Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:58:03.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Informed Consent for Comparative Effectiveness Research Should Include Risks of Standard Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Lois Shepherd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explains why informed consent for randomized comparative effectiveness research (CER) must include risks of standard care. Disclosures of such risks are both legally and ethically required and, for reasons discussed in the paper, should remain so.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 3: Symposium - Controversies in Clinical Research Ethics , Fall 2017 , pp. 352 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lantos, J. and Feudtner, C., “SUPPORT and the Ethics of Study Implementation: Lessons for Comparative Effectiveness Research from the Trial of Oxygen Therapy for Premature Babies,” Hastings Center Report 45, no. 1 (2015): 30-40, at 30.Google Scholar
Faden, R. R., Beauchamp, T. L., and Kass, N. E., “Informed Consent, Comparative Effectiveness, and Learning Health Care,” New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 8 (2014): 766-67, at 766.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Trifiletti, D. M., Showalter, T. N., and Shepherd, L., “What Is Reasonable Foreseeable? Lessons Learned from the SUPPORT Trial,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology 92, no. 4 (2015): 718-720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office for Human Research Protections, “Draft Guidance on Disclosing Reasonably Foreseeable Risks in Research Evaluating Standards of Care,” 79 FR 63629-03, October 20, 2014, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/requests-for-comments/draft-guidance-disclosing-risk-in-standards-of-care/index.html> (last visited August 2, 2017) [hereinafter “Draft Guidance”].+(last+visited+August+2,+2017)+[hereinafter+“Draft+Guidance”].>Google Scholar
Cho, M. K. et al., “Attitudes toward Risk and Informed Consent for Research on Medical Practices,” Annals of Internal Medicine 162, no. 10 (2015): 690-696.Google Scholar
Comparative effectiveness research can also refer to purely observational studies in which patients receive usual clinical care from their physicians or other health care providers but data on their outcomes is prospectively tracked for research purposes. This article focuses on CER studies in which patient care is altered for research purposes, such as in randomized trials.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R., “When Is Participation in Research a Moral Duty?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 45, no. 3 (2017): 318-326.Google Scholar
Kass, N. E., Faden, R. R., Goodman, S. N., Pronovost, P., Tunis, S., and Beauchamp, T. L., “The Research-Treatment Distinction: A Problematic Approach for Determining Which Activities Should Have Ethical Oversight,” Hastings Center Report Special Report 43, no. 1 (2013): S4–S15. doi: 10.1002/hast.133.Google Scholar
Faden, R. R., Kass, N. E., Goodman, S. N., Pronovost, P., Tunis, S., and Beauchamp, T. L., “An Ethics Framework for a Learning Health Care System: A Departure from Traditional Research Ethics and Clinical Ethics,” Hastings Center Report Special Report 43, no. 1 (2013): S16–S27. doi: 10.1002/hast.134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Kass, et al., supra note 9.Google Scholar
See Faden, et al., supra note 2.Google Scholar
See Lantos, and Feudtner, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id. See also Shepherd, L., “SUPPORT and Comparative Effectiveness Trials: What's At Stake,” Hastings Center Report 45, no. 1 (2014): 44-45 (arguing the opposite).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
In this respect, I believe John Lantos and I are in agreement. “We believe strongly in the need for voluntary and informed consent for clinical research.” Lantos, J. D. and Spertus, J. A., “The Concept of Risk in Comparative-Effectiveness Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 371, no. 22 (2014): 2129-2130.Google Scholar
2 Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 181-82 (1946-1949).Google Scholar
“The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research,” Pub. No. 78-0012; The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979), at 7, available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html> (last visited August 2, 2017).+(last+visited+August+2,+2017).>Google Scholar
Id., at 4. “To show lack of respect for an autonomous agent is to repudiate that person's considered judgments, to deny an individual the freedom to act on those considered judgments, or to withhold information necessary to make a considered judgment, when there are no compelling reasons to do so.”Google Scholar
Id., at 7.Google Scholar
Annas, G. J. and Annas, C. L., “Legally Blind: The Therapeutic Illusion in the SUPPORT Study of Extremely Premature Infants,” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 30, no. 1 (2013): 1-36.Google Scholar
Morse, R. J. and Wilson, R. F., “Realizing ‘Informed’ Consent in Times of Controversy: Lessons from the SUPPORT Study,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 44, no. 3 (2016): 402-418.Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents, 51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990).Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., 366 Md. 29, 90 (2001). See generally Annas and Annas, supra note 20, and Morse and Wilson, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Grimes v. Kennedy Krieger Institute, Inc., 366 Md. 29, 90 (2001).Google Scholar
Federal regulations governing human subjects research were first proposed in 1978 by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW). The final rules were put into place in 1981 by DHEW's successor agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In 1991, most federal agencies involved in supporting biomedical research adopted the HHS regulations, thus establishing a “Common Rule” that applies to all of those agencies. FDA “concurs” with the Common Rule, but has not adopted it entirely. Williams, E. D., Congressional Research Service (CRS), “Federal Protection for Human Research Subjects: An Analysis of the Common Rule and Its Interactions with FDA Regulations and the HIPAA Privacy Rule 14-15,” (2005): at 65.Google Scholar
21 C.F.R. 50.25.Google Scholar
The requirements for informed consent under the Common Rule can be found at 45 C.F.R. 46.116. For the FDA requirements, see 21 C.F.R. 50.25.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Lantos and Feudtner, supra note 1; Magnus, D., “OHRP Throws a Wet Blanket on Comparative Effectiveness Research,” available at <http://www.bioethics.net/2013/04/ohrp-throws-a-wet-blanket-on-comparative-effectiveness-research/> (last visited August 2, 2017).+(last+visited+August+2,+2017).>Google Scholar
Carlo, W. A. et al., “Target Ranges of Oxygen Saturation in Extremely Preterm Infants,” New England Journal of Medicine 362, no. 21 (2010): 1959-1969; Annas and Annas, supra note 20.Google Scholar
Id. (Carlo).Google Scholar
The consent forms can be found at <http://www.citizen.org/documents/support-study-consent-form.pdf> (last visited August 2, 2017).+(last+visited+August+2,+2017).>Google Scholar
See Carlo, , supra note 30.Google Scholar
Id., at 1964.Google Scholar
Id., at 1965.Google Scholar
Id., at 1967.Google Scholar
Chalmers, I. et al., “Data Sharing among Data Monitoring Committees and Responsibilities to Patients and Science,” Trials 14, no. 102 (2013): 1-6, available at <http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/14/1/102> (last visited August 2, 2017).Google Scholar
Cortes-Puch, I., Wesley, R. A., Carome, M. A., Danner, R. L., Wolfe, S. M., and Natanson, C., “Usual Care and Informed Consent in Clinical Trials of Oxygen Management in Extremely Premature Infants,” PLOSOne, May 18, 2016, available at <http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155005> (last visited August 2, 2017); see also Macklin, R. and Shepherd, L., “Informed Consent and Standard of Care: What Must Be Disclosed,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 12 (2013): 9-13 (summarizing the consent forms).Google Scholar
Id. (Macklin and Shepherd).Google Scholar
Pratt, S., Comments at U.S. Department of Health & Human Services OHRP Public Meeting on Matters Related to Protection of Human Subjects and Research Considering Standard of Care Interventions (August 28, 2013) [hereinafter OHRP Public Meeting], transcript available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/requests-for-comments/public-meeting-08-28-2013-transcript/index.html> (last visited August 2, 2017) [hereinafter OHRP Public Meeting Transcript] (comment of parent of a child in SUPPORT who believed he had provided permission “to record Dagan's oxygen saturation measurements” and was surprised to learn that their child “was placed into a random oxygen saturation category, instead of a study to monitor her natural oxygen saturation.”)+(last+visited+August+2,+2017)+[hereinafter+OHRP+Public+Meeting+Transcript]+(comment+of+parent+of+a+child+in+SUPPORT+who+believed+he+had+provided+permission+“to+record+Dagan's+oxygen+saturation+measurements”+and+was+surprised+to+learn+that+their+child+“was+placed+into+a+random+oxygen+saturation+category,+instead+of+a+study+to+monitor+her+natural+oxygen+saturation.”)>Google Scholar
Letter from Buchanan, Lisa R., Compliance Oversight Coordinator, OHRP Div. of Compliance Oversight, to Richard B. Marchase, Vice President for Research & Economic Development, University of Alabama, Birmingham (March 7, 2013), available at <www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR13/mar13a.pdf> (last visited August 2, 2017).Google Scholar
See Cortes-Puch, et al., supra note 38 (discussing, among other things, the use of untested, altered oximeters); Merz, J. F. and Yerramilli, D., “SUPPORT Asked the Wrong Question,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 12 (2013): 25-26 (criticizing the trial design for being “powered to detect a clinically meaningful decrease in incidence and severity of ROP,” in a way that “ignored the trade-off in mortality risk”); Merz, J. F. and King, N. M. P., “Letter to the editor,” British Medical Journal 347 (2013): f4198, available at <http://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f4198/rr/653401> (explaining why a composite primary endpoint was inappropriate); C. Natanson, “Comments at OHRP Public Meeting, OHRP Public Meeting Transcript,” supra note 40 (questioning whether experiments of titrated treatments comparing the extreme ends of usual care ranges have scientific merit and are ethical).Google Scholar
Letter from Michael A. Carome et al. to The Honorable Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, May 20, 2014, available at <http://www.citizen.org/documents/2201.pdf> (last visited August 3, 2017) (detailing evidence of involvement of NIH in suspension of OHRP's compliance action against UAB).+(last+visited+August+3,+2017)+(detailing+evidence+of+involvement+of+NIH+in+suspension+of+OHRP's+compliance+action+against+UAB).>Google Scholar
Letter from Lisa R. Buchanan, Compliance Oversight Coordinator, OHRP Div. of Compliance Oversight, to Richard B. Marchase, Vice President for Research & Economic Development, University of Alabama, Birmingham (June 4, 2013), available at <http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/compliance-and-reporting/determination-letters/2013/june-4-2013-university-of-alabama-at-birmingham/index.html#> (last visited August 3, 2017).+(last+visited+August+3,+2017).>Google Scholar
See Draft Guidance, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Solomon, M., “How Institutional Review Boards Can Support Learning Health Systems While Providing Meaningful Oversight,” Health Affairs Blog, June 5, 2015, available at <http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2015/06/05/how-institutional-review-boards-can-support-learning-health-systems-while-providing-meaningful-oversight/> (last visited August 3, 2017).+(last+visited+August+3,+2017).>Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. §46.116(d).Google Scholar
Only very limited exceptions from the general requirements for informed consent have been allowed under the FDA regulations. See 21 C.F.R. 50.23 & 50.24. Schreiner, M. S., “Letter to the Editor,” New England Journal of Medicine 370, no. 20 (2014): 1958. The Department of Health and Human Services has recently revised its waiver guidance following implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act to allow waivers or alternations of informed consent for “minimal risk” research. See U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “IRB Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Clinical Investigations Involving No More Than Minimal Risk to Human Subjects,” July 2017, available at <https://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm566474.htm> (last visited September 16, 2017).Google Scholar
Rich, W., Finer, N. N., and Gantz, M.G. et al., “Enrollment of Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants in a Clinical Research Study May Not Be Representative,” Pediatrics 129, no. 3 (2012): 480-484; Whitney, S. N., “The Python's Embrace: Clinical Research Regulation by Institutional Review Boards,” Pediatrics 129, no. 3 (2012): 576-578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilfond, B. S. et al., “The OHRP and SUPPORT,” New England Journal of Medicine 368 (2013): e36-e36(3), available at <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1307008> (last visited September 16, 2017).Google Scholar
For babies in the study cared for in NICUs that normally allowed oxygen levels to range from 85% to 95%, or that normally aimed for the middle of that range, we have less information about the comparative risks and benefits of the targeted oxygen levels in the study versus outside the study, because in those sites usual care was not studied. But altering the oxygen targets altered the risks.Google Scholar
See Macklin, and Shepherd, , supra note 38.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.116(a)(2).Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. 46.111(a)(2).Google Scholar
Joffe, S. and Wertheimer, A., “Determining Minimal Risk for Comparative Effectiveness Research,” IRB: Ethics & Human Research 36, no. 3 (2014): 16-18; Magnus, D. and Wilfond, B. S., “Research on Medical Practices and the Ethics of Disclosure,” Pediatrics 135, no. 2 (2015): 208–210.Google Scholar
See Morse, and Wilson, , supra note 21.Google Scholar
Looney v. Moore, 2015 WL 4773747 at *8 (N.D. AL. 2015); see Morse and Wilson, supra note 21.Google Scholar
Meyer, M, “Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Looney v. Moore (SUPPORT trial lawsuit),” Harvard Law Bill of Health, August 20, 2015, available at <http://blogs.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/08/20/defendants-motion-for-summary-judgment-granted-in-looney-v-moore-support-trial-lawsuit/> (last visited August 3, 2017). (last visited August 3, 2017).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Meyer,+M,+“Defendants'+Motion+for+Summary+Judgment+Granted+in+Looney+v.+Moore+(SUPPORT+trial+lawsuit),”+Harvard+Law+Bill+of+Health,+August+20,+2015,+available+at++(last+visited+August+3,+2017).>Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Hudson, K., Guttmacher, A. E., and Collins, F. S., “In Support of SUPPORT — A View from the NIH,” New England Journal of Medicine 368, no. 25 (2013): 2349-2351.Google Scholar
Macklin, R. et al., “The OHRP and SUPPORT — Another View,” New England Journal of Medicine 369, no. 3 (2013): available at <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1308015> (last visited August 3, 2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilfond, Ben, Comments at Meeting of American Society of Bioethics and Humanities, October 27, 2013.Google Scholar
The SUPPORT Protocol can be found at <https://www.nih.gov/sites/default/files/institutes/foia/support-protocol.pdf> (last visited August 3, 2017).+(last+visited+August+3,+2017).>Google Scholar
When combined with the four other concurrent trials taking place internationally, the study was powered to detect signifi-cant differences in mortality.Google Scholar
Clinical Trials, “Archive,” available at <https://clinicaltrials.gov/archive/NCT00233324/2005_10_04> (last visited August 3, 2017).+(last+visited+August+3,+2017).>Google Scholar
Cole, C. H., Wright, K. W., Tarnow-Mordi, W., and Phelps, D. L., “Resolving Our Uncertainty about Oxygen Therapy,” Pediatrics 112, no. 6 (2003): 1415-1419.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See SUPPORT Protocol, supra note 63.Google Scholar
Menikoff, J., “Disclosing Risks in Research Evaluating Standards of Care,” PowerPoint slide presentation presented at the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections, October 29, 2014.Google Scholar
Magnus and Wilfond, supra note 55.Google Scholar
Drazen, J. M., Solomon, C. G., and Greene, M. F., “Informed Consent and SUPPORT,” New England Journal of Medicine 368, no. 20 (2013): 1929-1931.Google Scholar
Freedman, B., “Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 3 (1987): 141-145.Google Scholar
See Trifiletti, et al., supra note 4.Google Scholar
Schreiner, M. S., “Ensuring Transparency: Presenting the Trade-Offs between the Research Treatment Options,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 12 (2013): 50-52.Google Scholar
See generally Macklin, R., “More on SUPPORT: The Controversy Continues,” Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 12, no. 3 (2015): 169-172.Google Scholar
David Wendler seems to be arguing for some variation of this idea. Wendler, D., “What Should Be Disclosed to Participants?” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 12 (2013): 3-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, H., “Transparency: Informed Consent in Primary Care,” Hastings Center Report 19, no. 5 (1989): 5-9.Google Scholar
Shepherd, L., “SUPPORT and Comparative Effectiveness Trials: What's at Stake?” Hastings Center Report 45, no. 1 (2015): 44-45.Google Scholar
Menikoff, , supra note 69.Google Scholar
Cortes-Puch et al., supra note 38.Google Scholar