Distinctive aspects of consent in pilot and feasibility studies

Prior to a main randomized clinical trial, investigators often carry out a pilot or feasibility study in order to test certain trial processes or estimate key statistical parameters, so as to optimize the design of the main trial and/or determine whether it can feasibly be run. Pilot studies reflect the design of the intended main trial, whereas feasibility studies may not do so, and may not involve allocation to different treatments. Testing relative clinical effectiveness is not considered an appropriate aim of pilot or feasibility studies. However, consent is no less important than in a main trial as a means of morally legitimizing the investigator's actions. Two misperceptions are central to consent in clinical studies-therapeutic misconception (a tendency to conflate research and therapy) and therapeutic misestimation (a tendency to overestimate possible benefits and/or underestimate possible harms associated with participation). These phenomena may take a distinctive form in pilot and feasibility studies, owing to potential participants' likely prior unfamiliarity with the nature and purposes of such studies. Thus, participants may confuse the aims of a pilot or feasibility study (developing or optimizing trial design and processes) with those of a main trial (testing treatment effectiveness) and base consent on this misconstrual. Similarly, a misunderstanding of the ability of pilot and feasibility studies to provide information that will inform clinical care, or the underdeveloped nature of interventions included in such studies, may lead to inaccurate assessments of the objective possibility of benefit, and weaken the epistemic basis of consent accordingly. Equipoise may also be particularly challenging to grasp in the context of a pilot study. The consent process in pilot and feasibility studies requires a particular focus, and careful communication, if it is to carry the appropriate moral weight. There are corresponding implications for the process of ethical approval

Barriers in phase I cancer clinical trials referrals and enrollment: five-year experience at the Princess Margaret Hospital

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature on the referral outcome of patients seen in phase I trial clinics in academic oncology centres. This study aims to provide information on the accrual rate and to identify obstacles in the recruitment process. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all new patients referred and seen in the phase I clinic at the Princess Margaret Hospital between January 2000 and June 2005. Data on their demographics, medical history, and details of trial participation or non-entry were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 667 new phase I referrals were seen during the stated period. Of these patients, 197 (29.5%) patients were enrolled into a phase I trial, and 64.5% of them started trial within 1 month of the initial visit. About a quarter (165 of 667) of the patients referred were deemed ineligible at their first visit, with the most frequent reasons for ineligibility being poor performance status, unacceptable bloodwork, too many prior treatments and rapid disease progression. The remaining 305 patients (45.7%) were potentially eligible at their initial visit, but never entered a phase I trial. The main reasons for their non-entry were patient refusal, other treatment recommended first, and lack of available trials or trial spots. CONCLUSION: This study provides information on the clinical realities underlying a referral to a phase I clinic and eventual trial enrollment. Better selection of patients, appropriate education of referring physicians, and opening phase I trials with fewer restrictions on some criteria such as prior therapy may enhance their recruitment rates

Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial

BACKGROUND: Epilepsy is a common neurological condition, in which drugs are the mainstay of treatment and drugs trials are commonplace. Understanding why patients might or might not opt to participate in epilepsy drug trials is therefore of some importance, particularly at a time of rapid drug development and testing; and the findings may also have wider applicability. This study examined the role of patient perceptions in the decision-making process about recruitment to an RCT (the SANAD Trial) that compared different antiepileptic drug treatments for the management of new-onset seizures and epilepsy. METHODS: In-depth interviews with 23 patients recruited from four study centres. All interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed; the transcripts were analysed thematically using a qualitative data analysis package. RESULTS: Of the nineteen informants who agreed to participate in SANAD, none agreed for purely altruistic reasons. The four informants who declined all did so for very specific reasons of self-interest. Informants' perceptions of the nature of the trial, of the drugs subject to trial, and of their own involvement were all highly influential in their decision-making. Informants either perceived the trial as potentially beneficial or unlikely to be harmful, and so agreed to participate; or as potentially harmful or unlikely to be beneficial and so declined to participate. CONCLUSION: Most patients applied 'weak altruism', while maintaining self-interest. An emphasis on the safety and equivalence of treatments allowed some patients to be indifferent to the question of involvement. There was evidence that some participants were subject to 'therapeutic misconceptions'. The findings highlight the individual nature of trials but nonetheless raise some generic issues in relation to their design and conduct

Trial participation as avoidance strategy: a qualitative study

Background: Trial participation decisions are often influenced by expectations of potential benefit. Attention has focused on trial participation as a means of securing something seen as desirable, such as experimental treatment. In contrast, we consider a case in which one trial arm involved receiving less than usual care. We explore how this influenced participants’ decisions to participate. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 29 women participating in a pilot trial comparing invasive urodynamic testing (typically normal care) to basic clinical assessment with non-invasive tests, prior to surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Invasive tests were something many were aware of and worried about. Participants understood that trial participation meant they might avoid having these tests, and for about one-third, this was the primary factor motivating participation. A further third mentioned they were not looking forward to tests (if allocated to them) or were lucky to have missed them (if allocated to basic clinical assessment). None of the women appeared to have discussed their desire to avoid having invasive tests with their clinicians. Conclusions: In contrast to cases in which trial participation is motivated by the wish to secure an intervention not otherwise available, this study reports the opposite – trial participation as an opportunity to avoid having something regarded as undesirable. The option to decline a particular intervention should always be available, and care must be taken to ensure that potential participants are aware that trial participation is not the only possible means of avoidance

Perfil de sujeitos de pesquisa clínica em um centro ambulatorial independente Profile of clinical research subjects in an independent outpatient center

Este artigo tem como objetivos avaliar a qualidade de atendimento de um centro de pesquisa clínica e o entendimento do termo de consentimento informado (TCLE); determinar os motivos da participação e detalhar níveis socioeconômicos. Foi feito um estudo transversal em centro de pesquisa ambulatorial, através de questionário auto-explicativo. Dos cem questionários avaliados, todos os sujeitos de pesquisa consideraram o centro como ótimo (86%) ou bom (9%). A quase totalidade foi bem informada do conteúdo do TCLE e o conhecimento do direito "confidencialidade", comum a todos os TCLEs, foi seis vezes maior que " acesso aos dados", que não faz parte. Os principais motivos para participarem foram para "saber mais sobre a sua saúde" (59%) e para "beneficiar outras pessoas no futuro" (47%). A principal faixa de renda salarial dos participantes foi entre dois e cinco salários mínimos (48%) e a maioria (66%) concluiu pelo menos até a 4º série do ensino fundamental. A população possui o mesmo perfil econômico do Rio de Janeiro, nível de escolaridade suficiente para assinar e compreender o que está assinando, conhecendo não só a existência do TCLE, mas demonstrando conhecer seu conteúdo. O motivo principal para participação é para autobenefício e por atitude altruísta.<br>This paper assesses the quality of assistance in a clinical trial outpatient center as well as the patients´understanding of the informed consent (IC); determine the reasons why they participate and detail socio-economic levels. A cross-sectional study was adopted in a clinical trial outpatient center using a self-explanatory questionnaire. All 100 respondents considered the assistance at the center excellent (86%) or good (9%). Almost all of them were well informed about the content of the IC. Their knowledge about the right to "confidentiality", present in all ICs, was 6 times higher than their knowledge about their right to "access the results", generally not included in the IC. The main reasons for participating were "to know more about ones health" (59%) and to "to benefit other people in the future" (47%). The participants´ income varied from 3 to 5 minimum wages (48%) and most (66%) concluded at least the 4th grade of basic education in Brazil. The subjects showed the economical characteristics of the average population of Rio de Janeiro. Their level of education allowed them to sign and to understand what they were signing. They were aware of the existence of the IC and its content. The main reason for participating was for one´s own benefit and for the benefit of others

Communication and informed consent in phase 1 trials: a review of the literature

Phase 1 (P1) trials are vital to the development of cancer treatments; however, the patients involved in these trials are unlikely to receive any therapeutic benefit, and there are significant possibilities that they will experience serious side effects. Ethical requirements stipulate that patients must be adequately informed before they consent to participate in P1 trials. This review focuses on studies that have measured patient comprehension of information given during the informed consent process of P1 cancer trials. Patients consenting to participate in P1 trials currently have a limited understanding of trial purpose, an unrealistic expectation of the benefits and risks associated with trial participation and a questionable appreciation of their right to abstain or withdraw. Health care professionals recruiting to P1 trials need clear and practical guidelines and training packages designed to ensure that all details of P1 trials are communicated effectively to eligible patients