Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices

Numerous position papers have outlined informed consent recommendations for the collection, storage, and future use of biological samples; however, there currently is no consensus regarding what kinds of information should be included in consent forms. This study aimed to determine whether institutional review boards (IRBs) vary in their informed consent requirements for research on stored biological samples, and whether any variation observed could be correlated to factors such as volume of work, IRB members' familiarity with ethical issues in genetic research, and IRBs' use of either of two policy guidelines as resources. A brief survey was mailed to all IRB chairpersons on a mailing list obtained from the Office for Human Research Protections. Survey questions included whether consent forms for the collection of biological samples for future use address each of six provisions recommended in current guidelines and position statements, and whether IRBs used the Office for Protection from Research Risks' 1993 Protecting Human Research Subjects: Institutional Review Board Guidebook, chapter 5 (hereinafter IRB Guidebook) or the National Bioethics Advisory Commission's 1999 Research Involving Human Biological Materials: Ethical Issues and Policy Guidance, Volume I (hereinafter Report) in their deliberations. Despite a low response rate (22%, 427 respondents), results indicate that IRB practices vary substantially. The degree to which the provisions were included in consent forms was found to correlate positively with IRBs that review a greater volume of protocols annually, those that use the National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report in their deliberations, and those that draw on both the Report and the IRB Guidebook.     

Reflexive Research Ethics in Fetal Tissue Xenotransplantation Research

For biomedical research in which the only involvement of the human subject is the provision of tissue or organ samples, a blanket consent, i.e., consent to use the tissue for anything researchers wish to do, is considered by many to be adequate for legal and Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements. Alternatively, a detailed informed consent provides patients or study participants with more thorough information about the research topic. We document here the beliefs and opinions of the research staff on informed consent and the discussion-based reflexive research ethics process that we employed in our fetal tissue xenotransplantion research on the impact of environmental exposures on fetal development. Reflexive research ethics entails the continued adjustment of research practice according to relational and reflexive understandings of what might be beneficent or harmful. Such reflexivity is not solely an individual endeavor, but rather a collective relationship between all actors in the research process.     

Anticipated Ethics and Regulatory Challenges in PCORnet: The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network

PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, seeks to establish a robust national health data network for patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. This article reports the results of a PCORnet survey designed to identify the ethics and regulatory challenges anticipated in network implementation. A 12-item online survey was developed by leadership of the PCORnet Ethics and Regulatory Task Force; responses were collected from the 29 PCORnet networks. The most pressing ethics issues identified related to informed consent, patient engagement, privacy and confidentiality, and data sharing. High priority regulatory issues included IRB coordination, privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, and data sharing. Over 150 IRBs and five different approaches to managing multisite IRB review were identified within PCORnet. Further empirical and scholarly work, as well as practical and policy guidance, is essential if important initiatives that rely on comparative effectiveness research are to move forward.     

Clinical Trials of Drugs Used Off-Label in Neonates: Ethical Issues and Alternative Study Designs

The use of drugs for indications unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), often called “off-label use,” is widespread in children, including neonates. The widespread off-label use of drugs in neonates presents ethical and safety challenges. Since the passage of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) in 2002, both the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have taken initiatives to facilitate and encourage research to achieve the necessary labeling for drugs routinely used in infants and children. Federal regulations provide broad rules and guidance for the protection of human subjects in research. However, there are ethical issues that a physician may face when designing clinical trials of drugs in neonates that are routinely used off-label and widely believed to be beneficial. We attempt to describe these ethical challenges and provide recommendations, including alternative study designs, to resolve them in an ethical framework that takes into account the Belmont Report, the statement of the World Medical Association (WMA), and federal regulations.     

Clinical trials of drugs used off-label in neonates: ethical issues and alternative study designs

The use of drugs for indications unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), often called "off label use, "is widespread in children, including neonates. The widespread off-label use of drugs in neonates presents ethical and safety challenges. Since the passage of the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) in 2002, both the FDA and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have taken initiatives to facilitate and encourage research to achieve the necessary labeling for drugs routinely used in infants and children. Federal regulations provide broad rules and guidance for the protection of human subjects in research. However, there are ethical issues that a physician may face when designing clinical trials of drugs in neonates that are routinely used off-label and widely believed to be beneficial. We attempt to describe these ethical challenges and provide recommendations, including alternative study designs, to resolve them in an ethical framework that takes into account the Belmont Report, the statement of the World Medical Association (WMA), and federal regulations.     

Informed Consent of Very Sick Subjects in Nigeria

This article highlights a number of ethical challenges I face in obtaining informed consent from very sick subjects with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Some of the subjects with TB have an associated human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. From my experience in administering informed consent and health surveys, I found the subjects to be generally mentally stable but physically exhausted. Many of the very sick subjects cough excessively and cannot tolerate a 45-minute conversation with the study staff in order for them to administer consent and conduct a survey after the routine clinical evaluation. In this situation, the administration of a qualitative consent that preserves the subject's right and autonomy becomes a challenge.     

Current issues in clinical research and the development of new pharmaceuticals

As a normal part of the drug development process, U.S. pharmaceutical companies conduct many thousands of clinical trials each year. Only after a reasonable assurance of safety is made can the drug be given to patients who have the underlying medical condition that the drug is designed to treat. Patient welfare is assured by adhering to the Food and Drug Administration's interpretation of the “common rule”; if the data will be used to support a licensing application. 21 CFR Part 50 sets forth the regulations along with the principles of informed consent and the use of institutional review boards (IRBs) that assure patients’ rights are protected. Any potential conflict of interest on the part of a clinical investigator must be reported to the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies extensively monitor ongoing clinical trials for compliance with appropriate regulations. The recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki governing placebo‐controlled clinical trials may adversely impact drug development     

Neurobiological research involving human subjects: Perspectives from the office for protection from research risks

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations at 45 CFR 46 require that all human subjects research supported by HHS be reviewed and approved by a local Institutional Review Board (IRB). Investigators may not involve human subjects in research without their informed consent, and additional safeguards are required when subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence. Application of the regulations to neurobiological research is discussed.     

Testing drugs in pediatric populations: The FDA mandate

On November 27, 1998 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new rule requiring that drugs and biological products be tested in pediatric populations. Since voluntary testing in pediatric populations had not resulted in a significant increase in pediatric labeling of drugs, stronger measures were needed to ensure that infants and children would receive the benefits of properly tested drugs and biologies. The mandate for pediatric testing raises a core ethical question: How should the need for validated treatments that benefit children as a group be weighed against the obligation to protect individual child subjects of research? The preamble to the new rule claims that adherence to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines will provide adequate protection to individual subjects. Yet the special protections provided to children in these guidelines are not required by the new FDA rule, and have never been obligatory for research that is regulated by the FDA. While the new rule does not necessitate or encourage violation of these standards, the rule does not pay adequate attention to them nor clarify what role they should play in IRB review of protocols under FDA regulation.     

Informed consent comprehension among vulnerable populations in Ecuador: video-delivered vs. in-person standard method

The informed consent comprehension process is key to engaging potential research subject participation. The aim of this study is to compare informed consent comprehension between two methods: standard and video-delivered. We compared the in-person and video-delivered informed consent process in the Familias Unidas intervention. We evaluated comprehension using a 7-item true/false questionnaire. There were a total of 152 participants in the control group and 87 in the experimental. General characteristics were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). First-attempt informed consent comprehension was higher in the intervention group but was not statistically significant (80% and 78% respectively p = 0.44). A video-delivered informed consent process did not differ from the standard method of informed consent in a low educational and socioeconomic environment.     

Disclosure Issues in Neuroscience Research

Issues of disclosure arise in neuroscientific research during the informed consent process, whenever incidental findings are identified, and when study results are generated. The possibility of disclosure of incidental findings and/or research results may raise informational expectations on the part of subjects and may alter a study's risk:benefit ratio. We recommend that the informed consent process address this potential consequence of research participation, and specify the conditions under which particular types of information will be offered, the conditions under which information may not be disclosed, and any provisions for helping subjects make sense of the information to be disclosed.     

Disclosure,Consent, and the Exercise of Patient Autonomy in Surgical Innovation: A Systematic Content Analysis of the Conceptual Literature

The classification of surgical innovation as clinical care, research, or as third distinct type of activity creates ambiguity which impacts standards for disclosure and informed consent. We conducted a systematic review of the conceptual literature to identify positions expressed about consent and disclosure, as well as major tension points associated with this issue. Literature overwhelmingly favors special consent and disclosure. Four major tension points were identified: the use of biasing/biased terminology to characterize innovation; patient vulnerability; the relationship between surgeon-innovator and patient; and practices and associated gaps related to consent and disclosure. Recommendations often focused on the informed consent process.     

Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Research Subjects: An Ethical and Legal Analysis

In this article, I examine the ethical and legal issues related to disclosure of conflicts of interest to research subjects, and discuss some empirical studies related to the topic. I argue that researchers have an ethical obligation to disclose conflicts of interest to research subjects, provided that they take steps to help subjects understand information about conflicts of interest and how to interpret it. Researchers also may have a legal duty to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects, depending on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To reinforce and clarify the legal obligation to disclose conflicts of interest, the federal regulations should be amended to include disclosure of conflicts of interest as one of the informed consent requirements. Institutional review boards play a key role in helping researchers to disclose conflicts of interests to subjects in an appropriate manner. Institutional review boards should approve the disclosure language in informed consent documents, and they should require researchers to disclose financial interests to research subjects, if they have any, as a condition of approval.     

The Expanding Purview: Institutional Review Boards and the Review of Human Subjects Research

The implications of the institutional review board (IRB) system's growing purview are examined. Among the issues discussed are whether IRBs are censoring research and whether the IRB review process fundamentally alters the research that is being conducted. The intersection between IRB review and free speech is also explored. In general, it is argued that the review system for human subjects research (HSR) should be modified in order to limit the scope of IRB review.     

Ethics,Gender, and Ethnicity in Single-Case Research and Evaluation

Social work practitioners and students are now being encouraged to do single-case research or at least, to evaluate their practice outcomes objectively. Ethical issues in both endeavors, including issues related to clients' gender and ethnicity, need more attention than they have been given. This article explores a number of ethical issues in single-case research and evaluation, with special attention to possible gender and ethnic bias in selecting clients or target problems to monitor. Guidelines for reducing bias, seeking informed client consent, and use of human subjects review are proposed.     

Physicians' Understanding of Consent Requirements for Phase I Clinical Trials in Cognitively Impaired or Highly Vulnerable Patients

We investigated physicians' attitudes about entering patients who cannot give informed consent or who are of a vulnerable population into clinical trials. A survey instrument asked a nationwide sample of practicing physicians about whether ten hypothetical patients could be enrolled in a phase I clinical trials. The impact of demographic variables on the number of scenarios viewed as completely or somewhat acceptable was analyzed via student's T tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) as applicable. All significant (p < 0.01) variables were entered into a multiple logistic regression model. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that at least one case scenario was acceptable. A majority of those who conduct clinical trials (62%), who had training in the ethics of clinical research (78%), and who sit on institutional review boards (IRBs) (83%) approved of at least one case scenario. Physicians approved of the entry of some patients who cannot give informed consent or who are of a vulnerable population into clinical trials. More effective education on the guidelines involving clinical research should be available to practicing physicians, residents, and medical students. There should also be assurance that physicians who conduct clinical trials or who sit on IRBs have the requisite knowledge about the ethics of clinical research.     

Colonial Military Garrisons as Labor-Market Shocks: Quebec City and Boston, 1760–1775

The military occupation of Boston in 1768 shocked the city's labor market. The soldiers, who were expected to supplement their pay by working for local businesses, constituted an influx equal to 12.5 percent of greater Boston's population. To assess the importance of this shock, we use the case of Quebec City, which experienced the reverse process (i.e., a reduction in the British military presence from close to 18 percent of the region's population to less than 1 percent). We argue that, in Boston, the combination of the large influx of soldiers and a heavy tax on the local population in the form of the billeting system caused an important wage reduction, while the lighter billeting system of Quebec City and the winding down of the garrison pushed wages up. We tie these experiences to political developments in the 1770s.     

Current issues in clinical research and the development of new pharmaceuticals

As a normal part of the drug development process, U.S. pharmaceutical companies conduct many thousands of clinical trials each year. Only after a reasonable assurance of safety is made can the drug be given to patients who have the underlying medical condition that the drug is designed to treat. Patient welfare is assured by adhering to the Food and Drug Administration's interpretation of the "common rule" if the data will be used to support a licensing application. 21 CFR Part 50 sets forth the regulations along with the principles of informed consent and the use of institutional review boards (IRBs) that assure patients' rights are protected. Any potential conflict of interest on the part of a clinical investigator must be reported to the FDA. Pharmaceutical companies extensively monitor ongoing clinical trials for compliance with appropriate regulations. The recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki governing placebo-controlled clinical trials may adversely impact drug development.     

Resolving Beecher's Paradox: Getting beyond IRB reform

Protection of persons participating as research subjects is an essential element of ethical research conduct. There is growing concern that the existing system of institutional review boards (IRBs) and informed consent may not be adequate and is in need of reform. When science and medicine are “merged”; in clinical research, confusion of roles and conflicts of interests arise in relationships between patient‐subjects and physician‐investigators. IRBs have always had a primary role in protection of research participants. Their efforts to protect research subjects may make it more difficult for investigators to conduct research. This tension has lead to the development of an adversarial relationship between IRBs and investigators. Investigators and IRBs are also subject to external pressures that could impact efforts to protect research subjects. Efforts are underway to address these concerns. IRB reform, while needed, is not likely to be sufficient. Adoption of a new paradigm in which IRBs, investigators and research sponsors collectively accept protection of research subjects as their primary and shared responsibility may provide a more effective and efficient model that will be better able to deal with difficult ethical and social issues in clinical research.