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.

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.

Informed consent and trial prioritization for clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints.

BACKGROUND: Very little is known about the practice-oriented challenges and potential response strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic. This stakeholder interview study aimed to identify the full spectrum of challenges and potential response strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting. METHODS: We performed semi-structured interviews with German stakeholders involved in clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continued sampling and thematic text analysis of interview transcripts until thematic saturation of challenges and potential response strategies was reached. RESULTS: We conducted 21 interviews with investigators, oversight bodies, funders and research support units. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main themes: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential strategies for consent challenges. For the second topic prioritization of clinical studies, we identified two main themes: perceived benefit of prioritization and potential strategies for prioritization. All main themes are further specified with subthemes. A supplementary table provides original quotes from the interviews for all subthemes. DISCUSSION: Potential response strategies for challenges with informed consent and study prioritization partly share common ground. High quality procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core response strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges. Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be very well justified from a scientific, medical, and ethics viewpoint.

Controlled human infection trials: Legitimacy and conditions of implementation in France.

This round table is the result of an observation. The observation being that controlled human infection clinical trials (also called "infectious challenge" trials or "Controlled Human Infection Models", "CHIM") recommended or even encouraged in the context of vaccine developments in particular, are not carried out in France. However, there are no formal prohibitions within regulations or ethical principles, which point to the prior assessment of risks and benefits for individuals and for society. The participants in this Round Table thus wished to examine, through the prism of their respective disciplines, the scientific and medical relevance of conducting such trials in France and, if possible, to imagine the conditions under which they would be carried out, thus resulting in recommendations on (1) the advisability of their conduct in France (2), the conditions under which they would be implemented in terms of logistics and regulations, and (3) their social acceptability. The recommendations on which the participants of the Round Table came to an agreement are presented as the analysis progresses.

Undisclosed Placebo Trials in Clinical Practice: Undercover Beneficence or Unwarranted Deception?

A placebo is an intervention that is believed to lack specific pharmacological or physiological efficacy for a patient's condition. While placebo-controlled trials are considered the gold standard when it comes to researching and testing new pharmacological treatments, the use of placebos in clinical practice is more controversial. The focus of this case study is an undisclosed placebo trial used as an attempt to diagnose a patient's complex and unusual symptomology. In this case, the placebo was used not just as a treatment, but as a diagnostic intervention in order to determine the best course of treatment for a patient. Could the deceptive use of a placebo be justified in clinical practice on the grounds of beneficence?

Ethics of Early Clinical Trials of Bio-Artificial Organs.

Regenerative medicine is the new frontier in the field of organ transplantation. Research groups around the world are using regenerative medicine technologies to develop bio-artificial organs for transplantation into human patients. While most of this research is still at the preclinical stage, bio-artificial organ technologies are gearing up for first-in-human clinical trials in the not-too-distant future. What are the ethical conditions under which early-phase clinical research of bio-artificial organs can be conducted safely and responsibly? What lessons can be learned from prior experiences with early-phase clinical trials in adjacent fields of research? This is a Meeting Report of an online international workshop organised in the context of the Horizon 2020-funded VANGUARD project, which is developing a bio-artificial pancreas for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes.

COVID-19 vaccine trials with children: ethics pointers.

As healthcare authorities around the world strive to get as many citizens as possible vaccinated against the SAR-CoV-2 virus, many countries have begun including children in the population groups to be vaccinated. Properly designed clinical trials involving children are important to ensure safety, efficacy, and dosage of therapies in (developing) children. Within the complex health, social, and political scenario of the ongoing pandemic, ethics committees and policy makers in low-income and middle-income settings need to consider additional ethical questions when called on to review phase III COVID-19 vaccine trials involving in children. We set out some of the ethical questions to keep in mind before, during, and after the implementation of phase III COVID-19 vaccine trials in limited resource settings. Specifically, we discuss and offer succinct answers to the following questions: How relevant will the trial vaccine be for the population participating in the trial? Should vaccines that have not been approved for use among adults be approved for use in trials with children? Which children should be involved in COVID-19 vaccine trials? What criteria of informed consent are to be adopted with minors? Placebo versus an existing already approved vaccine? What specific duties of ancillary care should be taken into consideration for COVID-19 vaccines especially in low-income and middle-income countries? The answers we offer are considerations that can serve as 'things to think about' when reviewing or implementing COVID-19 trials involving children in low-income settings.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): A few ethical considerations.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are studies in which the need for patients to physically access hospital-based trial sites is reduced or eliminated. The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a significant increase in DCT: a survey shows that 76% of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and Contract Research Organizations adopted decentralized techniques during the early phase of the pandemic. The implementation of DCTs relies on the use of digital tools such as e-consent, apps, wearable devices, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), telemedicine, as well as on moving trial activities to the patient's home (e.g., drug delivery) or to local healthcare settings (i.e., community-based diagnosis and care facilities). DCTs adapt to patients' routines, allow patients to participate regardless of where they live by removing logistical barriers, offer better access to the study and the investigational product, and permit the inclusion of more diverse and more representative populations. The feasibility and quality of DCTs depends on several requirements including dedicated infrastructures and staff, an adequate regulatory framework, and partnerships between research sites, patients and sponsors. The evaluation of Ethics Committees (ECs) is crucial to the process of innovating and digitalizing clinical trials: adequate assessment tools and a suitable regulatory framework are needed for evaluation by ECs. DCTs also raise issues, many of which are of considerable ethical significance. These include the implications for the relationship between patients and healthcare staff, for the social dimension of the patient, for data integrity (at the source, during transmission, in the analysis phase), for personal data protection, and for the possible risks to health and safety. Despite their considerable growth, DCTs have only received little attention from bioethicists. This paper offers a review on some ethical implications and requirements of DCTs in order to encourage further ethical reflection on this rapidly emerging field.

Many trials of hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 were redundant and potentially unethical: an analysis of the NIH clinical trials registry.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to map the landscape of trials investigating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in order to draw conclusions about how clinical trials have been conducted in the pandemic environment and offer potential regulatory recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified and captured data related to registered studies using HCQ to treat SARS-CoV-2 registered with the publicly available National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Trials Registry between February and November 2020. RESULTS: Between February and November 2020, 206 studies investigating HCQ in SARS-CoV-2 were registered with the NIH Clinical Trials Registry. As of November 2020, 135 studies were listed as ongoing, 22 have been completed, and 46 are either suspended or have been terminated. Reasons for suspension or termination included difficulties with patient recruitment (n = 9), emerging evidence showing a lack of benefit of HCQ (n = 7), and recommendations by regulatory boards to discontinue (n = 10). CONCLUSION: Many clinical trials of HCQ were launched in the first months of the pandemic, and a significant proportion of them remained active as of November 2020. The medical community appears to have responded very quickly to political interest in HCQ, while responding much more slowly to the evolving medical evidence of its lack of efficacy.

Scientific and psychosocial ethical considerations for initial clinical trials of kidney xenotransplantation.

The initial clinical trials of pig solid organ xenotransplantation (XTx) are drawing closer and could begin in the coming years. The first clinical trials may aim to transplant genetically-modified pig kidneys into adult humans. The impetus for beginning these first-in-human trials is the severe lack of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation and the number of patients with end-stage renal disease currently on transplant waitlists, which in the USA approaches 100 000. The majority of patients on the kidney transplant waitlist receive continuous renal replacement therapy. In the United States, for patients on the kidney waitlist, the median wait-time to receive a deceased human donor organ is approximately 4.5 years for patients aged 45-74, with a 5-year mortality (or removal from the waitlist because of deteriorating health) of approximately 40%. XTx has the potential to reduce the kidney waitlist morbidity and mortality while improving quality of life. By focusing on scientific and psychosocial criteria, we present ethical considerations of certain inclusion and exclusion criteria for these first-in-human clinical trials that we suggest have not yet been fully explored.

Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020. REVIEW METHODS: Intervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications. RESULTS: 22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.