Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 4. Informed consent

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 89, Issue , 2017, Pages 181-187

  Kalkman, Shona ^a   van Thiel, Ghislaine J M W ^a   Zuidgeest, Mira G P ^a   Goetz, Iris ^b   Pfeiffer, Boris M ^c   Grobbee, Diederick E ^a,d   van Delden, Johannes J M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^c MERCK KGAA   (Germany)

^d Julius Clinical   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness; Drug research; Informed consent; Pragmatic trials; Real world evidence; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; BROADCAST CONSENT; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; INTEGRATED CONSENT; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MORALITY; PATIENT DECISION MAKING; PATIENT RIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); TARGETED CONSENT; WAIVER OF CONSENT; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; PRAGMATIC CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85021651739     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.019     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Tunis, S.R., Stryer, D.B., Clancy, C.M., Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290 (2003), 1624–1632.
2. Sugarman, J., Califf, R.M., Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 311 (2014), 2381–2382.
3. Loudon, K., Treweek, S., Sullivan, F., Donnan, P., Thorpe, K.E., Zwarenstein, M., The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ, 350, 2015, h2147.
4. Eichler, H.G., Abadie, E., Breckenridge, A., Flamion, B., Gustafsson, L.L., Leufkens, H., et al. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10 (2011), 495–506.
5. Schwartz, D., Lellouch, J., Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 499–505.
6. Califf, R.M., Sugarman, J., Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials 12 (2015), 436–441.
7. Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) GetReal: new methods for real world evidence collection and synthesis. Available at https://www.imi-getreal.eu/. Accessed October 12, 2016.
8. van Staa, T.P., Dyson, L., McCann, G., Padmanabhan, S., Belatri, R., Goldacre, B., et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess 18 (2014), 1–146.
9. Patel, A., Webster, R., Pragmatic trials for noncommunicable diseases: relieving constraints. PLoS Med, 13, 2016, e1001986.
10. McKinney, R.E. Jr., Beskow, L.M., Ford, D.E., Lantos, J.D., McCall, J., Patrick-Lake, B., et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials 12 (2015), 494–502.
11. Wendler, D., “Targeted” consent for pragmatic clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 30 (2015), 679–682.
12. Pletcher, M.J., Lo, B., Grady, D., Informed consent in randomized quality improvement trials: a critical barrier for learning health systems. JAMA Intern Med 174 (2014), 668–670.
13. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. 2012, CIOMS, Geneva, Switzerland.
14. World Medical Association (WMA). WMA Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310 (2013), 2191–2194.
15. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Good Clinical Practice Guidelines E6 (R1), (2002).
16. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, (2001).
17. Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC (2014).
18. Weijer, C., Grimshaw, J.M., Eccles, M.P., McRae, A.D., White, A., Brehaut, J.C., et al. The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLoS Med, 9, 2012, e1001346.
19. Kalkman, S., van Thiel, G.J., Grobbee, D.E., van Delden, J.J., Pragmatic randomized trials in drug development pose new ethical questions: a systematic review. Drug Discov Today 20 (2015), 856–862.
20. Kalkman, S., van Thiel, G.J., Grobbee, D.E., Meinecke, A.K., Zuidgeest, M.G., van Delden, J.J., et al. Stakeholders’ views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. Trials, 17, 2016, 419.
21. Kim, S.Y., Miller, F.G., Waivers and alterations to consent in pragmatic clinical trials: respecting the principle of respect for persons. IRB 38 (2016), 1–5.
22. Gelinas, L., Wertheimer, A., Miller, F.G., When and why is research without consent permissible?. Hastings Cent Rep 46 (2016), 35–43.
23. Ross, S., Grant, A., Counsell, C., Gillespie, W., Russell, I., Prescott, R., Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 52 (1999), 1143–1156.
24. McDonald, A.M., Knight, R.C., Campbell, M.K., Entwistle, V.A., Grant, A.M., Cook, J.A., et al. What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials, 7, 2006, 9.
25. van Staa, T.P., Goldacre, B., Gulliford, M., Cassell, J., Pirmohamed, M., Taweel, A., et al. Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ, 344, 2012, e55.
26. Ellis, P.M., Attitudes towards and participation in randomised clinical trials in oncology: a review of the literature. Ann Oncol 11 (2000), 939–945.
27. McCambridge, J., Kypri, K., Elbourne, D., In randomization we trust? There are overlooked problems in experimenting with people in behavioral intervention trials. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 247–253.
28. New, J.P., Bakerly, N.D., Leather, D., Woodcock, A., Obtaining real-world evidence: the Salford Lung study. Thorax 69 (2014), 1152–1154.
29. Zuidgeest, M.G., Goetz, I., Grobbee, D.E., Work Package 3 of the GetReal Consortium. PRECIS-2 in perspective: what is next for pragmatic trials?. J Clin Epidemiol 84 (2017), 22–24.
30. Lantos, J.D., Spertus, J.A., The concept of risk in comparative effectiveness research. N Engl J Med, 372, 2015, 884.
31. Feudtner, C., Schreiner, M., Lantos, J.D., Risks (and benefits) in comparative effectiveness research trials. N Engl J Med 369 (2013), 892–894.
32. Faden, R., Kass, N., Whicher, D., Stewart, W., Tunis, S., Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care 51 (2013), S53–S57.
33. Kim, S.Y., Miller, F.G., Informed consent for pragmatic trials—the integrated consent model. N Engl J Med 370 (2014), 769–772.
34. Faden, R.R., Beauchamp, T.L., Kass, N.E., Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. N Engl J Med 370 (2014), 766–768.
35. United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal regulations. Title 21 Part 50: Protection of human subjects.
36. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Code of Federal Regulations. 45CFR46. Available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html#. Accessed October 13, 2016.
37. Truog, R.D., Robinson, W., Randolph, A., Morris, A., Is informed consent always necessary for randomized, controlled trials?. N Engl J Med 340 (1999), 804–807.
38. Chen, S.C., Kim, S.Y., A framework for analysis of research risks and benefits to participants in standard of care pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials 13 (2016), 605–611.
39. Faden, R.R., Kass, N.E., Goodman, S.N., Pronovost, P., Tunis, S., Beauchamp, T.L., An ethics framework for a learning health care system: a departure from traditional research ethics and clinical ethics. Hastings Cent Rep, 2013 Spec No:S16-27. dx.doi.org/10.1002/hast.134.
40. Whicher, D., Kass, N., Faden, R., Stakeholders’ views of alternatives to prospective informed consent for minimal-risk pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials. J Law Med Ethics 43 (2015), 397–409.
41. Nayak, R.K., Wendler, D., Miller, F.G., Kim, S.Y., Pragmatic randomized trials without standard informed consent?: a national survey. Ann Intern Med 163 (2015), 356–364.