Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points. METHODS: The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes. RESULTS: Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

Ethics of gene and cell therapy development for neurologic disorders.

In this chapter, I provide a condensed overview of nine recurring policy and ethical challenges encountered with the development of gene and cell therapies for neurologic disease. These include the question of when to initiate first-in-human trials, the ethics and policy of expanded/special access, the conduct of individualized therapy trials, subject selection in trials, designing trials for negative results, unintended effects of interventions on personal identity, comparator choice in randomized trials, consent and therapeutic misestimation, and cost and access for effective therapies. Broadly speaking, I argue that early in their development, the justification of risk in trials of gene and cell therapies derives from the social and scientific value of a trial and not the therapeutic value for trial participation. This generates strong imperatives to justify, design, and report trials appropriately and select patient populations that incur the least burden and opportunity cost for trial participation. Late in intervention development, policy makers must contend with the fact that proven effective interventions will almost certainly amplify strains in healthcare budgets as well as the ethical justifications standing behind reimbursement decisions.

Researchers experience and views on participants' comprehension of informed consent in clinical trials in Malawi: a descriptive qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Informed consent is the cornerstone of research ethics. One of its goals is that participants enter research with an understanding of what their participation entails. This paper is a study on how researchers understand the informed consent process. Previous studies have looked at this topic from a research participant perspective. However, few studies focus on the perspectives of the researchers. Therefore, this is an important paper that highlights an important issue (informed consent) from the perspective of those who administer it during research. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 18 researchers from 3 different research centers in Malawi working in clinical trials. The data was analyzed using open code utilizing the thematic approach to qualitative data. RESULTS: This study identified that researchers have good awareness of the role of informed consent, how important it is for participants to understand the given information and ways to adjust their practice accordingly when obtaining it in order to enhance participant understanding. According to the research staff, most participants do not really understand all the concepts of the study at the initial visit, they gain more understanding during subsequent visits. It was emphasized that the best method of facilitating informed consent is reading the informed consent to the participant, thus a face-to-face conversation. Long and complex informed consent was identified as one of the barriers to participant understanding of the informed consent. Shortening the informed consent form and having additional conversation with the participants was suggested as one way of improving participant comprehension. CONCLUSION: Most of the participants understand much of the information during subsequent visits as you keep reminding them since informed consent is an ongoing process. Existing relationship or trust between a participant and a researcher, may influence participants' decision and misguide their understanding on the purpose of the study. Adequate time should be allocated to informed consent discussions. Shortening the informed consent forms and having additional conversations with potential participants may help improve their understanding.

Exposure to Noise or Music in Clinical Trials: A Scoping Review on Ethical and Methodological Considerations.

BACKGROUND: Use of noise or music in experimental human studies requires balancing the need to avoid subjecting participants to potentially harmful noise levels while still reaching levels that will produce a measurable change in the primary outcome. Several methodological and ethical aspects must be considered. This study aims to summarize ethical and methodological aspects, and reported outcomes, of previously published experimental paradigms using loud noise/music. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Four databases (Medline, Central, Web of Science, and Scopus) and two trials registries (Clinicaltrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials) were searched. Extracted items had the details of author and year of publication, study design and purpose, population, setting timeline and material, selected battery test, and effect of noise/music on participants' hearing. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included. Exposure safety considerations were reported in five studies. Eleven studies assessing hearing loss used white or narrow-band noise [(NBN (0.5-4 kHz), up to 115 dBA, duration range: 3'-24 hours)], and 10 used pop music (up to 106 dBA, duration range: 10'-4 hours). Experimental setting varied significantly. Temporary thresholds shift (TTS) and reduction in distortion product otoacoustic emissions were found at 1-8 kHz, with maximum average TTS∼21.5 dB at 4 kHz after NBN and ∼11.5 dB at 6 kHz after music exposure. All participants recovered their hearing, except for one participant in one study. In the 13 non-hearing loss studies, no hearing testing was performed after exposure, but loud noise was associated with temporary stress, bradygastria, and cardiovascular changes. Noise-induced subjective stress may be higher for participants with tinnitus. Loud noise (100 dBA, 10') increased diastolic and mean blood pressure only in participants with hypertension. CONCLUSION: Experimental exposure paradigms can produce temporary changes to hearing without measurable long-term health consequences. Methodological and ethical aspects identified in this review should be considered for the development of future paradigms.

The First- and Second-Order Ethical Reasons Approach: The Case of Human Challenge Trials.

At the height of the Covid pandemic, there was much discussion in the literature about using human challenge trials (HCTs) to expedite the development of effective Covid-19 vaccines. Historically, reluctance to fully accept HCTs has largely been due to potential conflicts with the principle of nonmaleficence in bioethics. Only a few commentators have explored this topic in depth. In this paper, we claim that to address ethical concerns regarding HCTs, two types of ethical reasons should be identified and investigated: first-order reasons that can be given to claim that a practice in itself is in direct conflict with the principles of bioethics; and second-order reasons that take into consideration how a practice is carried out and its consequences. We argue that understanding these ethical reasons is crucial for guiding the implementation of HCTs. We investigate a first-order reason against HCTs when the practice is in conflict with the principle of nonmaleficence, and when it is not. Following this argument and assuming there is no first-order reason based on nonmaleficence that hinders using HCTs, we argue there may be second-order reasons to guide implementation of this practice, such as difficulty in obtaining informed consent; protection of the weaker party; and trust in the scientific enterprise.

Ethical Considerations in the Design and Conduct of Clinical Trials of Artificial Intelligence.

Importance: Safe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into clinical settings often requires randomized clinical trials (RCT) to compare AI efficacy with conventional care. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening is at the forefront of clinical AI applications, marked by the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) De Novo authorization for an autonomous AI for such use. Objective: To determine the generalizability of the 7 ethical research principles for clinical trials endorsed by the National Institute of Health (NIH), and identify ethical concerns unique to clinical trials of AI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study included semistructured interviews conducted with 11 investigators engaged in the design and implementation of clinical trials of AI for DR screening from November 11, 2022, to February 20, 2023. The study was a collaboration with the ACCESS (AI for Children's Diabetic Eye Exams) trial, the first clinical trial of autonomous AI in pediatrics. Participant recruitment initially utilized purposeful sampling, and later expanded with snowball sampling. Study methodology for analysis combined a deductive approach to explore investigators' perspectives of the 7 ethical principles for clinical research endorsed by the NIH and an inductive approach to uncover the broader ethical considerations implementing clinical trials of AI within care delivery. Results: A total of 11 participants (mean [SD] age, 47.5 [12.0] years; 7 male [64%], 4 female [36%]; 3 Asian [27%], 8 White [73%]) were included, with diverse expertise in ethics, ophthalmology, translational medicine, biostatistics, and AI development. Key themes revealed several ethical challenges unique to clinical trials of AI. These themes included difficulties in measuring social value, establishing scientific validity, ensuring fair participant selection, evaluating risk-benefit ratios across various patient subgroups, and addressing the complexities inherent in the data use terms of informed consent. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study identified practical ethical challenges that investigators need to consider and negotiate when conducting AI clinical trials, exemplified by the DR screening use-case. These considerations call for further guidance on where to focus empirical and normative ethical efforts to best support conduct clinical trials of AI and minimize unintended harm to trial participants.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) trials: A cross-sectional analysis of clinical trials registries.

Every clinical trial must be registered in a publicly accessible trial registry before enrollment of the first participant. Prospectively registering clinical trials before enrolling participants helps to prevent unethical research misconduct from occurring, duplication of research and increases transparency in research. The aim of this study was to provide cross-sectional survey analysis of planned, ongoing and completed human papillomavirus (HPV) clinical trials conducted worldwide. We searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTR) for registered HPV trials on 5 March 2023. Two authors independently extracted data including name of the clinical trial registry, location of the trial, recruitment status of the trial, gender of participants, phase of the trial, and type of trial sponsor. We used Microsoft Excel to perform descriptive analysis. The search yielded 1632 trials registered between 1999 and 2023. Most of the trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and were registered retrospectively. We also found that most trials were conducted in North America, in recruiting stage, and indicated "not applicable" under the phase of the trial field. Finally, most trials were sponsored by hospitals. Our study found that there are many HPV clinical trials registered in different clinical trial primary registries around the world. However, many of the trials were registered retrospectively instead of the required prospectively and some had missing fields. Therefore, there is a need for registries to promote prospective trial registration and completion of all fields during the registration process.

Ethical preparedness of data monitoring committees (DMCs) to oversee international clinical trials: a qualitative descriptive study.

INTRODUCTION: A data monitoring committee (DMC) is an independent group of experts who assess the ongoing scientific and ethical integrity of a study through periodic analyses of study data. The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the structure, membership and deliberations of DMCs enable them to address ethical issues. METHODS: We conducted qualitative individual interviews (n=22) with DMC members from countries across Africa, the Americas, South Asia and the UK. We selected interview respondents through purposive sampling, managed data using NVivo (Release V.1.7) and analysed data thematically. RESULTS: All respondents were highly experienced professionals; many (18/22) had received training in medicine and/or statistics. One respondent had academic qualifications in ethics, and four indicated that they served on DMCs as ethicists. While respondents generally felt DMCs should be required for studies that were high-risk or enrolled vulnerable populations, some were concerned about the overuse of DMCs. There were divergent views on the necessity of geographical and disciplinary representation in DMC membership, including about whether ethicists were helpful. Many respondents described a DMC member recruitment process that they felt was somewhat exclusive. While one respondent received DMC-specific training, most described learning on the job. Respondents generally agreed that study protocols and DMC charters were key guiding documents for addressing ethical issues and described DMC deliberations that often, but not always, involved consensus-building. CONCLUSION: This study is one of the first to consider the ethical implications of DMC structure, membership and deliberations. The potential overuse of DMCs, DMC member recruitment processes that seem somewhat insular, limited training for DMC members, and divergent approaches to deliberation may limit the capacity of DMCs for addressing ethical issues. Further research on DMC structure and processes could help enhance the ethical preparedness of DMCs.

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.

Principal Features of Industry-Funded Trials that Posted Informed Consent Forms on ClinicalTrials.gov: a Cross-Sectional Analysis.

We aim to characterize industry-funded trials that have posted the informed consent forms (ICFs), and to assess whether the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' could impact several relevant variables. A cross-sectional study was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov on all industry-funded trials registered on or before 25 February 2023. We registered types of intervention, current recruitment status, design, enrollment, and countries involved. For trials with special interest to potential participants and investigators and/or clinicians an analysis of the role played by industry as 'sponsor' or 'collaborator' was performed. Of 116,281 industry-funded trials registered, 741 (0.6%) had posted ICFs. Most of these trials were categorized as 'completed' (n = 408) or 'terminated' (n = 107). The review of a sample of 359 trials showed that most were on drugs and/or biologics (59%), were randomized (51%), conducted exclusively in the USA (72%), and had posted results (79%), protocols (92%), and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) (89%). Trials in which industry participated as 'collaborator' were significantly more likely to post ICFs when trials were in the 'active, not recruiting' phase (OR 4.70, 99.71% CI 1.59-13.9, p < 0.001) than industry-sponsored trials. This was also the case when assessing drugs/biologics (OR 2.64, 99.71% CI 1.25-5.58, p < 0.001). Conversely, companies acting as 'sponsors' were significantly more likely to post ICFs with trials assessing devices, radiation interventions and/or diagnostic tests (OR 0.37, 99.71% CI 0.17-0.79, p < 0.001) than when participating as 'collaborators'. While industry-funded trials rarely post ICFs, when they do, they are highly compliant with transparency requirements. Regulations and ethics codes should consider requiring posting of protocols, SAPs, and ICFs for all clinical trials, regardless the type of sponsor.

Registries or non-pharmacological observational studies? An operational attempt to draw the line and to provide some suggestions for the ethical evaluation of rare disease registries.

Originally established to evaluate the ethical aspects of clinical trials, Ethics Committees (ECs) are now requested to review different types of projects, including, among others, observational studies and disease registries. In Italy, clinical trials on medicinal products for human use and on medical devices are regulated by EU Regulation 536/2014, EU Regulation 2017/745, and 2017/746 while pharmacological observational studies are regulated by the Italian Medicines Agency guidelines of 2008 and by Ministerial Decree of November 30th, 2021. The other types of studies are not strictly regulated, causing discrepancies in their definition and assessment by the ECs, and slowdowns in the start of projects. The present contribution aims to propose definitions and distinctions between non-pharmacological observational studies and disease registries, which constitute different entities but are often assimilated by ECs, and to formulate suggestions for the evaluation of rare disease registries, which are an expanding research area of interest.

[Ethical Considerations of Including Minors in Clinical Trials Using the Example of the Indicated Prevention of Psychotic Disorders]. / Minderjährige in klinischen Prüfungen: Ethische Abwägungen ihres Einbezugs am Beispiel der indizierten Prävention psychotischer Erkrankungen.

Ethical Considerations of Including Minors in Clinical Trials Using the Example of the Indicated Prevention of Psychotic Disorders Abstract: As a vulnerable group, minors require special protection in studies. For this reason, researchers are often reluctant to initiate studies, and ethics committees are reluctant to authorize such studies. This often excludes minors from participating in clinical studies. This exclusion can lead to researchers and clinicians receiving only incomplete data or having to rely on adult-based findings in the treatment of minors. Using the example of the study "Computer-Assisted Risk Evaluation in the Early Detection of Psychotic Disorders" (CARE), which was conducted as an 'other clinical investigation' according to the Medical Device Regulation, we present a line of argumentation for the inclusion of minors which weighs the ethical principles of nonmaleficence (especially regarding possible stigmatization), beneficence, autonomy, and fairness. We show the necessity of including minors based on the development-specific differences in diagnostics and early intervention. Further, we present specific protective measures. This argumentation can also be transferred to other disorders with the onset in childhood and adolescence and thus help to avoid excluding minors from appropriate evidence-based care because of insufficient studies.

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.

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.