Analysis of time to regulatory approval in an exception from informed consent trial in trauma patients.

Background: The interactive media-based approach to community consultation and public disclosure (CC/PD), a key step when conducting exception from informed consent (EFIC) clinical trials, is intended to be completed in 4 months. This analysis characterizes the process, from initiation of CC/PD activities to institutional review board approval, to better understand the barriers and how these can be mitigated.

Methods: This is a retrospective post hoc analysis of data collected as part of the CC/PD campaigns conducted for a large trial involving up to 90 trauma centers in the United States.

High throughput screening of airway constriction in mouse lung slices.

The level of airway constriction in thin slices of lung tissue is highly variable. Owing to the labor-intensive nature of these experiments, determining the number of airways to be analyzed in order to allocate a reliable value of constriction in one mouse is challenging. Herein, a new automated device for physiology and image analysis was used to facilitate high throughput screening of airway constriction in lung slices.

Interactive Media-Based Approach for an Exception From Informed Consent Trial Involving Patients With Trauma.

Importance: Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) research requires community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). Traditional methods of conducting CC and PD are slow, expensive, and labor intensive.

Objective: To describe the feasibility and reach of a novel interactive, media-based approach to CC and PD and to identify the similarities and differences between trial sites in website views, survey responses, online community forum attendance, and opt-out requests.

Sensitivity of the airway smooth muscle in terms of force, shortening and stiffness.

Eight pig tracheal strips were stimulated to contract with log increments of methacholine from 10 to 10 M. For each strip, the concentration-response was repeated four times in a randomized order to measure isometric force, isotonic shortening against a load corresponding to either 5 or 10 % of a reference force, and average force, stiffness, elastance and resistance over one cycle while the strip length was oscillating sinusoidally by 5 % at 0.2 Hz.

Lung stiffness of C57BL/6 versus BALB/c mice.

This study was undertaken to determine whether a smaller lung volume or a stiffer lung tissue accounts for the greater lung elastance of C57BL/6 than BALB/c mice. The mechanical properties of the respiratory system and lung volumes were measured with the flexiVent and compared between male C57BL/6 and BALB/c mice (n = 9). The size of the excised lung was also measured by volume liquid displacement.

Deprioritization of Ongoing Clinical Trials.

To be ethical, clinical trials must exhibit a favorable risk-benefit balance at the time of their initiation. However, in some cases, the expected value of a study decreases while the study is ongoing, due to developments outside of the study itself, such as findings from other studies or an otherwise shifting evidence base. While such situations are acknowledged in the research community, they have not received sufficient attention, given the high costs of uninformative studies, both in material and human capital.

Characterization of key information sections in informed consent forms posted on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Introduction: Recent revisions to the US Federal Common Rule governing human studies funded or conducted by the federal government require the provision of a "concise and focused" key information (KI) section in informed consent forms (ICFs). We performed a systematic study to characterize KI sections of ICFs for federally funded trials available on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Acknowledging Complexity and Reimagining IRBs: A Reply to Discussions of the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma.

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to offer such insightful comments with regard to the protection-inclusion dilemma in research oversight. Nearly all respondents agreed that this dilemma is a real and challenging one faced by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), as well as other players in the research ecosystem. A number of the responses detailed the shape of this dilemma in their particular area of medical research.

Terms and conditions apply: an ethical analysis of mobile health user agreements in research.

Mobile health (mHealth) technologies raise unique risks to user privacy and confidentiality that are often embedded in lengthy and complex Privacy Policies, Terms of Use, and End User License Agreements. We seek to improve the ethical review of these documents ('user agreements') and their risks in research using mHealth technologies by providing a framework for identifying when these risks are research risks, categorizing the key information in these agreements under relevant ethical and regulatory categories, and proposing strategies to mitigate them. MHealth user agreements typically describe the collected by mHealth technologies, user data are collected and shared, to the different types of data collected, and may include The risks raised by data collection and sharing typically increase with the sensitivity and identifiability of the data and vary by whether data are shared with researchers, the technology developer, and/or third-party entities.

How to limit uninformative trials: Results from a Delphi working group.

To be justifiable, clinical trials must test novel hypotheses and produce informative results. However, many trials fail on this score. A Delphi process was used to establish consensus on 35 recommendations across five domains related to the role of scientific review in preventing uninformative trials.

Incentives in Pediatric Research in Developing Countries: When Are They Too Much?

When incentives are offered to parents and their children to partake in research, there are concerns that parents may be unduly influenced by the incentives, and the children may be exploited. We present a case from a low- and middle-income country and consider the ethical issues that arise when the children are asked to participate in a multinational, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the effects of a nutritional supplement on growth. The first commenter, from Malaysia, notes that their residents might not share Americans' expectations regarding children's role in the consent process from a cultural perspective, which may alter the analysis of the concerns.

Ensuring the Scientific Value and Feasibility of Clinical Trials: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Background: Ethical and scientific principles require that clinical trials address an important question and have the resources needed to complete the study. However, there are no clear standards for review that would ensure that these principles are upheld.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with a convenience sample of nineteen experts in clinical trial design, conduct, and/or oversight to elucidate current practice and identify areas of need with respect to ensuring the scientific value and feasibility of clinical trials prior to initiation and while ongoing.

Protecting the Vulnerable and Including the Under-Represented: IRB Practices and Attitudes.

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims-protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented-can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented.

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.

Background: Institutional review board (IRB) expertise is necessarily limited by maintaining a manageable board size. IRBs are therefore permitted by regulation to rely on outside experts for review. However, little is known about whether, when, why, and how IRBs use outside experts.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability.

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality.

Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies.

Covid-19 raised many novel ethical issues including regarding the allocation of opportunities to participate in clinical trials during a public health emergency. In this article, we explore how hospitals that have a scarcity of trial opportunities, either overall or in a specific trial, can equitably allocate those opportunities in the context of an urgent medical need with limited therapeutic interventions. We assess the three main approaches to allocating trial opportunities discussed in the literature: patient choice, physician referral, and randomization/lottery.

Characterization of Informed Consent Forms Posted on ClinicalTrials.gov.

This cross-sectional study examines available forms and posting trends of registered trials as well as the frequency of form posting by funder type for trials initiated since the revised Common Rule was implemented.

Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research.

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent.

Generating a Future Vision of Patient Safety: A Pilot Program to Test the Integration of Certified Professional in Patient Safety™ Curriculum into Undergraduate Medical Education.

Preventable healthcare-associated harm results in significant morbidity and mortality in the United States, costing nearly 400 000 patient lives annually. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement provides high-quality educational resources tailored for working healthcare professionals. One such resource is the Certified Professional in Patient Safety (CPPS™) review course, which equips professionals with advanced proficiency in 5 core patient safety domains.

Navigating the ethics of remote research data collection.

COVID-19 has accelerated broad trends already in place toward remote research data collection and monitoring. This move implicates novel ethical and regulatory challenges which have not yet received due attention. Existing work is preliminary and does not seek to identify or grapple with the issues in a rigorous and sophisticated way.

Online Research Participant Communication: Balancing Benefits and Risks.

Online communication has emerged as an important vehicle for participant interaction during the course of clinical research. At the same time, such communication has been identified as a source of risks both for participants and the scientific integrity of clinical trials. Although strategies for mitigating these risks have become a focus in the research community, missing from the discussion has been a sustained and sympathetic effort to understand the various benefits of online communication for participants themselves.