Patient and Surrogate Views of Community Consultation for Emergency Research

ObjectivePretrial community consultation (CC) is required for emergency research conducted under an exception from informed consent (EFIC) in the United States. CC remains controversial and challenging, and minimal data exist regarding the views of individuals enrolled in EFIC trials on this process. It is important to know whether participants perceive CC to be meaningful and, if so, whom they believe should be consulted.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from two studies interviewing patients and surrogates of two recent EFIC trials (PEER‐RAMPART and PEER‐ProTECT). These interviews included similar open‐ and closed‐ended questions regarding participants’ views of the importance of CC, the rationale for their responses, and their views regarding which populations should be included in consultation efforts. A template analytic strategy was used for qualitative analysis of textual data, and descriptive statistics were tabulated to characterize demographic data and instances of major themes.ResultsNinety percent of participants perceived CC to be valuable. Participants’ reasons for finding CC valuable clustered in two categories: 1) as a method of informing the public about the trial to be conducted and 2) as a way of obtaining input and feedback from the community. Participants cited the medical community (43%) and individuals with a connection to the study condition (41%) as the most important groups to involve in consultation efforts; only 5% suggested consulting the general public in the area where the research will be conducted.ConclusionParticipants in EFIC trials and their decision makers generally valued CC as a method of informing and seeking input from the community. Participants felt that the most appropriate groups to consult were the medical community and individuals with connections to the condition under study. Consultation efforts focused on these two groups, rather than the general public, may be more efficient and more meaningful to individuals involved in EFIC trials. These findings also reinforce the importance of the distinction between public disclosure and CC.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139974/1/acem13265-sup-0001-DataSupplementS1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139974/2/acem13265_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/139974/3/acem13265.pd

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

The Future of Flu: A Review of the Human Challenge Model and Systems Biology for Advancement of Influenza Vaccinology

Objectives: Novel approaches to advance the field of vaccinology must be investigated, and are particularly of importance for influenza in order to produce a more effective vaccine. A systematic review of human challenge studies for influenza was performed, with the goal of assessing safety and ethics and determining how these studies have led to therapeutic and vaccine development. A systematic review of systems biology approaches for the study of influenza was also performed, with a focus on how this technology has been utilized for influenza vaccine development.Methods: The PubMed database was searched for influenza human challenge studies, and for systems biology studies that have addressed both influenza infection and immunological effects of vaccination.Results: Influenza human challenge studies have led to important advancements in therapeutics and influenza immunization, and can be performed safely and ethically if certain criteria are met. Many studies have investigated the use of systems biology for evaluating immune response to influenza vaccine, and several promising molecular signatures may help advance our understanding of pathogenesis and be used as targets for influenza interventions. Combining these methodologies has the potential to lead to significant advances in the field of influenza vaccinology and therapeutics.Conclusions: Human challenge studies and systems biology approaches are important tools that should be used in concert to advance our understanding of influenza infection and provide targets for novel therapeutics and immunizations

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

Potential Unintended Consequences Of Recent Shared Decision Making Policy Initiatives

Shared decision making (SDM)-when clinicians and patients make medical decisions together-is moving swiftly from an ethical ideal toward widespread clinical implementation affecting millions of patients through recent policy initiatives. We argue that policy initiatives to promote SDM implementation in clinical practice carry the risk of several unintended negative consequences if limitations in defining and measuring SDM are not addressed. We urge policy makers to include prespecified definitions of desired outcomes, offer guidance on the tools used to measure SDM in the multitude of contexts in which it occurs, evaluate the impact of SDM policy initiatives over time, review that impact at regular intervals, and revise SDM measurement tools as needed

Surrogate Perspectives on Patient Preference Predictors: Good Idea, but I Should Decide How They Are Used

Current practice frequently fails to provide care consistent with the preferences of decisionally-incapacitated patients. It also imposes significant emotional burden on their surrogates. Algorithmic-based patient preference predictors (PPPs) have been proposed as a possible way to address these two concerns. While previous research found that patients strongly support the use of PPPs, the views of surrogates are unknown. The present study thus assessed the views of experienced surrogates regarding the possible use of PPPs as a means to help make treatment decisions for decisionally-incapacitated patients.This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to determine the views of experienced surrogates [n = 26] who were identified from two academic medical centers and two community hospitals. The primary outcomes were respondents' overall level of support for the idea of using PPPs and the themes related to their views on how a PPP should be used, if at all, in practice.Overall, 21 participants supported the idea of using PPPs. The remaining five indicated that they would not use a PPP because they made decisions based on the patient's best interests, not based on substituted judgment. Major themes which emerged were that surrogates, not the patient's preferences, should determine how treatment decisions are made, and concern that PPPs might be used to deny expensive care or be biased against minority groups.Surrogates, like patients, strongly support the idea of using PPPs to help make treatment decisions for decisionally-incapacitated patients. These findings provide support for developing a PPP and assessing it in practice. At the same time, patients and surrogates disagree over whose preferences should determine how treatment decisions are made, including whether to use a PPP. These findings reveal a fundamental disagreement regarding the guiding principles for surrogate decision-making. Future research is needed to assess this disagreement and consider ways to address it