A Substudy of a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Deferred consent enables research to be conducted in the ICU when patients are unable to provide consent themselves, and there is insufficient time to obtain consent from surrogates before commencing (trial) treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate how former ICU patients reflect on their participation in a study with deferred consent and examine whether their opinions are influenced by the quality of life (QoL) following hospital discharge.

DESIGN

Survey study by questionnaire.

SETTING

Eight ICUs in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Former ICU patients who participated in the ICONIC trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial that evaluated oxygenation targets in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants enrolled in the ICONIC trial in one of the eight participating centers in The Netherlands received a questionnaire 6 months after randomization. The questionnaire included 12 close-ended questions on their opinion about the deferred consent procedure. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. By calculating the EQ-5D index, patients were divided into four QoL quartiles, where Q1 reflects the lowest and Q4 is the highest.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 362 participants who were contacted, 197 responded (54%). More than half of the respondents (59%) were unaware of their participation in the ICONIC study. In total 61% were content with the deferred consent procedure, 1% were not content, 25% neutral, 9% did not know, and 9% answered "other." Those with a higher QoL were more likely to be content ( p = 0.02). In all QoL groups, the legal representative was the most often preferred individual to provide consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Former ICU patients who participated in the ICONIC study often did not remember their participation but were predominantly positive regarding the use of deferred consent. Those with a higher QoL were most likely to be content.

What have we learned from the RAMPART and ESETT randomized controlled trials?

Lessons learned from the Rapid Anticonvulsant Medication Prior to Arrival Trial (RAMPART) and Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) trials are considered in three ways. First, by asking about the questions the trials were primarily designed to answer, then about the context of the intervention and characteristics of the patients described in secondary analyses, and finally, about what was learned about how to conduct trials in this space. The talk concludes with suggestions and a vision for how to best conduct future trials investigating status epilepticus. This paper was presented at the 8th London-Innsbruck Colloquium on Status Epilepticus and Acute Seizures held in September 2022.

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.

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.

Do National and International Ethics Documents Accord With the Consent Substitute Model for Emergency Research?

In 2010 Largent, Wendler, and Emanuel proposed the "consent substitute model" for emergency research with incapacitated participants. The model provides a means to enroll participants in emergency research without consent, if five conditions are met: 1) the research addresses the patients' urgent medical needs, 2) the risk-benefit ratio is favorable, 3) there are no known conflicts with patients' values or interests, 4) cumulative net risk is minimal, and 5) consent is given as soon as possible. We review national and international ethics laws, regulations, and guidelines to determine 1) whether they accord with the consent substitute model's five conditions and 2) the level of congruence across these documents. We find that only one document meets all five conditions and that there is significant disparity among the documents, particularly between national and international ones. These differences may have stymied international collaboration in emergency research. We recommend that the two international documents used most, the International Council for Harmonization's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice and the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, are revised to include more specific provisions on emergency medical research.