Recontacting participants for expanded uses of existing samples and data: a case study.

PURPOSE: Facilitating genomic research may require the use of samples and data collected via consent processes that did not include specific descriptions of secondary uses. We explore whether a waiver of consent with notification and the option to withdraw (WNOW) is a viable alternative to written informed consent for secondary uses of samples and data. METHODS: We developed a retrospective case study of a rare-disease protocol involving 1,978 participants that implemented WNOW for genomic data-sharing activities. We analyzed institutional review board and investigator records and conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with key staff members. RESULTS: WNOW was largely successful at achieving its goals in this case, although the recontact effort, relative to proceeding with a waiver, decreased participation in genomic data sharing by 13.8% (n = 253), primarily because 224 letters were returned as undeliverable. A small number of participants responded (n = 89), and some of them expressed confusion and frustration. In the pediatric arm of the study, the research may have been practicable without a waiver, given the relationship between the pediatric clinicians and families. CONCLUSION: The practicability of conducting research on existing specimens without a waiver of informed consent, and whether WNOW is a viable alternative, depend on contextual factors, including a reliable way to communicate with participants.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Phase 1 healthy volunteer willingness to participate and enrollment preferences.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Healthy volunteers in phase 1 clinical trials contribute to the development of safe drugs and other biologics and accept risks and burdens without anticipated health benefits from participation. Although emerging data have shown that healthy volunteers are influenced by risk, some still worry that financial incentives lead them to take on unreasonable risk. Yet little is known about healthy volunteers' preferences and how they make choices about enrolling in research studies. METHODS: We surveyed 654 healthy volunteers at the end of their participation in a phase 1 Pfizer trial in the United States, Belgium, and Singapore to examine their reported willingness to enroll in studies of different types, with various procedures, and with possible side-effects. RESULTS: The majority of respondents were willing to join many kinds of studies, but fewer were willing to participate in first-in-human vaccine studies or studies of psychiatric drugs than in other study types. With regard to procedures, a substantial proportion were unwilling to participate in studies that involved invasive procedures, such as a lumbar puncture (45.4%) and bone marrow biopsy (42.3%), but willing to participate in studies with less invasive procedures such as a computed tomography scan of the heart (86.8%), magnetic resonance imaging (87.4%), and skin allergy testing (86.8%). Although there was some variation by gender and region, the majority were willing to participate in studies with side-effects like pain (80%) or nausea and vomiting (64%), but only a minority were willing to join if the research drug would result in their having a one in a million chance of death (34.4%), a small chance of kidney damage (16.7%), or influence how their mind works (23.2%; Figure 4). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that healthy volunteers are willing to participate in a wide range of types of phase 1 clinical trials, and express preferences for low risk and familiar studies and study procedures, preferences which are partially affected by offers of payment.

A Framework for Unrestricted Prenatal Whole-Genome Sequencing: Respecting and Enhancing the Autonomy of Prospective Parents.

Noninvasive, prenatal whole genome sequencing (NIPW) may be a technological reality in the near future, making available a vast array of genetic information early in pregnancy at no risk to the fetus or mother. Many worry that the timing, safety, and ease of the test will lead to informational overload and reproductive consumerism. The prevailing response among commentators has been to restrict conditions eligible for testing based on medical severity, which imposes disputed value judgments and devalues those living with eligible conditions. To avoid these difficulties, we propose an unrestricted testing policy, under which prospective parents could obtain information on any variant of known significance after a careful informed consent process that uses an interactive decision aid to deliver a mandatory presentation on the purposes, techniques, and limitations of genomic testing, as well as optional resources for reflection and consultation. This process would encourage thoughtful, informed deliberation by prospective parents before deciding whether or how to use NIPW.

A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Standard of care pragmatic clinical trials that compare treatments already in use could improve care and reduce costs, but there is considerable debate about the research risks of standard of care pragmatic clinical trials and how to apply informed consent regulations to such trials. We sought to develop a framework integrating the insights from opposing sides of the debate. METHODS: We developed a formal risk-benefit analysis framework for standard of care pragmatic clinical trials and then applied it to key provisions of the US federal regulations. RESULTS: Our formal framework for standard of care pragmatic clinical trial risk-benefit analysis takes into account three key considerations: the ex ante estimates of risks and benefits of the treatments to be compared in a standard of care pragmatic clinical trial, the allocation ratios of treatments inside and outside such a trial, and the significance of some participants receiving a different treatment inside a trial than outside the trial. The framework provides practical guidance on how the research ethics regulations on informed consent should be applied to standard of care pragmatic clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Our proposed formal model makes explicit the relationship between the concepts used by opposing sides of the debate about the research risks of standard of care pragmatic clinical trials and can be used to clarify the implications for informed consent.

Policy Framework for Covering Preventive Services Without Cost Sharing: Saving Lives and Saving Money?

The US Affordable Care Act mandates that private insurers cover a list of preventive services without cost sharing. The list is determined by 4 expert committees that evaluate the overall health effect of preventive services. We analyzed the process by which the expert committees develop their recommendations. Each committee uses different criteria to evaluate preventive services and none of the committees consider cost systematically. We propose that the existing committees adopt consistent evidence review methodologies and expand the scope of preventive services reviewed and that a separate advisory committee be established to integrate economic considerations into the final selection of free preventive services. The comprehensive framework and associated criteria are intended to help policy makers in the future develop a more evidence-based, consistent, and ethically sound approach.

Disclosing the potential impact of placebo controls in antidepressant trials.

BACKGROUND: Although placebo-control clinical trials that withhold effective treatments can be permissible, how best to inform participants of the placebo design has received little attention. AIMS: To determine the effect of disclosing quantitative outcome estimates of individual treatment v. entering placebo-control randomised control trial (RCT) on willingness to enrol in such an RCT. METHOD: We randomised 278 adult patients at a depression clinic to receive standard disclosure (n = 129) or enhanced (n = 149) quantitative outcome estimates (based on decision analysis) of individual treatment v. RCT, and assessed their willingness to enrol in the RCT. RESULTS: A greater proportion of those in the standard arm preferred enrolling in RCT (41.3% v. 23.8%, P = 0.002). Those in the standard arm preferred RCT more for direct benefit than altruism reasons, whereas the opposite was true in the enhanced arm. CONCLUSIONS: Disclosing the quantitative outcome implications of placebos may select for fewer but more altruistic participants. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: S.Y.H.K. was a DSMB member of a clinical trial sponsored by Hoffman-LaRoche and he receives royalties from Oxford University Press for his book Evaluation of Capacity to Consent to Treatment and Research. C.M. has served in the past year on a scientific advisory board and as a consultant for Janssen Pharmaceuticals. COPYRIGHT AND USAGE: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial, No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) licence.