Adrianne N Haggins1,2,3,4, Deneil Harney1,4, Sara Scott5, Robert Silbergleit1,4. 1. 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. 2 Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. 3 Michigan Center for Integrative Research in Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. 4 Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials (NETT) Network, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. 5 Medical School, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exception from informed consent imposes community consultation and public disclosure requirements on clinical investigation in critically ill and injured patients. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration instructed sponsors to submit publically disclosed information to the Food and Drug Administration Docket, but to date there has been no comprehensive analysis of available data. We summarized the community consultation and public disclosure practices of exception from informed consent trials published on the Food and Drug Administration Docket in order to better understand the breadth of common practices that exists among acute care clinical research. METHODS: We performed quantitative and qualitative analysis of Docket FDA-1995-S-0036 from its initiation until June 2017 in order to summarize existing practices. We developed a 4-point scoring system to categorize public disclosure and community consultation based on inclusion of key components such as a detailed plan, schedule of events conducted, results, and materials uploaded. RESULTS: The 177 docket submissions represented 34 trials. Material related to public disclosure accounted for 49% of pages, community consultation 45%, and 6% other. The median Docket Review Content Score for public disclosure was 3 (mean: 2.5, range: 0-4) and 2 (mean: 2.1, range: 0-4) for community consultation materials. CONCLUSION: The public information contained in the Docket varies broadly by trial and content. Additionally, as evidenced by the wide range of the Docket Review Content Score, submission guidelines are not followed uniformly. Given the apparent uncertainty about what should be submitted, and the need for best practice recommendations, it is valuable to categorize and summarize existing community consultation and public disclosure content.
BACKGROUND: Exception from informed consent imposes community consultation and public disclosure requirements on clinical investigation in critically ill and injured patients. In 2011, the Food and Drug Administration instructed sponsors to submit publically disclosed information to the Food and Drug Administration Docket, but to date there has been no comprehensive analysis of available data. We summarized the community consultation and public disclosure practices of exception from informed consent trials published on the Food and Drug Administration Docket in order to better understand the breadth of common practices that exists among acute care clinical research. METHODS: We performed quantitative and qualitative analysis of Docket FDA-1995-S-0036 from its initiation until June 2017 in order to summarize existing practices. We developed a 4-point scoring system to categorize public disclosure and community consultation based on inclusion of key components such as a detailed plan, schedule of events conducted, results, and materials uploaded. RESULTS: The 177 docket submissions represented 34 trials. Material related to public disclosure accounted for 49% of pages, community consultation 45%, and 6% other. The median Docket Review Content Score for public disclosure was 3 (mean: 2.5, range: 0-4) and 2 (mean: 2.1, range: 0-4) for community consultation materials. CONCLUSION: The public information contained in the Docket varies broadly by trial and content. Additionally, as evidenced by the wide range of the Docket Review Content Score, submission guidelines are not followed uniformly. Given the apparent uncertainty about what should be submitted, and the need for best practice recommendations, it is valuable to categorize and summarize existing community consultation and public disclosure content.
Entities:
Keywords:
Exception from informed consent; acute care research; community consultation; public disclosure
Authors: Maija Holsti; Roger Zemek; Jill Baren; Rachel M Stanley; Prashant Mahajan; Cheryl Vance; Kathleen M Brown; Victor Gonzalez; Denise King; Kammy Jacobsen; Kate Shreve; Katrina van de Bruinhorst; Anne Marie Jones; James M Chamberlain Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Eileen M Bulger; Terri A Schmidt; Andrea J Cook; Karen J Brasel; Denise E Griffiths; Peter J Kudenchuk; Daniel Davis; Berit Bardarson; Ahamed H Idris; Tom P Aufderheide Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2008-09-27 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Jestin N Carlson; Dana Zive; Denise Griffiths; Karen N Brown; Robert H Schmicker; Heather Herren; George Sopko; Sara DiFiore; Dixie Climer; Caroline Herdeman; Ahamed Idris; Graham Nichol; Henry E Wang Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2018-12-17 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Fran Balamuth; Elliot Long; Graham C Thompson; Katie L Hayes; Hannah Katcoff; Marlena Cook; Elena Tsemberis; Christopher P Hickey; Amanda Williams; Sarah Williamson-Urquhart; Meredith L Borland; Stuart R Dalziel; Ben Gelbart; Stephen B Freedman; Franz E Babl; Jing Huang; Nathan Kuppermann Journal: Trials Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 2.728