Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 2020–2025

Informed consent in clinical trials in critical care: experience from the PAC-Man Study

  • Sheila E. Harvey
  • Diana Elbourne
  • Joanne Ashcroft
  • Carys M. Jones
  • Kathryn Rowan
Original

Abstract

Objectives

To identify the proportion of critically ill patients able to consent to participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) and to assess to what extent patient consent and relative assent processes could be conducted according to ethics committee permissions.

Design

Descriptive study nested in an RCT.

Setting

Fifty-six UK intensive care units participating in the PAC-Man trial.

Patients and participants

First 500 patients consecutively enrolled into PAC-Man.

Measurement and results

The outcome measures were patient consent and/or relative assent. Of the 498 patients included, 13 (2.6%) provided consent before randomisation. Of the remaining 485 patients, relative assent was obtained for 394 patients (81.2%), and refused post-randomisation for 3 patients (0.6%). No relatives were available for 15 patients (3.1%), and it was unclear from documentation whether relative assent had been obtained for 73 patients (15.1%). Of the 482 patients who did not provide consent prior to randomisation, 188 (39%) survived. Of these, 175 (93.1%) gave retrospective informed consent, six (3.2%) refused, and seven (3.7%) did not regain mental competency.

Conclusions

A very small proportion of patients were able to give consent before randomisation. Due to the high in-hospital mortality (60.6%), only around one third of the remaining patients could provide consent retrospectively. This study demonstrates difficulties experienced in obtaining consent from critically ill patients to participate in medical research and raises important issues about the ethical basis of the consent process in critical care.

Keywords

Intensive care Clinical trial Ethics Consent 

Supplementary material

134_2006_358_MOESM1_ESM.doc (49 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material is available in the online version of this article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-006-0358-4 and is accessible for authorized users.

References

  1. 1.
    Freedman B (1987) Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 317:141–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (1994) Principles of biomedical ethics. 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Silverman HJ, Luce JM, Schwartz J (2004) Protecting subjects with decisional impairment in research: the need for a multifaceted approach. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 169:10–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Annane D, Outin H, Fisch C, Bellissant E (2004) The effect of waiving consent on enrollment in a sepsis trial. Intensive Care Med 30:321–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, Elbourne D, Brampton W, Williams D, Young D, Rowan K, PAC-Man study collaboration (2005) Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366:472–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baren JM, Anicetti JP, Ledesma S, Biros MH, Mahabee-Gittens M, Lewis RJ (1999) An approach to community consultation prior to initiating an emergency research study incorporating a waiver of informed consent. Acad Emerg Med 6:1210–1215PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lewis RJ, Berry DA, Cryer H, Fost N, Krome R, Washington GR, Houghton J, Blue JW, Bechhofer R, Cook T, Fisher M (2001) Monitoring a clinical trial conducted under the Food and Drug Administration regulations allowing a waiver of prospective informed consent: the Diaspirin Cross-Linked Hemoglobin Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock Efficacy Trial. Ann Emerg Med 38:397–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Booth MG, Lind A, Read E, Kinsella J (2005) Public perception of emergency research: a questionnaire. Eur J Anaesthesiol 22:933–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smithline HA, Gerstle ML (1998) Waiver of informed consent: a survey of emergency medicine patients. Am J Emerg Med 16:90–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McClure KB, DeIorio NM, Gunnels MD, Ochsner MJ, Biros MH, Schmidt TA (2003) Attitudes of emergency department patients and visitors regarding emergency exception from informed consent in resuscitation research, community consultation, and public notification. Acad Emerg Med 10:352–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roberts I, Yates D, Sandercock P, Farrell B, Wasserberg J, Lomas G, Cottingham R, Svoboda P, Brayley N, Mazairac G, Laloe V, Munoz-Sanchez A, Arango M, Hartzenberg B, Khamis H, Yutthakasemsunt S, Komolafe E, Olldashi F, Yadav Y, Murillo-Cabezas F, Shakur H, Edwards P, CRASH trial collaborators (2004) Effect of intravenous corticosteroids on death within 14 days in 10008 adults with clinically significant head injury (MRC CRASH trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 364:1321–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CESAR Trial, http://www.cesar-trial.org (accessed 25 October 2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    TracMan Trial,http://www.tracman.org.uk (accessed 25 October 2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    CRASH Trial Management Group (2004) Research in emergency situations: with or without relatives' consent. Emerg Med J 21:703Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mariner WK (1995) Research in emergency care without consent: new proposed FDA rules. Lancet 346:1505–1506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chalmers I, Silverman WA (1987) Professional and public double standards on clinical experimentation. Control Clin Trials 8:388–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001, http://eudract.emea.eu.int/docs/Dir2001-20_en.pdf (accessed 25 October 2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials Regulations) 2004. Informed consent in clinical trials (7th February 2005), http://www.corec.org.uk/applicants/help/docs/Informed_Consent_in_CTIMPsv1.1.doc (accessed 25 October 2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corrigan OP, Williams-Jones B (2003) Consent is not enough – putting incompetent patients first in clinical trials. Lancet 361:2096–2097PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chalmers I (2003) Provision of consent. Lancet 362:663–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Klepstad P, Dale O (2006) Further restrictions for ICU research. Intensive Care Med 32:175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Druml C (2004) Informed consent of incapable (ICU) patients in Europe: existing laws and EU Directive. Curr Opin Crit Care 10:570–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lemaire F (2004) A waiver of consent for intensive care research. Intensive Care Med 30:177–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coats TJ, Shakur H (2005) Consent in emergency research: new regulations. Emerg Med J 22:683–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foex BA (2001) The problem of informed consent in emergency medicine research. Emerg Med J 18:198–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheila E. Harvey
    • 1
  • Diana Elbourne
    • 2
  • Joanne Ashcroft
    • 3
  • Carys M. Jones
    • 4
  • Kathryn Rowan
    • 1
  1. 1.Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre, Tavistock HouseLondonUK
  2. 2.Medical Statistics UnitLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  3. 3.UK Mental Health Research NetworkUniversity of ManchesterPrestonUK
  4. 4.Intensive Care UnitRoyal Berkshire HospitalReading, BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations