Balancing Ethical Goals in Challenging Individual Participant Scenarios Occurring in a Trial Conducted with Exception from Informed Consent

In 1996, federal regulations were put into effect that allowed enrollment of critically ill or injured patients into Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‐regulated clinical trials using an exception from informed consent (EFIC) under narrowly prescribed research circumstances. Despite the low likelihood that a legally authorized representative (LAR) would be present within the interventional time frame, the EFIC regulations require the availability of an informed consent process, to be applied if an LAR is present and able to provide prospective consent for patient enrollment into the trial. The purpose of this article is to describe a series of unanticipated consent‐related questions arising when a potential surrogate decision‐maker appeared to be available at the time of patient enrollment into a trial proceeding under EFIC.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/110828/1/acem12602.pd

Consulting Communities When Patients Cannot Consent: A Multi-Center Study of Community Consultation for Research in Emergency Settings

OBJECTIVE: To assess the range of responses to community consultation efforts conducted within a large network and the impact of different consultation methods on acceptance of exception from informed consent (EFIC) research and understanding of the proposed study. DESIGN: A cognitively pre-tested survey instrument was administered to 2,612 community consultation participants at 12 US centers participating in a multi-center trial of treatment for acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). SETTING: Survey nested within community consultation for a Phase III, randomized controlled trial of treatment for acute TBI conducted within a multi-center trial network and using EFIC. SUBJECTS: Adult participants in community consultation events. INTERVENTIONS: Community consultation efforts at participating sites. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Acceptance of EFIC in general, attitude toward personal EFIC enrollment, and understanding of the study content were assessed. 54% of participants agreed EFIC was acceptable in the proposed study; 71% were accepting of personal EFIC enrollment. Participants in interactive versus non-interactive community consultation events were more accepting of EFIC in general (63% vs. 49%) and personal EFIC inclusion (77% vs. 67%). Interactive community consultation participants had high-level recall of study content significantly more often than non-interactive consultation participants (77% vs. 67%). Participants of interactive consultation were more likely to recall possible study benefits (61% vs. 45%) but less likely to recall potential risks (56% vs. 69%). CONCLUSIONS: Interactive community consultation methods were associated with increased acceptance of EFIC and greater overall recall of study information but lower recall of risks. There was also significant variability in EFIC acceptance among different interactive consultation events. These findings have important implications for IRBs and investigators conducting EFIC research and for community engagement efforts in research more generally

Meeting unique requirements: Community consultation and public disclosure for research in emergency setting using exception from informed consent

BackgroundException from informed consent (EFIC) regulations for research in emergency settings contain unique requirements for community consultation and public disclosure. These requirements address ethical challenges intrinsic to this research context. Multiple approaches have evolved to accomplish these activities that may reflect and advance different aims. This scoping review was designed to identify areas of consensus and lingering uncertainty in the literature.MethodsScoping review methodology was used. Conceptual and empirical literature related to community consultation and public disclosure for EFIC research was included and identified through a structured search using Embase, HEIN Online, PubMed, and Web of Science. Data were extracted using a standardized tool with domains for major literature categories.ResultsAmong 84 manuscripts, major domains included conceptual or policy issues, reports of community consultation processes and results, and reports of public disclosure processes and results. Areas of consensus related to community consultation included the need for a two‐way exchange of information and use of multiple methods. Public acceptance of personal EFIC enrollment is commonly 64% to 85%. There is less consensus regarding how to assess attitudes, what “communities” to prioritize, and how to determine adequacy for individual projects. Core goals of public disclosure are less well developed; no metrics exist for assessing adequacy.ConclusionsMultiple methods are used to meet community consultation and public disclosure requirements. There remain no settled norms for assessing adequacy of public disclosure, and there is lingering debate about needed breadth and depth of community consultation.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170817/1/acem14264_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170817/2/acem14264.pd

Efficacy of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate for established status epilepticus by age group (ESETT): a double-blind, responsive-adaptive, randomised controlled trial

BackgroundBenzodiazepine-refractory, or established, status epilepticus is thought to be of similar pathophysiology in children and adults, but differences in underlying aetiology and pharmacodynamics might differentially affect response to therapy. In the Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial (ESETT) we compared the efficacy and safety of levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate in established status epilepticus, and here we describe our results after extending enrolment in children to compare outcomes in three age groups.MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, response-adaptive, randomised controlled trial, we recruited patients from 58 hospital emergency departments across the USA. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 2 years or older, had been treated for a generalised convulsive seizure of longer than 5 min duration with adequate doses of benzodiazepines, and continued to have persistent or recurrent convulsions in the emergency department for at least 5 min and no more than 30 min after the last dose of benzodiazepine. Patients were randomly assigned in a response-adaptive manner, using Bayesian methods and stratified by age group (<18 years, 18-65 years, and >65 years), to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, or valproate. All patients, investigators, study staff, and pharmacists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was absence of clinically apparent seizures with improved consciousness and without additional antiseizure medication at 1 h from start of drug infusion. The primary safety outcome was life-threatening hypotension or cardiac arrhythmia. The efficacy and safety outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01960075.FindingsBetween Nov 3, 2015, and Dec 29, 2018, we enrolled 478 patients and 462 unique patients were included: 225 children (aged <18 years), 186 adults (18-65 years), and 51 older adults (>65 years). 175 (38%) patients were randomly assigned to levetiracetam, 142 (31%) to fosphenyltoin, and 145 (31%) were to valproate. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatments within age groups. The primary efficacy outcome was met in those treated with levetiracetam for 52% (95% credible interval 41-62) of children, 44% (33-55) of adults, and 37% (19-59) of older adults; with fosphenytoin in 49% (38-61) of children, 46% (34-59) of adults, and 35% (17-59) of older adults; and with valproate in 52% (41-63) of children, 46% (34-58) of adults, and 47% (25-70) of older adults. No differences were detected in efficacy or primary safety outcome by drug within each age group. With the exception of endotracheal intubation in children, secondary safety outcomes did not significantly differ by drug within each age group.InterpretationChildren, adults, and older adults with established status epilepticus respond similarly to levetiracetam, fosphenytoin, and valproate, with treatment success in approximately half of patients. Any of the three drugs can be considered as a potential first-choice, second-line drug for benzodiazepine-refractory status epilepticus.FundingNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health