The OHRP and SUPPORT

Ethical Considerations in Neonatal Research

Children are considered a vulnerable population and have traditionally been excluded from research studies. This exclusion of children in general, and neonates in particular, from clinical research hampers the development of safe and effective therapies in this population. However, research involving children (including infants) is essential to guide therapy and optimize care. Neonatal research is complex, time intensive, difficult and expensive to conduct, and raises some unique ethical considerations. The complexity of research in this population is highlighted by the fear of causing harm to fragile sick infants which has led to the creation of special regulations on the degree of risk exposure permissible in research involving infants. This is further compounded by the inability of infants to provide informed consent or assent and the reliance on obtaining surrogate consent from parents who may themselves be vulnerable and overwhelmed by their infant's illness and the amount of information provided to them. In this review, we discuss the evolution of ethical regulations related to research, the justification for research in infants, and some of the ethical nuances of research in this population.

Steps toward a System of IRB Precedent: Piloting Approaches to Summarizing IRB Decisions for Future Use

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency and lack of transparency in decision-making, problems that undermine both trust in their ability to protect human research participants and respect for their decisions among researchers. The absence of robust documentation of their decisions and the inability or unwillingness to share those decisions together represent a missed opportunity for IRBs to learn from one another and advance debates about challenging ethical issues. The concept of IRB precedent, modeled upon the system of legal precedent, has been proposed as a potential solution to these problems. In theory, an IRB faced with a review decision could look back at previous IRB decisions, either its own or those of other boards, made in similar studies or circumstances to guide the present decision. Some IRBs attempt this informally within their institution, but few examples of a structured system of IRB precedent have been described in the literature, and none has been widely adopted. This article describes a pilot project to summarize IRB decisions in a way that could facilitate their use as precedent by creating a documentation tool that meets four criteria-comprehensiveness, validity, searchability, and efficiency. Though this process turned out to be more challenging than expected, we identified key features of such a tool that holds promise for future development and could promote more consistent, robust IRB decision-making and advance discourse in human research ethics.

Misrepresenting "Usual Care" in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error

Comparative effectiveness studies, referred to here as "usual-care" trials, seek to compare current medical practices for the same medical condition. Such studies are presumed to be safe and involve only minimal risks. However, that presumption may be flawed if the trial design contains "unusual" care, resulting in potential risks to subjects and inaccurately informed consent. Three case studies described here did not rely on clinical evidence to ascertain contemporaneous practice. As a result, the investigators drew inaccurate conclusions, misinformed research participants, and subjects' safety was compromised. Before approving usual-care protocols, IRBs and scientific review committees should evaluate the quality and completeness of information documenting usual-care practices. Guidance from governmental oversight agencies regarding evidence-based documentation of current clinical practice could prevent similar occurrences in future usual-care trials. Accurate information is necessary to ensure that trials comply with government regulations that require minimizing research risks to subjects and accurate informed consent documents.

Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Recommendations From a Delphi Panel

A key aim of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is to generate data that are important to patients by deliberately and extensively involving them in all aspects of research, from design to dissemination. However, certain elements of PCOR raise challenging and potentially novel ethical and regulatory issues for institutional review boards and oversight bodies. These challenges stem primarily from the engagement of patients in roles other than research subject, such as advisors, study personnel, and co-investigators, which gives rise to questions about appropriate levels of protection, training, and education, as well as identifying and managing conflicts of interest. This article presents and discusses recommendations from a Delphi expert panel that was convened to address these and other PCOR-related oversight challenges.

Neonatal research ethics after SUPPORT

The SUPPORT study (Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments), sponsored by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to evaluate different oxygen saturation targets for extremely premature babies, led to a national controversy that was surprisingly public, intense, and polarizing. This article describes the study design, the study outcomes, and the key issues. I conclude that the controversy was based on two different views of the clinical investigator. One, held by investigators themselves, is that investigators are primarily committed to the patient's well-being. The other sees the investigator as unable to disentangle his conflicting loyalties and as inevitably prioritizing the goals of research over the goals of patient care. I suggest that our current oversight systems overstate the risks of research and understate the risks of idiosyncratic practice variation. A better system would treat the relative risks of these two phenomena as comparable.

Ethical issues in pragmatic trials of "standard-of-care" interventions in learning health care systems

INTRODUCTION

Learning health care systems (LHS) hold the promise of improving medical care by systematically and continuously integrating the delivery of medical services with clinical research. One important type of integration would involve embedding trials that compare interventions that are already commonly in use (as "accepted" or "standard of care") into the clinical setting-trials that could cost-effectively improve care. But the traditional requirement of informed consent for clinical trials stands in tension with the conduct of such trials.

METHOD

Narrative analysis.

RESULTS

Although some have suggested that the idea of LHS makes the distinction between research and ordinary clinical care obsolete, the distinction remains ethically relevant even when it comes to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compare standard-of-care interventions. This paper presents an ethical framework for analyzing standard-of-care RCTs in resolving the tension between such trials and traditional requirements of research ethics.

CONCLUSION

It is important not to treat all standard-of-care RCTs as a monolithic category of special ethical status. Close attention to ethical issues in specific standard-of-care RCTs is crucial if the LHS movement is to avoid ethical lapses that could be counterproductive to its long term vision.

Comparative effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks

BACKGROUND

Ethical issues related to comparative effectiveness research, or research that compares existing standards of care, have recently received considerable attention. In this paper we focus on how Ethics Review Committees (ERCs) should evaluate the risks of comparative effectiveness research.

MAIN TEXT

We discuss what has been a prominent focus in the debate about comparative effectiveness research, namely that it is justified when "nothing is known" about the comparative effectiveness of the available alternatives. We argue that this focus may be misleading. Rather, we should focus on the fact that some experts believe that the evidence points in favor of one intervention, whereas other experts believe that the evidence favors the alternative(s). We will then introduce a case that illustrates this point, and based on that, discuss how ERCs should deal with such cases of expert disagreement.

CONCLUSION

We argue that ERCs have a duty to assess the range of expert opinions and based on that assessment arrive at a risk judgment about the study under consideration. We also argue that assessment of expert disagreement is important for the assignment of risk level to a clinical trial: what is the basis for expert opinions, how strong is the evidence appealed to by various experts, and how can clinical trial monitoring affect the possible increased risk of clinical trial participation.

Neonatologists' opinions about the 'foreseeable risks' in comparative effectiveness research: Results from an online survey

OBJECTIVE

To examine how neonatologists determine which risks require inclusion for informed consent per the 'Common Rule' and 'Draft Guidance' regulations in comparative effectiveness research (CER).

STUDY DESIGN

Neonatologists active in research were invited to complete an online survey. Questions focused on clinical practices for treating hyperbilirubinemia in premature infants and about risk disclosure related to a hypothetical randomized trial.

RESULTS

Response rate was 57%. 43% were primarily researchers; 31% primarily clinicians. 69% had conducted CER. 81% thought hypothetical study enrollment was not riskier than receiving routine care. 76% labeled the study 'minimal risk' by comparing study risks to clinical care risks. Respondents would not currently disclose many of the treatment risks but would disclose more if the Draft Guidance were enacted into law.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest the Draft Guidance requires disclosure of more risks than does the Common Rule; applying either rule results in disclosure of more risks than in standard clinical care.

Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls

The purpose of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information about which currently available interventions and practices are most effective for patients. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) are the hallmark of scientific proof, and have been used to compare interventions used in variable ways by different clinicians (comparative effectiveness RCTs, CER-RCTs). But such CER-RCTs have at times generated controversy. Usually the background for the CER-RCT is a range of "standard therapy" or "standard of care." This may have been adopted on observational data alone, or pilot data. At times, such prior data may derive from populations that differ from the population in which the widely variable standard approach is being applied. We believe that controversies related to these CER-RCTs result from confusing "accepted" therapies and "rigorously evaluated therapies." We first define evidence-based medicine and consider how well neonatology conforms to that definition. We then contrast the approach of testing new therapies and those already existing and widely adopted, as in CER-RCTs. We next examine a central challenge in incorporating the control arm within CER-RCTs and aspects of the "titrated" trial. We finally briefly consider some ethical issues that have arisen, and discuss the wide range of neonatology practices that could be tested by CER-RCTs or alternative CER-based strategies that might inform practice. Throughout, we emphasize the lack of awareness of the lay community, and indeed many researchers or commentators, in appreciating the wide variation of standard of care. There is a corresponding need to identify the best uses of available resources that will lead to the best outcomes for our patients. We conclude that CER-RCTs are an essential methodology in modern neonatology to address many unanswered questions and test unproven therapies in newborn care.

Realizing Informed Consent in Times of Controversy: Lessons from the SUPPORT Study

This Essay examines the elegantly simple idea that consent to medical treatment or participation in human research must be "informed" to be valid. It does so by using as a case study the controversial clinical research trial known as the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial ("SUPPORT"). The Essay begins by charting, through case law and the adoption of the common rule, the evolution of duties to secure fully informed consent in both research and treatment. The Essay then utilizes the SUPPORT study, which sought to pinpoint the level of saturated oxygen that should be provided to extremely low birth weight infants to demonstrate modern complexities and shortcomings of the duty to secure informed consent. This Essay shows how the duty is measured by foreseeability of risks and benefits in human research and why federal regulators believed the trade-offs in risk and benefits from differing oxygen levels administered in the support study were foreseeable. It then explores the contours of the duty to secure informed consent when applied to researchers who also serve as treating physicians, highlighting how common law duties differ in jurisdictions that apply the professional standard and those that apply the patient-centered material risk standard. This Essay provides new insight into what the law must do to make real the notion that [e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his body."

Institutional review boards: A flawed system of risk management

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and their federal overseers protect human subjects, but this vital work is often dysfunctional despite their conscientious efforts. A cardinal, but unrecognized, explanation is that IRBs are performing a specific function – the management of risk – using a flawed theoretical and practical approach. At the time of the IRB system’s creation, risk management theory emphasized the suppression of risk. Since then, scholars of governance, studying the experience of business and government, have learned that we must distinguish pure from opportunity risks. Pure risks should be suppressed. Some opportunity risks, in contrast, must be accepted if the institution is to meet its goals. Contemporary theory shows how institutions may make these decisions wisely. It also shows how a sound organizational understanding of risk, a proper locus of responsibility, and appropriate institutional oversight all contribute to effective risk management. We can apply this general theory, developed in other contexts, to the problems of the IRB system. Doing so provides a unifying explanation for IRBs’ disparate dysfunctions by spotlighting five related deficiencies in IRB theory and structure. These deficiencies are (i) inability to focus on greater risks, (ii) loss of balanced theory, (iii) inaccessibility to guidance from senior leadership, (iv) unbalanced federal oversight, and (v) inflexibility. These flaws are deeply rooted in the system, and superficial reform cannot resolve them. Congress should overhaul the system to meet contemporary standards of risk management; this would benefit subjects, scientists, and the public that needs the fruits of research.

Usual Care and Informed Consent in Clinical Trials of Oxygen Management in Extremely Premature Infants

OBJECTIVE

The adequacy of informed consent in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Pulse Oximetry Randomized Trial (SUPPORT) has been questioned. SUPPORT investigators and publishing editors, heads of government study funding agencies, and many ethicists have argued that informed consent was adequate because the two oxygen saturation target ranges studied fell within a range commonly recommended in guidelines. We sought to determine whether each oxygen target as studied in SUPPORT and four similar randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was consistent with usual care.

DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched for English articles back to 1990 providing information on usual care oxygen management in extremely premature infants. Data were extracted on intended and achieved oxygen saturation levels as determined by pulse oximetry. Twenty-two SUPPORT consent forms were examined for statements about oxygen interventions.

RESULTS

While the high oxygen saturation target range (91 to 95%) was consistent with usual care, the low range (85 to 89%) was not used outside of the SUPPORT trial according to surveys and clinical studies of usual care. During usual care, similar lower limits (< 88%) were universally paired with higher upper limits (≥ 92%) and providers skewed achieved oxygen saturations toward the upper-end of these intended ranges. Blinded targeting of a low narrow range resulted in significantly lower achieved oxygen saturations and a doubling of time spent below the lower limit of the intended range compared to usual care practices. The SUPPORT consent forms suggested that the low oxygen saturation arm was a widely practiced subset of usual care.

CONCLUSIONS

SUPPORT does not exemplify comparative effectiveness research studying practices or therapies in common use. Descriptions of major differences between the interventions studied and commonly practiced usual care, as well as potential risks associated with these differences, are essential elements of adequate informed consent.

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.

The ethics of neonatal research: An ethicist's and a parents' perspective

The ethics of neonatal research are complex because vulnerable new parents are asked to provide consent on behalf of their fragile baby. Whereas clinical neonatal care has evolved to value personalized and shared decision-making, the goal of research ethics is still to standardize the informed consent process and make it as complete and thorough as possible. Ethicists, lawyers and physicians have shaped the field of research ethics and consent for research. The goal of detailed informed consent is to protect participants from harm, but procedures were developed without input from the principal stakeholders: ex-neonatal intensive care unit parents/patients. Empirical investigations examining patient and parental perspectives on research and research ethics are lacking. Rigorous investigations are needed to determine how parents of sick neonates want their families to be protected, knowing that a lack of research is also harmful. Large randomized controlled multicenter trials will always be needed to improve neonatal outcomes. These trials are costly and time-consuming. Currently, the way in which research is funded and regulated and the way in which academic merit is recognized lead to inefficiency and a waste of precious resources. Following a review of the history of research ethics, this article examines and discusses the ethics of research in neonatology. In addition, challenges and opportunities are identified and ideas for future investigations are proposed.

Patients' Views Concerning Research on Medical Practices: Implications for Consent

BACKGROUND

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) and pragmatic clinical trials commonly test interventions that are in routine use and pose minimal incremental risk or burdens to patients who participate in this research. The objective of this study was to elicit the range of patients' views and opinions regarding a variety of different types of research on usual medical practices, especially notification and authorization for them.

METHODS

We conducted twelve focus groups with adults in five U.S. cities-six focus groups addressing CER ("CER groups") and six groups addressing research involving hospital operations and clinician interventions ("Operations groups"). Participants discussed hypothetical research studies and potential methods of notifying patients and obtaining their authorization to participate. Group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify patients' views related to research on standard medical practice.

RESULTS

A total of ninety six people participated. Twelve key themes emerged from participants' discussions of the hypothetical research studies; these themes were then grouped into four general categories: clinical care; notification and authorization; communication; and conduct and design of research. The desire to be actively notified and asked was more prominent with regard to CER studies than with regard to Operations studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that effective policy and guidance will involve balancing different patients' interests and potentially different sets of interests for different types of research studies on usual medical practices.

Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges

Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codified in US regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the system of IRB review and oversight. Evidence of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear evidence of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide adequate and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future research.

Patient and Physician Views about Protocolized Dialysis Treatment in Randomized Trials and Clinical Care

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials comparing standard-of-care interventions may improve the quality of care for future patients, but raise ethical questions about limitations on decisional autonomy. We sought to understand how patients and physicians view and respond to these questions in the contexts of pragmatic trials and of usual clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted scenario-based, semi-structured interviews with 32 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) receiving maintenance hemodialysis in outpatient dialysis units and with 24 nephrologists. Each participant was presented with two hypothetical scenarios in which a protocolized approach to hemodialysis treatment time was adopted for the entire dialysis unit as part of a clinical trial or a new clinical practice.

RESULTS

A modified grounded theory analysis revealed three major themes: 1) the value of research, 2) the effect of protocolized care on patient and physician autonomy, and 3) information exchange between patients and physicians, including the mechanism of consent. Most patients and physicians were willing to relinquish decisional autonomy and were more willing to relinquish autonomy for research purposes than in clinical care. Patients' concerns towards clinical trials were tempered by their desires for certainty for a positive outcome and for physician validation. Patients tended to believe that being informed about research was more important than the actual mechanism of consent, and most were content with being able to opt out from participating.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study suggests the general acceptability of a pragmatic clinical trial comparing standard-of-care interventions that limits decisional autonomy for nephrologists and patients receiving hemodialysis. Future studies are needed to determine whether similar findings would emerge among other patients and providers considering other standard-of-care trials.

Attitudes Toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices: A Cross-sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Office for Human Research Protections has proposed that end points of randomized trials comparing the effectiveness of standard medical practices are risks of research that would require disclosure and written informed consent, but data are lacking on the views of potential participants.

OBJECTIVE

To assess attitudes of U.S. adults about risks and preferences for notification and consent for research on medical practices.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey conducted in August 2014.

SETTING

Web-based questionnaire.

PATIENTS

1095 U.S. adults sampled from an online panel (n = 805) and an online convenience river sample (n = 290).

MEASUREMENTS

Attitudes toward risk, informed consent, and willingness to participate in 3 research scenarios involving medical record review and randomization of usual medical practices.

RESULTS

97% of respondents agreed that health systems should evaluate standard treatments. Most wanted to be asked for permission to participate in each of 3 scenarios (range, 75.2% to 80.4%), even if it involved only medical record review, but most would accept nonwritten (oral) permission or general notification if obtaining written permission would make the research too difficult to conduct (range, 70.2% to 82.7%). Most perceived additional risk from each scenario (range, 64.0% to 81.6%).

LIMITATION

Use of hypothetical scenarios and a nonprobability sample that was not fully representative of the U.S. population.

CONCLUSION

Most respondents preferred to be asked for permission to participate in observational and randomized research evaluating usual medical practices, but they are willing to accept less elaborate approaches than written consent if research would otherwise be impracticable. These attitudes are not aligned with proposed regulatory guidance.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences at the National Institutes of Health.

Ethics of drug studies in the newborn

Drug studies in developing pediatric patients, especially newborns, create many ethical challenges that can be analyzed in terms of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence/maleficence as outlined in the Belmont Report. This report describes some of the ethical challenges in conducting drug studies in pediatric patients that must be considered when planning studies and offers some solutions to meet those challenges. Methods of optimal study design should be utilized to limit the number of patients and the number of blood samples. Parental permission should be obtained with equipoise, although the parents of a sick newborn may feel an internal pressure for their child to participate in a study of a new and potentially superior therapy. If appropriate to the study, consent before labor and delivery when parents are less stressed is optimal. It may be difficult or impossible to know all the risks and benefits accompanying studies in newborns due to the limited number of randomized controlled studies in this population. Many more carefully designed, randomized controlled studies of drugs are needed to address the therapeutic needs of the developing pediatric population. For sick newborns cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), those studies should be better focused on the drugs used daily in their cares.

Were There "Additional Foreseeable Risks" in the SUPPORT Study? Lessons Not Learned from the ARDSnet Clinical Trials

Even though the interventions were adapted from standard clinical practice, the way they were provided meant that the care given infants in the study was distinctly different from standard care, with different risk profiles. Parents should have been informed about those differences.

Pulse oximetry in very low birth weight infants

Pulse oximetry has become ubiquitous and is used routinely during neonatal care. Emerging evidence highlights the continued uncertainty regarding definition of the optimal range to target pulse oximetry oxygen saturation levels in very low birth weight infants. Furthermore, maintaining optimal oxygen saturation targets is a demanding and tedious task because of the frequency with which oxygenation changes, especially in these small infants receiving prolonged respiratory support. This article addresses the historical perspective, basic physiologic principles behind pulse oximetry operation, and the use of pulse oximetry in targeting different oxygen ranges at various time-points throughout the neonatal period.

When is waiver of consent appropriate in a neonatal clinical trial?

It is difficult to do scientifically rigorous research on treatments that must be administered urgently or emergently. Therefore, such treatments are often provided without a strong evidence base. Research would be facilitated if it were permissible to waive the requirement for parental consent. However, that raises a different set of concerns. Federal regulations allow waiver of the requirement for consent but only if studies meet certain conditions. Institutional review boards must decide whether those conditions are met. Sometimes, reasonable people disagree. We present and analyze a protocol for which investigators request a waiver of consent.

The hair stylist, the corn merchant, and the doctor: ambiguously altruistic

The medical profession has a tradition of presenting itself as exceptionally altruistic. This article challenges the idea that physicians are, or should be, more altruistic than other professionals or other people, and goes so far as to posit that even a professional aspiration of altruism can have negative consequences.

Quality improvement ethics: lessons from the SUPPORT study

The Office of Human Research Protections was not justified in issuing findings against the SUPPORT Institutions. Our community can learn from the evolving healthcare transformation into learning health systems by thinking about the novel ethical issues about standard of care research raised by the SUPPORT with the same spirit of quality improvement. The current regulatory framework and the concept of foreseeable research risks is insufficient to advance the debate about the ethics of randomization of standard clinical interventions. This article uses the example of the Wisconsin cystic fibrosis randomized clinical trial for newborn screening trial to explore the distinctions between risks of research and clinical care and waivers of informed consent for randomization. Collaborative exploration of these complex policy issues is needed and further deliberation, community engagement, and social science research will be critical to advance novel approaches for informed consent.

Informed consent and standard of care: what must be disclosed

The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) was correct in determining that the consent forms for the National Institutes of Health (NIH)-sponsored SUPPORT study were seriously flawed. Several articles defended the consent forms and criticized the OHRP's actions. Disagreement focuses on three central issues: (1) how risks and benefits should be described in informed consent documents; (2) the meaning and application of the concept of "standard of care" in the context of research; and (3) the proper role of OHRP. Examination of the consent forms reveals that they failed to disclose the reasonably foreseeable risks of the experimental interventions in the study, as well as the potential for differences in the degree of risk between these interventions. Although the concept of "standard of care" may be helpful in determining the ethical acceptability of other aspects of research, such as clinical equipoise, it is not helpful in discussing consent requirements.

What should be disclosed to research participants?

Debate surrounding the SUPPORT study highlights the absence of consensus regarding what information should be disclosed to potential research participants. Some commentators endorse the view that clinical research should be subject to high disclosure standards, even when it is testing standard-of-care interventions. Others argue that trials assessing standard-of-care interventions need to disclose only the information that is disclosed in the clinical care setting. To resolve this debate, it is important to identify the ethical concerns raised by clinical research and determine what consent process is needed to address them.