Enrolling Decisionally Impaired Adults in Clinical Research:

AAN position statement: Ethical issues in clinical research in neurology

This update to the American Academy of Neurology's 1998 position statement endeavors to provide guidance for the consistent ethical conduct and review of neurologic research involving human participants. It does so by outlining a widely used ethical framework of 7 principles derived from the foundational documents of modern bioethics, including the Nuremberg Code, the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and the US Department of Health and Human Service's Common Rule. The position statement then applies this principle-based framework to analyze and produce recommendations for the management of common and important ethical issues encountered in neurologic clinical research. These include institutional review board oversight, equitable research participant inclusion, cognitive impairment in research participants, international studies, the replication crisis, and genetic testing and modification.

Using data to improve surrogate consent for clinical research with incapacitated adults

Current practice relies on surrogates to enroll incapacitated adults in research. Yet, it is unclear to what extent this practice protects adults who have lost the ability to consent for themselves. To address this question, we conducted two literature searches to identify articles which report empirical data on three issues central to protecting adults who have lost the ability to consent: (1) adults' willingness to participate in research should they lose the ability to consent; (2) adults' willingness to allow a surrogate to make research decisions for them; and (3) the extent to which surrogates' enrollment decisions are consistent with their charges' preferences and values. These searches identified 21 articles, representing 20 distinct datasets. The data indicate that many adults are willing to participate in research should they lose the ability to consent, and many are willing to allow their family members to make research decisions for them if they become incapacitated. The data also raise concern that surrogates may be making research enrollment decisions that, in some cases, are inconsistent with their charges' preferences and values. These findings suggest that modifications to current practice should be considered to better protect adults who have lost the ability to consent. One option would be to require, in addition to surrogate permission and subject assent, sufficient evidence that enrollment is consistent with the individual's preferences and values.

Surrogate consent for genomics research in intensive care

Surrogate decision makers may be poorly prepared to give informed consent for genomics research for their loved ones in intensive care. A review of the challenges and strategies associated with obtaining surrogates' consent for genomics research in intensive care patients revealed that few well-controlled studies have been done on this topic. Yet, a major theme in the literature is the role of health care professionals in guiding surrogates through the informed consent process rather than simply witnessing a signature. Informed consent requires explicit strategies to approach potential surrogates effectively, educate them, and ensure that informed consent has been attained.

Vulnerability in clinical research with patients in pain: a risk analysis

Some have characterized patients living with intractable pain as a vulnerable population in both clinical and research settings. Labeling the population as vulnerable, however, does not provide clarity regarding the potential risks that they face when they participate in research. Instead, research vulnerability for patients in pain is a function of an interaction between their pain conditions and elements of the research enterprise. Therefore, the identification of potential risks requires consideration not only of characteristics of patients with chronic pain, but also consideration of features of researchers, the quality of institutional oversight, and the medical/social environment within which the research is conducted. This paper provides an analysis of those risks and provides some suggestions as to how the risks might be better managed.

IRB Member Judgments of Decisional Capacity, Coercion, and Risk in Medical and Psychiatric Studies

WHILE INDIVIDUALS WITH PSYCHIATRIC illnesses are widely considered a special class of research subjects regarding decisional capacity and coercion vulnerability, those with physical illnesses often are not. IRB members (N = 127) read vignettes that described clinical research targeting one of two levels of disease severity (high/low) for psychiatric or medical diagnoses. They then rated decisional capacity, coercion, and risks for hypothetical research subjects. IRB members viewed psychiatric subjects as having greater vulnerability to coercion and less decisional capacity than medical subjects, even when medical illness was of a severity likely to engender psychiatric comorbidities. These results suggest that IRB members may inflate the vulnerability and decisional incapacity of psychiatric subjects, while discounting vulnerability and incapacity in medical subjects.

Designing randomized, controlled trials aimed at preventing or delaying functional decline and disability in frail, older persons: a consensus report

The discovery of effective interventions to prevent or delay disability in older persons is a public health priority. Most likely to benefit from such interventions are frail individuals who are not yet disabled and those with early disability who are at high risk of progression. In spite of this frail older persons have often been excluded from research on the assumption that they would not tolerate testing or benefit from treatment. The Interventions on Frailty Working Group developed recommendations to screen, recruit, evaluate, and retain frail older persons in clinical trials. Specific recommendations are: Eligibility screening should include a multistage process, to quickly exclude those who are too well and those who are too sick. Inclusion criteria should target those most likely to benefit, be meaningful to clinicians, and reflect advancements in the frailty research area. Disability outcome measures should include self-reported, objective, and proxy measures. Strategies to improve retention and compliance and to monitor their effectiveness should be an integral part of the study design. Estimation of cost and sample size should contemplate high dropout rates and interference by competing outcomes. Additional research is needed to refine criteria for screening frail older persons, identify objective measures of disability that are reliable and valid in frail older persons, and improve the informed consent process for high-risk participants, recognizing that research in this subgroup is essential to improving their health outcomes.