Trials using deferred consent in the emergency setting: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of stakeholders' attitudes

Perspectives of ICU Patients on Deferred Consent in the Context of Post-ICU Quality of Life: A Substudy of a Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

Deferred consent enables research to be conducted in the ICU when patients are unable to provide consent themselves, and there is insufficient time to obtain consent from surrogates before commencing (trial) treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate how former ICU patients reflect on their participation in a study with deferred consent and examine whether their opinions are influenced by the quality of life (QoL) following hospital discharge.

DESIGN

Survey study by questionnaire.

SETTING

Eight ICUs in The Netherlands.

PATIENTS

Former ICU patients who participated in the ICONIC trial, a multicenter randomized clinical trial that evaluated oxygenation targets in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants enrolled in the ICONIC trial in one of the eight participating centers in The Netherlands received a questionnaire 6 months after randomization. The questionnaire included 12 close-ended questions on their opinion about the deferred consent procedure. QoL was measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. By calculating the EQ-5D index, patients were divided into four QoL quartiles, where Q1 reflects the lowest and Q4 is the highest.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of 362 participants who were contacted, 197 responded (54%). More than half of the respondents (59%) were unaware of their participation in the ICONIC study. In total 61% were content with the deferred consent procedure, 1% were not content, 25% neutral, 9% did not know, and 9% answered "other." Those with a higher QoL were more likely to be content ( p = 0.02). In all QoL groups, the legal representative was the most often preferred individual to provide consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Former ICU patients who participated in the ICONIC study often did not remember their participation but were predominantly positive regarding the use of deferred consent. Those with a higher QoL were most likely to be content.

Randomized Controlled Trials of Pulmonary Vasodilator Therapy Adjunctive to Inhaled Nitric Oxide for Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn: A Systematic Review

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is a pulmonary vasodilator considered standard of care to treat persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. However, not all infants respond to iNO. The authors performed a systematic review to examine methodology, outcomes, and challenges of randomized controlled trials testing pulmonary vasodilator medications adjunctive to iNO. The 5 trials identified showed heterogeneity in eligibility criteria and outcomes assessed. No trial achieved recruitment goals, limiting conclusions regarding efficacy, safety, and pharmacology. Trial design consensus and alternative methodologic strategies such as deferred consent, real-world controls, nonrandomized database assessments, and Bayesian statistical approaches are needed.

The impact of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery following intensive care admission: Protocol for a pre-planned secondary Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial

BACKGROUND

The PRECISe trial is a pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery in adult, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The current protocol presents the rationale and analysis plan for an evaluation of the primary and secondary outcomes under the Bayesian framework, with an emphasis on clinically important effect sizes.

METHODS

This protocol was drafted in agreement with the ROBUST-statement, and is submitted for publication before database lock and primary data analysis. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L health utility score and is longitudinally assessed. Secondary outcomes comprise the 6-min walking test and handgrip strength over the entire follow-up period (longitudinal analyses), and 60-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and EQ-5D-5L health utility scores at 30, 90 and 180 days (cross-sectional). All analyses will primarily be performed under weakly informative priors. When available, informative priors elicited from contemporary literature will also be incorporated under alternative scenarios. In all other cases, objectively formulated skeptical and enthusiastic priors will be defined to assess the robustness of our results. Relevant identified subgroups were: patients with acute kidney injury, severe multi-organ failure and patients with or without sepsis. Results will be presented as absolute risk differences, mean differences, and odds ratios, with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Posterior probabilities will be estimated for clinically important benefit and harm.

DISCUSSION

The proposed secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial will provide additional information on the effects of high protein on functional and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, such as probabilistic interpretation, probabilities of clinically important effect sizes, and the integration of prior evidence. As such, it will complement the interpretation of the primary outcome as well as several secondary and subgroup analyses.

Parental perceptions of informed consent in a study of tracheal intubations in neonatal intensive care

Background and objective

Obtaining informed consent in neonatal emergency research is challenging. The aim of this study was to assess parental perceptions of informed consent following participation in a clinical trial in neonatal emergency care.

Methods

This was a supplementary analysis of a randomised controlled trial comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in the delivery room and neonatal intensive care unit. After obtaining informed consent for the clinical trial, parents were asked to answer a series of self-administered questions about their perceptions of clinical trial participation and the consent process. Informed consent had been given either before birth, after birth but before inclusion in the trial, or after inclusion in the trial.

Results

We received responses from 33 mothers and 27 fathers (n = 60) of the 63 preterm and term infants who participated in the study. Fifty-three (89.8%, n = 59) parents agreed that infants should participate in clinical trials, and 51 (85%, n = 60) parents agreed that parents should be asked for informed consent. Fifty-three (89.8%, n = 59) parents felt that their infant's participation in this particular trial would be beneficial. Fifty-two (86.7%, n = 60) parents felt that the informed consent process was satisfactory. One parent (100%, n = 1) approached before birth, 23 parents (82.1%, n = 28) approached after birth but before enrolment and 26 (83.9%, n = 31) parents approached after enrolment were satisfied with the timing of the consent process. Eight (13.3%, n = 60) parents felt some pressure to provide informed consent. Of these, two (25%) were approached before enrolment and six (75%) were approached after enrolment.

Conclusion

Parents valued their infant's participation in an emergency neonatal clinical trial and considered it important to be asked for consent. In this study, it seemed less important whether consent was obtained before or after the intervention. Future studies may need to investigate which form of consent is most acceptable to parents for the individual study in question.

Complex and alternate consent pathways in clinical trials: methodological and ethical challenges encountered by underserved groups and a call to action

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is considered a fundamental requirement for participation in trials, yet obtaining consent is challenging in a number of populations and settings. This may be due to participants having communication or other disabilities, their capacity to consent fluctuates or they lack capacity, or in emergency situations where their medical condition or the urgent nature of the treatment precludes seeking consent from either the participant or a representative. These challenges, and the subsequent complexity of designing and conducting trials where alternative consent pathways are required, contribute to these populations being underserved in research. Recognising and addressing these challenges is essential to support trials involving these populations and ensure that they have an equitable opportunity to participate in, and benefit from, research. Given the complex nature of these challenges, which are encountered by both adults and children, a cross-disciplinary approach is required.

DISCUSSION

A UK-wide collaboration, a sub-group of the Trial Conduct Working Group in the MRC-NIHR Trial Methodology Research Partnership, was formed to collectively address these challenges. Members are drawn from disciplines including bioethics, qualitative research, trials methodology, healthcare professions, and social sciences. This commentary draws on our collective expertise to identify key populations where particular methodological and ethical challenges around consent are encountered, articulate the specific issues arising in each population, summarise ongoing and completed research, and identify targets for future research. Key populations include people with communication or other disabilities, people whose capacity to consent fluctuates, adults who lack the capacity to consent, and adults and children in emergency and urgent care settings. Work is ongoing by the sub-group to create a database of resources, to update NIHR guidance, and to develop proposals to address identified research gaps.

CONCLUSION

Collaboration across disciplines, sectors, organisations, and countries is essential if the ethical and methodological challenges surrounding trials involving complex and alternate consent pathways are to be addressed. Explicating these challenges, sharing resources, and identifying gaps for future research is an essential first step. We hope that doing so will serve as a call to action for others seeking ways to address the current consent-based exclusion of underserved populations from trials.

Protocol for Deferral of Consent in Acute Stroke Trials

The challenges of conducting hyperacute stroke research and obtaining informed consent have been increasingly recognized within the stroke research community in recent years. Deferral of consent, in which a patient is enrolled in a trial and then provides consent at some point thereafter, is increasingly used to enroll patients into hyperacute stroke trials in Canada and Europe, although it is not permitted in the United States. Deferral of consent offers several potential advantages-quicker door-to-randomization, increased enrolment, decreased selection bias-but these must be balanced against the risk of enrolling patients against their wishes. We seek to minimize the attendant risks of deferral of consent by offering practical guidance regarding how to conduct acute stroke trials using deferral of consent. Building on existing guidelines and recent experiences with deferral of consent in acute stroke trials, we have developed a protocol for the use of deferral of consent that aims to maximize patient involvement while minimizing ethical and scientific risks.

Optimizing patient recruitment into clinical trials of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens

Recruitment of patients with critical priority antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria into drug approval randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has not been successful to date. Approaching from the viewpoint of clinician-investigators and learning from the experience of AMR-focused investigator-initiated trials, we present suggestions to improve feasibility and efficiency of RCTs evaluating patients with severe infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative or other AMR bacteria. Considerations address the trials' eligibility criteria, whether the focus of the trial is pathogen- or syndrome-targeted, trials' case report forms and monitoring, informed consent strategies for the recruitment of extremely ill patients, team dedication and incentives to run the trial and alternative trial designs. Evidence on the effects of new drugs against the AMR that these drugs target is weak and needs to be improved through better industry-academic collaboration, taking advantage of the different strengths of industry-led and investigator-initiated research.