McKinney Ross E, Beskow Laura M, Ford Daniel E, Lantos John D, McCall Jonathan, Patrick-Lake Bray, Pletcher Mark J, Rath Brian, Schmidt Hollie, Weinfurt Kevin
Trent Center for Bioethics, Humanities, & History of Medicine and Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA.
Clin Trials. 2015 Oct;12(5):494-502. doi: 10.1177/1740774515597688. Epub 2015 Sep 15.
There are situations in which the requirement to obtain conventional written informed consent can impose significant or even insurmountable barriers to conducting pragmatic clinical research, including some comparative effectiveness studies and cluster-randomized trials. Although certain federal regulations governing research in the United States (45 CFR 46) define circumstances in which any of the required elements may be waived, the same standards apply regardless of whether any single element is to be waived or whether consent is to be waived in its entirety. Using the same threshold for a partial or complete waiver limits the options available to institutional review boards as they seek to optimize a consent process. In this article, we argue that new standards are necessary in order to enable important pragmatic clinical research while at the same time protecting patients' rights and interests.
在某些情况下,获取传统书面知情同意的要求可能会对开展务实的临床研究造成重大甚至难以克服的障碍,包括一些比较疗效研究和整群随机试验。尽管美国某些关于研究的联邦法规(45 CFR 46)规定了可免除任何所需要素的情形,但无论要免除任何单个要素还是完全免除同意,适用的标准都是相同的。对部分或完全免除采用相同的门槛限制了机构审查委员会在寻求优化同意程序时的选择。在本文中,我们认为需要新的标准,以便在开展重要的务实临床研究的同时保护患者的权益。