Explore the vast range of titles available.

The authors argue that in a learning health care system with ethically robust oversight policies, a streamlined consent process could replace formal written informed-consent procedures for many studies, and patient consent would not be required at all for some trials. Interest in learning health care systems and in comparative-effectiveness research (CER) is exploding. One major question is whether informed consent should always be required for randomized comparative-effectiveness studies, particularly studies conducted in a learning health care system. Our answer to this question is no. It will often be unethical to go forward with CER in which patients are randomly assigned to different interventions without their written, prospective, informed consent. However, in a mature learning health care system with ethically robust oversight policies and practices, some randomized CER studies may justifiably proceed with a streamlined consent process and others may not . . .

Background: Electronic clinical data (ECD) will increasingly serve as an important source of information for comparative effectiveness research (CER). Although many retrospective studies have relied on ECD, new study designs propose using ECD for prospective CER. These designs have great potential but they also raise important ethics questions. Aims: Drawing on an ethics framework for learning health care systems, we identify morally relevant features of prospective CERECD studies by examining 1 case of an observational study and a second of a pragmatic, randomized trial. We focus only on questions of consent and assume research has been subject to appropriate ethics review and oversight. Results and Conclusions: We conclude that a CER–ECD observational study that imposes no or minimal additional risk to or burden on patients may proceed ethically without express informed consent from participants in settings where: (a) patients are regularly informed of the health care institution's commitment to learning through the integration of research and practice; and (b) there are appropriate protections for patients' rights and interests. In addition, where (a) and (b) apply, some pragmatic, randomized trials that similarly impose no or minimal additional risk to or burden on patients may also proceed ethically without express consent, when certain additional conditions are satisfied, including: (c) the trial does not negatively affect patients' prospects for good clinical outcomes; (d) physicians have the option of using an intervention other than the one assigned if they believe doing so is important for a particular patient; and (e) the trial does not engage preferences or values that are meaningful to patients.

ObjectiveRandomised controlled trials, a gold-standard approach to reduce uncertainties in clinical practice, are growing in cost and are often slow to recruit. We determined whether methodological approaches to facilitate large, efficient clinical trials were acceptable to UK research ethics committees (RECs).DesignWe developed a protocol in collaboration with parents, for a comparative-effectiveness, randomised controlled trial comparing two widely used blood transfusion practices in preterm infants. We incorporated four approaches to improve recruitment and efficiency: (i) point-of-care design using electronic patient records for patient identification, randomisation and data acquisition, (ii) short two-page information sheet; (iii) explicit mention of possible inclusion benefit; (iv) opt-out consent with enrolment as the default. With the support of the UK Health Research Authority, we submitted an identical protocol to 12 UK REC.SettingRECs in the UK.Main outcomeNumber of REC granting favourable opinions.ResultsThe use of electronic patient records was acceptable to all RECs; one REC raised concerns about the short parent information sheet, 10 about inclusion benefit and 9 about opt-out consent. Following responses to queries, nine RECs granted a favourable final opinion and three rejected the application because they considered the opt-out consent process invalid.ConclusionsA majority of RECs in this study consider the use of electronic patient record data, short information sheets, opt-out consent and mention of possible inclusion benefit to be acceptable in neonatal comparative-effectiveness research. We identified a need for guidance for RECs in relation to opt-out consent processes. These methods provide opportunity to facilitate large randomised controlled trials.

The Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (SUPPORT) has been the focal point of many different criticisms regarding the ethics of the study ever since publication of the trial's findings in 2010 and 2012. In this article, we focus on a concern that the technical design and implementation details of the study were ethically flawed. While the federal Office Human Research Protections focused on the consent form, rather than on the study design and implementation, OHRP's critiques of the consent form reveal views about the study design and implementation that we believe are fundamentally flawed. These criticisms about the design and implementation of SUPPORT, if generalized, become relevant concerns about these aspects of many comparative effectiveness research studies. Our analytical approach will be to use SUPPORT as a prime example of comparative effectiveness research and show why it challenges some prevailing assumptions about the riskiness of research. We will address five aspects of the study design and implementation: 1) randomization, 2) treatment by protocol, 3) choice of endpoints, 4) lack of a “standard care” control group, and 5) the use of altered oximeters. Examining these aspects will allow us to answer two specific central questions. The first is a methodological question with ethical implications: was the study designed in such a way as to answer the primary study question? The second question is whether the study design added or decreased risk to the babies enrolled in the study compared to babies who were not in the study.

As electronic medical records enable increasingly ambitious studies of treatment outcomes, ethical issues previously important only to limited clinical trials become relevant to unlimited whole populations. For randomized clinical trials, adaptive assignment strategies are known to expose substantially fewer patients to avoidable treatment failures than strategies with fixed assignments (e.g., equal sample sizes). An idealized adaptive case--the two-armed Bernoulli bandit problem--can be exactly optimized for a variety of ethically motivated cost functions that embody principles of duty-to-patient, but the solutions have been thought computationally infeasible when the numbers of patients in the study (the \"horizon\") is large. We report numerical experiments that yield a heuristic approximation that applies even to very large horizons, and we propose a near-optimal strategy that remains valid even when the horizon is unknown or unbounded, thus applicable to comparative effectiveness studies on large populations or to standard-of-care recommendations. For the case in which the economic cost of treatment is a parameter, we give a heuristic, near-optimal strategy for determining the superior treatment (whether more or less costly) while minimizing resources wasted on any inferior, more expensive, treatment. Key features of our heuristics can be generalized to more complicated protocols.

To the Editor: We reject the argument by Faden et al. (Feb. 20 issue) 1 that certain research with randomized assignment of interventions can be conducted without the consent of patients. Whether or not these studies are embedded in the routine processes of medical care, randomization equals research, and such studies are subject to all of the standard requirements for research, including approval by an institutional review board and patient consent. Patients have the right to choose whether to participate after they have been informed about the interventions, risks, and potential benefits and alternatives, irrespective of the risk levels of the . . .

Background We explored the views of key stakeholders to identify the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. A secondary aim was to capture stakeholders’ attitudes towards the implementation of pragmatic trials in the drug development process. Methods We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews among individuals from different key stakeholder groups (academia and independent research institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, regulators, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and patients’ organizations) through telephone or face-to-face sessions. Interviews were structured around the question “what challenges were experienced or perceived during the design, conduct and/or review of pragmatic trials.” Respondents were additionally asked about their views on implementation of pragmatic trials in the drug development process. Thematic analysis was used to identify the ethically relevant features across data sets. Results We interviewed 34 stakeholders in 25 individual sessions and four group sessions. The four perceived challenges of ethical relevance were: (1) less controlled conditions creating safety concerns, (2) comparison with usual care potentially compromising clinical equipoise, (3) tailored or waivers of informed consent affecting patient autonomy, and (4) minimal interference with “real-world” practice reducing the knowledge value of trial results. Conclusions We identified stakeholder concerns regarding risk assessment, use of suboptimal usual care as a comparator, tailoring of informed consent procedures and ensuring the social value of pragmatic trials. These concerns increased when respondents were asked about pragmatic trials conducted before market authorization.

The SUPPORT trial highlights ethical challenges raised by comparative effectiveness randomized controlled trials (ceRCTs) involving one or more usual care interventions. Debate about the SUPPORT trial has focused on whether study interventions posed \"reasonably foreseeable risks\" to enrolled infants and, thereby, reflects a preoccupation with U.S. regulations. As ceRCTs are conducted globally, our analysis of the SUPPORT trial is grounded in internationally accepted ethical principles. We argue that the central ethical issue raised by the SUPPORT trial is the following: should the SUPPORT trial interventions be conceptualized as practice, or research? The answer to this question has important implications for \"downstream\" ethical requirements-including whether the usual care interventions in ceRCTs require research ethics committee review, undergo harm-benefit analysis, and are included in informed consent documents-and it is antecedent to the development of ethical guidance for ceRCTs.

Consider the example of sepsis, a major public health concern due to high incidence, high mortality, and high associated health care costs [5,6]. Because early recognition of sepsis is of paramount importance to deliver rapid treatment, providing targeted sepsis care in the EMS setting has the potential to be highly beneficial to patients [7]. [...]the EFIC regulations' requirement to conduct community engagement activities is often viewed as a significant barrier to conducting trials under this mechanism.