Rafael Dal-Ré1, Cristina Avendaño-Solà2, Anthonius de Boer3, Stephan K James4, Frits R Rosendaal5, Richard Stephens6, John P A Ioannidis7. 1. Epidemiology Unit, Health Research Institute-Fundación Jiménez Díaz University Hospital, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Avda Reyes Católicos 2, E-28040 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: rafael.dalre@quironsalud.es. 2. Clinical Pharmacology Service, Puerta de Hierro University Hospital, Manuel de Falla 1, E-28222 Majadahonda, Madrid, Spain. 3. Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, PO Box 80082, 3508TB Utrecht, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Medical Sciences and Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Dag Hammarskölds väg 14B, SE-752 37 Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology C7-P, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands. 6. National Cancer Research Institute's Consumer Forum, National Cancer Research Institute, Angel Building 407, St John Street, EC1V 4AD, London, UK. 7. Departments of Medicine, Health Research and Policy, Biomedical Data Science and Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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: This is a survey of all phase 4 "ongoing" RCTs on the EU clinical trial register between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018, to identify those with potentially high levels of pragmatism. Trials that were excluded were as follows: those conducted on rare diseases; conducted on healthy volunteers (except those assessing vaccines); 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 fulfillment of the CIOMS provisions as "yes," "not sure" or "no." RESULTS: Of the 638 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.
OBJECTIVES: 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: This is a survey of all phase 4 "ongoing" RCTs on the EU clinical trial register between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2018, to identify those with potentially high levels of pragmatism. Trials that were excluded were as follows: those conducted on rare diseases; conducted on healthy volunteers (except those assessing vaccines); 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 fulfillment of the CIOMS provisions as "yes," "not sure" or "no." RESULTS: Of the 638 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.