The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials.

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Improving the Proficiency of Research Consent Administrators.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and testing of a module to improve consent administrators' skills when obtaining research consent from culturally and linguistically diverse and low literacy populations. DESIGN: Development and psychometric testing of video module including community vignettes. METHODS: Following initial content, face, and construct validity testing by experts, a field trial was conducted with pre- and postknowledge tests and satisfaction surveys completed by 112 consent administrators. RESULTS: Mean score out of a possible 10 on pretest was 8.6 (±standard deviation [SD], 1.55) and on posttest was 9.1 (±SD, 1.2; paired t-test 95% confidence interval of difference: -0.18 to -0.88; two-tailed p = 0.003). The average years of experience with obtaining consent was 6.42 years (range: 0-35), but years of experience was not significantly associated with either pre- or posttest scores (p = 0.82 and 0.44, respectively). Most user evaluations were positive, although suggestions for improvements were made. CONCLUSION: Although pretest scores were relatively high, training needs of research consent administrators for consenting diverse and low literacy populations may be unmet. We urge that institutional review boards, researchers, policymakers, educators, and bioethicists address the training needs of research consent administrators and we offer this training module as one potential resource and adjunct to such training.

Reading Level and Length of Written Research Consent Forms.

In 100 Institutional Review Board approved consent forms (CFs), we assessed pages, reading levels, and whether they included essential elements. CF page numbers ranged from 3 to 28 (mean, 10.3) and readability ranged from grades 5.6 to 28.9 (mean, 11.6). The CF mean score for including essential elements was 90.8% (range: 63.5-100%). There were no significant differences by specialty in number of pages (p = 0.053), but surgical specialties had the highest readability (mean, 13.1), and pediatrics the lowest (10.5), p = 0.008. While approved CFs generally included the Office for Human Research Protections recommended essential elements, they were very long, and even pediatric forms, which had the lowest reading levels, were written on average at a tenth grade level. Researchers need guidance to resolve pressure between regulatory mandates and guidelines and "keeping it simple and clear."

Increased longevity in offspring of mothers with Alzheimer's disease.

Life expectancy is a familial trait. However, the effectiveness of using the age at death of a deceased parent to estimate life expectancy in their offspring can vary depending on whether death in the parent was due to extrinsic versus intrinsic causes, as well as demographic characteristics such as sex. While Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk increases with increased age, mortality for individuals with AD is increased in contrast to comparably aged individuals without AD. Yet in most cases it is not the defining neuropathology of AD that directly terminates life but instead conditions and illnesses extrinsic to AD pathology that nevertheless have increased likelihood in its presence. For this reason, we hypothesized that offspring of AD mothers would have greater longevity than offspring of mothers without AD (insufficient numbers prevented a comparable analysis using fathers with AD). The longevity of 345 offspring of 100 deceased 60+ year old AD mothers was compared with 5,465 offspring in 1,312 deceased 60+ year old non-AD mothers. We used a proportional hazards model that accounted for clustered (nonindependent) observations due to the inclusion of several offspring from the same family. In both an unadjusted model and one that adjusted for the age at death in the mother, and the sex and birth year in the offspring we found evidence for increased longevity in the offspring of AD mothers. The results suggest that, in addition to genes that might directly affect pathways leading to AD, there may be familial/genetic factors not connected to specific pathophysiological processes in AD but instead associated with increased longevity that contribute to the familial aggregation observed in AD.

A phenotype for genetic studies of successful cognitive aging.

Survival from Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias into late old age may be a useful phenotype for genetic studies of successful cognitive aging. To support molecular genetics studies for successful cognitive aging, we conducted a two-stage study to determine an optimal age phenotype for successful cognitive aging. First, risk of AD was evaluated, through informant interviews, in 4,794 parents and siblings of 976 elderly nondemented probands who were divided into three different proband age groups: those aged 60-74, 75-89, and 90+. Relatives of probands aged 90+ had a significantly lower risk than the relatives of the other two proband groups. Second, this sample was combined with an earlier sample (combined nondemented elderly probands: n = 2,025; relatives: n = 10,506), and a series of proband age groups (i.e., 75-79, 80-84, 85-89, 90+) were used to determine which optimally identifies a group of relatives with low AD risk. Using the relatives of the nondemented proband aged 60-74 as the reference group, there were reductions in cumulative risk among relatives of probands aged 85-89 and 90+, but only the latter group also showed significant reductions to the relatives of probands aged 75-79, 80-84, and 85-89. This pattern of results varied little by sex. Finally, cumulative AD risk curves were similar between relatives of probands aged 90-94 and 95+. These results suggest that age 90 is an optimal age threshold to use for both men and women in genetic studies seeking to identify genes associated with successful cognitive aging.