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.

Safety and tolerability of repeated doses of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy: a systematic review and an aggregated data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Malaria infection during pregnancy is an important cause of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity with the greatest effect being concentrated in sub-Saharan Africa. In areas of moderate to high malaria transmission, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the administration of intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp) using sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) to be given to all pregnant women at each scheduled antenatal care visit at monthly intervals. However, there is concern that increased resistance has compromised its effectiveness. This has led to a need for evaluation of alternatives to SP for IPTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) emerging as a very promising candidate. Thus, this systematic review and aggregated data meta-analysis was conducted to establish the safety and tolerability of repeated doses with DP in IPTp. METHODS: A systematic review and aggregated data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed by searching electronic databases of PubMed, Science Direct, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar. RCTs comparing IPTp DP versus recommended standard treatment for IPTp with these outcome measures were analyzed; change in QTc interval, serious adverse events (SAE), grade 3 or 4 adverse events possibly related to study drug and vomiting within 30 min after study drug administration. The search was performed up to 24th June 2023. Data was extracted from eligible studies and an aggregated data meta-analysis was carried out with data pooled as risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using RevMan software (5.4). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022310041. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 7969 participants were included in this systematic review and aggregated data meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that DP was associated with a change from baseline of the QTc interval although this change was not associated with cardiotoxicity. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of occurrence of SAEs among participants in both treatment groups (RR = 0.80, 95% CI [0.52-1.24], P = 0.32). However, significant difference was observed in grade 3 or 4 AEs possibly related to study drug where analysis showed that subjects on IPT DP were statistically significantly more likely to experience an AE possibly related to study drug than subjects on IPT SP (RR = 6.65, 95% CI [1.18-37.54], P = 0.03) and in vomiting within 30 min after study drug administration where analysis showed that the risk of vomiting is statistically significantly higher in subjects receiving IPT DP than in subjects receiving IPT SP (RR = 1.77, 95% CI [1.02-3.07], P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: DP was associated with a higher risk of grade 3 or 4 AEs possibly related to study drug and a higher risk of vomiting within 30 min after study drug administration. However, these were experienced in a very small percentage of women and did not affect adherence to study drugs. DP was also better tolerated in these studies as compared to most alternatives that have been proposed to replace SP which have proved to be too poorly tolerated in IPTp use.