Balancing key stakeholder priorities and ethical principles to design a trial comparing intervention or expectant management for early-onset selective fetal growth restriction in monochorionic twin pregnancy: FERN qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the FERN feasibility study, this qualitative research aimed to explore parents' and clinicians' views on the acceptability, feasibility and design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of active intervention versus expectant management in monochorionic (MC) diamniotic twin pregnancies with early-onset (prior to 24 weeks) selective fetal growth restriction (sFGR). Interventions could include laser treatment or selective termination which could lead to the death or serious disability of one or both twins. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with parents and clinicians. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and considered against the Principles of Biomedical Ethics. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We interviewed 19 UK parents experiencing (six mothers, two partners) or had recently experienced (eight mothers, three partners) early-onset sFGR in MC twin pregnancy and 14 specialist clinicians from the UK and Europe. RESULTS: Participants viewed the proposed RCT as 'ethically murky' because they believed that the management of sFGR in MC twin pregnancy should be individualised according to the type and severity of sFGR. Clinicians prioritised the gestational age, size, decrease in growth velocity, access to the placental vessels and acceptability of intervention for parents. Discussions and decision-making about selective termination appeared to cause long-term harm (maleficence). The most important outcome for parents and clinicians was 'live birth'. For clinicians, this was the live birth of at least one twin. For parents, this meant the live birth of both twins, even if this meant that their babies had neurodevelopmental impairment or disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: All three pregnancy management approaches for sFGR in MC twin pregnancy carry risks and benefits, and the ultimate goal for parents is to receive individualised care to achieve the best possible outcome for both twins. An RCT was not acceptable to parents or clinicians or seen as ethically appropriate. Alternative study designs should be considered to answer this important research question.

Towards an understanding of the ethics of electronic consent in clinical trials.

There are good practical reasons to use electronic consent (e-consent) in randomised trials, especially when conducting large-scale clinical trials to answer population-level health research questions. However, determining ethical reasons for e-consent is not so clear and depends on a proper understanding of what e-consent means when used in clinical trials and its ethical significance. Here we focus on four features of ethical significance which give rise to a range of ethical considerations relating to e-consent and merit further focused ethics research.

Types of Evidence Needed to Assess the Clinical Value of Diagnostic Imaging.

AbstractThe evidence underlying the use of advanced diagnostic imaging is based mainly on diagnostic accuracy studies and not on well-designed trials demonstrating improved patient outcomes. This has led to an expansion of low-value and potentially harmful patient care and raises ethical issues around the widespread implementation of tests with incompletely known benefits and harms. Randomized clinical trials are needed to support the safety and effectiveness of imaging tests and should be required for clearance of most new technologies. Large, diverse cohort studies are needed to quantify disease risk associated with many imaging findings, especially incidental findings, to enable evidence-based management. The responsibility to minimize the use of tests with unknown or low value requires engagement of clinicians, medical societies, and the public.

Ethical Problems of Observational Studies and Big Data Compared to Randomized Trials.

The temptation to use prospective observational studies (POS) instead of conducting difficult trials (RCTs) has always existed, but with the advent of powerful computers and large databases, it can become almost irresistible. We examine the potential consequences, were this to occur, by comparing two hypothetical studies of a new treatment: one RCT, and one POS. The POS inevitably submits more patients to inferior research methodology. In RCTs, patients are clearly informed of the research context, and 1:1 randomized allocation between experimental and validated treatment balances risks for each patient. In POS, for each patient, the risks of receiving inferior treatment are impossible to estimate. The research context and the uncertainty are down-played, and patients and clinicians are at risk of becoming passive research subjects in studies performed from an outsider's view, which potentially has extraneous objectives, and is conducted without their explicit, autonomous, and voluntary involvement and consent.

Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Developing Guidance for Donor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials: Initial Discussions From the Canada-United Kingdom 2022 Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Donor interventions, including medications, protocols, and medical devices administered to donors, can enhance transplantable organ quality and quantity and maximize transplantation success. However, there is paucity of high-quality evidence about their effectiveness, in part because of ethical, practical, and regulatory challenges, and lack of guidance about conduct of donor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: With the vision to develop authoritative guidance for conduct of donor intervention RCTs, we convened a workshop of Canadian-United Kingdom experts in organ donation and transplantation ethics, research, and policy to identify stakeholders, explore unique challenges, and develop research agenda to inform future work in this promising field. RESULTS: Donor intervention trials should consider perspectives of broad group of stakeholders including donors, transplant recipients, and their families; researchers in donation and transplantation; research ethics boards; and healthcare providers and administrators involved in donation and transplantation. Unique challenges include (1) research ethics (living versus deceased status of the donor at the time of intervention, intervention versus outcomes assessment in different individuals, harm-benefit analysis in donors versus recipients, consent, and impact on research bystanders); (2) outcome data standardization and linkage; and (3) regulatory and governance considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Donor intervention RCTs hold potential to benefit organ transplantation outcomes but face unique research ethics, outcome data, and regulatory challenges. By developing research agenda to address these challenges, our workshop was an important first step toward developing Canada-United Kingdom guidance for donor intervention RCTs that are poised to improve the quality and availability of transplantable organs.

Current trials in erythropoietic protoporphyria: are placebo controls ethical?

A new active substance called "dersimelagon" (MT-7117) is being tested as an alternative treatment option for Erythropoietic protoporphyria (EPP). At the moment, dersimelagon is being tested both in the US and in Europe in a phase III placebo-controlled RCT. However, given the availability of an already approved treatment option for EPP the use of a placebo arm is questionable from an ethics point of view. We analyze the issue and suggest that a noninferiority active-control trial without placebo is an ethically and scientifically more valid design to test the efficacy of dersimelagon as well as other EPP treatments.

Placebo Effects and Neuromodulation: Ethical Considerations and Recommendations.

Placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard of evaluating treatment efficacy in clinical research. Neuromodulation is emerging as an important treatment pathway for many neuropsychiatric conditions, and placebo control arms of these trials require careful design with unique considerations (e.g., sham devices that mimic active stimulation, blinding effectiveness). Inherent to placebo-controlled trials are ethical concerns, such as deception, and potential harm of not receiving the active treatment. In this article, we outline important ethical considerations of placebo-controlled trials across neuromodulation approaches and provide recommendations on how ethical principles can be adhered to going forward. We specifically address issues of autonomy and respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Within the context of this ethical framework, we also discuss factors influencing placebo effects in neuromodulation, the importance of adequate blinding, and alternative trial designs that could be considered.

Scientists scramble to set up monkeypox vaccine trials.

Logistical and ethical challenges are complicating the design of efficacy studies.

Ethical and epistemic issues in the design and conduct of pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trials.

Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) designs are increasingly employed in pragmatic research; they differ from traditional parallel cluster randomized trials in which an intervention is delivered to a subset of clusters, but not to all. In a SW-CRT, all clusters receive the intervention under investigation by the end of the study. This approach is thought to avoid ethical concerns about the denial of a desired intervention to participants in control groups. Such concerns have been cited in the literature as a primary motivation for choosing SW-CRT design, however SW-CRTs raise additional ethical concerns related to the delayed implementation of an intervention and consent. Yet, PCT investigators may choose SW-CRT designs simply because they are concerned that other study designs are infeasible. In this paper, we examine justifications for the use of SW-CRT study design, over other designs, by drawing on the experience of the National Institutes of Health's Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (NIH Collaboratory) with five pragmatic SW-CRTs. We found that decisions to use SW-CRT design were justified by practical and epistemic reasons rather than ethical ones. These include concerns about feasibility, the heterogeneity of cluster characteristics, and the desire for simultaneous clinical evaluation and implementation. In this paper we compare the potential benefits of SW-CRTs against the ethical and epistemic challenges brought forth by the design and suggest that the choice of SW-CRT design must balance epistemic, feasibility and ethical justifications. Moreover, given their complexity, such studies need rigorous and informed ethical oversight.

Using numerical modeling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample.

In order to propose a more precise definition and explore how to reduce ethical losses in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), we set out to identify trial participants who do not contribute to demonstrating that the treatment in the experimental arm is superior to that in the control arm. RCTs emerged mid-last century as the gold standard for assessing efficacy, becoming the cornerstone of the value of new therapies, yet their ethical grounds are a matter of debate. We introduce the concept of unnecessary participants in RCTs, the sum of non-informative participants and non-responders. The non-informative participants are considered not informative with respect to the efficacy measured in the trial in contrast to responders who carry all the information required to conclude on the treatment's efficacy. The non-responders present the event whether or not they are treated with the experimental treatment. The unnecessary participants carry the burden of having to participate in a clinical trial without benefiting from it, which might include experiencing side effects. Thus, these unnecessary participants carry the ethical loss that is inherent to the RCT methodology. On the contrary, responders to the experimental treatment bear its entire efficacy in the RCT. Starting from the proportions observed in a real placebo-controlled trial from the literature, we carried out simulations of RCTs progressively increasing the proportion of responders up to 100%. We show that the number of unnecessary participants decreases steadily until the RCT's ethical loss reaches a minimum. In parallel, the trial sample size decreases (presumably its cost as well), although the trial's statistical power increases as shown by the increase of the chi-square comparing the event rates between the two arms. Thus, we expect that increasing the proportion of responders in RCTs would contribute to making them more ethically acceptable, with less false negative outcomes.

A literature review of consent declines and consent withdrawals in randomized controlled trials conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: We evaluated the extent of consent declines and consent withdrawals during the COVID-19 pandemic as seen in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared it with non-COVID-19 RCTs published at the same time and two historical controls. Methods: PubMed/Medline only was searched using key-word "COVID-19" and "RCTs" separately, and filtered for COVID-19 RCTs and non-COVID-19 RCTs respectively, published during a nine-month period (1 Feb - 1 Nov 2020). Exclusions were study protocols, observational studies, interim analysis of RCT data and RCTs with missing data. Primary outcome measures were the proportion of consent declines and consent withdrawals as percentage of total participants screened and randomized respectively in COVID-19 RCTs. We compared consent declines and consent withdrawals of COVID-19 RCTs with non-COVID-19 RCTs and two earlier studies on the same topic that served as historical controls (non-pandemic setting). Results: The search yielded a total of 111 COVID-19 RCTs and 49 non-COVID-19 RCTs. Of these, 39 (35.13%) COVID-19 RCTs and 11 (22.45%) non-COVID-19 RCTs were finally analysed. A total of 770/17759 (4.3%) consent declines and 100/7607 (1.31%) consent withdrawals were seen in 39 COVID-19 RCTs. A significant difference was observed in consent declines between COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 RCTs [4.3% vs 11.9%, p < 0.0001] and between COVID-19 RCTs vs two historical controls [(4.3% vs 8.6%, p < 0.0001) and (4.3% vs 21.1%, p < 0.0001), respectively]. Conclusion: RCTs conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic appear to have significantly lower consent declines relative to non-COVID-19 RCTs during pandemic and RCTs conducted in non-pandemic settings.

On design-based empirical research and its interpretation and ethics in sustainability science.

Generating credible answers to key policy questions is crucial but difficult in most coupled human and natural systems because complex feedback mechanisms can confound identification of the causal mechanisms behind observed phenomena. By using explicit research designs intended to isolate the causal effects of specific interventions on community monitoring of common property resources, and on the well-being of those resources and their human neighbors, the papers in this Special Feature offer an important advance in empirical sustainability science research. Like earlier advances in my own field of development economics, however, they suffer some avoidable interpretive and ethical errors. This essay celebrates the powerful potential of design-based sustainability science studies, much of it admirably reflected in this set of papers, while simultaneously flagging opportunities to improve future work in this tradition.

A call for structured ethics appendices in social science papers.

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves.

Ethical issues in randomised trials in surgery.

Clinical trials are required in surgery to evaluate existing procedures and to assess the value of new techniques. Except for observational studies which are considered useful only to propose a hypothesis, all study designs require a comparator group. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) is recognised as the most robust study design. There are specific ethical difficulties in conducting RCTs.

Deferral of Consent: Recent Lessons From Canadian Acute Stroke Trials.

[Figure: see text].