Kim Scott Y H, Karlawish Jason H, Kim H Myra, Wall Ian F, Bozoki Andrea C, Appelbaum Paul S
Center Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, and Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, 300 N Ingalls St, 7C27, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;68(2):214-20. doi: 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.191.
Research involving persons with impaired decision-making capacity (such as persons with Alzheimer disease [AD]) remains ethically challenging, especially when the research involves significant risk. If individuals incapable of consenting to research studies were able to appoint a research proxy, it would allow for an appointed surrogate (rather than a de facto surrogate) to represent the subject.
To assess the extent to which persons with AD retain their capacity to appoint a research proxy.
Interview study.
Academic research.
One hundred eighty-eight persons with AD were interviewed for their capacity to appoint a proxy for research and to provide consent to 2 hypothetical research scenarios, a lower-risk randomized clinical trial testing a new drug (drug RCT) and a higher-risk randomized clinical trial testing neurosurgical cell implants using a sham control condition (neurosurgical RCT). Categorical capacity status for each subject was determined by independent videotaped reviews of capacity interviews by 5 experienced psychiatrists.
Categorical capacity determinations for the capacity to appoint a research proxy, capacity to consent to a drug RCT, and capacity to consent to a neurosurgical RCT.
Data showed that 37.7% (40 of 106) of those deemed incapable of consenting to the drug RCT and 54.8% (86 of 157) of those deemed incapable of consenting to the neurosurgical RCT were found capable of appointing a research proxy. Only 7 of 186 (3.8%) were deemed capable of consenting to the neurosurgical RCT by all 5 psychiatrists.
A substantial proportion of persons with AD who were thought incapable of consenting to lower-risk or higher-risk studies have preserved capacity for appointing a research proxy. Because few persons are found to be unequivocally capable of providing independent consent to higher-risk AD research, providing for an appointed surrogate even after the onset of AD, which might best be done in the early stages of the illness, may help address key ethical challenges to AD research.
涉及决策能力受损者(如阿尔茨海默病[AD]患者)的研究在伦理方面仍然具有挑战性,尤其是当研究涉及重大风险时。如果无法对研究做出同意的个体能够指定一名研究代理人,那么就可以由指定的代理人(而非事实上的代理人)来代表受试者。
评估AD患者指定研究代理人的能力保留程度。
访谈研究。
学术研究。
对188名AD患者进行访谈,了解他们指定研究代理人的能力以及对两种假设研究场景表示同意的能力,这两种场景分别是一项低风险的测试新药的随机临床试验(药物随机对照试验)和一项高风险的使用假对照条件测试神经外科细胞植入的随机临床试验(神经外科随机对照试验)。由5名经验丰富的精神科医生通过对能力访谈的独立录像审查来确定每个受试者的分类能力状态。
指定研究代理人的能力、同意药物随机对照试验的能力以及同意神经外科随机对照试验的能力的分类能力判定。
数据显示,在那些被认为无法同意药物随机对照试验的人中,有37.7%(106人中的40人)被发现有能力指定研究代理人;在那些被认为无法同意神经外科随机对照试验的人中,有54.8%(157人中的86人)被发现有能力指定研究代理人。在186名患者中,只有7人(3.8%)被所有5名精神科医生认为有能力同意神经外科随机对照试验。
相当一部分被认为无法同意低风险或高风险研究的AD患者保留了指定研究代理人的能力。由于很少有人被明确认定有能力为高风险的AD研究提供独立同意,即使在AD发病后(最好在疾病早期进行)提供指定代理人的机制,可能有助于应对AD研究中的关键伦理挑战。