Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine
-
Historical Article
An ethical analysis of exception from informed consent regulations.
Federal regulations enacted in 1996 allow clinical research with an exception from informed consent in select emergency circumstances. Such research is only permitted when the therapy may directly benefit the research participant and it is not possible to conduct the research with informed consent. Among others, protective mechanisms include a process of community consultation and public disclosure and the establishment of a mandatory data safety monitoring board. Although the regulations do not preserve the right of self-determination of the research participant, the author argues that they do provide an ethical means to advance the science of resuscitation.
-
Differences in interpretation of the Final Rule for exception from informed consent (EFIC) requirements for emergency research result in inconsistencies in implementation and difficulties for some institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve such research. During a consensus workshop organized by the editorial board of Academic Emergency Medicine, participants discussed how IRBs balance the risks to human subjects in EFIC research, the conduct of community consultation and its role in IRB decision making, and future directions to improve and research EFIC effects. Areas of consensus and diversity of opinion were identified. ⋯ While IRBs must approve EFIC research based on their own local environment, additional guidelines from regulatory agencies may be helpful. In general, current treatments for EFIC conditions are unsatisfactory and many are unproven. A group of peer reviewers can act as consultants to IRBs that do not have this expertise.
-
The application of basic ethical principles to resuscitation research and other research in the emergency and critical care settings presents a particular challenge. The emergency exception from informed consent (EFIC) rule (21 CFR 50.24 and 45 CFR 46.101[i]) addresses a particular vulnerability: that which occurs when persons cannot consent due to acute loss of decisional capacity. The question arises as to whether populations defined as "vulnerable" are unique within studies to which EFIC applies. ⋯ Topics addressed were 1) the applicability of the term "vulnerable" in research using EFIC; 2) the relationship between vulnerability, exploitability, and capacity; 3) the significance of vulnerability in research design; 4) the adaptation of the informed consent process to the emergency setting; and 5) the role of the institutional review board. Ten consensus recommendations emerged from the discussion. Of particular importance was the endorsement of the idea that research using EFIC is as important in vulnerable populations as in the general population and that the systematic exclusion of vulnerable populations from resuscitation research is inappropriate.
-
This article reflects the proceedings of a breakout session, "Using the Regulations in Research" at the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research." There have been two organized studies, and a number of anecdotal reports, describing the decline in cardiac arrest resuscitation research in the United States since the implementation of the Final Rule. Paradis and colleagues found that the volume of human cardiac arrest research published in the United States was significantly less in a four-year period after the Final Rule was adopted as compared to the earlier period. Nichol and colleagues reported that both the absolute number of US-based randomized cardiac arrest trials and the proportion of US-based trials (vs. foreign trials, based on the mailing address of the first author) decreased by about 15% annually. ⋯ A summary table of the federal regulations is provided. Participants discussed what additional information and research about using the regulations would be helpful for the promotion of quality resuscitation and emergency care research in the United States. Areas suggested for further investigation include: impact on the quality as well as quantity of such research; current level of understanding of the regulations by investigators, regulatory/IRB personnel and potential subjects (the general public); costs incurred: additional time required for preparation, approval and conducting community consultation and public disclosure; impact on research on non-life-threatening conditions; value and cost of a registry; use of a standard reporting template for issues regarding meeting the requirements in individual clinical trials; whether more specific guidance would be helpful or restrictive; what constitutes effective community consultation and public disclosure; and whether titration of community consultation and public disclosure based on the risk of the proposed intervention to subjects is feasible and acceptable.
-
An objective of the 2005 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Ethical Conduct of Resuscitation Research," was to identify if consensus exists regarding application of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Final Rule allowing an exception from informed consent in resuscitation research. At the start of the consensus conference, 49 attendees participated in a survey containing three sections: 1) demographic questions characterizing respondents, 2) questions regarding application of the FDA Final Rule, and 3) complexities associated with seeking informed consent in an emergency setting. ⋯ Complexities associated with seeking informed consent in emergency departments were prevalent among most institutions represented at the conference. There was general agreement that current efforts to safeguard human subjects are effective, but participants agreed that refinements to and standardization of the FDA Final Rule would facilitate resuscitation research and enhance patient safety.