Explore the vast range of titles available.

For many years, placebos have been defined by their inert content and their use as controls in clinical trials and treatments in clinical practice. Recent research shows that placebo effects are genuine psychobiological events attributable to the overall therapeutic context, and that these effects can be robust in both laboratory and clinical settings. There is also evidence that placebo effects can exist in clinical practice, even if no placebo is given. Further promotion and integration of laboratory and clinical research will allow advances in the ethical use of placebo mechanisms that are inherent in routine clinical care, and encourage the use of treatments that stimulate placebo effects.

Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac in symptomatic individuals, with virological confirmation of COVID-19, two weeks after the completion of the two-dose vaccination regimen, aged 18 years or older who work as health professionals providing care to patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. To describe the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with the administration of each of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac up to one week after vaccination in Adults (18-59 years of age) and Elderly (60 years of age or more). Trial design This is a Phase III, randomized, multicenter, endpoint driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac. The adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac (product under investigation) will be compared to placebo. Voluntary participants will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of the investigational product or the placebo, in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by age group (18 to 59 years and 60 years or more) and will be monitored for one year by active surveillance of COVID-19. Two databases will be established according to the age groups: one for adults (18-59 years) and one for the elderly (60 years of age or older). The threshold to consider the vaccine efficacious will be to reach a protection level of at least 50%, as proposed by the World Health Organization and the FDA. Success in this criterion will be defined by sequential monitoring with adjustment of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval above 30% for the primary efficacy endpoint. Participants Healthy participants and / or participants with clinically controlled disease, of both genders, 18 years of age or older, working as health professionals performing care in units specialized in direct contact with people with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Participation of pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding, as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination will not be allowed. Participants will only be included after signing the voluntary Informed Consent Form and ensuring they undergo screening evaluation and conform to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the clinical sites are located in Brazil. Intervention and comparator Experimental intervention: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Life Sciences (Beijing, China) and contains 3 μg/0.5 mL (equivalent to 600 SU per dose) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, and aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant. Control comparator: The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL solution The schedule of both, experimental intervention and placebo is two 0.5 mL doses IM (deltoid) with a two week interval. Main outcomes The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of virologically confirmed COVID-19 two weeks after the second vaccination. The virological diagnosis will be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical sample. The primary safety endpoint is the frequency of solicited and unsolicited local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination according to age group in adult (18-59 years old) and elder (60 years of age or older) subjects. Adverse reactions are defined as adverse events that have a reasonable causal relationship to vaccination. Randomisation There will be two randomization lists, one for each age group, based on the investigational products to be administered, i.e ., vaccine or placebo at a 1: 1 ratio. Each randomization list will be made to include up to 11,800 (18-59 year-old) adults, and 1,260 elderly (60 y-o and older) participants, the maximum number of participants needed per age group. An electronic central randomization system will be used to designate the investigational product that each participant must receive. Blinding (masking) This trial is designed as a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias in the evaluation of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. The clinical care team, the professionals responsible for the vaccination and the participants will not know which investigational product will be administered. Only pharmacists or nurses in the study who are responsible for the randomization, separation and blinding of the investigational product will have access to unblinded information. The sponsor's operational team will also remain blind. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) The total number of participants needed to evaluate efficacy, 13,060 participants, satisfies the needed sample size calculated to evaluate safety. Therefore, the total number obtained for efficacy will be the number retained for the study. Up to 13,060 participants are expected to enter the study, with up to 11,800 participants aged 18 to 59 years and 1,260 elderly participants aged 60 and over. Half of the participants of each group will receive the experimental vaccine and half of them will receive the placebo. The recruitment of participants may be modified as recommended by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee at time of the interim unblinded analysis or blind assessment of the COVID-19 attack rate during the study. Trial Status Protocol version 2.0 – 24-Aug-2020. Recruitment started on July 21 st , 2020. The recruitment is expected to conclude in October 2020. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0445659 . Registry on 2 July 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Background Obtaining informed consent is a cornerstone of biomedical research, yet participants comprehension of presented information is often low. The most effective interventions to improve understanding rates have not been identified. Purpose To systematically analyze the random controlled trials testing interventions to research informed consent process. The primary outcome of interest was quantitative rates of participant understanding; secondary outcomes were rates of information retention, satisfaction, and accrual. Interventional categories included multimedia, enhanced consent documents, extended discussions, test/feedback quizzes, and miscellaneous methods. Methods The search spanned from database inception through September 2010. It was run on Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid CINAHL, Ovid PsycInfo and Cochrane CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science and Scopus. Five reviewers working independently and in duplicate screened full abstract text to determine eligibility. We included only RCTs. 39 out of 1523 articles fulfilled review criteria (2.6%), with a total of 54 interventions. A data extraction form was created in Distiller, an online reference management system, through an iterative process. One author collected data on study design, population, demographics, intervention, and analytical technique. Results Meta-analysis was possible on 22 interventions: multimedia, enhanced form, and extended discussion categories; all 54 interventions were assessed by review. Meta-analysis of multimedia approaches was associated with a non-significant increase in understanding scores (SMD 0.30, 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.84); enhanced consent form, with significant increase (SMD 1.73, 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.47); and extended discussion, with significant increase (SMD 0.53, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.84). By review, 31% of multimedia interventions showed significant improvement in understanding; 41% for enhanced consent form; 50% for extended discussion; 33% for test/feedback; and 29% for miscellaneous.Multiple sources of variation existed between included studies: control processes, the presence of a human proctor, real vs. simulated protocol, and assessment formats. Conclusions Enhanced consent forms and extended discussions were most effective in improving participant understanding. Interventions of all categories had no negative impact on participant satisfaction or study accrual. Identification of best practices for studies of informed consent interventions would aid future systematic comparisons.

The “cohort multiple randomized controlled trial,” a new design for pragmatic trials, embeds multiple trials within a cohort. The cohort multiple RCT is an attractive alternative to conventional RCTs in fields where recruitment is slow, multiple new (competing) interventions for the same condition have to be tested, new interventions are highly preferred by patients and doctors, and the risk of disappointment bias, cross-over, and contamination is considerable. To prevent these unwanted effects, the cohort multiple RCT provides information on randomization to the intervention group/arm only, and only after randomization (i.e., prerandomization). To some, especially in a clinical setting, this is not ethically acceptable. In this article, we argue that prerandomization in the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (cmRCT) can be avoided by adopting a staged-informed consent procedure. In the first stage, at entry into the cohort, all potential participants are asked for their informed consent to participate in a cohort study and broad consent to be either randomly selected to be approached for experimental interventions or to serve as control without further notice during participation in the cohort. In a second stage, at the initiation of an RCT within the cohort, informed consent to receive the intervention is then only sought in those randomly selected for the intervention arm. At the third stage, after completion of each RCT, all cohort participants receive aggregate disclosure of trial results. This staged-informed consent procedure avoids prerandomization in cmRCT and aims to keep participants actively engaged in the research process.

Background Informed consent is considered to be the standard method for respecting the autonomy of individual participants in research and practices and is thought to be based on several conditions: (1) providing information on the purpose of the research or a specific treatment, what it will entail, (2) the participants being mentally competent to understand the information and weigh it in the balance, and (3) the participants to be free from coercion. While there are studies of informed consent in other countries, especially Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), this study explored the experiences of clinicians regarding the process of obtaining informed consent to participate in a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) in particular and treatment in general in healthcare settings, both general and mental health, specifically focusing on the tension between individualistic concept of autonomy and collectivist values in cultures such as Pakistan. Methods Qualitative interviews with 20 clinicians from healthcare settings in Pakistan who also served as recruiters in a suicide prevention RCT in Pakistan. The interviews were guided by semi-structured topic guide. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Results The interviews revealed that shared decision making was more morally important than individual autonomy, the role of the family played a dominant part in the consent-taking procedure, the decision of the elder and/or family patriarch took prominence, and that clinician-researchers encountered significant challenges in consent process in Pakistan, while recruiting patients into the trial as well as during routine treatment processes in healthcare settings. Four distinct themes emerged which were (1) Family deciding for patients, (2) Benefits of involving family in consent process, (3) Gender disparity in consent process, (4) Challenges experienced by clinician-researchers during consent process in Pakistan. Conclusions The concept of consent is generally considered important in many cultures, however, there are two strands of understanding. There seems to be consensus that participant agreement is necessary to protect the participant but with regards to autonomy there are significant cultural differences whether it is the right for autonomy of the individual (individualistic concept) or family, community, or expert authority in other cultures. In Pakistan clinician-researchers sometimes preferred one approach and sometimes the other as they appreciated the interests of the patient to be.

Background Informed consent is a key aspect of conducting research studies, yet many participants do not understand critical study details after reviewing long, complex consent documents. The 2018 Common Rule aimed to address this challenge by requiring a key information section, a “concise and focused” presentation of important and relevant study information. In our ongoing work, we developed a template and toolkit to improve the presentation of key information by incorporating health literacy best practices, including color and visual icons. The goal of this study is to assess the impact of the visual key information (KI) pages at both the research coordinator and participant level. Methods We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial across three academic centers in the USA. We will randomize twelve research coordinators to six intervention sequences to use either usual care materials or the visual KI page when enrolling participants eligible for their independent research trials. Primary outcomes will be assessed at the research coordinator level and include organizational willingness and readiness to adopt the visual KI intervention and the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the intervention. Changes in these outcomes will be compared before implementation (baseline) and after implementation (post-recruitment). Secondary outcomes will be assessed at the participant level and include knowledge of study information, satisfaction with consent information, decisional conflict about joining the trial, and trial enrollment. We will use a two-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare the difference in primary outcomes. We will use multivariable linear regression models to investigate the effect of the consent intervention on the secondary outcomes. Discussion This study will evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to improve informed consent processes using a visual KI page. Establishing the effectiveness of visual KI pages will allow for broader dissemination to the research community and sustained use over time. Trial registration The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov, Identifier NCT06804837. Registered on January 27, 2025.

Background Recruiting and consenting women to peripartum trials can be challenging as the women concerned may be anxious, in pain, and exhausted; there may also be limited time for discussion and decision-making to occur. To address these potential difficulties, we undertook a qualitative evaluation of the internal pilot of a trial (Got-it) involving women who had a retained placenta (RP). We explored the experiences and views of women and staff about the information and consent pathway used within the pilot, in order to provide recommendations for use in future peripartum trials involving recruitment in emergency situations. Methods In-depth interviews were undertaken with staff ( n  = 27) and participating women ( n  = 22). Interviews were analysed thematically. The accounts of women and staff were compared to identify differences and similarities in their views about recruitment and consent procedures. Results Women and staff regarded recruitment as having been straightforward and facilitated by the use of simplified (verbal and written) summaries of trial information. Both parties, however, conveyed discordant views about whether fully informed consent had been obtained. These differences in perspectives appeared to arise from the different factors and considerations impinging on women and staff at the time of recruitment. While staff placed emphasis on promoting understanding in the emergency situation of RP by imparting information in clear and succinct ways, women highlighted the experiential realities of their pre- and post-birthing situations, and how these had led to quick decisions being made without full engagement with the potential risks of trial participation. To facilitate informed consent, women suggested that trial information should be given during the antenatal period, and, in doing so, articulated a rights-based discourse. Staff, however, voiced opposition to this approach by emphasising a duty of care to all pregnant women, and raising concerns about causing undue distress to the majority of individuals who would not subsequently develop a RP. Conclusions By drawing upon the perspectives of women and staff involved in the same trial we have shown that they may operate within different experiential and ethical paradigms. In doing so, we argue for the potential benefits of drawing upon multiple perspectives when developing information and consent pathways used in future (peripartum) trials. Trial registration ISCRTN 88609453 .

Background Human infection studies (HIS) are valuable in vaccine development. Deliberate infection, however, creates challenging questions, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where HIS are new and ethical challenges may be heightened. Consultation with stakeholders is needed to support contextually appropriate and acceptable study design. We examined stakeholder perceptions about the acceptability and ethics of HIS in Malawi, to inform decisions about planned pneumococcal challenge research and wider understanding of HIS ethics in LMICs. Methods We conducted 6 deliberative focus groups and 15 follow-up interviews with research staff, medical students, and community representatives from rural and urban Blantyre. We also conducted 5 key informant interviews with clinicians, ethics committee members, and district health government officials. Results Stakeholders perceived HIS research to have potential population health benefits, but they also had concerns, particularly related to the safety of volunteers and negative community reactions. Acceptability depended on a range of conditions related to procedures for voluntary and informed consent, inclusion criteria, medical care or support, compensation, regulation, and robust community engagement. These conditions largely mirror those in existing guidelines for HIS and biomedical research in LMICs. Stakeholder perceptions pointed to potential tensions, for example, balancing equity, safety, and relevance in inclusion criteria. Conclusions Our findings suggest HIS research could be acceptable in Malawi, provided certain conditions are in place. Ongoing assessment of participant experiences and stakeholder perceptions will be required to strengthen HIS research during development and roll-out.

Introduction Performing rigorously designed clinical trials in device-based treatments is challenging. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is the most effective device-based treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea. We performed a randomised crossover trial of CPAP versus placebo therapy and did not disclose the presence of placebo. We assessed rates of staff unblinding, the likelihood of patient unblinding and obtained patient perceptions on lack of full disclosure. Methods All patients (n=30) underwent a semi-structured exit interview. Prior to full disclosure patients were asked questions to ascertain whether they suspected one therapy was ineffective. The use of placebo was then disclosed and additional questions were administered to indicate the likelihood of unblinding had full disclosure occurred during consent. Staff unblinding was determined by means of a questionnaire that was completed after each patient encounter. Results While the lack of full disclosure prevented patient unblinding during the trial, patients revealed a clear preference for active CPAP. After disclosing the presence of placebo, 73% (n=22) felt they would have been unblinded had they known at the start of the trial. Only one patient described unease about the lack of full disclosure. Staff thought they were unblinded in 6% (n=16/282) of encounters. They correctly identified the treatment device in 69% of cases (n=11/16, p<0.001). Conclusions Successful patient blinding was achieved, however this was probably reliant on the lack of full disclosure. Staff unblinding occurred and highlights the difficulty with investigator blinding in device-based trials. Ethical challenges in this type of study are likely to compromise research feasibility. Trial registration number This clinical trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry at http://www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN 12605000066684).