Waiving consent for emergency research

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.

International resuscitation research, exception from informed consent, and the European Union Directive 2001/20/EC

BACKGROUND

United States regulations allow a narrow exception from informed consent for a subset of resuscitation research. Such an exception is also allowed under the Declaration of Helsinki. In 2001, a European Union (EU) Directive was passed, which, if enforced literally, could prohibit resuscitation research. The purpose of this study is to assess the knowledge and attitudes of healthcare workers, specifically emergency physicians, with regard to the EU Directive as it applies to resuscitation research and informed consent.

METHODS

A closed-response survey was distributed in six languages at the Third Mediterranean Emergency Medicine Congress in Nice, France, and to a sample of emergency physicians using a directed approach. Descriptive and bivariate statistics, with a weighting adjustment to account for a disproportionately large number of responses from one country, are reported.

RESULTS

Two hundred and thirty-two surveys (111 using a weighted analysis) were returned from 26 countries. Sixty-seven percent of EU respondents and 70% of non-EU respondents stated that their country adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki, but only 44% of EU and 43% of non-EU respondents, were aware the Declaration allowed a waiver for resuscitation research. Among EU respondents, 49% were unaware of the EU Directive and another 15%, although aware of the Directive, were unaware of its implications for resuscitation research.

CONCLUSION

The international regulatory status of consent in resuscitation research is in flux; yet, most emergency physicians are unaware of the potential implications of the EU Directive or the provisions in the Declaration of Helsinki allowing an exemption from informed consent for resuscitation research.

Ethical implications of time frames in a randomized controlled trial in acute severe traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVES

To analyze factors determining the time between injury and study drug administration (SDA) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of acute severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to discuss the ethical implications.

METHODS

Time frames prior to SDA, differentiated per country, were analyzed in a recently conducted RCT in severe TBI. Per protocol, the time window for SDA was 6 h after injury. We selected patients for whom written proxy consent (PC) was obtained prior to SDA (n=631).

RESULTS

The time between injury and admission to the neurotrauma center (NTC) varied per country from 1.16 to 2.35 h, but CT scan was obtained on average within 1h of admission. The median time between injury and CT scan was within 3 h in all but one country. The broadest time window was observed between CT scan and obtaining required PC (1.71-2.74 h). The median time between injury and PC varied between countries from 3.75 to 5.00 h. After consent had been obtained, almost all patients subsequently received study drug within 1 h. In 85.3% of all cases time between injury and SDA exceeded 4 h, in 60% 5 h.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement of written PC causes a significant delay in SDA in TBI. With deferred consent, the first dose of an investigational drug could potentially be administered directly after completion of the admission CT scan, which reduce the time to SDA by 50%. We argue that randomization under deferred consent is ethically defendable for emergency research in severe TBI. Recommendations for patient protection are proposed.

'No Time to be Lost!' Ethical considerations on consent for inclusion in emergency pharmacological research in severe traumatic brain injury in the European Union

Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) remains a major cause of death and disability afflicting mostly young adult males and elderly people, resulting in high economic costs to society. Therapeutic approaches focus on reducing the risk on secondary brain injury. Specific ethical issues pertaining in clinical testing of pharmacological neuroprotective agents in TBI include the emergency nature of the research, the incapacity of the patients to informed consent before inclusion, short therapeutic time windows, and a risk-benefit ratio based on concept that in relation to the severity of the trauma, significant adverse side effects may be acceptable for possible beneficial treatments. Randomized controlled phase III trials investigating the safety and efficacy of agents in TBI with promising benefit, conducted in acute emergency situations with short therapeutic time windows, should allow randomization under deferred consent or waiver of consent. Making progress in knowledge of treatment in acute neurological and other intensive care conditions is only possible if national regulations and legislations allow waiver of consent or deferred consent for clinical trials.

Emergency research without consent under Polish law

Although Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use does not contain an exception for emergency situations, and requires the informed consent of a legal representative in all cases where research is conducted on legally competent individuals who are unable to give informed consent, in Poland, emergency research can be conducted without consent. Polish regulations on emergency research can hardly be treated as a result of intentional legislative policy. Our provisions arise from multiple and sophisticated interpretations of different regulations that govern medical experiments on human subjects and clinical trials. These interpretations can be summarized as follows: (1) There are two categories of medical experiments: therapeutic and non-therapeutic experiments. Emergency research without consent may be conducted in the category of therapeutic experiment only (therapeutic experiment consists of the introduction by the physician of new or only partially proven diagnostic, therapeutic or preventive methods in order to achieve direct benefit to the health of the patients, and it can be carried out when hitherto applied methods were ineffective or their effectiveness was insufficient). (2). Emergency research may be conducted without consent if there is a situation of great urgency in which the research subject's life is in danger and there is no possibility of obtaining immediate consent from the research subject him or herself, or from his or her legal representative or guardianship court, and the research subject has not refused to give consent for the participation in an emergency therapeutic experiment. The legal representative or guardianship court shall be provided with all the relevant information concerning subject's participation in an experiment as soon as possible. All projects of emergency research with intent to be done without the research subject's consent must be approved by an independent bioethics committee. Because these five requirements seem to provide insufficient protection for a subject's autonomy and rights it is necessary to add to them two other conditions: (1) the emergency research could not be conducted using other research participants capable of giving informed consent; and (2) informed consent for continued participation in the emergency research shall be obtained from either the participant him or herself or the legally authorized representative as soon as possible (requirement of obtaining deferred consent). A consolidated single Act that will govern all aspects of medical experiments on human subjects, including emergency research, should be prepared and enacted as soon as possible.

Ethics and research in critical care

BACKGROUND

The past few years have witnessed several controversies regarding the ethics of conducting research involving critically ill patients, and such research is ethically challenging.

DISCUSSION

Research ethics is a changing field, one that is influenced by empirical data, contemporary events, and new ideas regarding aspects of clinical trial design and protection of human subjects. We describe recent thoughts regarding several aspects of research ethics in the critical care context.

CONCLUSION

The ability of the research community to conduct research ethically and to maintain public trust would benefit from heightened awareness to the principles and requirements that govern such research.