International variation in policies and practices related to informed consent in acute cardiovascular research: Results from a 44 country survey

Emergency research without prior consent in the United States, Canada, European Union and United Kingdom: How regulatory differences affect study design and implementation in cardiac arrest trials

Aim

A major barrier to performing cardiac arrest trials is the requirement for prospective informed consent, which is often infeasible during individual medical emergencies. In an effort to improve outcomes, some governments have adopted legislation permitting research without prior consent (RWPC) in these circumstances. We aimed to outline key differences between legislation in four Western locations and explore the effects of these differences on trial design and implementation in cardiac arrest research.

Data sources

We performed a narrative review of RWPC legislation in the United States (US), Canada, the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom (UK).

Results

The primary criteria required to perform RWPC was similar across locations: the study must involve an individual medical emergency during which neither the prospective subject nor their authorized representative can provide informed consent. The US regulations were unique in their requirements for performing Community Consultation and Public Disclosure in the communities in which the research takes place. Another major difference was the requirement for consent for ongoing participation in Canada, the EU and the UK, while only notification of enrollment and the opportunity to discontinue participation are required in the US. Additionally, only Canada and the EU explicitly state that the subject or their representative may request withdrawal of their data.

Conclusion

Regulations governing RWPC in the US, Canada, the EU and the UK have similar goals and protections for vulnerable populations during medical emergencies. Differences in the qualifying criteria and implementation procedures exist across locations and may affect study design.

Advance consent for participation in randomised controlled trials for emergency conditions: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Advance consent is a recognised method of obtaining informed consent for participation in research, whereby a potential participant provides consent for future involvement in a study contingent on qualifying for the study's inclusion criteria on a later date. The goal of this study is to map the existing literature on the use of advance consent for enrolment in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for emergency conditions.

DESIGN

Scoping review designed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials from inception to 10 February 2020.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible studies included articles that discussed or employed the use of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs related to emergency conditions. There were no restrictions on the type of eligible study. Data were extracted directly from included papers using a standardised data charting form. We produced a narrative review including article type and authors' dispositions towards advance consent.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 1039 titles with duplicates removed. Six articles met inclusion criteria. Three articles discussed the theoretical use of research advance directives in emergency conditions; one article evaluated stakeholders' perceptions of advance consent; and one article described a method for patients to document their preferences for participation in future research. Only one study employed advance consent to enrol participants into a clinical trial for an emergency condition.

CONCLUSION

Our review demonstrates that there has been minimal exploration of advance consent for enrolment in RCTs for emergency conditions. Future studies could aim to assess the acceptability of advance consent to participants, along with the feasibility of enrolling research participants using this method of consent.

PROTOCOL

The protocol for this scoping review was published a priori.

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.

The ethical considerations for emergency care research in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review of the published literature

INTRODUCTION

Research studies on emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many ethical considerations, including obtaining valid informed consent from vulnerable patients. This study aims to describe the body of literature related to the ethical considerations associated with emergency care research in low- and middle-income settings.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify literature published between 2000 and 2020 related to ethical considerations associated with emergency care research in the LMIC setting. Titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate, and full texts were reviewed and extracted by the principal author.

RESULTS

In total, 1087 articles were identified and 17 articles were included. Major themes identified in the literature included risk versus benefit assessments, patient vulnerabilities, consent, community engagement, clinical roles, ancillary care provision, and regulation of research. Alternative models of consent are often used in emergency care research, including surrogate consent, community consent, and waiver of consent. Challenges and best practices with these alternative models of consent in LMICs are discussed.

DISCUSSION

Gaps remain in the literature describing the ethics of emergency care research in LMICs, including clear guidelines for protecting vulnerable patients and designing ethical consent processes. Best practices identified include community engagement for designing research studies, identifying acceptable risk profiles, and allocating benefits. Continuous and rigorous assessment of the quality of consent is also needed.

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.

Vasopressin and methylprednisolone for in-hospital cardiac arrest - Protocol for a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To describe the clinical trial "Vasopressin and Methylprednisolone for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest" (VAM-IHCA).

METHODS

The VAM-IHCA trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, double-blind, superiority trial of vasopressin and methylprednisolone during adult in-hospital cardiac arrest. The study drugs consist of 40 mg methylprednisolone and 20 IU of vasopressin given as soon as possible after the first dose of adrenaline. Additional doses of vasopressin (20 IU) will be administered after each adrenaline dose for a maximum of four doses (80 IU).The primary outcome is return of spontaneous circulation and key secondary outcomes include survival and survival with a favorable neurological outcome at 30 days. 492 patients will be enrolled. The trial was registered at the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number: 2017-004773-13) on Jan. 25, 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03640949) on Aug. 21, 2018.

RESULTS

The trial started in October 2018 and the last patient is anticipated to be included in January 2021. The primary results will be reported after 3-months follow-up and are, therefore, anticipated in mid-2021.

CONCLUSION

The current article describes the design of the VAM-IHCA trial. The results from this trial will help clarify whether the combination of vasopressin and methylprednisolone when administered during in-hospital cardiac arrest improves outcomes.

Informed consent procedures for emergency interventional research in patients with traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke

Health-care professionals and researchers have a legal and ethical responsibility to inform patients before carrying out diagnostic tests or treatment interventions as part of a clinical study. Interventional research in emergency situations can involve patients with some degree of acute cognitive impairment, as is regularly the case in traumatic brain injury and ischaemic stroke. These patients or their proxies are often unable to provide informed consent within narrow therapeutic time windows. International regulations and national laws are criticised for being inconclusive or restrictive in providing solutions. Currently accepted consent alternatives are deferred consent, exception from consent, or waiver of consent. However, these alternatives appear under-utilised despite being ethically permissible, socially acceptable, and regulatorily compliant. We anticipate that, when the requirements for medical urgency are properly balanced with legal and ethical conduct, the increased use of these alternatives has the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of future emergency interventional studies in patients with an inability to provide informed consent.

Advanced consent for participation in acute care randomised control trials: protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Informed consent is essential to clinical research, though obtaining informed consent for participation in research for emergency conditions is challenging. Adapted consent methods include consent from a substitute-decision maker, deferral of consent and waiver of consent. A novel approach is to use advanced consent, where a potential participant provides consent in the present in the event that they become eligible for enrolment into a future study. This scoping review will map and synthesise the literature on the use of advanced consent for participation and enrolment in randomised control trials for emergency conditions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Guided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology framework, we will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials), the grey literature sources and reference lists of relevant studies. Eligible studies will include English language articles that discuss, examine or employ the use of advanced consent for enrolment in randomised control trials, specifically related to emergency conditions or emergency treatment. Diverse types of articles will be eligible for inclusion, including peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies such as randomised control trials, observational studies, surveys, systematic reviews, as well as narrative reviews and ethics papers. Studies will be screened by two independent reviewers to determine eligibility for inclusion. Data on bibliographic information, study characteristics and methodology, and reported results, specifically author disposition, will be extracted and described using qualitative analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethics review is not required as primary data will not be collected. The findings of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication. The findings of this study will help identify knowledge gaps that may guide areas for future research and may aid in the design of future clinical trials using advanced consent.

To explore the experience of research nurses who obtain consent from adults in emergency settings to participate in clinical trials, either prospectively or post enrolment

AIM

To explore the understanding and experiences of research nurses who obtain informed consent from adult patients participating in emergency care research.

DESIGN

Qualitative phenomenographic descriptive study.

METHODS

Ten research nurses from six hospitals in England were recruited. Data were collected using semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews between January 2019 and March 2019. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically, informed by phenomenography. COREQ was followed.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: (a) emergency research is different, (b) protecting the patient, and (c) experience and confidence with recruitment. It was found that obtaining patient consent in emergency care research was challenging and timing of the process was crucial. Nurses with more experience of emergency care were more confident in approaching patients and their families. There was variability in out-of-hours recruitment which was a consequence of the range of informed consent processes used and the different levels of engagement of clinical teams.

CONCLUSION

There is a variety of organisational cultures, processes and procedures which affect the way consent is obtained in emergency care research. A team approach was evident in the hospitals where consent rates were high and was more successful than those reliant solely on the presence of a research nurse. Organisations were able to recruit successfully to emergency care research studies irrespective of size and configuration. Further investigation of their models of working and strategies for engagement is needed. Experienced research nurses made a positive difference to recruitment and were more likely to approach patients to obtain consent.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The understanding and experiences of recruitment to clinical trials in emergency care research by research nurses can help identify barriers to recruitment. This study provides useful insights for healthcare practitioners, clinical trials coordinators and sponsors about how best to develop protocols and policies to increase recruitment to emergency care research.

Study Monitoring in Emergency Care Trials: Lessons from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Continuous Chest Compressions Trial

OBJECTIVE

Clinical trial investigators often assemble internal study monitoring committees (SMCs) to measure individual or group adherence with trial performance benchmarks. We examined the processes and results of study monitoring in an international trial of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

METHODS

We studied SMC operations for the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Continuous Chest Compressions (CCC) trial, which compared continuous with interrupted chest compressions upon survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The SMC defined trial performance benchmarks, which included compliance with the intervention, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) process data availability and timely data completion. Trial investigators received monthly performance reports. We determined rates of trial noncompliance and suspension from the trial.

RESULTS

ROC-CCC enrolled a total of 23,711 subjects in the primary analysis population. Across 113 enrolling agencies, the SMC monitored performance for a total 2,367 agency-months. Emergency medical services agencies were on probation for a total of 178 (7.5%) agency-months. Fifty-five agencies were placed on probation at least once, of which 78% improved their performance and were approved for continued participation in the trial. A total of 12 agencies were suspended from trial participation. Data monitoring resulted in high-quality CPR (mean chest compression fraction = 0.80), 87% CPR process availability and timely data completion (75th and 95th percentiles prehospital data = 22 and 57 days; hospital data = 58 and 118 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Study monitoring procedures may play an important role in ensuring the performance quality in acute care clinical trials.

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.

A Systematic Review Of The Food And Drug Administration's 'Exception From Informed Consent' Pathway

In 1996 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created an "exception from informed consent" (EFIC) pathway for trials conducted on people incapacitated by life-threatening conditions with a therapeutic time window too narrow for reliable surrogate consent. The goals were to promote therapeutic innovation and encourage rigorous but ethical experimentation on this vulnerable population. To evaluate outcomes of this pathway, we reviewed the complete FDA docket of EFIC trials from the past two decades, encompassing forty-one trials. Among the 46,964 patients included in this review, ninety-six percent were enrolled without consent, and fewer than 1 percent withdrew before the primary endpoint. Two (8 percent) of the twenty-four superiority trials demonstrated a benefit from the experimental interventions. Many interventions were associated with adverse effects, including increased mortality, neurological deficits, and myocardial infarctions. Nearly one-third of US patients in EFIC trials were African American. While EFIC trials have yielded medical advances, investigators in future trials must pay better attention to managing withdrawals and ensuring fair demographic representation.

Emergency Consent: Patients' and Surrogates' Perspectives on Consent for Clinical Trials in Acute Stroke and Myocardial Infarction

Background Emergent informed consent for clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke is challenging. The role and value of consent are controversial, and insufficient data exist regarding patients' and surrogates' experiences. Methods and Results We conducted structured interviews with patients (or surrogates) enrolled in AMI or acute stroke trials at 6 sites between 2011 and 2016. Primary domains included trial recall, consent experiences, and preferences regarding involvement. Descriptive and test statistics were used to characterize responses and explore relationships between key domains and characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between key covariates and consent preferences. There were 176 (84 stroke, 92 AMI) completed interviews. Most stroke respondents (82%) were surrogates; all AMI respondents were patients. Average time from trial enrollment to interview was 1.9 years (stroke) and 2.8 years (AMI); 89% of stroke and 62% of AMI respondents remembered being in the trial, and among these respondents, 80% (stroke) and 44% (AMI) remembered reading some of the consent form. Over 90% reported not feeling pressure to enroll, being treated in a caring way, and being treated with dignity. A minority (16% stroke and 26% AMI) reported they would have preferred not to be asked for consent. Just over half (61% stroke and 53% AMI) recalled a postenrollment conversation about the study. Conclusions Most respondents felt they were treated respectfully and were glad they had been asked for consent. Trial recall was relatively low, and many respondents recalled little postenrollment discussion. Further development of context-sensitive approaches to consent is important.

Uninformed refusals: objections to enrolment in clinical trials conducted under an Exception from Informed Consent for emergency research

Clinical trials in emergency situations present unique challenges, because they involve enrolling individuals who lack capacity to consent in the context of acute illness or injury. The US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration regulations allowing an Exception from Informed Consent (EFIC) in these circumstances contain requirements for community consultation, public disclosure and restrictions on study risks and benefits. In this paper, we analyse an issue raised in the regulations that has received little attention or analysis but is ethically complex. This challenge is when to solicit and honour objections to EFIC trial enrolment, including from non-legally appointed representatives. We address novel questions involving whose objections should be honoured, what level of understanding is necessary for objections to be considered valid and how hard investigators should work to offer an opportunity to object. We present a set of criteria that provide conceptual and practical guidance. We argue that objections should be honoured if they undermine one of the key assumptions that allows for the permissibility of EFIC trials: that individuals would likely not object to enrolment based on their values or preferences. We then clarify the practical implications of this approach through examination of three cases of refusal in an EFIC study.

Intraoperative initiation of a modified ARDSNet protocol increases survival of septic patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE

To assess the intraoperative initiation and feasibility of a modified NIH-NHLBI ARDS Network Mechanical Ventilation Protocol (mARDSNet protocol) in septic patients with severe ARDS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective observational study included consecutive adult septic patients with severe ARDS who underwent emergency abdominal surgery prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge and at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative adverse events and ICU length of stay.

RESULTS

Seven patients were included. A statistically significant difference in lung compliance [ε=0.150, F(1.053, 3.158)=31.098, p=0.010] and driving pressure [ε=0.263, F(1.844, 5.532)=7.042, p=0.031] was observed with time, while plateau pressure did not changed significantly during surgery [ε=0.322, F(2.256, 6.769)=1.920, p=0.219]. Also, PEEP values were constantly increased during surgery [ε=0.252, F(1.766, 5.297)=9.994, p=0.017], with the highest values being observed towards to the end of the procedure. No intraoperative adverse events were observed. Mean (±SD) ICU length of stay was 10.43 (±2.64) days, while all patients survived to hospital discharge and at 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

The intraoperative implementation of our mARDSNet protocol is feasible and may increase the survival of septic patients with severe ARDS if initiated prior to ICU admission.

Development and Testing of a Novel Anaesthesia Induction/Ventilation Protocol for Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Complicating Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiogenic shock is a life-threatening condition and patients might require rapid sequence induction (RSI) and mechanical ventilation. In this study, we evaluated a new RSI/mechanical ventilation protocol in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

METHODS

We included consecutive adult patients who were transferred to the emergency department. The RSI protocol included 5 phases: preoxygenation, pretreatment, induction/paralysis, intubation, and mechanical ventilation (PPIIM). A posteriori, we selected historical patients managed with standard RSI as a control group. The primary outcome was hemodynamic derangement or hypoxemia from enrollment until intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

RESULTS

We studied 31 consecutive patients who were intubated using the PPIIM protocol and 22 historical controls. We found significant differences in systolic (85.32 ± 4.23 vs 71.72 ± 7.98 mm Hg; P < 0.0001), diastolic (58.84 ± 5.84 vs 39.05 ± 5.63 mm Hg; P < 0.0001), and mean arterial pressure (67.71 ± 4.90 vs 49.90 ± 5.66 mm Hg; P < 0.0001), as well as in partial pressure of oxygen (85.80 ± 19.82 vs 164.73 ± 43.07 mm Hg; P < 0.0001) between the PPIIM and control group at 5 minutes of automated ventilation. Also, statistically significant differences were observed in diastolic (59.74 ± 4.93 vs 47.86 ± 11.47 mm Hg; P < 0.0001) and mean arterial pressure (68.65 ± 4.10 vs 60.23 ± 11.67 mm Hg; P < 0.0001), as well as in partial pressure of oxygen (119.84 ± 50.57 vs 179.50 ± 42.17 mm Hg; P < 0.0001), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide (39.81 ± 10.60 vs 31.00 ± 9.30 mm Hg; P = 0.003) between the 2 groups at ICU admission. Compared with the control group, with PPIIM more patients survived to ICU admission (100% vs 77%) and hospital discharge (71% vs 31.8%), as well as at 90 days (51.6% vs 18.2%), and at 180 days (38.7% vs 13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The PPIIM protocol allows safe intubation of acute myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock and improves hemodynamic and oxygenation parameters.

Impact of individual clinical outcomes on trial participants' perspectives on enrollment in emergency research without consent

BACKGROUND

Evidence suggests that patients are generally accepting of their enrollment in trials for emergency care conducted under exception from informed consent. It is unknown whether individuals with more severe initial injuries or worse clinical outcomes have different perspectives. Determining whether these differences exist may help to structure post-enrollment interactions.

METHODS

Primary clinical data from the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were matched to interview data from the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study. Answers to three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study were analyzed in the context of enrolled patients' initial injury severity (initial Glasgow Coma Scale and Injury Severity Score) and principal clinical outcomes (Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale and Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale relative to initial injury severity). The three key questions from Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study addressed participants' general attitude toward inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial (general trial inclusion), their specific attitude toward being included in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under the exception from informed consent (personal exception from informed consent enrollment), and their attitude toward the use of exception from informed consent in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial in general (general exception from informed consent enrollment). Qualitative analysis of interview transcripts was performed to provide contextualization and to determine the extent to which respondents framed their attitudes in terms of clinical experience.

RESULTS

Clinical data from Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial were available for all 74 patients represented in the Patients' Experiences in Emergency Research-Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury study (including 46 patients for whom the surrogate was interviewed due to the patient's cognitive status or death). No significant difference was observed regarding acceptance of general trial inclusion or acceptance of general exception from informed consent enrollment between participants with favorable neurological outcomes and those with unfavorable outcomes relative to initial injury. Agreement with personal enrollment in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent, however, was significantly higher among participants with favorable outcomes compared to those with unfavorable outcomes (89% vs 59%, p = 0.003). There was also a statistically significant relationship between more severe initial injury and increased acceptance of personal exception from informed consent enrollment ( p = 0.040) or general exception from informed consent use ( p = 0.034) in Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial. Many individuals referenced personal experience as a basis for their attitudes, but these references were not used to support negative views.

CONCLUSION

Patients and surrogates of patients with unfavorable clinical outcomes were somewhat less accepting of their own inclusion in the Progesterone for the Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury trial under exception from informed consent than were patients or surrogates of patients with favorable clinical outcomes. These findings suggest a need to identify optimal strategies for communicating with patients and their surrogates regarding exception from informed consent enrollment when clinical outcomes are poor.

Confronting Ethical and Regulatory Challenges of Emergency Care Research With Conscious Patients

Barriers to informed consent are ubiquitous in the conduct of emergency care research across a wide range of conditions and clinical contexts. They are largely unavoidable; can be related to time constraints, physical symptoms, emotional stress, and cognitive impairment; and affect patients and surrogates. US regulations permit an exception from informed consent for certain clinical trials in emergency settings, but these regulations have generally been used to facilitate trials in which patients are unconscious and no surrogate is available. Most emergency care research, however, involves conscious patients, and surrogates are often available. Unfortunately, there is neither clear regulatory guidance nor established ethical standards in regard to consent in these settings. In this report-the result of a workshop convened by the National Institutes of Health Office of Emergency Care Research and Department of Bioethics to address ethical challenges in emergency care research-we clarify potential gaps in ethical understanding and federal regulations about research in emergency care in which limited involvement of patients or surrogates in enrollment decisions is possible. We propose a spectrum of approaches directed toward realistic ethical goals and a research and policy agenda for addressing these issues to facilitate clinical research necessary to improve emergency care.

Legal and ethical issues in research

Legal and ethical issues form an important component of modern research, related to the subject and researcher. This article seeks to briefly review the various international guidelines and regulations that exist on issues related to informed consent, confidentiality, providing incentives and various forms of research misconduct. Relevant original publications (The Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences/World Health Organisation International Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, World Association of Medical Editors Recommendations on Publication Ethics Policies, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, CoSE White Paper, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use-Good Clinical Practice) form the literature that are relevant to the ethical and legal aspects of conducting research that researchers should abide by when conducting translational and clinical research. Researchers should note the major international guidelines and regional differences in legislation. Hence, specific ethical advice should be sought at local Ethics Review Committees.

Evolution of European Union legislation on emergency research

AIM

Emergency research is necessary to prevent exposure of patients to unvalidated clinical practice (nonmaleficence), and to improve the dismal prognosis of disorders requiring emergent treatment such as cardiac arrest (beneficence). Regulations that govern clinical research should conform to bioethical principles of respect for nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, and justice. Our objectives are to review the evolution of European Union (EU) legislation on emergency research, and to identify potentially remaining problems.

DATA SOURCES

EU legislative sources on clinical research and medical literature describing the impact of EU Regulations on emergency research.

RESULTS

Article 5 of EU Directive 2001/20/EC required consent before enrolment in a research study to ensure the autonomy of potentially incapacitated research subjects. However, obtaining such consent is often impossible in emergency situations. Directive 2001/20/EC was criticized for potentially preventing emergency research. Several EU Member States addressed this problem by permitting deferred consent. International ethical guidelines supporting deferred consent were also cited by Good Clinical Practice Directive 2005/28/EC. However, Directive 2001/20/EC was not revised to achieve harmonization of EU emergency research, thus resulting in ongoing "ambiguity" as regards to emergency research legitimacy. This will be definitively addressed by applying EU Regulation No. 536/2014 and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. The new EU Regulation permits using deferred consent under clearly specified conditions, and may foster emergency research that evaluates interventions posing minimal risk relative to standard practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Legislation related to emergency research in Europe has evolved to increase concordance with bioethical principles so as to increase evidence-based improvements in emergency care.