A literature review of consent declines and consent withdrawals in randomized controlled trials conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: We evaluated the extent of consent declines and consent withdrawals during the COVID-19 pandemic as seen in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared it with non-COVID-19 RCTs published at the same time and two historical controls. Methods: PubMed/Medline only was searched using key-word "COVID-19" and "RCTs" separately, and filtered for COVID-19 RCTs and non-COVID-19 RCTs respectively, published during a nine-month period (1 Feb - 1 Nov 2020). Exclusions were study protocols, observational studies, interim analysis of RCT data and RCTs with missing data. Primary outcome measures were the proportion of consent declines and consent withdrawals as percentage of total participants screened and randomized respectively in COVID-19 RCTs. We compared consent declines and consent withdrawals of COVID-19 RCTs with non-COVID-19 RCTs and two earlier studies on the same topic that served as historical controls (non-pandemic setting). Results: The search yielded a total of 111 COVID-19 RCTs and 49 non-COVID-19 RCTs. Of these, 39 (35.13%) COVID-19 RCTs and 11 (22.45%) non-COVID-19 RCTs were finally analysed. A total of 770/17759 (4.3%) consent declines and 100/7607 (1.31%) consent withdrawals were seen in 39 COVID-19 RCTs. A significant difference was observed in consent declines between COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 RCTs [4.3% vs 11.9%, p < 0.0001] and between COVID-19 RCTs vs two historical controls [(4.3% vs 8.6%, p < 0.0001) and (4.3% vs 21.1%, p < 0.0001), respectively]. Conclusion: RCTs conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic appear to have significantly lower consent declines relative to non-COVID-19 RCTs during pandemic and RCTs conducted in non-pandemic settings.

Informed consent and informed intervention: SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations not just call for disclosure of newly emerging safety data but also for hypothesis generation and testing.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 infection is a major threat to patients and health care providers around the world. One solution is the vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive query of the latest publications on the prevention of viral infections including the recent vaccination program and its side effects. RESULTS: The situation is evolving rapidly and there is no reasonable alternative to population-scale vaccination programs as currently enrolled. CONCLUSION: Therefore, regulatory authorities should consider supplementing their conventional mandate of post-approval pharmacovigilance, which is based on the collection, assessment, and regulatory response to emerging safety findings.

Montgomery and informed consent during Covid-19: Pneumatic retinopexy versus pars plana vitrectomy or scleral buckling for retinal detachment repair.

Recent reports suggest that the use of an outpatient-based procedure (pneumatic retinopexy, PR) for retinal detachment repair should be encouraged within the UK, especially in light of Covid-19 and possible restrictions/competing demands on access to operating theatres. It is therefore essential that patients receive comprehensive information about the risks and benefits of this approach compared with a formal surgical repair either by pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) and/or scleral buckling (SB). We report a retrospective case series of retinal detachments (RD) satisfying the strict selection criteria for PR but who were managed with formal surgery. Single-operation success rate for PPV/SB at six months follow-up was 93.8% in our study, higher than published primary success rates for PR (60-80%). When counselling patients for possible PR, the ease, speed and potentially reduced co-morbidity of an outpatient-based procedure needs to be balanced against its significantly higher failure rate in comparison with primary PPV/SB.

Rethinking Consent for Stroke Trials in Time-Sensitive Situations: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Informed consent is a key concept to ensure patient autonomy in clinical trials and routine care. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has complicated informed consent processes, due to physical distancing precautions and increased physician workload. As such, obtaining timely and adequate patient consent has become a bottleneck for many clinical trials. However, this challenging situation might also present an opportunity to rethink and reappraise our approach to consent in clinical trials. This viewpoint discusses the challenges related to informed consent during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it could be acceptable to alter current consent processes under these circumstances, and outlines a possible framework with predefined criteria and a system of checks and balances that could allow for alterations of existing consent processes to maximize patient benefit under exceptional circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic without undermining patient autonomy.

[Ethics of clinical trials]. / L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques.

TITLE: L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques. ABSTRACT: La pandémie de COVID-19 a conduit certains acteurs reconnus de la médecine à renoncer aux méthodes codifiées de la recherche médicale au profit d'affirmations établies dans l'urgence et sans réelle évaluation scientifique. Autant l'on peut comprendre que certains praticiens recourent à ce qui leur est ainsi proposé, autant cette confusion entre action dans l'urgence et recherche scientifique serait lourde de conséquences si elle venait à se généraliser, et cela à de multiples points de vue : image et rôle de la science, qualité et éthique de la recherche médicale et en fin de compte sort des malades soumis à des traitements mal évalués. Ce sont ces questions qui motivent la mise au point qui suit sur les questions d'éthique associées de longue date aux « essais thérapeutiques ¼, cette procédure rationnelle d'acquisition dans les meilleurs délais d'informations fiables sur les avantages et les risques des traitements dont on envisage l'éventuelle utilisation.

Why continuing uncertainties are no reason to postpone challenge trials for coronavirus vaccines.

To counter the pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), some have proposed accelerating SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development through controlled human infection (or 'challenge') trials. These trials would involve the deliberate exposure of relatively few young, healthy volunteers to SARS-CoV-2. We defend this proposal against the charge that there is still too much uncertainty surrounding the risks of COVID-19 to responsibly run such a trial.

Conducting clinical trials in heart failure during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic: an Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has important implications for the safety of participants in clinical trials and the research staff caring for them and, consequently, for the trials themselves. Patients with heart failure may be at greater risk of infection with COVID-19 and the consequences might also be more serious, but they are also at risk of adverse outcomes if their clinical care is compromised. As physicians and clinical trialists, it is our responsibility to ensure safe and effective care is delivered to trial participants without affecting the integrity of the trial. The social contract with our patients demands no less. Many regulatory authorities from different world regions have issued guidance statements regarding the conduct of clinical trials during this COVID-19 crisis. However, international trials may benefit from expert guidance from a global panel of experts to supplement local advice and regulations, thereby enhancing the safety of participants and the integrity of the trial. Accordingly, the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology on 21 and 22 March 2020 conducted web-based meetings with expert clinical trialists in Europe, North America, South America, Australia, and Asia. The main objectives of this Expert Position Paper are to highlight the challenges that this pandemic poses for the conduct of clinical trials in heart failure and to offer advice on how they might be overcome, with some practical examples. While this panel of experts are focused on heart failure clinical trials, these discussions and recommendations may apply to clinical trials in other therapeutic areas.