Commentary: Is Informed Consent as Ethical as It Could Be?



By Karl E. Peace
Georgia Southern University

March 17, 2008 | The article New England IRB on Ethical Issues in Recruiting Patients, in the March 3, 2008, issue of eCliniqua served as a reminder to those involved with the execution of clinical trials of the importance of exercising due diligence to ensure that all aspects of clinical trial conduct are ethical.

I would like to bring to the attention of readers of eCliniqua some of my thoughts about making the informed consent process more ethical (see refs. 1, 2, and 3). Many are aware, particularly in Phase III confirmatory proof of efficacy trials, that the determination of sample size carries with it an efficacy imperative. That is, in order to confirm a question regarding efficacy of a compound, it is imperative that the sample size of the trial be large enough to provide a priori a high probability (large power) that the question will be answered.

Sample size determination carries with it an ethical imperative as well. Before I would agree to participate in a clinical trial, I would want to know first: that the trial was needed to answer a medically important question (and what that question was), and second: what the likelihood was -- for the number of planned participants -- that the question would be answered. Including this second issue in the informed consent document in the protocol, would, I believe, make the informed consent process more ethical.

It is easy to argue that for small trials, we know with relatively large confidence before such trials are conducted, that all we’ll be able to say after trial completion is that “we failed to confirm or refute the question.” This may be observed from the table, which summarizes 90 percent confidence intervals (CIs) on the difference between -- and the ratio of -- two treatments, and the length of the confidence intervals for various sample sizes ranging from 10 to 200 per group.

We observe that all confidence intervals on the difference between treatments, cover 0. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the treatments are different (at the one-sided 5 percent level of significance). However, with the possible exception of the interval corresponding to 200 patients per group, all confidence intervals are so wide that we cannot claim that the treatments are similar. So if at the outset of a trial, one knows that it is highly likely that the outcome will be summarized as: “We can’t say that the test treatment is different from the standard; neither can we say that it is similar,” why do the trial? Unless of course, the primary reason for conducting the trial is pilot in nature: to gain experience with the attendant methods, to gather data so that a confirmatory follow-up trial may be conducted, etc. In that case, patients should be fully informed prior to their decision regarding trial participation.

Having argued that it should be ethically imperative to include a statement in the informed consent document regarding the likelihood that the trial will answer the question or objective, I acknowledge that writing such a statement geared to -- at most -- an 8th grade reading level, is most challenging, since even many highly educated people find the concept of power difficult to comprehend.

References:
1. Peace, KE: "Some Thoughts on the Biopharmaceutical Section and Statistics"; ASA Joint Sesquicentennial Meetings, Publication of the American Statistical Association; 98-105; Arlington, Va. August, 1989.
2. Peace, K.E.; "An Ethical Issue Concerning Informed Consent in Clinical Trials." Biopharmaceutical Report. 1 (2); 1992.
3. Peace, K. E. (2005): Making Informed Consent More Ethical. Drug Information Forum, 5(4), 26-27.

Karl E. Peace, Ph.D., is Georgia Cancer Coalition Distinguished Cancer Scholar and Senior Research Scientist and Professor, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health, Georgia Southern University.

------------------------

This story first appeared in eCliniqua,one of Bio-IT World’s free e-newsletters. Subscribe here.

 

 

Click here to login and leave a comment.  

0 Comments

Add Comment

Text Only 2000 character limit

Page 1 of 1



White Papers & Special Reports

sgi whp 2
Managing the Modern Genomics Data Flood
Sponsored by SGI

Managing and storing the perfect storm of multi-disciplined data pouring from next generation sequencers and other omics instruments is a central challenge in life sciences. Discover in this paper how the SGI ArcFiniti storage solution, optimized for unstructured genomics and life sciences data can: 

  • Reduce costs, proactively protect data integrity, and deliver the high performance I/O required for genomics data processing and analysis.  
  • Effectively manage capacities from 156TB to 1.4PB as a disk based, integrated hardware and software platform 


sgi - whp 1
Turning Genomics Data into Practical Insight
Sponsored by SGI

With worldwide sequencing capacity approaching 13 quadrillion DNA bases annually turning genomics data into knowledge is a true computational challenge. Read this paper and learn how the SGI UV coherent shared memory platform can:  

  • Speed results time while cost competitively tackling the most difficult computational problems across all omics disciplines. 
  • Push performance by scaling to extraordinary levels, up to 256 sockets (2,560 cores, 4,096 threads) per single system (one OS image). 

Provide support for up to 16TB of coherent shared memory in a single system image enabling extreme efficiency across a wide range of compute demands. 



accerlys-logo_2012_wh
New Complimentary Market Survey…
Collaborations and Communications Within Drug Discovery Research
Sponsored by Accelrys
This survey was conducted by the Cambridge Healthtech Media Group in January, 2012. It was sponsored by Accelrys related to their HEOS initiative to gather valid information around externalizing collaborative research while improving communications in the cloud. With 310 qualified industry respondents the survey findings reveal useful usage and trends patterns.  An insightful follow-on discussion and webinar related to this survey, and the HEOS by Scynexis SaaS portal is also available on the Bio-IT World website for complementary viewing.
 


Job Openings

tessella logo 
Scientific Software Engineer
Boston MA
$70,000 to $95,000
 
Apply at http://jobs.tessella.com   

oxford nanopore logo 


Early Access Collaborations ManagersClick here to find out more and apply   

Oxford Nanopore's GridION technology, VP, Sales and Marketing Click to  Apply  

For reprints and/or copyright permission, please contact  Tim McLucas, (781) 972-1342, tmclucas@healthtech.com .