Consultations about randomised controlled trials are shorter and less in-depth for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients compared to socioeconomically advantaged patients: qualitative analysis across three trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are underserved in randomised controlled trials, yet they experience a much greater burden of disease compared with patients from socioeconomically advantaged areas. It is crucial to make trials more inclusive to ensure that treatments and interventions are safe and effective in real-world contexts. Improving how information about trials is verbally communicated is an unexplored strategy to make trials more inclusive. This study examined how trials are communicated verbally, comparing consultations involving patients from the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas. METHODS: Secondary qualitative analysis of 55 trial consultation transcripts from 41 patients, sampled from 3 qualitative studies embedded in their respective UK multi-site, cancer-related randomised controlled trials. Patients living in the most and least socioeconomically disadvantaged areas, defined using English Indices of Multiple Deprivation decile scores, were purposively sampled. Analysis was largely thematic and drew on the constant comparison method. RESULTS: Recruiters communicated clinical uncertainty in a similar way for patients living in different socioeconomic areas. Consultations with disadvantaged patients were, on average, half the duration of those with advantaged patients, and tended to involve recruiters providing less in-depth explanations of trial concepts, used phrasing that softened trial arm risks, and described trial processes (e.g. randomisation) using informal or metaphorical phrasing. Disadvantaged and advantaged patients differed in the concerns they expressed; disadvantaged patients voiced fewer concerns and asked fewer questions but were also less likely to be invited to do so by recruiters. CONCLUSION: Interactions about trials unfolded in different ways between patients living in different socioeconomic areas, likely due to both patient- and recruiter-related factors. We present considerations for recruiters when discussing trials with patients from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, aimed at enhancing trial communication. Future research should examine disadvantaged patients' and recruiters' experiences of verbal trial communication to inform guidance that addresses the needs and preferences of underserved groups.

Retention strategies are routinely communicated to potential trial participants but often differ from what was planned in the trial protocol: an analysis of adult participant information leaflets and their corresponding protocols.

BACKGROUND: Retaining participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is challenging and trial teams are often required to use strategies to ensure retention or improve it. Other than monetary incentives, there is no requirement to disclose the use of retention strategies to the participant. Additionally, not all retention strategies are developed at the planning stage, i.e. post-funding during protocol development, but some protocols include strategies for participant retention as retention is considered and planned for early in the trial planning stage. It is yet unknown if these plans are communicated in the corresponding participant information leaflets (PILs). The purpose of our study was to determine if PILs communicate plans to promote participant retention and, if so, are these outlined in the corresponding trial protocol. METHODS: Ninety-two adult PILs and their 90 corresponding protocols from Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) in the UK were analysed. Directed (deductive) content analysis was used to analyse the participant retention text from the PILs. Data were presented using a narrative summary and frequencies where appropriate. RESULTS: Plans to promote participant retention were communicated in 81.5% (n = 75/92) of PILs. Fifty-seven percent (n = 43/75) of PILs communicated plans to use "combined strategies" to promote participant retention. The most common individual retention strategy was telling the participants that data collection for the trial would be scheduled during routine care visits (16%; n = 12/75 PILs). The importance of retention and the impact that missing or deleted data (deleting data collected prior to withdrawal) has on the ability to answer the research question were explained in 6.5% (n = 6/92) and 5.4% (n = 5/92) of PILs respectively. Out of the 59 PILs and 58 matching protocols that both communicated plans to use strategies to promote participant retention, 18.6% (n = 11/59) communicated the same information, the remaining 81.4% (n = 48/59) of PILs either only partially communicated (45.8%; n = 27/59) the same information or did not communicate the same information (35.6%; n = 21/59) as the protocol with regard to the retention strategy(ies). CONCLUSION: Retention strategies are frequently communicated to potential trial participants in PILs; however, the information provided often differs from the content in the corresponding protocol. Participant retention considerations are best done at the planning stage of the trial and we encourage trial teams to be consistent in the communication of these strategies in both the protocol and PIL.

When describing harms and benefits to potential trial participants, participant information leaflets are inadequate.

BACKGROUND: Providing informed consent for trials requires providing trial participants with comprehensive information about the trial, including information about potential risks and benefits. It is required by the ethical principle of respecting patient autonomy. Our study examines the variation in the way information about potential trial benefits and harms is shared in participant information leaflets (PILs). METHODS: A total of 214 PILs and informed consent forms from clinical trials units (CTUs) and Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) in Ireland and the UK were assessed by two authors independently, to check the extent to which they adhered to seven recently developed principles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third. RESULTS: Usage of the seven principles varied widely between PILs regardless of the intended recipient or trial type. None of the PILs used more than four principles, and some (4%) used none. Twenty-seven per cent of PILs presented information about all known potential harms, whereas 45% presented information on all known potential benefits. Some PILs did not provide any potential harms or potential benefits (8%). There was variation in the information contained in adult and children PILs and across disease areas. CONCLUSION: Significant variation exists in how potential trial benefits and harms are described to potential trial participants in PILs in our sample. Usage of the seven principles of good practice will promote consistency, ensure informed ethical decision-making and invoke trust and transparency. In the long term, a standardised PIL template is needed.

Constitutional and legal status of the subject during biomedical research.

OBJECTIVE: Aim: To find out the peculiarities of constitutional and legal status of the subject during biomedical research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: A synergistic approach helps predict possible fluctuations and vectors of development, taking into account various social and technical processes of influence on the status of the subject; comprehensive - involves the analysis of the research subject within the framework of a combination of different scientific schools, concepts and methods and provides opportunities for the development of unified standards, benchmarks, principles and general norms of legal regulation. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The constitutional-legal status of the subject is the position of the subject (patient, object of research) established and established by the norms of constitutional law, which distinguishes him as a special subject of legal relations in the process of conducting biomedical research and consists of a set of rights and obligations and specifics of the legal liability of its participants.

Exploring the consent process among pregnant and breastfeeding women taking part in a maternal vaccine clinical trial in Kampala, Uganda: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of pregnant women in vaccine clinical trials presents unique challenges for the informed consent process. We explored the expectations and experiences of the pregnant women, spouses/partners, health workers and stakeholders of the consent process during a Group B Streptococcus maternal vaccine trial. METHODS: We interviewed 56 participants including pregnant women taking part in the trial, women not in the trial, health workers handling the trial procedures, spouses, and community stakeholders. We conducted 13 in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 23 women in the trial, in-depth interviews with 5 spouses, and 5 women not in the trial, key informant interviews with 5 health workers and 5 other stakeholders were undertaken. RESULTS: Decision-making by a pregnant woman to join a trial was done in consultation with spouse, parents, siblings, or trusted health workers. Written study information was appreciated by all but they suggested the use of audio and visual presentation to enhance understanding. Women stressed the need to ensure that their male partners received study information before their pregnant partners joined a clinical trial. Confidentiality in research was emphasised differently by individual participants; while some emphasised it for self, others were keen to protect their family members from being exposed, for allowing them to be involved in research. However, others wanted their community participation to be acknowledged. CONCLUSION: We found that pregnant women make decisions to join a clinical trial after consulting with close family. Our findings suggest the need for an information strategy which informs not only the pregnant woman, but also her family about the research she is invited to engage in.

Determining capacity of people with dementia to take part in research: an electronic survey study of researcher confidence, competence and training needs.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are required to determine whether a person has capacity to consent to a research study before they are able to participate. The Mental Capacity Act and accompanying Code of Practice for England and Wales provide some guidance on this process, but researchers have identified that it can be difficult to determine capacity to consent when a person has complex cognitive or communication needs. This study aimed to understand the experiences and opinions of researchers who recruit people with dementia to research projects, to inform the future development of training resources. METHODS: A mixed method, cross-sectional, electronic survey was circulated via social media and research networks in England and Wales. The survey remained open for ten weeks and included open and closed questions exploring respondents' confidence in determining capacity in the context of recruiting people with dementia to consent, their views on training and support they have experienced and their suggestions for future training and support needs. RESULTS: 60 respondents completed the survey from across England and Wales. Although 75% of respondents had experience of determining capacity to consent with people with dementia to research, only 13% rated themselves as feeling 'very confident' in this. Qualitative content analysis of open responses led to the generation of six themes, explaining researchers' confidence, competence and future training needs in this area: (1) Researcher uncertainties, (2) Lack of time, (3) Balancing information complexity with accessibility, (4) Gatekeepers, (5) Existing enablers and (6) Envisioning future training. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers would benefit from specific training in undertaking conversations around consent with people with dementia. People with dementia may have fluctuating capacity, and despite support from caregivers, researchers have little practical guidance on methods of determining a person's ability to understand or appreciate the information they have provided during the consent process. Given the development of large complex trials within dementia research, there is an urgency to develop specific and practical guidance and training for researchers working with people with dementia and their families.

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.

Rhetoric of research: a call for renaming the clinical research partnership.

OBJECTIVE: Research cannot advance without the voluntary participation of human participants. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS: Full participation of research participants is often restrained by the traditional research framework, which relegates them to a predefined participant role and allows them only quasi-scripted opportunities to contribute to research processes and outcomes. Terms commonly used to refer to research participants do not reflect their significant role or send a clear message about their value. The authors propose a shift from 'patient participant' to 'participant partner.' Recognition of the true partnership between the participant and the research team, from the consent process to the trial's end, will encourage and enable fuller participation. CONCLUSION: Changing the rhetoric of research in the labelling of research participants will require dialogue. 'Respect for persons' demands it, and the research process will be better for it.

Shining a spotlight on the inclusion of disabled participants in clinical trials: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to include a wide range of the population in clinical trials for the outcome to be applicable in real-world settings. Existing literature indicates that under-served groups, including disabled people, have been excluded from participating in clinical trials without justification. Exclusion from clinical trials exacerbates disparities in healthcare and diminishes the benefits for excluded populations. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate potential obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating in clinical trials in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: The study was carried out through an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit devised and implemented an online questionnaire-based survey (with open/closed-ended questions) and an online focus group discussion. The target population were disabled people, family members/carers of disabled people and staff involved in clinical trials, whereupon the sample was recruited by convenience sampling methods via posters and emails through various networks. The Qualtrics XM survey system was used as the host platform for the online survey, and Microsoft Teams was used for an online focus group discussion. The focus group discussion was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the themes identified from the survey responses. We analysed responses to the survey via descriptive analysis and used thematic analysis to synthesise the free-text answers from the survey and focus group discussion. RESULTS: We received 45 responses to the survey questionnaire and 5 disabled people took part in a focus group discussion. Our findings highlighted the differences between the perspectives of researchers and those "being researched" and different types of barriers experienced by disabled people: opportunity barriers (inadequate recruitment strategy and ambiguous eligibility criteria), awareness barriers (perception of disability) and acceptance/refusal barriers (available support and adjustment, and sharing of trial results). CONCLUSION: Our findings support perspectives drawn from the Ford Framework regarding the need to consider all barriers, not just up to the point of enrolment into trials but also beyond the point of inclusion in clinical trials. We support calls for the introduction of legislation on including disabled people in clinical trials, implementation of industry/community-wide participatory approaches and the development of guidelines, a combined public-private approach.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Protecting Privacy of Pregnant and LGBTQ+ Research Participants.

This Viewpoint summarizes existing federal regulations aimed at protecting research data, describes the challenges of enforcing these regulations, and discusses how evolving privacy technologies could be used to reduce health disparities and advance health equity among pregnant and LGBTQ+ research participants.

Exercise oncology clinical trials during treatments: a commentary to address the safety concerns of human subjects regulatory reviewers and committees.

Exercise oncology clinical trials contribute to the advancement of our scientific knowledge and to the safety and care of patients diagnosed with cancer. Nevertheless, regulatory reviewers and committees may not be familiar with the well-documented long-term health benefits and safety of the regular practice of physical activity. Moreover, they may not see how the benefits outweigh the risks in the context where patients diagnosed with cancer are typically seen as vulnerable. Therefore, we would like to provide a purpose-built overview of exercise oncology clinical trials for members involved in institutional review committees, including the Scientific Review Committee (SRC), the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to facilitate a greater understanding of the safety and benefits of physical activity during cancer treatments. Communication is key to improve the success of exercise oncology clinical trials, which are vital for patients diagnosed with cancer.

Why restrict medical effective altruism?

In a challenge trial, research subjects are purposefully exposed to some pathogen in a controlled setting, in order to test the efficacy of a vaccine or other experimental treatment. This is an example of medical effective altruism (MEA), where individuals volunteer to risk harms for the public good. Many bioethicists rejected challenge trials in the context of Covid-19 vaccine research on ethical grounds. After considering various grounds of this objection, I conclude that the crucial question is how much harm research subjects can permissibly risk. But we lack a satisfying way of making this judgment that does not appeal simply to the intuitions of doctors or bioethicists. I consider one recent and structurally plausible approach to critically evaluating the harm question. Alex London defends a social consistency test for research risks: we should compare the risks undertaken by research subjects to relevantly similar risks which are accepted in other spheres of society. I argue there is no good reason not to consider volunteer military service as a relevant social comparison. This implies there is essentially no cap on acceptable risks on the social consistency rationale. In short, if soldiers can be heroes, why can't research volunteers?

Xenograft recipients and the right to withdraw from a clinical trial.

Preclinical xenotransplantation research using genetically engineered pigs has begun to show some promising results and could one day offer a scalable means of addressing organ shortage. While it is a fundamental tenet of ethical human subject research that participants have a right to withdraw from research once enrolled, several scholars have argued that the right to withdraw from xenotransplant research should be suspended because of the public health risks posed by xenozoonotic transmission. Here, we present a comprehensive critical evaluation of the claim that xenotransplant recipients should be required to waive their right to withdraw from lifelong biosurveillance. We conclude that if xenotransplantation requires participants to waive their right to withdraw, then clinical trials may not be justifiable, given the ethical and legal obstacles involved with doing so. Consequently, if clinical trials are permitted with a right to withdraw, then they may pose a significant public health risk.

Evaluating the Decisional Capacity for Informed Consent of Transition age Children to Adolescents in Human Subject Research.

This study aimed to evaluate children's capacity for informed consent. We translated into Azerbaijani language and adapted the University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent (UBACC). We enrolled four healthy groups: children aged 11, 12, and 13 years and adults. We provided the participants with information about the simulated research proposal and a related informed consent form. Subsequently, they were administered the UBACC. The mean total UBACC scores were 11.9 (11-year-olds), 12.7 (12-year-olds), 14.0 (13-year-olds), and 16.0 (adults). The gradual increase in the mean UBACC scores with age suggests the continuous maturation of the capacity to comprehend the informed consent process. There was no specific cutoff age to decide whether the children were competent enough to provide informed consent.

Safety and efficacy of REGENDIL™ infused hair growth promoting product in adult human subject having hair fall complaints (alopecia).

BACKGROUND: Hair serum is recommended therapy for the management of hair fall problems. People of all ages suffer from hair fall. AIM: To evaluate safety and efficacy of hair growth promoting product in healthy adult subjects with hair fall complaints (Alopecia). METHODS: In this safety and efficacy clinical study, 32 healthy individuals (aged 18-45 years) experiencing hair loss were enrolled. Participants applied 0.5 mL of the product to the affected scalp area daily for 60 days. The study evaluated various factors, including hair growth rate, thickness, density, scalp condition using CASLite-Nova, anagen-to-telogen ratio, hair fall reduction, overall hair and scalp appearance, hair strength, and participants' subjective perceptions of the product. RESULTS: Highly statistically significant improvement was observed in hair growth rate, thickness, and density at Day 30 and Day 60. Hair growth rate increased (p-value <0.01) by 10.52% in 30 days and 31.62% in 60 days after test product application. Average hair growth increased by 424.21 µm/day and 487.31 µm/day at Day 30 and 60 respectively. The hair growth improved by up to 1.5 times after 60 days of usage in healthy subjects with hair fall complaints. No adverse events or product-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Hair serum containing REGENDIL™ (Redensyl, AnaGain, Procapil, Capilia longa), and 5 kDa hyaluronic acid was efficacious and well tolerable in reducing hair fall (Alopecia). Hair serum significantly improved hair growth, hair density, hair thickness, and hair strength within 60 days of usage, thereby demonstrating it worth as a beneficial inclusion as a daily haircare product.

Standardized Extract of Valeriana officinalis Improves Overall Sleep Quality in Human Subjects with Sleep Complaints: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Clinical Study.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep deficit or poor sleep leads to ill-health, whereas sleep deprivation for longer periods of time increases the risk of developing adverse conditions associated with poor quality of life, and high socioeconomic impact. The treatments for sleep disturbances include melatonin and over-the-counter medicines like diphenhydramine and doxylamine, all of which have negative side effects. Valerian (Valeriana officinalis L.) is a traditional herb and the most preferred alternate sleep solution to manage sleep complaints. METHODS: Eighty adult subjects with sleep complaints were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive either V. officinalis extract (VE) or placebo for 8 weeks in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel, clinical study. Primary efficacy endpoints included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and sleep latency using wrist actigraphy (WA), as well as a number of secondary endpoints, including sleep parameters such as actual sleep time and sleep efficiency using WA, the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for the feeling of waking up refreshed, and a tertiary endpoint of sleep parameters using polysomnography (PSG) in a subset of 20 subjects per group. Safety parameters included physical examination, vital sign measurements, hematology, and clinical chemistry tests. Adverse events and serious adverse events were monitored throughout the study period. RESULTS: Seventy-two subjects (35 and 37 subjects in the placebo and VE groups, respectively) completed the study and were included in the efficacy assessments. On Days 14, 28, and 56, the PSQI Total Score in the VE group decreased significantly (p < 0.05) compared to the placebo group. Further, the VE group showed significant improvements (p < 0.05) in sleep latency and actual sleep time on Days 3, 14, 28, and 56, and sleep efficiency on Days 14, 28, and 56, as evaluated by WA. There was a decrease (p < 0.05) in anxiety (BAI) on Days 14, 28, and 56, daytime drowsiness (ESS) on Days 28 and 56, and an increased feeling of waking up refreshed (VAS) on Days 28 and 56 compared to placebo. PSG results carried out in subset of subjects revealed significant improvements (p < 0.05) in total sleep time, sleep latency, and sleep efficiency on Day 56 in the VE group compared to the placebo group. No safety concerns were observed throughout the study. CONCLUSION: VE supplementation significantly improved various subjective and objective parameters of sleep in young subjects with mild insomnia symptoms, such as overall sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep efficiency, and total sleep time. We also observed decreased anxiety and daytime sleepiness, and improved feeling of being refreshed after waking up with VE supplementation. VE was found to be safe and well tolerated throughout the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2022/05/042818.