Literature DB >> 18535280

Brain lesion volume and capacity for consent in stroke trials: potential regulatory barriers to the use of surrogate markers.

Krishna A Dani1, Michael T McCormick, Keith W Muir.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: European directives and legislation in some countries forbid inclusion of subjects incapable of consent in research if recruitment of patients capable of consent will yield similar results. We compared brain lesion volumes in stroke patients deemed to have capacity to consent with those defined as incapacitated.
METHODS: Data were obtained from 3 trials recruiting patients primarily with cortical stroke syndromes. Patients were recruited within 24 hours of onset and used MRI based selection or outcome criteria. Method of recruitment was recorded with stroke severity, age, and brain lesion volumes on Diffusion Weighted Imaging.
RESULTS: Of the 56 subjects included, 38 (68%) were recruited by assent and 18 (32%) by consent. The assent group had a median lesion volume of 18.35 cubic centimetres (cc) (interquartile range [IQR] 8.27-110.31 cc), compared to 2.79 cc (IQR 1.31-12.33 cc) when patients consented (P=0.0004). Lesions were smaller than 5 cc in 7/38 (18%) in the assent group and 11/18 (61%) in the consent group (P=0.0024). There was good correlation between neurological deficit by NIH stroke scale score and lesion volume (r=0.584, P<0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrated NIHSS or lesion volume predicted capacity to consent.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute stroke who retain capacity to consent have significantly smaller infarct volumes than those incapable of consent, and these are frequently below the limits where measurement error significantly compromises valid use of volumetric end points. Only a small proportion of patients with capacity to consent would be eligible for, and contribute usefully to, most acute stroke trial protocols.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18535280     DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.107.507111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  8 in total

1.  Who will participate in acute stroke trials?

Authors:  S E Kasner; A Del Giudice; S Rosenberg; M Sheen; J M Luciano; B L Cucchiara; S R Messé; L H Sansing; J M Baren
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2009-05-12       Impact factor: 9.910

2.  Public opinion of a stroke clinical trial using exception from informed consent.

Authors:  Joshua N Goldstein; Janice A Espinola; Jonathan Fisher; Daniel J Pallin; Carlos A Camargo
Journal:  Int J Emerg Med       Date:  2010-11-10

3.  Informed consent: the rate-limiting step in acute stroke trials.

Authors:  David Z Rose; Scott E Kasner
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 4.003

Review 4.  Determining medical decision-making capacity in brain tumor patients: why and how?

Authors:  Andrea Pace; Johan A F Koekkoek; Martin J van den Bent; Helen J Bulbeck; Jane Fleming; Robin Grant; Heidrun Golla; Roger Henriksson; Simon Kerrigan; Christine Marosi; Ingela Oberg; Stefan Oberndorfer; Kathy Oliver; H Roeline W Pasman; Emilie Le Rhun; Alasdair G Rooney; Roberta Rudà; Simone Veronese; Tobias Walbert; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Martin J B Taphoorn; Linda Dirven
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2020-07-16

5.  Which factors influence the resort to surrogate consent in stroke trials, and what are the patient outcomes in this context?

Authors:  Anne-Marie Mendyk; Julien Labreuche; Hilde Henon; Marie Girot; Charlotte Cordonnier; Alain Duhamel; Didier Leys; Régis Bordet
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 2.652

6.  Selection bias in clinical stroke trials depending on ability to consent.

Authors:  Benjamin Hotter; Lena Ulm; Sarah Hoffmann; Mira Katan; Joan Montaner; Alejandro Bustamante; Andreas Meisel
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2017-12-04       Impact factor: 2.474

7.  Effect of informed consent on patient characteristics in a stroke thrombolysis trial.

Authors:  Götz Thomalla; Florent Boutitie; Jochen B Fiebach; Claus Z Simonsen; Norbert Nighoghossian; Salvador Pedraza; Robin Lemmens; Pascal Roy; Keith W Muir; Christoph Heesen; Martin Ebinger; Ian Ford; Bastian Cheng; Tae-Hee Cho; Josep Puig; Vincent Thijs; Matthias Endres; Jens Fiehler; Christian Gerloff
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 9.910

8.  Automated real-time text messaging as a means for rapidly identifying acute stroke patients for clinical trials.

Authors:  Kati Jegzentis; Tim Nowe; Peter Brunecker; Matthias Endres; Bernd Haferkorn; Christoph Ploner; Jens Steinbrink; Gerhard Jan Jungehulsing
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 2.279

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.