Participants’ written informed consent in low-risk pragmatic clinical trials with medicines

References

• Loudon K, Treweek S, Sullivan F, et al. The PRECIS-2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ. 2015;350:h2147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantos JD, Wendler D, Septimus E, et al. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):485–493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 of April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L 158/1-76. 2014 May 27. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/reg_2014_536/reg_2014_536_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Dal-Ré R, Janiaud P, Ioannidis JPA. Real-world evidence: how pragmatic are randomized controlled trials labeled as pragmatic? BMC Med. 2018;16(1):49.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Janiaud P, Dal-Ré R, Ioannidis JPA. Assessment of pragmatism in recently published randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(9):1278–1280.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tritschler T, Castellucci LA. It’s time for head-to-head trials with direct oral anticoagulants. Thromb Res. 2019;180:64–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahant S, Wahi G, Giglia L, et al. Intermittent versus continuous oxygen saturation monitoring for infants hospitalised with bronchiolitis: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2018;8(4):e022707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowark A, Adam C, Ahrens J, et al. Improve hip fracture outcome in the elderly patient (iHOPE): a study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of spinal versus general anaesthesia. BMJ Open. 2018;8(10):e023609.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cristancho P, Lenard E, Lenze EJ, et al. Optimizing Outcomes of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Older Adults (OPTIMUM): study design and treatment characteristics of the first 396 participants randomized. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2019;27(10):1138–1152.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijenhuis VJ, Bennaghmouch N, Hassell M, et al. Rationale and design of POPular-TAVI: antiPlatelet therapy fOr patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am Heart J. 2016;173:77–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiss T, Wittenstein J, Becker C, et al. Protective ventilation with high versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery (PROTHOR): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019;20(1):213.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sundh J, Bornefalk-Hermansson A, Ahmadi Z, et al. REgistry-based randomized controlled trial of treatment and duration and mortality in long-term OXygen therapy (REDOX) study protocol. BMC Pulm Med. 2019;19(1):50.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rowland MJ, Veenith T, Scomparin C, et al. Sugar or salt (“SOS”): a protocol for a UK multicenter randomized trial of mannitol and hypertonic saline in severe traumatic brain injury and intracranial hypertension. medRxiv. 2019 Oct 28. DOI:10.1101/19008276.
   Google Scholar
• Soler A, Amer G, Leiva A, et al. Continuation versus discontinuation of treatment for severe dementia: randomized, pragmatic, open-label, clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of continuing drug treatment in patients with severe dementia (STOP-DEM). BMC Geriatr. 2019;19(1):101.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chalmers JR, Haines RH, Mitchell EJ, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children (The BEEP trial): protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2017;18(1):343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Staa TP, Dyson L, McCann G, et al. The opportunities and challenges of pragmatic point-of-care randomised trials using routinely collected electronic records: evaluations of two exemplar trials. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzpatrick T, Perrier L, Shakik S, et al. Assessment of long-term follow-up of randomized trial participants by linkage to routinely collected data: a scoping review and analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1:e186019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsberg J, Neovius M. Register or electronic health records enriched randomized pragmatic trials: the future of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trials? Nordic J Health Econ. 2015;5:62–76.
   Google Scholar
• Hemkens LG. Routinely collected data for randomized trials provide long-term randomized real-world evidence. JAMA Network Open. 2018;1:e186014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Nuremberg Code. Available from: https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki – ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil; 2013 Oct. Available from: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/
   Google Scholar
• Ecarnot F, Quenot JP, Besch G, et al. Ethical challenges involved in obtaining consent for research from patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Ann Transl Med. 2017;5(Suppl 4):S41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mosis G, Dieleman JP, Stricker BC, et al. A randomized database study in general practice yielded quality data but patient recruitment in routine consultation was not practical. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:497–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelinas L, Wertheimer A, Miller FG. When and why is research without consent permissible? Hastings Center Rep. 2016;46:1‐9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faden RR, Beauchamp TL, Kass NE. Informed consent, comparative effectiveness and learning health care. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:766–768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim SYH, Miller FG. Informed consent for pragmatic trials-. The integrated consent model. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:769–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Code of Federal Regulations. 45 CFR 46.116 General requirements for informed consent. Available from: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719&n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML#se45.1.46_1116
   Google Scholar
• Tri-Council Policy Statement. Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research. Ottawa, Canada; 2014. Available from: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2-2014/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• US FDA. Office of good clinical practice. IRB waiver or alteration of informed consent for clinical investigations involving no more than minimal risk to human subjects. Guidance for sponsors, investigators and institutional review boards. 2017 July. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM566948.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva; 2016. Available from: https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEBCIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bhutta ZA. Ethics in international health research: a perspective from the developing world. Bull WHO. 2002;80:114–120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dal-Ré R, Avendaño-Solà C, Bloechl-Daum B, et al. Low-risk pragmatic trials do not always require participant’s informed consent. BMJ. 2019;364:I 1092.
   Google Scholar
• McKinney RE Jr, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials. 2015;12(5):494–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik D. Social benefits of human subjects research. J Clin Res Best Pract. 2008;4:1–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kimmelman J. Gene transfer and the ethics of first-in-human experiments: lost in translation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Faden R, Kass N, Whicher D, et al. Ethics and informed consent for comparative effectiveness research with prospective electronic clinical data. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S53–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dal-Ré R, Avendaño-Solà C, de Boer A, et al. A limited number of medicines pragmatic trials had potential for waived informed consent following the 2016 CIOMS ethical guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;114:60–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PCORI. Patients-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Available from: https://www.pcori.org/
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy-Martin T, Curtis S, Faries D, et al. A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results. Trials. 2015;16:495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blackburn D, Falconi M Rapid responses to ‘Low risk pragmatic trials do not always require participants’ informed consent’. BMJ. 2019 April. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l1092/rapid-responses
   Google Scholar
• Kalkman S, van Thiel GJMW, Grobbee DE, et al. Stakeholders’ views on the ethical challenges of pragmatic trials investigating pharmaceutical drugs. Trials. 2016;17:419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinfurt KP. Clarifying the meaning of clinically meaningful benefit in clinical research. JAMA. 2019;322:2381–2382.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar