Recontacting Pediatric Research Participants for Consent When They Reach the Age of Majority

Because children are presumed to have insufficient cognitive ability to consent to participate in research, pediatric research raises particular ethical and legal issues. For children who have not reached the age of consent stipulated by law or policy, parents (or legal guardians) must authorize their participation. This paper explores the issue of whether, to satisfy the ethical and legal norms of consent for research, participants in pediatric studies who attain the age of majority after their parents or guardians enrolled them in a study should be “recontacted” to obtain their consent to remain in the study. Using three different contexts (longitudinal studies, clinical trials, and newborn screening), we argue that distinctions should be made between the risks and benefits involved in recontacting for consent before determining the potential duties of researchers. An obligation to recontact should always be balanced with the feasibility and cost of such efforts in each particular research context and with consideration for the existence or lack of an ongoing relationship with the participant.status: publishe

Safety profile of statins alone or combined with ezetimibe: a pooled analysis of 27 studies including over 22,000 patients treated for 6-24 weeks

Aims: The aim of this analysis was to assess the overall safety and tolerability profiles of various statins + ezetimibe vs. statin monotherapy and to explore tolerability in sub-populations grouped by age, race, and sex. Methods: Study-level data were combined from 27 double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-comparator trials that randomized adult hypercholesterolemic patients to statin or statin + ezetimibe for 6-24 weeks. In the full cohort, % patients with AEs within treatment groups (statin: N = 10,517; statin + ezetimibe: N = 11,714) was assessed by logistic regression with terms for first-/second-line therapy (first line = drug-naïve or rendered drug-naïve by washout at study entry; second line = ongoing statin at study entry or statin run-in), trial within first-/second-line therapy, and treatment. The same model was fitted for age (< 65, ≥ 65 years), sex, race (white, black, other) and first-/second-line subgroups with additional terms for subgroup and subgroup-by-treatment interaction. Results: In the full cohort, the only significant difference between treatments was consecutive AST or ALT elevations ≥ 3 × upper limit of normal (ULN) (statin: 0.35%, statin + ezetimibe: 0.56%; p = 0.017). Significantly more subjects reported ≥ 1 AE; drug-related, hepatitis-related and gastrointestinal-related AEs; and CK elevations ≥ 10 × ULN (all p ≤ 0.008) in first-line vs. second-line therapy studies with both treatments. AEs were generally similar between treatments in subgroups, and similar rates of AEs were reported within age and race subgroups; however, women reported generally higher AE rates. Conclusions: In conclusion, in second-line studies, ongoing statin treatment at study entry likely screened out participants for previous statin-related AEs and tolerability issues. These results describe the safety profiles of widely used lipid-lowering therapies and encourage their appropriate and judicious use in certain subpopulations

Streams as Entanglement of Nature and Culture: European Upper Paleolithic River Systems and Their Role as Features of Spatial Organization

Human Origin