Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting
- PMID: 27509386
- PMCID: PMC5161670
- DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002023
Targeted Consent for Research on Standard of Care Interventions in the Emergency Setting
Abstract
Objectives: There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions.
Data synthesis: We first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials.
Conclusions: Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.
Conflict of interest statement
No author has any conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Silbergleit disclosed that he does not have any potential conflicts of interest.
References
-
- Fröbert O, Lagerqvist B, Olivecrona GK, et al. Thrombus aspiration during ST-Segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1587–1597. - PubMed
-
- Food and Drug Administration. [September 25, 2015];Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research. Title 21, Section 50.24. Available online at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr....
-
- Department of Health and Human Services. [September 25, 2015];Code of Federal Regulations. title 45, part 46.116. Available online at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html.
-
- Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1287–1296. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
