A limited number of medicines pragmatic trials had potential for waived informed consent following the 2016 CIOMS ethical guidelines

A limited number of medicines pragmatic trials had potential for waived informed consent following the 2016 CIOMS ethical guidelines
Original Article
Rafael Dal−Ré, Cristina Avendaño−Solà, Anthoniusde Boer, Stephan K. James, Frits R. Rosendaal, Richard Stephens, John PA Ioannidis
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 15 June 2019
Abstract
Objective
European regulations do not allow modification or waiver of informed consent for medicines randomized controlled trials (RCTs) where the three 2016 Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) provisions are met (consent would be impractical or unfeasible, yet the trial would have high social value and pose no or minimal risk to participants). We aimed to identify whether any such trials of medicines were being conducted in Europe.
Study design and Setting
Survey of all phase 4 ‘ongoing’ RCTs on the EU clinical trial register between 1/July/2016 and 30/June/2018, to identify those with potentially high levels of pragmatism. Trials that were excluded: those conducted on rare diseases; masked (single-, double-blind) trials; single-center trials; those where one could expect to lead patients to prefer one intervention over the other; and miscellaneous reasons. The degree of pragmatism of the RCTs was self-assessed by trials’ investigators by means of the PRECIS-2 tool. Investigators of those trials considered to be highly pragmatic, assessed the fulfillment of the three CIOMS provisions. Seven patients assessed the social value of the RCTs. Finally, 33 members of 11 research ethics committees (RECs) assessed the social value of the trials and whether they posed no more than minimal risk to participants. Investigators, patients and REC members assessed the fulfilment of the CIOMS provisions as ‘Yes’, ‘Not sure’ or ‘No’.
Results
Of the 636 phase 4 trials, 420 were RCTs, and 21 of these (5%) were candidates to be pragmatic. Investigators of 15 of these 21 RCTs self−assessed their trial’s degree of pragmatism: 14 were highly pragmatic. Of these 14, eight fulfilled the three CIOMS provisions. Assessments by patients and RECs were inconsistent for several trials.
Conclusions
We found few low−risk participant−level pragmatic RCTs that could be suitable for modified or waived participants’ informed consent. European regulators should consider amending the current regulation and encouraging the conduct of such trials.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s