Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs? Methods Google Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories. Results and discussion Approximately two-thirds of articles (33/48 articles) used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support (1) RCTs of specific therapies, (2) RCTs in general, and (3) the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles (15/48 articles) used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise. Conclusions Our findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19.

In a cluster randomised trial (CRT), intact groups—such as communities, clinics or schools—are randomised to the study intervention or control conditions. The issue of informed consent in CRTs has been particularly challenging for researchers and research ethics committees. Some argue that cluster randomisation is a reason not to seek informed consent from research participants. In fact, systematic reviews have found that, relative to individually randomised trials, CRTs are associated with an increased likelihood of inadequate reporting of consent procedures and inappropriate use of waivers of consent. The objective of this paper is to clarify this confusion by providing a practical and useful framework to guide researchers and research ethics committees through consent issues in CRTs. In CRTs, it is the unit of intervention—not the unit of randomisation—that drives informed consent issues. We explicate a three-step framework for thinking through informed consent in CRTs: (1) identify research participants, (2) identify the study element(s) to which research participants are exposed, and (3) determine if a waiver of consent is appropriate for each study element. We then apply our framework to examples of CRTs of cluster-level, professional-level and individual-level interventions, and provide key lessons on informed consent for each type of CRT.

Background Respiratory viral illness (RVI)—e.g., influenza, COVID-19—is a serious threat in long-term care (LTC) facilities. Standard infection control measures are suboptimal in LTC facilities because of residents’ cognitive impairments, care needs, and susceptibility to loneliness and mental illness. Further, LTC residents living with high degrees of frailty who contract RVIs often develop the so-called atypical symptoms (e.g., delirium, worse mobility) instead of typical cough and fever, delaying infection diagnosis and treatment. Although far-UVC (222 nm) light devices have shown potent antiviral activity in vitro, clinical efficacy remains unproven. Methods Following a study to assay acceptability at each site, this multicenter, double-blinded, cluster-randomized, placebo-controlled trial aims to assess whether far-UVC light devices impact the incidence of RVIs in LTC facilities. Neighborhoods within LTC facilities are randomized to receive far-UVC light devices (222 nm) or identical placebo light devices that emit only visible spectrum light (400–700 nm) in common areas. All residents are monitored for RVIs using both a standard screening protocol and a novel screening protocol that target atypical symptoms. The 3-year incidence of RVIs will be compared using intention-to-treat analysis. A cost-consequence analysis will follow. Discussion This trial aims to inform decisions about whether to implement far-UVC light in LTC facilities for RVI prevention. The trial design features align with this pragmatic intent. Appropriate additional ethical protections have been implemented to mitigate participant vulnerabilities that arise from conducting this study. Knowledge dissemination will be supported through media engagement, peer-reviewed presentations, and publications. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05084898. October 20, 2021.

In Canada, there is interest in expanding medical assistance in dying (MAID) to include advance requests (AR) for people living with dementia (PLWD). However, operationalizing the intolerable suffering criterion for MAID in ARs for PLWD is complicated by the Canadian legal context—in which MAID is understood as a medical intervention and suffering is conceptualized as subjective—and the degenerative nature of dementia. ARs that express a wish to receive MAID when the PLWD develops pre-specified impairments are problematic because people are unlikely to accurately predict the conditions that will cause intolerable suffering. ARs that express a wish to receive MAID when the PLWD exhibits pre-specified behaviors that likely represent suffering are problematic because they are inconsistent with the subjective conceptualization of suffering. Further research is required to determine whether adopting an objective conceptualization of suffering is justified in these cases and, if so, how to reliably identify intolerable suffering in PLWD.

In a recent article, ‘Why lockdown of the elderly is not ageist and why levelling down equality is wrong’, Savulescu and Cameron argue that a selective lockdown of older people is not ageist because it would treat people unequally based on morally relevant differences. This response argues that a selective lockdown of older people living in long-term care homes would be unjust because it would allow the expansive liberties of the general public to undermine the basic liberties of older people, and because it would discriminate on the basis of extrinsic disadvantages.

Introduction This review aims to describe the landscape of pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the context of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias with respect to ethical considerations. Methods Searches of MEDLINE were performed from January 2014 until April 2019. Extracted information included: trial setting, interventions, data collection, study population, and ethical protections (including ethics approvals, capacity assessment, and informed consent). Results We identified 62 eligible reports. More than two‐thirds (69%) included caregivers or health‐care professionals as research participants. Fifty‐eight (94%) explicitly identified at least one vulnerable group. Two studies did not report ethics approval. Of 57 studies in which patients were participants, 55 (96%) reported that consent was obtained but in 37 studies (67%) no mention was made regarding assessment of the patients’ capacity to consent to research participation. Discussion Few studies reported protections implemented when vulnerable participants were included. Shortcomings remain when reporting consent approaches and capacity assessment.

We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment. Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text. 4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term “pragmatic” was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%. There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.

Randomized trials labelled as “pragmatic” are attractive to funders, patients, and clinicians as the label implies that the results are directly applicable to clinical care. We examined how authors justify use of the label (e.g., by referring to one or more PRECIS [PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary]-2 domains). We reviewed primary trial reports published 2014–2019, registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and using the pragmatic label anywhere in the report. Among 415 trials, the label was justified by reference to at least one design element in 282 (68.0%); of these, 240 (85.1%) referenced trial characteristics that can be mapped to one or more of the PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly eligibility (91, 32.3%), setting (90, 31.9%), flexibility delivery (89, 31.6%), and organization (75, 26.6%); 42 (14.9%) referenced characteristics that are not PRECIS-2 domains, most commonly type of intervention/comparator (48, 17%), recruitment without consent (22, 7.8%), routinely collected data (22, 7.8%), and cluster randomization (20, 7.1%). Most reports referenced only one or two design elements. Overall, 9/415 (2.2%) provided PRECIS wheels. Current use of pragmatic labels is uninformative. Authors should clarify the decision the trial is intended to support and include a PRECIS-2 table to make the design transparent.

A female geriatric patient with major depressive disorder, current episode severe, received eight right unilateral electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) treatments over the course of 3 weeks. After her third treatment, she began experiencing brief visual hallucinations, each lasting less than 5 s, consisting of dark to grey coloured, poorly defined geometric shapes and objects. These episodes occurred only during the day with no change in consciousness. With each additional treatment, the episodes increased in frequency, reaching a crescendo of approximately 20 episodes per day. After terminating ECT, the frequency of these episodes decreased and then ceased 6 weeks later. Neuroimaging and ophthalmological investigations discounted a space occupying lesion or vision loss. This case demonstrates a close temporal relationship between ECT and new onset visual hallucinations. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility that elderly depressed patients may develop visual hallucinations during a course of ECT.

ObjectivesTo describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent.MethodsSurvey of primary trial reports, published 2014–2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.ResultsAmong 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001).DiscussionNot obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public’s trust in research.