Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research

Abstract

There are situations in which the requirement to obtain conventional written informed consent can impose significant or even insurmountable barriers to conducting pragmatic clinical research, including some comparative effectiveness studies and cluster-randomized trials. Although certain federal regulations governing research in the United States (45 CFR 46) define circumstances in which any of the required elements may be waived, the same standards apply regardless of whether any single element is to be waived or whether consent is to be waived in its entirety. Using the same threshold for a partial or complete waiver limits the options available to institutional review boards as they seek to optimize a consent process. In this article, we argue that new standards are necessary in order to enable important pragmatic clinical research while at the same time protecting patients’ rights and interests.

Keywords

Informed consent clinical trial cluster-randomized trial pragmatic clinical research practical clinical trial Common Rule institutional review board bioethics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations. 45 CFR 46 subpart A. Basic HHS policy for protection of human research subjects, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html (accessed 19 May 2015).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations. 45 CFR 46.116(d). Protection of human subjects. General requirements for informed consent, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.116 (accessed 18 May 2015).

Califf

Sugarman

. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 436–441.

Faden

Kass

Goodman

. An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep 2013; 43: S16–S27.

Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection (SACHRP). Guidance for applying the regulatory requirements for research consent forms: what should and should not be included? http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/commsec/attachmenta:approvedbysachrpjuly202011.pdf (accessed 19 May 2015).

Pletcher

Grady

. Informed consent in randomized quality improvement trials: a critical barrier for learning health systems. JAMA Int Med 2014; 174: 668–670.

Kass

Faden

Tunis

. Addressing low-risk comparative effectiveness research in proposed changes to US federal regulations governing research. JAMA 2012; 307: 1589–1590.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations. 45 CFR 46.117(b)(2)—documentation of informed consent, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.117 (accessed 6 February 2015).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations. 21 CFR 56.109(c)(1). IRB review of research, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=56.109 (accessed 20 June 2015).

10.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations. 21 CFR 50.23. Exception from general requirements, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=50.23 (accessed 18 June 2015).

11.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Code of federal regulations. 21 CFR 50.24. Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=50.24 (accessed 18 June 2015).

12.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. 45 CFR 46.102. Definitions. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.102 (accessed 19 May 2015).

13.

Silverman

Hull

Sugarman

. Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 235–241.

14.

Higgerson

Olsho

LEW

Christie

. Variability in IRBs regarding parental acceptance of passive consent. Pediatrics 2014; 134: e496–e503.

15.

Silberman

Kahn

. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q 2011; 89: 599–627.

16.

Lantos

Wendler

Septimus

. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 485–493.

17.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR 46.116. Criteria for IRB approval for research, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.116 (accessed 19 May 2015).

18.

Wendler

Belsky

Thompson

. Quantifying the federal minimal risk standard: implications for pediatric research without a prospect of direct benefit. JAMA 2005; 294: 826–832.

19.

King

NMP

. There’s a lot we don’t know (and we ought to say so). Am J Bioethics 2013; 13: 20–21.

20.

Bromwich

. Understanding, interests and informed consent: a reply to Sreenivasan. J Med Ethics 2015; 41: 327–331.

21.

Bromwich

Rid

. Can informed consent to research be adapted to risk? J Med Ethics 2015; 41: 521–528.

22.

Miller

Wertheimer

. The fair transaction model of informed consent: an alternative to autonomous authorization. Kennedy Inst Ethic J 2011; 21: 201–218.

23.

Sreenivasan

. Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet 2003; 362: 2016–2018.

24.

Faden

Beauchamp

Kass

. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. New Engl J Med 2014; 370: 766–768.

25.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office of Human Research Protections. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP). SACHRP letter to HHS secretary, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/sachrpletter013108.html (2008, accessed 24 January 2015).

26.

Rich

Auten

Gantz

. Antenatal consent in the SUPPORT trial: challenges, costs, and representative enrollment. Pediatrics 2010; 126: e215–e221.

27.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration project ethics and regulatory documentation. Time to reduce mortality in end-stage renal disease (TiME), https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/TiME_Dember_UH3%20follow-up%20%282%29.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

28.

Kim

SYH

Miller

. Informed consent for pragmatic trials—the integrated consent model. New Engl J Med 2014; 370: 769–772.

29.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office for Human Research Protections. Obtaining and documenting informed consent of subjects who do not speak English, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ic-non-e.html (1995, accessed 18 June 2015).

30.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration project ethics and regulatory documentation. Strategies and opportunities to stop colorectal cancer (STOP CRC), https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/STOP-CRC_Coronado_UH3%20follow-up.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

31.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration project ethics and regulatory documentation. Lumbar image reporting with epidemiology (LIRE), https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/LIRE_Jarvik_UH3%20follow-up.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

32.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration project ethics and regulatory documentation. Active bathing to eliminate infections (ABATE), https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/ABATE_Huang_UH3%20follow-up.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

33.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration project ethics and regulatory documentation. Collaborative care for chronic pain in primary care/pain program for active coping and training (PPACT), https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/PPACT_DeBar_UH3%20follow-up.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

34.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Use of electronic informed consent in clinical investigations: questions and answers, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM436811.pdf (2015, accessed 19 May 2015).

35.

Bickmore

Pfeifer

Paasche-Orlow

. Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns 2009; 75: 315–320.

36.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Policy and guidance—frequently asked questions. Can an electronic signature be used to document consent or parental permission? http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/faq/informed-consent/can-electronic-signature-be-used-to-document-consent.html (accessed 19 May 2015).

37.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory. Demonstration project ethics and regulatory documentation. Blood pressure medication timing study (BPMedtime), https://www.nihcollaboratory.org/Products/BPMedTime%20_Rosenthal_UH3%20follow-up.pdf (accessed 18 June 2015).

38.

Houston

Ford

. A tailored Internet-delivered intervention for smoking cessation designed to encourage social support and treatment seeking: usability testing and user tracing. Inform Health Soc Ca 2008; 33: 5–19.

39.

Houston

Sadasivam

Ford

. The QUIT-PRIMO provider-patient Internet-delivered smoking cessation referral intervention: a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial: study protocol. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 87.

40.

Wilfond

. Quality improvement ethics: lessons from the SUPPORT study. Am J Bioethics 2013; 13: 14–19.

41.

Wilfond

Magnus

Antommaria

. The OHRP and SUPPORT. New Engl J Med 2013; 163: 587–592.

42.

Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR 46.117(c)(2). Documentation of informed consent, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.117 (accessed 20 June 2015).