Consent, Waiver of Consent, and Notification
Section 1
Introduction
Ethical and regulatory requirements for subject enrollment in clinical research are critical considerations in the design of a research study. One critical determination is whether individual permission with informed consent and authorization must be obtained—or if the research can proceed with a waiver or alteration of these requirements. In contrast to traditional clinical trials, which commonly study new therapies in highly controlled settings, pragmatic clinical trials rely on streamlined processes to measure outcomes in heterogeneous populations in real-world clinical settings (Califf and Sugarman 2015).
Some pragmatic trials use cluster randomization, in which groups (such as clinics, hospitals, or health systems) are randomly assigned rather than individual patients. Because of these differences, the application of ethical principles and regulations to pragmatic trials can be complex (Anderson et al 2015; Sugarman and Califf 2014; Sugarman 2016). Some assert that for many pragmatic trials, altered consent, such as a short oral presentation of options, might better match the potential subjects’ needs and level of risk while enabling important research (McKinney 2016; Faden et al 2014; McKinney et al 2015; Dickert et al 2018; Morain and Largent 2021; Zhang et al 2021); however, attitudes regarding the acceptability of alternative approaches vary (Cho et al 2015; Nayak et al 2015; Weinfurt et al 2017).
In this chapter, we review regulatory requirements for informed consent, discuss waivers and alterations of consent, examine mechanisms for notification, and share data on stakeholder responses to different approaches to consent and notification—all with a focus on special considerations for pragmatic trials. We also briefly comment on Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorization.
SECTIONS
Resources
Informing and Consenting: What Are the Goals? NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory PCT Grand Rounds; February 10, 2023
Ethical and Regulatory Issues in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Special Issue of Clinical Trials
A series of 12 articles on ethics and regulatory challenges in pragmatic clinical trials. Each article describes an issue in detail and, where appropriate, provides guidance for future pragmatic trials.
Legal and Ethical Architecture for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Data ("Architecture")
A collection of tools and resources aimed at helping a broad audience of stakeholders understand the ethical and regulatory requirements related to collecting, using, sharing, and disclosing patient-centered outcome data.
REFERENCES
Anderson ML, Califf RM, Sugarman J. 2015. Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems. Clin Trials. 12:276–286. doi:10.1177/1740774515571140. PMID: 25733677
Califf RM, Sugarman J. 2015. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 12:436–441. doi:10.1177/1740774515598334. PMID: 26374676
Cho MK, Magnus D, Constantine M, et al. 2015. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: A Cross-sectional Survey. Ann Intern Med. 162:690–696. doi:10.7326/M15-0166. PMID: 25868119
Dickert NW, Wendler D, Devireddy CM, et al. 2018. Understanding preferences regarding consent for pragmatic trials in acute care. Clin Trials. 15:567–578. doi:10.1177/1740774518801007. PMID: 30280582
Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE. 2014. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness, and learning health care. Hamel MB, editor. N Engl J Med. 370:766–768. doi:10.1056/NEJMhle1313674. PMID: 24552325
McKinney R. 2016. Altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical trials. https://rethinkingclinicaltrials.org/news/grand-rounds-5-20-16/
McKinney RE, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. 2015. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials. 12:494–502. doi:10.1177/1740774515597688. PMID: 26374677
Morain SR, Largent EA. 2021. Public attitudes toward consent when research is integrated into care—Any “ought” from all the “is”? Hastings Center Report. 51:22–32. doi:10.1002/hast.1242. PMID: 33840104
Nayak RK, Wendler D, Miller FG, Kim SYH. 2015. Pragmatic randomized trials without standard informed Ccnsent?: A national survey. Ann Intern Med. 163:356–364. doi:10.7326/M15-0817. PMID: 26215125
Sugarman J. 2016. Ethics of research in usual care settings: Data on point. AJOB Empirical Bioethics. 7:71–75. doi:10.1080/23294515.2016.1152104.
Sugarman J, Califf RM. 2014. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA. 311:2381–2382. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.4164. PMID: 24810723
Weinfurt KP, Bollinger JM, Brelsford KM, et al. 2017. Comparison of approaches for notification and authorization in pragmatic clinical research evaluating commonly used medical practices. Med Care. 55:970–978. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000762. PMID: 24810723
Zhang JZ, Nicholls SG, Carroll K, et al. 2021 Nov 15. Informed consent in pragmatic trials: results from a survey of trials published 2014–2019. J Med Ethics.:medethics-2021-107765. doi:10.1136/medethics-2021-107765. PMID: 34782417