Ethical complexities in standard of care randomized trials: A case study of morning versus nighttime dosing of blood pressure drugs

A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing

OBJECTIVE

We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.

RESULTS

4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.

Current evidence on the circadian-time-dependent effects of hypertension medications and their combinations in relation to findings of MAPEC and Hygia Chronotherapy Trial

The main purpose of this commentary is to update, based on our extensive review of the published literature of the past 45 yrs, the differential therapeutic effects of hypertension medications of various classes and their combinations when ingested in the evening/at-bedtime versus in the morning/upon-awakening. Interestingly, revision of the currently available evidence on the differential circadian-time-dependent effects of hypertension medications of six different classes and their combinations indicates among the 137 published hypertension medication trials that evaluated blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy according to treatment-time, 112 (81.75%) documented significant better benefits by evening/bedtime compared to morning/awakening-scheduled therapy. The remaining 25 published trials found no treatment-time difference in effects; indeed, no single study has reported better benefits of the still conventional, but scientifically unjustified, morning than evening/at-bedtime treatment scheme.

Chronotherapy for reduction of cardiovascular risk

Numerous prospective studies establish that elevated asleep blood pressure (BP) constitutes a significant cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor, irrespective of daytime office BP measurements or awake and 24h BP measurements. Moreover, except for a small number of studies with flawed methodology, multiple clinical trials of high consistency document significantly better BP-lowering efficacy of hypertension medication and their combinations when ingested at bedtime compared to upon awakening as is customary. Additionally, recent trials conclude bedtime hypertension chronotherapy markedly reduces CVD risk not only in the general population, but also in more vulnerable patients of advanced age, with kidney disease, diabetes, or resistant hypertension. Collectively, these results call for a new definition of true arterial hypertension and its proper diagnosis and management.

New perspectives on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of true arterial hypertension

INTRODUCTION

Office blood pressure measurements (OBPM), still used today for diagnosis and management of hypertension, fail to reveal clinically important features of the mostly predictable blood pressure (BP) 24 h pattern, and lead to >45% of individuals being misclassified. Current hypertension guidelines do not provide recommendation on when-to-treat, despite multiple prospective clinical trials documenting improved normalization of 24 h BP pattern and significant reduction in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events when hypertension medications are ingested at bedtime rather than upon waking.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors discuss current evidence on the: (i) most relevant attributes of the 24 h BP pattern deterministic of CVD risk; (ii) asleep systolic BP (SBP) mean as the most significant therapeutic target for CVD risk reduction; (iii) ingestion-time differences in pharmacodynamics of BP-lowering medications as reported with high consistency in multiple clinical trials; and (iv) enhanced prevention of CVD events achieved by bedtime hypertension chronotherapy.

EXPERT OPINION

Several prospective trials consistently document asleep SBP mean and sleep-time relative SBP decline (dipping) constitute highly significant CVD risk factors, independent of OBPM. Bedtime, compared to customary upon-waking, hypertension chronotherapy reduces risk of major CVD events. Collectively, these findings call for new definition of true hypertension and, accordingly, its proper diagnosis and management.

Understanding preferences regarding consent for pragmatic trials in acute care

BACKGROUND

There has been debate about the role of consent in pragmatic trials comparing qualitatively similar interventions. Consent preferences may differ in acute care contexts, given severe illness, time constraints, and other barriers to consent. In addition, studies have not assessed the impact of disclosing financial considerations as a justification for trials. This study was designed to assess preferences of the general public regarding consent for a pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This survey was completed using an online, probability-based panel representative of the US population. It incorporated a randomized, experimental (2 × 2) design assessing (1) preference for written consent versus an alternative (notification after enrollment or brief verbal consent) and (2) impact of including cost as a motivating factor for the trial. The survey used a scenario based on a recent pragmatic trial in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Primary independent variables were personal preference and recommendation as a member of a review board regarding written consent versus the assigned alternative strategy and personal attitude toward trial enrollment. Descriptive analyses were conducted using post-stratification weights. Regression models were created to examine relationships between demographic variables and consent preference and willingness to enroll. Provision of cost information was incorporated into a regression model to examine its impact on consent preference.

RESULTS

The study included 2027 participants. Of those participants, 51.1% versus 45.8% stated a personal preference for written consent versus notification after enrollment; however, 60.0% versus 35.5% preferred brief verbal consent to written consent. Even among respondents stating they would be unlikely to enroll in the trial if asked, more respondents (50.6%) preferred brief verbal consent. The preference for verbal consent was generally shared across demographic categories, although lower educational attainment was associated with reduced acceptance (p = 0.001 for trend). Respondents were more likely to support an alternative to written consent when asked their personal preference than when asked their recommendation as a member of a review board. The provision of cost information did not have a meaningful effect on consent preferences, attitudes toward enrollment, or views about the study.

CONCLUSION

Respondents generally supported prospective involvement in enrollment decisions in the setting of acute myocardial infarction and were particularly supportive of brief verbal consent. This support persisted across demographic categories. The finding that individuals were more likely to support alternatives to written consent when asked for a personal preference rather than as a "committee member" suggests that conservative institutional approaches to consent could hinder implementation of more patient-centered approaches. The role of cost transparency in consent discussions warrants further study.

Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol

Background

There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in “learning healthcare systems”) are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

Methods

Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document.

Discussion

Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

Stakeholder perspectives regarding alternate approaches to informed consent for comparative effectiveness research

INTRODUCTION

Traditional informed consent approaches, involving separate discussions and lengthy consent forms, may be an imperfect fit for comparative effectiveness research (CER) that is integrated into usual care and compares non-investigational treatments. However, systematic efforts to collect broad stakeholder perspectives about alternative streamlined approaches to disclosure and consent in this context have been limited.

METHODS

We used a deliberative engagement method to solicit the views of a multi-stakeholder group regarding 3 alternative models of disclosure, consent, and authorization in CER studies: Opt-In, Opt-Out, and "General Approval". Participants considered the acceptability of these 3 models for observational and randomized CER studies of hypertension medications and for alternative treatments for spinal stenosis, all conducted in the context of a learning health care system.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight stakeholders participated in the all-day deliberative engagement session. Following deliberation, a majority of stakeholders (67%) liked the General Approval model for the observational hypertension study, more than the number who reported liking Opt-Out or Opt-In (45% and 36%, respectively). Support was lower for General Approval model in the context of a randomized hypertension study, with 80% liking a traditional Opt-In approach, compared with 54% liking Opt-Out, and 11% liking General Approval. Similarly, for the spinal stenosis CER studies, while most stakeholders preferred a streamlined Opt-Out approach for the observational design, most preferred a traditional Opt-In approach for the randomized version.

CONCLUSIONS

This multi-stakeholder group was more favorable towards streamlined models for disclosure and authorization for observational CER than randomized designs. These findings are consistent with arguments that informed consent requirements should be tailored to the context of the research design, rather than a standard "one size fits all" approach.

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.

Ethics Issues Arising in the Transition to Learning Health Care Systems: Results from Interviews with Leaders from 25 Health Systems

INTRODUCTION

There is increased interest in transitioning to a "learning health care system" (LHCS). While this transition brings the potential for significant benefits, it also presents several ethical considerations. Identifying the ethical issues faced by institutions in this transition is critical for realizing the goals of learning health care so that these issues can be anticipated and, where possible, resolved.

METHODS

29 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with leaders within 25 health care institutions. Respondents were recruiting using purposive sampling, targeting institutions considered as LHCS leaders. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. NVIVO10 software was used to support qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents described seven ethical challenges: (1) ethical oversight of learning activities; (2) transparency of learning activities to patients; (3) potential tensions between improving quality and reducing costs; (4) data sharing and data management; (5) lag time between discovery and implementation; (6) transparency to patients about quality; and (7) randomization for quality improvement initiatives.

DISCUSSION

To move towards LHCS, several ethical considerations require further attention, including: the continued appropriateness of the research-treatment distinction; policy frameworks for privacy and data sharing; informing patients about learning activities; obligations to share data on quality; and the potential for trade-offs between quality improvement and cost control.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the first project to ask leaders from health care systems committed to ongoing learning about the ethical issues they have faced in this effort. Their experiences can provide guidance on relevant ethical issues, and what might be done to resolve them.