Milène Guinchard1, Loane Warpelin-Decrausaz2, Kaspar Schindler3, Stephan Rüegg4, Mauro Oddo5, Jan Novy1, Vincent Alvarez1,6, Andrea O Rossetti1. 1. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 2. Clinical Trial Unit, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Sleep-Wake-Epilepsy-Center, Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 6. Department of Neurology, Hôpital du Valais, Sion, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The 2014 update of the Swiss law on research increases patients' protection; it adds specific requirements for emergency situations, implying an active search for patients' wishes regarding research participation; the possibility of consent waivers is not clearly stated. We explored its practical impact in a RCT on critically ill adults. METHODS: We considered prospectively collected consents of a multicenter trial addressing the impact of continuous EEG on survival. We assessed the proportions of consents obtained strictly according to the law, of specific waivers for this study obtained from the IRB (early death; relatives' unavailability despite repeated attempts), and the yield of retrieving statements on willingness to research participation. We compared the proportion of consent refusals with those of recent trials in similar environments, and estimated the potential impact on study results. RESULTS: Of 402 recruited patients, six had double inclusions, one died before intervention, and 27 (6.7%, alive on long-term) were excluded following consent refusal or withdrawal, leaving 368 analyzable patients. Specific waivers allowed inclusion of 134 (36.4%) patients, while informed consents were obtained for all others. A statement of willingness to research participation was found in only 14.1%. In recent trials, consent refusal oscillated between 0%-23%, according to different waiver policies. CONCLUSIONS: Consent waivers should be specifically foreseen to prevent losing a potentially relevant proportion of patients reaching endpoints, and ensure results generalizability. The yield of looking for willingness to research participation seems low; this questions its current usefulness and calls for a public awareness campaign.
OBJECTIVE: The 2014 update of the Swiss law on research increases patients' protection; it adds specific requirements for emergency situations, implying an active search for patients' wishes regarding research participation; the possibility of consent waivers is not clearly stated. We explored its practical impact in a RCT on critically ill adults. METHODS: We considered prospectively collected consents of a multicenter trial addressing the impact of continuous EEG on survival. We assessed the proportions of consents obtained strictly according to the law, of specific waivers for this study obtained from the IRB (early death; relatives' unavailability despite repeated attempts), and the yield of retrieving statements on willingness to research participation. We compared the proportion of consent refusals with those of recent trials in similar environments, and estimated the potential impact on study results. RESULTS: Of 402 recruited patients, six had double inclusions, one died before intervention, and 27 (6.7%, alive on long-term) were excluded following consent refusal or withdrawal, leaving 368 analyzable patients. Specific waivers allowed inclusion of 134 (36.4%) patients, while informed consents were obtained for all others. A statement of willingness to research participation was found in only 14.1%. In recent trials, consent refusal oscillated between 0%-23%, according to different waiver policies. CONCLUSIONS: Consent waivers should be specifically foreseen to prevent losing a potentially relevant proportion of patients reaching endpoints, and ensure results generalizability. The yield of looking for willingness to research participation seems low; this questions its current usefulness and calls for a public awareness campaign.
Authors: Jan Claassen; Fabio S Taccone; Peter Horn; Martin Holtkamp; Nino Stocchetti; Mauro Oddo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Susan T Herman; Nicholas S Abend; Thomas P Bleck; Kevin E Chapman; Frank W Drislane; Ronald G Emerson; Elizabeth E Gerard; Cecil D Hahn; Aatif M Husain; Peter W Kaplan; Suzette M LaRoche; Marc R Nuwer; Mark Quigg; James J Riviello; Sarah E Schmitt; Liberty A Simmons; Tammy N Tsuchida; Lawrence J Hirsch Journal: J Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 2.177
Authors: Shahriar Zehtabchi; Samah G Abdel Baki; Ahmet Omurtag; Richard Sinert; Geetha Chari; Shweta Malhotra; Jeremy Weedon; André A Fenton; Arthur C Grant Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2013-09-23 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: D James Cooper; Alistair D Nichol; Michael Bailey; Stephen Bernard; Peter A Cameron; Sébastien Pili-Floury; Andrew Forbes; Dashiell Gantner; Alisa M Higgins; Olivier Huet; Jessica Kasza; Lynne Murray; Lynette Newby; Jeffrey J Presneill; Stephen Rashford; Jeffrey V Rosenfeld; Michael Stephenson; Shirley Vallance; Dinesh Varma; Steven A R Webb; Tony Trapani; Colin McArthur Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272