Pragmatic Randomized Trials Without Standard Informed Consent?: A National Survey

Navigating the consent river: questions to consider before waiving consent requirements in pragmatic cluster randomised trials

The robust design and conduct of pragmatic cluster randomised trials may be in tension with the ethical requirement to obtain written informed consent from prospective research participants. In our experience, researchers tend to focus on whether a waiver of consent is appropriate for their studies. However, pragmatic cluster randomised trials raise other important questions that have direct implications for determining when an alteration or waiver of consent is permissible. To assist those involved in the design, conduct and review of pragmatic cluster randomised trials, we outline four critical questions to consider: (1) What is the nature of the intervention being evaluated? (2) Is the choice to use cluster randomisation justified? (3) Can the risk of recruitment bias be addressed? and (4) Is an alteration or waiver of consent appropriately justified? We recommend that researchers and research ethics committees conduct a stepwise analysis of a planned cluster randomised trial using these questions. To illustrate the application of this stepwise analysis, we use three pragmatic cluster randomised trials in the haemodialysis setting as case studies.

Aversion to pragmatic randomised controlled trials: three survey experiments with clinicians and laypeople in the USA

OBJECTIVES

Pragmatic randomised controlled trials (pRCTs) are essential for determining the real-world safety and effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, both laypeople and clinicians often demonstrate experiment aversion: preferring to implement either of two interventions for everyone rather than comparing them to determine which is best. We studied whether clinician and layperson views of pRCTs for COVID-19, as well as non-COVID-19, interventions became more positive during the pandemic, which increased both the urgency and public discussion of pRCTs.

DESIGN

Randomised survey experiments.

SETTING

Geisinger, a network of hospitals and clinics in central and northeastern Pennsylvania, USA; Amazon Mechanical Turk, a research participant platform used to recruit online participants residing across the USA. Data were collected between August 2020 and February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

2149 clinicians (the types of people who conduct or make decisions about conducting pRCTs) and 2909 laypeople (the types of people who are included in pRCTs as patients). The clinician sample was primarily female (81%), comprised doctors (15%), physician assistants (9%), registered nurses (54%) and other medical professionals, including other nurses, genetic counsellors and medical students (23%), and the majority of clinicians (62%) had more than 10 years of experience. The layperson sample ranges in age from 18 to 88 years old (mean=38, SD=13) and the majority were white (75%) and female (56%).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants read vignettes in which a hypothetical decision-maker who sought to improve health could choose to implement intervention A for all, implement intervention B for all, or experimentally compare A and B and implement the superior intervention. Participants rated and ranked the appropriateness of each decision. Experiment aversion was defined as the degree to which a participant rated the experiment below their lowest-rated intervention.

RESULTS

In a survey of laypeople administered during the pandemic, we found significant aversion to experiments involving catheterisation checklists and hypertension drugs unrelated to the treatment of COVID-19 (Cohen's d=0.25-0.46, p<0.001). Similarly, among both laypeople and clinicians, we found significant aversion to most (comparing different checklist, proning and mask protocols; Cohen's d=0.17-0.56, p<0.001) but not all (comparing school reopening protocols; Cohen's d=0.03, p=0.64) non-pharmaceutical COVID-19 experiments. Interestingly, we found the lowest experiment aversion to pharmaceutical COVID-19 experiments (comparing new drugs and new vaccine protocols for treating the novel coronavirus; Cohen's d=0.04-0.12, p=0.12-0.55). Across all vignettes and samples, 28%-57% of participants expressed experiment aversion, whereas only 6%-35% expressed experiment appreciation by rating the trial higher than their highest-rated intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Advancing evidence-based medicine through pRCTs will require anticipating and addressing experiment aversion among patients and healthcare professionals.

STUDY REGISTRATION

http://osf.io/6p5c7/.

Streamlined versus traditional consent for low-risk comparative effectiveness trials: a randomized experimental study to measure patients' and public attitudes

Aim: Streamlining consent for low-risk comparative effectiveness research (CER) could facilitate research, while safeguarding patients' rights. Materials & methods: 2618 adults were randomized to one of seven consent approaches (six streamlined and one traditional) for a hypothetical, low-risk CER study. A survey measured understanding, voluntariness, and feelings of respect. Results: Participants in all arms had a high understanding of the trial and positive attitudes toward the consent interaction. Highest satisfaction was with a streamlined approach showing a video before the medical appointment. Participants in streamlined were more likely to mistakenly think a signature was required. Conclusion: Streamlined consent was no less acceptable than traditional, signed consent. Streamlined and traditional approaches achieved similar levels of understanding, voluntariness and a feeling that the doctor-patient interaction was respectful.

Learning healthcare systems and rapid learning in radiation oncology: Where are we and where are we going?

Learning health systems and rapid-learning are well developed at the conceptual level. The promise of rapidly generating and applying evidence where conventional clinical trials would not usually be practical is attractive in principle. The connectivity of modern digital healthcare information systems and the increasing volumes of data accrued through patients' care pathways offer an ideal platform for the concepts. This is particularly true in radiotherapy where modern treatment planning and image guidance offers a precise digital record of the treatment planned and delivered. The vision is of real-world data, accrued by patients during their routine care, being used to drive programmes of continuous clinical improvement as part of standard practice. This vision, however, is not yet a reality in radiotherapy departments. In this article we review the literature to explore why this is not the case, identify barriers to its implementation, and suggest how wider clinical application might be achieved.

Reframing Recruitment: Evaluating Framing in Authorization for Research Contact Programs

BACKGROUND

The changing clinical research recruitment landscape involves practical challenges but introduces opportunities. Researchers can now identify large numbers of eligible patients through electronic health record review and can directly contact those who have authorized contact. Applying behavioral science-driven strategies to design and frame communication could affect patients' willingness to authorize contact and their understanding of these programs. The ethical and practical implications of various strategies warrant empirical evaluation.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey (n = 1070) using a nationally-representative sample. Participants were asked to imagine being asked for authorization for research contact in clinic. They were randomly assigned to view one of three flyers: #1-neutral text flyer; #2-a positive text flyer; or #3-positive graphics-based flyer. Primary outcomes included likelihood of enrollment and comprehension of the program. Chi-Square tests and regression analyses were used to examine whether those who saw the positive flyers were more likely to enroll and had increased comprehension.

RESULTS

Compared to the neutral flyer, individuals who received the positive text flyer were numerically more likely to enroll, but this was not statistically significant (24.2% v. 19.0%, p = 0.11). Individuals who received the positive graphics flyer were more likely to enroll (28.7% v. 19.0%, p = 0.002). After adjustment, individuals assigned to both novel flyers had increased odds of being likely to enroll (OR = 1.55 95%CI [1.04, 2.31] and OR = 1.95 95%CI [1.31, 2.91]). Flyer type did not affect overall comprehension (p = 0.21), and greater likelihood of enrollment was observed only in individuals with better comprehension.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that employing behavioral science-driven communication strategies for authorization for research contact had an effect on likelihood of hypothetical enrollment but did not significantly affect comprehension. Strategies using simple, positive language and visual tools may be effective and ethically appropriate. Further studies should explore how these and other approaches can help to optimize research recruitment.

Alternative Consent Models in Pragmatic Palliative Care Clinical Trials

Palliative care research raises a host of ethical concerns. Obtaining informed consent from seriously ill patients and their families is often perceived as an additional burden. Alternative approaches to traditional written informed consent reflect the changing nature of modern trial design, embracing real-world effectiveness and pragmatic clinical trials with those who are seriously ill. Ethicists, clinical investigators, and regulatory bodies have acknowledged the challenges to rigorous, meaningful, and generalizable research across diverse patient populations in real-world settings. The purpose of this article is to describe how these clinical trial designs have driven innovation in methods for achieving informed consent, with a focus on palliative care research. In this article, we describe and provide examples of consent waivers and three types of alternative approaches to consent, including broadcast notification and integrated and targeted consent. We also present our experiences in an ongoing palliative care clinical trial, specifically using broadcast notification. Working with participants and regulatory oversight organizations, investigators can address the limits of traditional written informed consent and adopt innovative consent models to advance the science of palliative care. Research is now needed to determine the impact of these differing consent models on clinical trial recruitment, enrollment, and retention, as well as participants' informed understanding of their research participation using such models.

Public Attitudes toward Consent When Research Is Integrated into Care-Any "Ought" from All the "Is"?

Research that is integrated into ongoing clinical activities holds the potential to accelerate the generation of knowledge to improve the health of individuals and populations. Yet integrating research into clinical care presents difficult ethical and regulatory challenges, including how or whether to obtain informed consent. Multiple empirical studies have explored patients' and the public's attitudes toward approaches to consent for pragmatic research. Questions remain, however, about how to use the resulting empirical data in resolving normative and policy debates and what kind of data warrants the most consideration. We recommend prioritizing data about what people consider acceptable with respect to consent for pragmatic research and data about people's informed, rather than initial, preferences on this subject. In addition, we advise caution regarding the weight given to majority viewpoints and identify circumstances when empirical data can be overridden. We argue that empirical data bolster normative arguments that alterations of consent should be the default in pragmatic research; waivers are appropriate only when the pragmatic research would otherwise be impracticable and has sufficiently high social value.

Citizens, Research Ethics Committee Members and Researchers' Attitude Toward Information and Consent for the Secondary Use of Health Data: Implications for Research Within Learning Health Systems

A survey was conducted to assess citizens, research ethics committee members, and researchers' attitude toward information and consent for the secondary use of health data for research within learning health systems (LHSs). Results show that the reuse of health data for research to advance knowledge and improve care is valued by all parties; consent regarding health data reuse for research has fundamental importance particularly to citizens; and all respondents deemed important the existence of a secure website to support the information and consent processes. This survey was part of a larger project that aims at exploring public perspectives on alternate approaches to the current consent models for health data reuse to take into consideration the unique features of LHSs. The revised model will need to ensure that citizens are given the opportunity to be better informed about upcoming research and have their say, when possible, in the use of their data.

Patient Perceptions and Familiarity With Medical Therapy for Heart Failure

Importance

There are major gaps in use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for patients with heart failure (HF). Patient-reported data outlining patient goals and preferences associated with GDMT are not available.

Objective

To survey patients with chronic HF to better understand their experiences and perceptions of living with HF, including their familiarity and concerns with important GDMT therapies.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Study participants were recruited from the GfK KnowledgePanel, a probability-sampled online panel representative of the US adult population. English-speaking adults who met the following criteria were eligible if they were (1) previously told by a physician that they had HF; (2) currently taking medications for HF; and (3) had no history of left ventricular assist device or cardiac transplant. Data were collected between October and November 2018. Analysis began in December 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The survey included 4 primary domains: (1) relative importance of disease-related goals, (2) challenges associated with living with HF, (3) decision-making process associated with HF medication use, and (4) awareness and concerns about available HF medications.

Results

Of 30 707 KnowledgePanel members who received the initial survey, 15 091 (49.1%) completed the screening questions, 440 were eligible and began the survey, and 429 completed the survey. The median (interquartile range) age was 68 (60-75) years and most were white (320 [74.6%]), male (304 [70.9%]), and had at least a high school education (409 [95.3%]). Most survey responders reported familiarity with β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics. Overall, 107 (24.9%) reported familiarity with angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Overall, 136 patients (42.5%) reported have safety concerns regarding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and 133 (38.5%) regarding β-blockers, 35 (37.9%) regarding mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, 38 (36.5%) regarding angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, and 123 (37.2%) regarding diuretics. Between 27.7% (n = 26) and 38.5% (n = 136) reported concerns regarding the effectiveness of β-blockers, angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, or diuretics, while 41% (n = 132) were concerned with the effectiveness of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this survey study, many patients were not familiar with GDMT for HF, with familiarity lowest for angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. Among patients not familiar with these therapies, significant proportions questioned their effectiveness and/or safety. Enhanced patient education and shared decision-making support may be effective strategies to improve the uptake of GDMT for HF in US clinical practice.

International Policy Frameworks for Consent in Minimal-risk Pragmatic Trials

There is intense debate around the use of altered and waived consent for pragmatic trials. Those in favor argue that traditional consent compromises the internal and external validity of these trials. Those against, warn that the resultant loss of autonomy compromises respect for persons and could undermine trust in the research enterprise.This article examines whether international ethical guidelines and the policy frameworks in three countries-the United States, England, and Australia-permit altered and waived consent for minimal-risk pragmatic trials conducted outside the emergency setting. Provisions for both are clearly articulated in U.S. regulations, but many countries do not have equivalent frameworks. Investigators should not assume that all consent models permitted in the United States are legal in their jurisdictions, even if they are deemed ethically defensible.The authors summarize ethical and regulatory considerations and present a framework for investigators contemplating trials with altered or waived consent.

Informed consent within a learning health system: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

A major consideration for the implementation of a learning health system (LHS) is consent from participants to the use of their data for research purposes. The main objective of this paper was to identify in the literature which types of consent have been proposed for participation in research observational activities in a LHS. We were particularly interested in understanding which approaches were seen as most feasible and acceptable and in which context, in order to inform the development of a Quebec-based LHS.

METHODS

Using a scoping review methodology, we searched scientific and legal databases as well as the gray literature using specific terms. Full-text articles were reviewed independently by two authors on the basis of the following concepts: (a) LHS and (b) approach to consent. The selected papers were imported in NVivo software for analysis in the light of a conceptual framework that distinguishes various, largely independent dimensions of consent.

RESULTS

A total of 93 publications were analysed for this review. Several studies reach opposing conclusions concerning the best approach to consent within a LHS. However, in the light of the conceptual framework we developed, we found that many of these results are distorted by the conflation between various characteristics of consent. Thus, when these characteristics are distinguished, the results mainly suggest the prime importance of the communication process, by contrast to the scope of consent or the kind of action required by participants (opt-in/opt-out). We identified two models of consent that were especially relevant for our purpose: metaconsent and dynamic consent.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows the importance of distinguishing carefully the various features of the consent process. It also suggests that the metaconsent model is a valuable model within a LHS, as it addresses many of the issues raised with regards to feasibility and acceptability. We propose to complement this model by adding the modalities of the information process to the dimensions relevant in the metaconsent process.

Breast Density Awareness, Knowledge, and Attitudes Among US Women: National Survey Results Across 5 Years

PURPOSE

To assess changes in breast density (BD) awareness, knowledge, and attitudes among US women over a period of 5 years.

METHODS

Using a probability-based web panel representative of the US population, we administered an identical BD survey in 2012 and 2017 to women aged 40 to 74 years.

RESULTS

In 2017, 65.8% had heard of BD (versus 57.5% in 2012; P = .0002). BD awareness in both 2012 and 2017 was significantly associated with race, income, and education. Among women aware of BD in 2017, 76.5% had knowledge of BD's relationship to masking (versus 71.5% in 2012; P = .04); 65.5% had knowledge of BD's relationship to cancer risk (versus 58.5%; P = .009); and 47.3% had discussed BD with a provider (versus 43.1% in 2012; P = .13). After multivariable adjustment, residence in a state with BD legislation was associated in 2017 with knowledge of BD's relationship to risk but not to masking. Most women wanted to know their BD (62.5% in 2017 versus 59.8% in 2012; P = .46); this information was anticipated to cause anxiety in 44.8% (versus 44.9% in 2012; P = .96); confusion in 35.9% (versus 43.0%; P = .002); and feeling informed in 89.7% (versus 90.4%; P = .64). Over three-quarters supported federal BD legislation in both surveys. Response rate to the 2017 survey was 55% (1,502 of 2,730) versus 65% (1,506 of 2,311) in 2012.

CONCLUSION

Although BD awareness has increased, important disparities persist. Knowledge of BD's impact on risk has increased; knowledge about masking and BD discussions with providers have not. Most women want to know their BD, would not feel anxious or confused as a result of knowing, and would feel empowered to make decisions. The federal BD notification legislation presents an opportunity to improve awareness and knowledge and encourage BD conversations with providers.

What the public think about participation in medical research during an influenza pandemic: an international cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

The public and patients are primary contributors and beneficiaries of pandemic-relevant clinical research. However, their views on research participation during a pandemic have not been systematically studied. We aimed to understand public views regarding participation in clinical research during a hypothetical influenza pandemic.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an international cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

We surveyed the views of nationally representative samples of people in Belgium, Poland, Spain, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, using a scenario-based instrument during the 2017 regional influenza season. Descriptive and regression analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 6804 respondents, 5572 (81.8%) thought pandemic-relevant research was important, and 5089 (74.8%) thought 'special rules' should be applied to make this research feasible. The respondents indicated willingness to take part in lower risk (4715, 69.3%) and higher risk (3585, 52.7%) primary care and lower risk (4780, 70.3%) and higher risk (4113, 60.4%) intensive care unit (ICU) study scenarios. For primary care studies, most (3972, 58.4%) participants preferred standard enrolment procedures such as prospective written informed consent, but 2327 (34.2%) thought simplified procedures would be acceptable. For ICU studies, 2800 (41.2%) preferred deferred consent, and 2623 (38.6%) preferred prospective third-party consent. Greater knowledge about pandemics, trust in a health professional, trust in the government, therapeutic misconception and having had ICU experience as a patient or carer predicted increased willingness to participate in pandemic-relevant research.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates current public support for pandemic-relevant clinical research. Tailored information and initiatives to advance research literacy and maintain trust are required to support pandemic-relevant research participation and engagement.

Ethical Acceptability of Postrandomization Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Pragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial.

RESULTS

A total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public.

What gives them the right? Legal privilege and waivers of consent for research

Waivers of informed consent for research participation are permitted in the United States under the Common Rule, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations, and the US Food and Drug Administration's Exception from Informed Consent rule for emergency research. We assess the novel question regarding what legal right researchers have to carry out research procedures on or about another person, be it experimental medical intervention, psychological or social manipulation, or invasion of privacy, without the permission of their subjects. Our analysis frames waivers of consent as a species of presumed consent, and we address the underlying empirical question of whether it is reasonable to believe that subjects from whom no consent is sought would in fact agree, if asked. A scoping review of what is known about participation and refusal rates in United States-based research suggests that a large minority, on average, do not agree to take part in research. Refusal rates vary widely. This suggests that, while researchers may assert the social utility of their studies are high enough to justify waivers, there is reason to suspect that many who would be enrolled under a waiver of consent would not want to be enrolled. We conclude that waivers should be rare and that institutional review boards and researchers must explicitly address study acceptability in the community at large and the target population of their proposed research.

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.

Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial

Cluster randomised clinical trials present unique challenges in meeting ethical obligations to those who are treated at a randomised site. Obtaining informed consent for research within the context of clinical care is one such challenge. In order to solve this problem it is important that an informed consent process be effective and efficient, and that it does not impede the research or the healthcare. The innovative approach to informed consent employed in the COMPASS study demonstrates the feasibility of upholding ethical standards without imposing undue burden on clinical workflows, staff members or patients who may participate in the research by virtue of their presence in a cluster randomised facility. The COMPASS study included 40 randomised sites and compared the effectiveness of a postacute stroke intervention with standard care. Each site provided either the comprehensive postacute stroke intervention or standard care according to the randomisation assignment. Working together, the study team, institutional review board and members of the community designed an ethically appropriate and operationally reasonable consent process which was carried out successfully at all randomised sites. This achievement is noteworthy because it demonstrates how to effectively conduct appropriate informed consent in cluster randomised trials, and because it provides a model that can easily be adapted for other pragmatic studies. With this innovative approach to informed consent, patients have access to the information they need about research occurring where they are seeking care, and medical researchers can conduct their studies without ethical concerns or unreasonable logistical impediments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02588664, recruiting. This article covers the development of consent process that is currentlty being employed in the study.

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.

Routinely collected data for randomized trials: promises, barriers, and implications

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected health data (RCD) are increasingly used for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This can provide three major benefits: increasing value through better feasibility (reducing costs, time, and resources), expanding the research agenda (performing trials for research questions otherwise not amenable to trials), and offering novel design and data collection options (e.g., point-of-care trials and other designs directly embedded in routine care). However, numerous hurdles and barriers must be considered pertaining to regulatory, ethical, and data aspects, as well as the costs of setting up the RCD infrastructure. Methodological considerations may be different from those in traditional RCTs: RCD are often collected by individuals not involved in the study and who are therefore blinded to the allocation of trial participants. Another consideration is that RCD trials may lead to greater misclassification biases or dilution effects, although these may be offset by randomization and larger sample sizes. Finally, valuable insights into external validity may be provided when using RCD because it allows pragmatic trials to be performed.

METHODS

We provide an overview of the promises, challenges, and potential barriers, methodological implications, and research needs regarding RCD for RCTs.

RESULTS

RCD have substantial potential for improving the conduct and reducing the costs of RCTs, but a multidisciplinary approach is essential to address emerging practical barriers and methodological implications.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should be directed toward such issues and specifically focus on data quality validation, alternative research designs and how they affect outcome assessment, and aspects of reporting and transparency.

Reframing Consent for Clinical Research: A Function-Based Approach

Although informed consent is important in clinical research, questions persist regarding when it is necessary, what it requires, and how it should be obtained. The standard view in research ethics is that the function of informed consent is to respect individual autonomy. However, consent processes are multidimensional and serve other ethical functions as well. These functions deserve particular attention when barriers to consent exist. We argue that consent serves seven ethically important and conceptually distinct functions. The first four functions pertain principally to individual participants: (1) providing transparency; (2) allowing control and authorization; (3) promoting concordance with participants' values; and (4) protecting and promoting welfare interests. Three other functions are systemic or policy focused: (5) promoting trust; (6) satisfying regulatory requirements; and (7) promoting integrity in research. Reframing consent around these functions can guide approaches to consent that are context sensitive and that maximize achievable goals.

Comparison of Approaches for Notification and Authorization in Pragmatic Clinical Research Evaluating Commonly Used Medical Practices

BACKGROUND

For pragmatic clinical research comparing commonly used treatments, questions exist about if and how to notify participants about it and secure their authorization for participation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how patients react when they seek clinical care and encounter one of several different pragmatic clinical research studies.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In an online survey using a between-subjects experimental design, respondents read and responded to 1 of 24 hypothetical research scenarios reflecting different types of studies and approaches to notification and authorization (eg, general notification, oral consent, written consent).

SUBJECTS

English-speaking US adults 18 years and older.

MEASURES

Willingness to participate in the hypothetical study, acceptability of the notification and authorization approach, understanding of the study, perceptions of benefit/harm, trust, and perception of amount of study information received.

RESULTS

Willingness to participate did not differ by notification and authorization approach. Some (21%-36%) of the patients randomized to general notification with an explicit opt-out provision were not aware they would be enrolled by default. Acceptability was greatest for and similar among notification and authorization approaches that actively engaged the patient (eg, oral or written consent) and lower for approaches with less engagement (eg, general notification). Problems of understanding were found among 20%-55% of respondents, depending on the particular scenario. Most respondents (77%-94%) felt that participation in the hypothetical study posed no risks of harm to their health or privacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Current attitudes about notification and authorization approaches and difficulties understanding pragmatic clinical research pose significant challenges for pragmatic research. Data from this study provide a starting point to developing solutions to these surprisingly complex issues.

Pragmatic clinical trials and the consent process

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) are a relatively new methodological approach to the execution of clinical research that can increase research efficiency and provide access to unique data. Some have suggested that the costs and delays associated with obtaining informed consent could make PCTs difficult or even impossible to execute. Alternative consent models have been proposed, some of which lower standards of disclosure, delay consent, or waive it altogether. We analyze the permissibility of changes to informed consent in the context of Canadian research ethics policies, legislation, common law, professional codes of ethics, and professional standards of practice. We find that Canadian law and policy relating to informed consent clearly applies to any clinician who might be involved in a PCT. In addition, existing consent norms seem unable to accommodate alternative consent models for pragmatic research if such models would involve lowering the standard of disclosure. The strong emphasis on the primacy of individual rights that exist in law and in research ethics norms cannot easily coexist with strategies that involve either waiver of consent requirements or the provision of incomplete information about the research prior to enrolment. If Canadian policy-makers wish to create the regulatory flexibility necessary to accommodate altered consent and disclosure, it is likely this will require the alteration of existing health information legislation, national research ethics policy, and professional standards.

Patients' beliefs regarding informed consent for low-risk pragmatic trials

BACKGROUND

The requirement to obtain written informed consent may undermine the potential of pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) to improve evidence-based care. This requirement could compromise trials statistical power or even force it to close them down prematurely. However, recent data from the U.S. and Spain suggest that a majority of the public endorses written consent for low-risk pRCTs. The present manuscript assesses whether this view is shared by patients.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification for two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing 2 drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. This web-based survey was conducted in May 2016. Two-thousand and eight adults who were representative of the Spanish population participated in the survey (response rate: 61%). Of these 2008 respondents, 338 indicated that they had been diagnosed with hypertension and were being treated with prescription medicines for this condition at the time of responding to the survey. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent versus verbal consent or general notification.

RESULTS

Overall, 74% of the 338 patient respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, general notification received significantly more support (30.6%-44.7%) than verbal consent (13.3%-17.6%). 43% of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.

CONCLUSIONS

As in the survey of the general public, more patients endorsed written consent than the alternative option. However, two factors suggest that a different approach to written consent should be investigated for low-risk pRCTs: a) a substantial minority of respondents supported general notification, b) data from the US have shown that most patients who prefer written consent are willing to forego it if obtaining written consent makes the trial too difficult to be conducted; and c) 2016 CIOMS guidelines endorse waivers of consent when the trial fulfills specific conditions. Surveys in other EU countries are needed to assess what patients believe towards pRCTs. If similar results to that reported in this study are found, it is foreseeable that with educational efforts, general notification could be an acceptable and widespread approach to the conduct of low-risk pRCTs.

Who is willing to participate in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials without consent?

Purpose

General notification offers a possible alternative to written informed consent for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs). It involves patients being informed through brochures, posters, and letters that research is being conducted simultaneously to providing clinical care and that patients will be enrolled in pRCTs without study-specific consent. A previous survey found that a substantial minority of respondents endorsed general notification. We aimed to know who is willing to enroll in this type of trials using general notification rather than written consent.

Methods

The previous study was a cross-sectional, probability-based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Two scenarios were assessed: two low-risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar benefit/risk ratio and the other taking the same drug in the morning or at night. Each scenario had two routes: written consent vs verbal consent and written consent vs general notification. In this study, we were interested in the latter route in both scenarios. Respondents’ preferences were measured based on their recommendation to the research ethics committee and the respondent’s personal preference. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of those supporting general notification in either outcome or the variables explaining consistency and inconsistency between their personal preference and their recommendation. Based on the results of the original survey, we aimed to have at least 200 inconsistent respondents; to this end, the sample size was increased accordingly in a second wave of the survey.

Results

One thousand six hundre and ten respondents were included; 1003 from the original survey and 607 new ones belonging to the second wave. Thirty-nine percent of respondents chose general notification as personal preference and/or recommendation. Respondents with lower education levels were more prone to accept general notification than those holding a university degree [OR (95% CI)], primary school [2.959 (2.069–4.232)], secondary school [2.899 (2.09–4.021)], or high school [1.620 (1.184–2.217)]. Also unemployed [1.372 (1.064–1.770)] and retired [1.445 (1.049–1.990)], but not students, showed preference for general notification in comparison with those employed. Individuals more than 24 years old and having received high school or university (or postgraduate) education were statistically significantly more consistent in their decisions.

Conclusions

Thirty-nine percent of respondents is open to not to be asked for their informed consent in low-risk pRCTs; of these, those being less educated and not having current job or being retired are significantly more open to general notification. The use of this alternative method to written consent for simultaneous conduct of pRCTs and care should be considered and educational programs settled up to, in the case of public acceptance, ensure its ethical appropriateness.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-017-2332-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patients' views of consent in clinical trials for acute myocardial infarction: impact of trial design

OBJECTIVE

Seeking prospective informed consent is difficult in clinical trials for emergent conditions such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prior data suggest that enrolment decisions of patients are often poorly informed in AMI trials but that patients prefer to be asked permission before enrolment. It is unknown whether this is true across trial designs or in comparative effectiveness research (CER) with approved treatments.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with 30 patients with AMI. Participants considered three scenarios: (1) a CER trial of approved antiplatelet drugs; (2) a placebo-controlled trial of a novel drug to reduce myocardial injury and (3) a CER trial of an intra-aortic balloon pump versus medication. Participants were asked their desired involvement in enrolment decisions and willingness to participate. Descriptive analysis was performed of Likert scale data, and qualitative descriptive analysis was performed of textual data.

RESULTS

Across scenarios, most participants (73%-80%) preferred to be asked permission prior to trial enrolment. Reasons for involvement included wanting to be the decision maker and a desire for transparency. Willingness to enrol was affected by trial type. Fewer participants stated they would likely enrol in a CER procedural trial than in a CER trial of approved medications (p=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that patients prefer prospective involvement in enrolment decisions to enrolment without consent across trial types. However, their desire to participate was affected by trial type. There is a need to develop and evaluate context-sensitive approaches to consent in AMI trials that account for both the acuity of the situation and trial characteristics.

Ethics of Informed Consent for Pragmatic Trials with New Interventions

OBJECTIVES

Pragmatic trials evaluate the comparative benefits, risks, and burdens of health care interventions in real-world conditions. Such studies are now recognized as valuable to the perimarketing stage of drug development and evaluation, with early pragmatic trials (EPTs) being explored as a means to generate real-world evidence at the time of regulatory market approval. In this article, we present an analysis of the ethical issues involved in informed consent for EPTs, in light of the generally recognized concern that traditional ethical rules governing randomized clinical trials, such as lengthy informed consent procedures, could threaten the "real world" nature of such trials. Specifically, we examine to what extent modifications (waivers or alterations) to regulatory consent for EPTs would be ethical.

METHODS

We first identify broadly accepted necessary conditions for modifications of informed consent (namely, the research involves no more than minimal risk of harm, the research is impracticable with regulatory consent, and the alternative to regulatory consent does not violate legitimate patient expectations) and then apply those criteria to the premarket and early postmarket contexts.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The analysis shows that neither waivers nor alterations of regulatory consent for premarket EPTs will be ethically permissible. For postmarket EPTs with newly approved interventions, waivers of consent will be ethically problematic, but some studies might be conducted in an ethical manner with alterations to regulatory consent.

Public preferences on written informed consent for low-risk pragmatic clinical trials in Spain

Aims

Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (pRCTs) collect data that have the potential to improve medical care significantly. However, these trials may be undermined by the requirement to obtain written informed consent, which can decrease accrual and increase selection bias. Recent data suggest that the majority of the US public endorses written consent for low‐risk pRCTs. The present study was designed to assess whether this view is specific to the US.

Methods

The study took the form of a cross‐sectional, probability‐based survey, with a 2 × 2 factorial design, assessing support for written informed consent vs. verbal consent or general notification for two low‐risk pRCTs in hypertension, one comparing two drugs with similar risk/benefit profiles and the other comparing the same drug being taken in the morning or at night. The primary outcome measures were respondents' personal preference and hypothetical recommendation to a research ethics committee regarding the use of written informed consent vs. the alternatives.

Results

A total of 2008 adults sampled from a probability‐based online panel responded to the web‐based survey conducted in May 2016 (response rate: 61%). Overall, 77% of respondents endorsed written consent. In both scenarios, the alternative of general notification received significantly more support (28.7–37.1%) than the alternative of verbal consent (12.7–14.0%) (P = 0.001). Forty per cent of respondents preferred and/or recommended general notification rather than written consent.

Conclusions

The results suggested that, rather than attempting to waive written consent, current pRCTs should focus on developing ways to implement written consent that provide sufficient information without undermining recruitment or increasing selection bias. The finding that around 40% of respondents endorsed general notification over written consent raises the possibility that, with educational efforts, the majority of Spaniards might accept general notification for low‐risk pRCTs.

Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting

OBJECTIVES

There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.

Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 4. Informed consent

The GetReal consortium of the Innovative Medicines Initiative aims to develop strategies to incorporate real-world evidence earlier into the drug life cycle to better inform health care decision makers on the comparative risks and benefits of new drugs. Pragmatic trials are currently explored as a means to generate such evidence in routine care settings. The traditional informed consent model for randomized clinical trials has been argued to pose substantial hurdles to the practicability of pragmatic trials: it would lead to recruitment difficulties, reduced generalizability of the results, and selection bias. The present article analyzes these challenges and discusses four proposed alternative informed consent models: integrated consent, targeted consent, broadcast consent, and a waiver of consent. These alternative consent models each aim at overcoming operational and methodological challenges, while still providing patients all the relevant information they need to make informed decisions. Each consent model, however, relies on different attitudes toward the principle of respect for persons and the related duty to inform patients as well as represents different views on whether the common good demands moral duties from patients. Such normative consequences of modifying consent requirements should be at least acknowledged and ought to be assessed in light of the validity of empirical claims.

A comparison of institutional review board professionals' and patients' views on consent for research on medical practices

BACKGROUND/AIMS

In the context of research on medical practices, which includes comparative effectiveness research and pragmatic clinical trials, empirical studies have begun to raise questions about the extent to which institutional review boards' interpretations and applications of research regulations align with patients' values. To better understand the similarities and differences between these stakeholder groups, we compare and contrast two surveys: one of institutional review board professionals and one of patients, which examine views on consent for research on medical practices.

METHODS

We conducted online surveys of two target populations between July 2014 and March 2015. We surveyed 601 human subjects research professionals out of 1500 randomly selected from the Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research membership list (40.1% response rate), limiting analysis to 537 respondents who reported having had institutional review board experience. We also surveyed 120 adult patients out of 225 approached at subspecialty clinics in Spokane, Washington (53.3% response rate). Our survey questions probed attitudes about consent in the context of research on medical practices using medical record review and randomization. The patient survey included three embedded animated videos to explain these concepts.

RESULTS

A majority of institutional review board professionals distinguished between consent preferences for medical record review and randomization, ranked clinicians as the least preferred person to obtain participant consent (54.6%), and viewed written or verbal permission as the minimum acceptable consent approach for research on medical practices using randomization (87.3%). In contrast, most patients had similar consent preferences for research on medical practices using randomization and medical record review, most preferred to have consent conversations with their doctors rather than with researchers for studies using randomization (72.6%) and medical record review (67.0%), and only a few preferred to see research involving randomization (16.8%) or medical record review (13.8%) not take place if obtaining written or verbal permission would make the research too difficult to conduct. Limitations of our post hoc analysis include differences in framing, structure, and language between the two surveys and possible response bias.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a need to identify appropriate ways to integrate patient preferences into prevailing regulatory interpretations as institutional review boards increasingly apply research regulations in the context of research on medical practices. Dialogue between institutional review boards and research participants will be an important part of this process and should inform future regulatory guidance.

Trends in Consent for Clinical Trials in Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Cardiovascular clinical trials depend on patient enrollment. Enrollment rates appear inadequate, but little is known about how frequently patients accept or decline offers of enrollment. The objective of this study was to assess trends and predictors of patient acceptance of offers to enroll in clinical trials for cardiovascular disease.

Methods and Results

We utilized an established database containing all randomized, controlled trials (n=1224) in cardiovascular disease published between 2001 and 2012 in the 8 highest‐impact general medical and cardiology journals. Studies were eligible if the number of patients approached and number of patients declining enrollment could be ascertained from published materials. All studies were screened for eligibility. Each eligible study was reviewed by 3 co‐authors. All discrepancies were resolved by the group. The main outcome was acceptance rate, defined as the number of patients enrolled divided by the number patients who were eligible and approached. Only 21.7% (n=266) of studies provided information sufficient to assess patient enrollment and refusals. The median acceptance rate across trials was 83.2%. Significant predictors of higher enrollment included: enrollment in the acute setting (P=0.031); geographical region (P<0.001 for group); and trial sponsorship (P=0.006 for group).

Conclusions

Rates of reporting data sufficient to calculate acceptance rates are low. This compromises the ability to identify drivers of low enrollment and assess trial generalizability. However, the high rates of acceptance observed suggest that factors other than patients’ decisions may be the primary drivers of declining rates of trial enrollment.

Pragmatic Clinical Trials in CKD: Opportunities and Challenges

Randomized controlled trials in CKD lag in number behind those of other chronic diseases, despite the high morbidity and mortality experienced by patients with kidney disease and the exorbitant costs of their health care. Observational studies of CKD frequently yield seemingly paradoxic associations of traditional risk factors with outcomes, making it difficult to extrapolate the results of trials conducted in people with normal kidney function to patients with CKD. However, many completed trials in CKD have been limited by intermediate outcomes of unclear clinical significance or narrow eligibility criteria that limit external validity, and implementation of proven therapies remains a challenge. It is therefore imperative that the nephrology community capitalize on recent interest in novel approaches to trial design, such as pragmatic clinical trials. These trials are meant to promote research within real world settings to yield clinically relevant results with greater applicability than those of traditional trials, while maintaining many advantages, such as controlling for potential sources of bias. We provide a description of pragmatic clinical trials and a discussion of advantages, disadvantages, and practical challenges inherent to this study design, in the context of specific scientific questions relevant to patients with CKD.

Adrift in the Gray Zone: IRB Perspectives on Research in the Learning Health System

BACKGROUND

Human subjects protection in healthcare contexts rests on the premise that a principled boundary distinguishes clinical research and clinical practice. However, growing use of evidence-based clinical practices by health systems makes it increasingly difficult to disentangle research from a wide range of clinical activities that are sometimes called "research on medical practice" (ROMP), including quality improvement activities and comparative effectiveness research. The recent growth of ROMP activities has created an ethical and regulatory gray zone with significant implications for the oversight of human subjects research.

METHODS

We conducted six semi-structured, open-ended focus group discussions with IRB members to understand their experiences and perspectives on ethical oversight of ROMP, including randomization of patients to standard treatments.

RESULTS

Our study revealed that IRB members are unclear or divided on the central questions at stake in the current policy debate over ethical oversight of ROMP: IRB members struggle to make a clear distinction between clinical research and medical practice improvement, lack consensus on when ROMP requires IRB review and oversight, and are uncertain about what constitutes incremental risk when patients are randomized to different treatments, any of which may be offered in usual care. They characterized the central challenge as a balancing act, between, on the one hand, making information fully transparent to patients and providing adequate oversight, and on the other hand, avoiding a chilling effect on the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based guidance that supports IRB members in providing adequate and effective oversight of ROMP without impeding the research process or harming the physician-patient relationship is necessary to realize the full benefits of the learning health system.

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.

External validity of a randomised controlled trial on the treatment of severe infections caused by MRSA

OBJECTIVES

To assess the external validity of a pragmatic, investigator-initiated RCT on treatment of severe infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), we compared patient characteristics and treatment effect estimates for patients included in the RCT versus those excluded.

PARTICIPANTS AND OUTCOMES

The RCT included hospitalised patients with documented or highly-probable invasive MRSA infections who were randomised to vancomycin versus trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX) treatment, between 2007 and 2014. A concomitant observational study prospectively included all consecutive patients, between 2008 and 2011, who were excluded from the RCT due to no consent, meningitis, left-sided endocarditis, severe neutropaenia, chronic renal dialysis or treatment with study medications for longer than 48 h. The primary outcomes were clinical failure at day 7 and 30-day mortality for both studies. We compared baseline and infection characteristics, outcome rates and treatment effect estimates for included versus excluded patients.

RESULTS

The RCT included 252 patients who were compared with 220 excluded patients who were observed. Inability to provide informed consent was the main reason for patient exclusion. Excluded patients' functional and cognitive performance was significantly poorer than that of included patients. Sepsis was more severe among excluded patients (higher rates of mechanical ventilation, indwelling catheters, septic shock and organ failure). Clinical failure occurred in 83/252 (32.9%) versus 175/220 (79.5%) and deaths in 32 (12.7%) versus 64 (29.1%) for included versus excluded patients, p<0.001 for both comparisons. Comparing vancomycin to TMP-SMX, in the RCT mortality, was non-significantly lower with vancomycin (OR 0.76, 95% CIs 0.36 to 1.62), while in the observational analysis of excluded patients, mortality was significantly higher with vancomycin (OR 2.63, 1.04 to 6.65), p=0.04 for the difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient characteristics, outcome event rates and treatment effects differed significantly in the setting of a RCT, despite its pragmatic design, compared to patients treated outside the trial settings.