Variations in the application of exception from informed consent in a multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Exception from infor med consent (EFIC) is allowed using federal regulations 21 CFR 50.24 and facilitates research on patients with critical conditions such as cardiac arrest. Little is known regarding the differences in the application of EFIC requirements such as community consultation (CC), public disclosure (PD) and patient notification. We sought to characterize variations in the fulfillment of EFIC requirements in a national multicenter clinical trial in the United States. METHODS: We determined the strategies for fulfillment of EFIC requirements at five regional coordinating centers of the Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial (PART), a cluster-crossover randomized trial comparing airway devices in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. We collected information from the including site demographics, how CC and PD were implemented, methods undertaken by the site investigative team to meet the local IRB's interpretation, and patient notification timing (post-enrollment). We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Sites had multiple approaches to CC, including social media advertising, random digit dialing surveys, working with city officials, and websites with embedded surveys. All sites used more than one approach for conducting CC. Public Disclosure activities included press releases through various means, website documentation, and letters to community members and local officials. Time from CC to study approval ranged from 42 days to 253 days. CONCLUSION: EFIC implementation varies across sites and highlight community and regional variation. Different EFIC approaches may be needed to effectively accomplish the goals of community consultation, public disclosure, and patient notification.

Design and challenges of a randomized clinical trial of medical expulsive therapy (tamsulosin) for urolithiasis in the emergency department.

Urolithiasis or urinary stone disease has been estimated to affect about 1 in 11 Americans. Patients with urinary stone disease commonly present to the emergency department for management of their acute pain. In addition to providing analgesia, administration of drug (medical expulsive therapy) is often prescribed to assist passage of the urinary stone. In this methodology paper, we describe the design of a prospective, multi-center, randomized, double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial of the alpha-adrenergic blocker, tamsulosin, to evaluate its effectiveness as medical expulsive therapy. In addition, we describe the unique challenges of conducting a trial of this type within the setting of the emergency department.

Success Rates for Notification of Enrollment in Exception From Informed Consent Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Exception from informed consent (EFIC) for research in emergency settings requires investigators to notify enrolled subjects, family members, or legally authorized representatives about inclusion in the study. We examined the success rate of a notification strategy including mail services for subjects enrolled in EFIC trials. METHODS: We describe notification attempts for subjects in three out-of-hospital cardiac arrest clinical trials in both urban and rural areas around Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, between the years 2000 and 2014. We examined the time required to notify subjects and the success of contacting subjects or their representatives when notified in person (if alive), by mail (if alive and unable to reach in person), or by mail (if the subject was deceased). We characterized comments received from subjects or their representatives as positive, neutral, or negative. RESULTS: We attempted notification on a total of 1,912 subjects, 1,762 by mail, and 163 in person. Of these, 1,767 (92%) notification forms were successfully delivered, and 431 (24%) were signed and returned. Only 16 subjects or representatives (0.91%) requested to withdraw from the study. In-person notifications were more likely to be signed than mailed notifications (69% vs. 20%; p < 0.001). A total of 3.2% of recipients contacted investigators by phone or letter in response to notifications, but only five recipients expressed negative attitudes toward the trial. Ninety percent of subjects were notified within 35 days of the incident. Time to notification was shorter for in person (median = 5 days, interquartile range [IQR] = 2 to 10 days) than for deceased and mailed (11 days, IQR = 8 to 14 days) or alive and mailed (20 days, IQR = 14 to 29 days). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to successfully notify recipients of enrollment in a study using EFIC over 90% of the time within 35 days, although only 24% of recipients will sign and return a form. Fewer than 1% of subjects withdraw from the study, and fewer than 5% contact investigators, usually for neutral reasons.