Reconfiguring tissue banking consent through enrichment of a restricted debate

Tissue banks are thought to be an essential resource for medical research in the post-genomic age. Collections of tissue, usually removed in the course of diagnostic or therapeutic procedures, enable laboratory-based epidemiological studies to be carried out, linking abnormalities in the tissue to disease aetiology, prognosis and treatment responsiveness. There are, however, a number of technical, regulatory and ethical concerns that challenge those wishing to engage in tissue banking research. It is becoming increasingly apparent that tissue banking research is not without risk of harms, even though there is no direct physical risk to donors. This is because, in order to be most useful, banked specimens need to be linked to personal information about tissue donors and this poses the risk of inadvertent disclosure of personal─ particularly genetic─ information to those who might exploit such information (eg. insurance companies and employers). Furthermore, the long-term storage of specimens, and the impossibility of predicting all potential types of research programs for which they might be useful, raises the possibility that future projects will be carried out that are unacceptable to some (past) tissue donors. The ethical principles of autonomy and respect for persons demand that research subjects be informed of such risks and of the nature of the research, and that they participate willingly. On the other hand, there is a desire for science to progress unhindered by stringent consent requirements. For these reasons, a debate has emerged in the academic (bioethical and biomedical) literature and in the legal (law reform) sphere over what would constitute adequate consent. Despite an extensive discourse, it is still unclear whether it is permissible to carry out research on archival tissue that was originally taken for diagnostic purposes and whether project-specific (as opposed to open-ended) consent is required for research on tissue collected today. This lack of clarity is of concern to researchers, ethics committees and research subjects, all of whom recognise the importance of tissue banking research, yet fear that current consent procedures may be ethically or legally inadequate. Thus it is important that the consent dilemma be resolved as quickly and definitively as possible. Ongoing controversy and regulatory ambiguity are appropriate when morally contentious issues are at stake, and their existence does not, on its own, signal any flaws in the discourse process. There are, however, two reasons to suspect that the current 'consent to tissue banking' debate, as portrayed in the academic literature and law reform documentation, is problematic. Firstly, the debate appears to be mired in an intractable conflict between those who want to maximise personal autonomy through stringent consent requirements, and those who want the scientific endeavour to progress in a manner that is unconstrained by what are viewed as arduous consent procedures. Secondly, the possible practical options (consent models) being generated by the debate are all limited because they are underpinned by a restricted notion of consent as an individualistic, legalistic and static activity, without consideration of any alternative conceptualisations of consent. Through a thematic analysis of the current 'consent to tissue banking' debate in the academic and law reform literature (Section 3), this thesis shows that debate is essentially occurring between those who see individual autonomy (and stringent consent) as being of primary importance, and those who see unimpeded, market-driven scientific progress as the more important social good, which should not be impeded by unnecessarily stringent consent. Thematic analysis also confirms the existence of the two problems described above, and a failure of those engaged in the debate to reflect on, and challenge, the value-level assumptions underpinning their arguments and those of their opponents. It is argued that this lack of reflection accounts for the two problems: • Firstly, it precludes recognition of the cause of─ and, therefore, ways of resolving─ the intractable conflict at the centre of the debate. Value-level reflection shows that this is a result of the logical and moral conflict within western liberalism, between two modernist goods: individual freedom and scientific progress. • Secondly, it precludes the generation of varied conceptions of consent. Value-level reflection shows that the current range of consent models is restricted to procedures which are individualistic, abstract, static and legalistic, since they are underpinned by western liberal notions of autonomy and scientific progress. This recognition paves the way to consideration of alternative notions of autonomy, scientific progress and, therefore, consent, such as those derived from communitarian and feminist systems of values. A conceptually enriched model of tissue banking consent is then developed (Section 4). This model incorporates dominant (liberal) conceptions of autonomy and scientific progress as well as alternative notions of autonomy and scientific progress espoused by communitarian and feminist systems of values. It is argued that this conceptually-enriched model provides a practical solution to the two problems associated with the standard 'consent to tissue banking' debate. In relation to the philosophically intractable conflict─ or what is termed the 'modernist dilemma'─ between those privileging autonomy and those privileging scientific progress, it shows how the two apparently conflicting 'modernist' goods can both be accommodated at a practical level, thus making the 'consent to tissue banking' debate more tractable and fruitful. In relation to the restricted range of consent models being generated by the current debate, it provides new insights into the ways in which consent might be obtained such that a broader range of community values can be accommodated. More specifically, it stimulates the construction of a model that 1) involves communities, as opposed to merely individuals, in all stages of the scientific process; 2) is flexible and able to adapt consent procedures to specific contexts, rather than predefining procedures in abstract terms; and 3) is transactional and relational rather than static and legalistic. This outcome has interesting philosophical as well as practical implications. It shows that despite apparently unresolved, and possibly irresolvable, normative-level conflicts between the two modernist elements of western liberalism (autonomy and scientific progress), and between liberal, feminist and communitarian systems of values, a multi-perspectival, inclusive, model-building approach provides a practical solution that circumvents these normative-level conflicts

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

Study question Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? Summary answer: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. What is known already: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. Study design, size, duration: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). Participants/materials, setting, methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. Main results and the role of chance: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Limitations, reasons for caution: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. Wider implications of the findings: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. Study funding/competing interest(s): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. Trial registration number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.J.M.N.Duffy, H.AlAhwany, S.Bhattacharya, B.Collura ... Bernardus Mol ... Mary Hull ... et al

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION:Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER:Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.J M N Duffy, S Bhattacharya, S Bhattacharya, M Bofill, B Collura, C Curtis ... et al

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study

STUDY QUESTION:Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER:A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.J M N Duffy, H AlAhwany, S Bhattacharya, B Collura, C Curtis, J L H Evers ... et al

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set : an international consensus development study

Acknowledgments We would like to thank the consensus development meeting participants and colleagues at the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, New Zealand. Funding This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data or manuscript preparation. Siladitya Bhattacharya was supported by the University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. B.W.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) This article has not been externally peer reviewed. This article has been published simultaneously in Fertility and SterilityPeer reviewedPublisher PD

A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility.

STUDY QUESTIONS: We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests

Developing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future infertility research

Background: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and outcome reporting bias, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. Objectives: To develop a core outcome set to standardise outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. Methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods including a three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries) (1). Results: The core outcome set consists of: (1) viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancies); (2) pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); (3) live birth; (4) gestational age at delivery; (5) birth weight; (6) neonatal mortality; and (7) major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Conclusions: Embedding the core outcome set within randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023