The Definition of Placebo in the Informed Consent Forms of Clinical Trials

Aim

Lack of knowledge concerning the nature of placebo and why it is necessary may influence the participation of patients in clinical trials. The objective of the present study is to review how placebo is described in written information for participants in clinical trials to be evaluated by a Human Research Ethics Committee.

Methods

All research protocols submitted for evaluation in a Spanish hospital during 2007–2013 were reviewed. The main characteristics of the studies using a placebo were collected. Three authors read each of them to determine how the term “placebo” was explained and if there was any comment on its efficacy and safety.

Results

Two thousand seven-hundred and forty research protocols were evaluated, of which three hundred and fifty-nine used a placebo. Pharmaceutical companies sponsored most placebo-controlled clinical trials (91.9%), and phase III studies were the commonest (59.9%). Oncology (15.0%), cardiology (14.2%), and neurology (13.1%) made the greatest contributions. A review of the informed consent forms showed that placebo was described in a similar manner in most studies: the explanation was limited to between four and eight words. Very few gave information about the risks of its use or adverse reactions from its administration. None of the studies provided details about the placebo effect. And 23 lacked any information about placebo at all.

Conclusions

Explanations about placebo in informed consent forms is often scarce, and information about the placebo effect and associated risks are absent. This situation may influence a full understanding of placebo by participants in clinical trials and might reduce their informed decision to participate.     

REEXAMINATION OF THE ETHICS OF PLACEBO USE IN CLINICAL PRACTICE

A placebo is a substance or intervention believed to be inactive, but is administered by the healthcare professional as if it was an active medication. Unlike standard treatments, clinical use of placebo usually involves deception and is therefore ethically problematic. Our attitudes toward the clinical use of placebo, which inevitably includes deception or withholding information, have a tremendous effect on our practice regarding truth‐telling and informed consent. A casual attitude towards it weakens the current practice based on shared decision‐making and mutual trust between patients and healthcare professionals. Issues concerning the clinical use of placebo are thus intimately related to patient‐provider relationships, the public's trust in medicine, and medical education. A review of recent survey studies suggests that the clinical use of placebo appears to be fairly well accepted among healthcare professionals and is common in clinical settings in various countries. However, we think that an ethical discussion is urgently needed because of its controversial nature. If judged to be ethically wrong, the practice should end. In the present paper, we discuss the ethicality of the clinical use of placebo with deception and argue against it, concluding that it is unethical and should be banned. We will show that most arguments in favor of the clinical use of placebo can be refuted and are therefore incorrect or weak. These arguments will be presented and examined individually. Finally, we will briefly consider issues relevant to the clinical use of placebo without deception.     

The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the analytical (theoretical/philosophical) research

BackgroundConducting clinical trials with pre-term or sick infants is important if care for this population is to be underpinned by sound evidence. Yet, approaching the parents of these infants at such a difficult time raises challenges to obtaining valid informed consent for such research. In this study, we asked, What light does the analytical literature cast on an ethically defensible approach to obtaining informed consent in perinatal clinical trials?MethodsIn a systematic search, we identified 30 studies. We began our analysis by applying philosophical frameworks, which were then refined as concepts emerged from the analytical studies, to present a coherent picture of a broad literature.ResultsBetween them, the studies addressed four themes. The first three were the ethical basis for parental informed consent for neonatal and/or perinatal research, the validity of parental consent in this context, and the range of possible options in methods for gaining consent. The last was the issue of risk and the possibility of a double-standard or asymmetry in the current approaches to the requirement for consent for research and consent for clinical treatment.ConclusionsIn addressing these issues, the analysed studies showed that, whilst there are a variety of possible defences for seeking parental ‘consent’ to neonatal and/or perinatal clinical trials, these are all consistent with the strongly and widely held view that it is important that parents do give (or decline) consent for such research. So far as the method of obtaining consent is concerned, none of the existing consent processes reviewed by the research is satisfactory, and there are philosophical reasons for supposing that at least some parents will fail to give valid consent in a neonatal context. Furthermore, in giving parental ‘consent’ in a perinatal context, parents are authorising infant participation, not giving ‘proxy consent’. Finally, there are reasons for giving weight to both parental ‘consent’ and the infant’s best interests in both research and clinical treatment. However, there are also reasons to treat these factors differently in the two contexts, and this may be partly due to the differing relevance of risk in each case. A significant gap is the lack of any detailed discussion of a process of emergency and/or urgent ‘assent’, in which parents assent or refuse their baby’s participation as best they can during the emergency and later give full consent to continuing participation and follow-up.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1562-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

Does informed consent influence therapeutic outcome? A clinical trial of the hypnotic activity of placebo in patients admitted to hospital.

To examine whether written informed consent might influence the results of clinical trials the effect of placebo when given with or without informed consent to patients suffering from insomnia was studied. The study was a single blind observer blinded trial, and patients were paired according to sex, age, and hospital environment. Randomisation assigned the first patient of each pair to the control group (without informed consent) or the group to give informed consent. Of the 56 patients, 26 refused to give informed consent, and the age and sex distribution of these differed significantly (p less than 0.02) from the 30 pairs of patients ultimately enrolled into the study. In this "biased" sample, the hypnotic activity of placebo was significantly higher in the control group (p less than 0.05). It is concluded that the informed consent procedure biases the results of clinical trials and might affect their general applicability.     

An Evaluation of “Informed Consent” with Volunteer Prisoner Subjects

“Informed consent” sets a goal for investigators experimenting with human subjects, but little is known about how to achieve or evaluate it in an experiment. In a 3-year, double-blind study with incarcerated men, we attempted to provide a “free and informed consent” and evaluated our efforts with an unannounced questionnaire administered to subjects after they completed the experiment. At that time, approximately two-thirds had sufficient information for an informed consent, but only one-third was well informed about all key aspects of the experiment and one-third was insufficiently informed to give an informed consent. We found that institution- or study-based coercion was minimal in our experiment. From our evaluation of the questionnaire and experience at the study institution, we conclude that an experiment with human subjects should be designed to include an ongoing evaluation of informed consent, and active attempts should be made to avoid or minimize coercive inducements. Experiments with significant risk, which require a long duration and/or large sample size relative to the institution's population, should probably not be performed on prisoner subjects. The experimenter should be independent of the penal institution's power structure. Presenting and explaining a consent form to volunteers on one occasion is probably an in adequate procedure for obtaining and maintaining an informed consent.     

The Nocebo Effect of Informed Consent

The nocebo effect, the mirror‐phenomenon to the placebo effect, is when the expectation of a negative outcome precipitates the corresponding symptom or leads to its exacerbation. One of the basic ethical duties in health care is to obtain informed consent from patients before treatment; however, the disclosure of information regarding potential complications or side effects that this involves may precipitate a nocebo effect. While dilemmas between the principles of respect for patient autonomy and of nonmaleficence are recognized in medical ethics, there has not yet been an ethical discussion focused on the potential dilemma raised by the nocebo effect of informed consent (NEIC). This dilemma is especially pernicious, since it involves a direct causality of harm by the caregiver that is unparalleled by other potential harmful effects of information disclosure. This paper articulates the dilemma of the NEIC and offers a seminal ethical analysis.     

THE WORLD WAR II PLUTONIUM EXPERIMENTS: CONTESTED STORIES AND THEIR LESSONS FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH AND INFORMED CONSENT

During the Second World War medical researchers around the USAinjected 18 hospital patients with radioactive plutonium in orderto learn its effects on the body. Two documents, a newspaperaccount and a university committee report, tell divergent storiesof the scientists and patients involved in that experiment. Thisarticle uses those documents – plutonium narratives– as a catalyst for exploring the problematicrepresentation of past human experimentation, assumptions of moralprogress in medical research, and the nature of informed consenttoday. Informed consent is shown to be an evolving process anddiscursive practice that cannot be understood apart from itshistorical and cultural embeddedness.     

An Australian Based Study on the Readability of HIV/AIDS and Type 2 Diabetes Clinical Trial Informed Consent Documents

The aims of this study were to measure the readability of Australian based informed consent documents and determine whether informed consent readability guidelines have been established by Australian human research ethics committees (HRECs). A total of 20 informed consent documents, 10 HIV/AIDS and 10 type 2 diabetes, were measured for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Gunning Fog Index (Fog). Published guidelines and policy statements of the two local HREC who approved the 20 clinical trials under study where examined to identify whether they had any formal policies/guidelines on the readability of informed consent documents. The two HRECs were contacted via e-mail to also determine whether they utilised any informal readability standards or “rules of thumb” that may not have been mentioned in the published documents. The HIV/AIDS and type 2 diabetes informed consent documents were, on average, written at a grade 13 reading level. Formal readability standards had not been established by the two local HRECs, however, they did verify the use of informal rules for assessing readability of informed consent documents. Based on Australian literacy data, the majority of informed consent documents were written well beyond the reading ability of many Australians. Unreadable informed consent documents may result in patients rejecting trial participation altogether or conversely may result in their participating in a trial with inadequate consent. Therefore, a step toward reducing the complexity of informed consent documents may be to implement objective readability assessments into the human research ethics application and review process.     

Pharmacogenetics: the bioethical problem of DNA investment banking

Concern about the ethics of clinical drug trials research on patients and healthy volunteers has been the subject of significant ethical analysis and policy development--protocols are reviewed by Research Ethics Committees and subjects are protected by informed consent procedures. More recently attention has begun to be focused on DNA banking for clinical and pharmacogenetics research. It is, however, surprising how little attention has been paid to the commercial nature of such research, or the unique issues that present when subjects are asked to consent to the storage of biological samples. Our contention is that in the context of pharmacogenetic add-on studies to clinical drug trials, the doctrine of informed consent fails to cover the broader range of social and ethical issues. Applying a sociological perspective, we foreground issues of patient/subject participation or 'work', the ambiguity of research subject altruism, and the divided loyalties facing many physicians conducting clinical research. By demonstrating the complexity of patient and physician involvement in clinical drug trials, we argue for more comprehensive ethical review and oversight that moves beyond reliance on informed consent to incorporate understandings of the social, political and cultural elements that underpin the diversity of ethical issues arising in the research context.     

知情同意：定义、模式和挑战

从知情同意产生和发展的历史、知情同意的含义和模式方面来说明产生于一定历史背景下的知情同意,在临床和研究领域,以及生物信息库的建设中,具有一定的局限性,也面临着挑战。面对这样的挑战,不应该拘泥于对知情同意概念本身如何准确表述、模式如何创新,而更应该从知情同意所要达到的目的——保护患者、受试者和样本提供者的权益来考虑。     

Interactive Informed Consent: Randomized Comparison with Paper Consents

Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject’s own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p  = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct  =  77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct  =  57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct  =  75% vs 58%, p < .001). For all subjects, the total time spent reviewing the paper consent was 13.2 minutes, significantly less than the average of 22.7 minutes total on the three components to be reviewed using the iPad (introductory video, consent form, interactive quiz). Overall satisfaction and overall enjoyment slightly favored the interactive iPad presentation. This study demonstrates that combining an introductory video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz on a tablet-based system improves comprehension of research study procedures and risks.     

A Randomised Controlled Trial of Consent Procedures for the Use of Residual Tissues for Medical Research: Preferences of and Implications for Patients,Research and Clinical Practice

Background

Despite much debate, there is little evidence on consequences of consent procedures for residual tissue use. Here, we investigated these consequences for the availability of residual tissue for medical research, clinical practice, and patient informedness.

Methods

We conducted a randomised clinical trial with three arms in six hospitals. Participants, patients from whom tissue had been removed for diagnosis or treatment, were randomised to one of three arms: informed consent, an opt-out procedure with active information provision (opt-out plus), and an opt-out procedure without active information provision. Participants received a questionnaire six weeks post-intervention; a subsample of respondents was interviewed. Health care providers completed a pre- and post-intervention questionnaire. We assessed percentage of residual tissue samples available for medical research, and patient and health care provider satisfaction and preference. Health care providers and outcome assessors could not be blinded.

Results

We randomised 1,319 patients, 440 in the informed consent, 434 in the opt-out plus, and 445 in the opt-out arm; respectively 60.7%, 100%, and 99.8% of patients’ tissue samples could be used for medical research. Of the questionnaire respondents (N = 224, 207, and 214 in the informed consent, opt-out plus, and opt-out arms), 71%, 69%, and 31%, respectively, indicated being (very) well informed. By questionnaire, the majority (53%) indicated a preference for informed consent, whereas by interview, most indicated a preference for opt-out plus (37%). Health care providers (N = 35) were more likely to be (very) satisfied with opt-out plus than with informed consent (p = 0.002) or opt-out (p = 0.039); the majority (66%) preferred opt-out plus.

Conclusion

We conclude that opt-out with information (opt-out plus) is the best choice to balance the consequences for medical research, patients, and clinical practice, and is therefore the most optimal consent procedure for residual tissue use in Dutch hospitals.

Trial Registration

Dutch Trial Register NTR2982     

Double-blind Evaluation of Verapamil,Propranolol, and Isosorbide Dinitrate against a Placebo in the Treatment of Angina Pectoris

In the treatment of angina pectoris a double-blind evaluation of verapamil (Cordilox) at two dose levels—namely, 80 mg thrice daily and 120 mg thrice daily—propranolol (Inderal) 100 mg thrice daily, and isosorbide dinitrate (Vascardin) 20 mg thrice daily has been made against a placebo. The assessment was based on relief from daily attacks of angina on effort and the response to a whole-body exercise test. We can find no statistically significant difference between the effects of verapamil (120 mg three times a day) and propranolol (100 mg three times a day) in the treatment of angina of effort. Both of these preparations are more effective than a placebo both in the reduction of daily attacks (P < 0·01) and in the prolongation of exercise test (P < 0·05). Isosorbide dinitrate (20 mg three times a day) appears to be no more effective than a placebo in the treatment of angina on effort, but 14 out of 32 patients experienced headache of such severity that even when the dose was reduced to 10 mg thrice daily this drug therapy had to be withdrawn. Both propranolol (100 mg three times a day) and verapamil (120 mg three times a day) had a significant lowering effect on the diastolic blood pressure as measured with the patient standing (P < 0·01).     

Catechol-O-Methyltransferase val158met Polymorphism Predicts Placebo Effect in Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Identifying patients who are potential placebo responders has major implications for clinical practice and trial design. Catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT), an important enzyme in dopamine catabolism plays a key role in processes associated with the placebo effect such as reward, pain, memory and learning. We hypothesized that the COMT functional val158met polymorphism, was a predictor of placebo effects and tested our hypothesis in a subset of 104 patients from a previously reported randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The three treatment arms from this study were: no-treatment (“waitlist”), placebo treatment alone (“limited”) and, placebo treatment “augmented” with a supportive patient-health care provider interaction. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline in IBS-Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS) after three weeks of treatment. In a regression model, the number of methionine alleles in COMT val158met was linearly related to placebo response as measured by changes in IBS-SSS (p = .035). The strongest placebo response occurred in met/met homozygotes treated in the augmented placebo arm. A smaller met/met associated effect was observed with limited placebo treatment and there was no effect in the waitlist control. These data support our hypothesis that the COMT val158met polymorphism is a potential biomarker of placebo response.     

Erosion of informed consent in U.S. research

This paper evaluates four recent randomized clinical trials in which the informed consent of participants was either not sought at all, or else was conducted with critical information missing from the consent documents. As these studies have been taking place, various proposals to conduct randomized clinical trials without consent have been appearing in the medical literature. Some of the explanations offered for why it is appropriate to bypass consent or disclosure requirements appear to represent a fundamental misunderstanding of applicable government regulations and even the research enterprise. Others are the result of conceptual disagreements about the importance and application of traditional research ethics norms to ‘comparative effectiveness research’ and modern research environments. Common among these explanations, however, is a failure to appreciate when a research intervention, rather than merely an observation or review of data, is taking place. Review committees and investigators are failing to see, or choosing to ignore, interventions in the lives of research subjects. When these studies have come to light, government agencies with oversight authority have done little or backed down. Prestigious medical journals have published research results knowing that the required consent was not obtained, or they have stood by the published studies even after the inadequacy of consent is discovered. This article critically examines this erosion of consent in theory and practice and calls for restoring the requirement of informed consent to its proper place as a priority in human subjects research.     

Informing participants of allocation to placebo at trial closure: postal survey

ObjectivesTo assess whether and how investigators of placebo controlled randomised trials inform participants of their treatment allocation at trial closure and to assess barriers to feedback.DesignPostal survey with a semistructured questionnaire.ParticipantsAll investigators who published a placebo controlled randomised trial in 2000 in five leading medical journals, and a random sample of 120 trials listed in the national research register database.Results45% of investigators informed either all or most participants of their treatment allocation, and 55% did not inform any participant or only informed those who asked. The main reasons for not informing participants were that the investigators never considered this option (40%) or to avoid biasing results at study follow up (24%).ConclusionFurther research is required to examine sensitive ways to communicate treatment information to trial participants.

What is already known on this topic

Information is poor on the nature, extent, and effect of informing participants of placebo controlled randomised trials about their treatment allocation at trial closureLess than 50% of participants receiving placebo are informed about their treatment allocation

What this study adds

No standard procedure is available for informing patients of their treatment arm or of study results at the end of a trialEffective and sensitive ways of communicating treatment allocation to participants are required, as is information on the effects on placebo responders     

Placebo Trends across the Border: US versus Canada

Background

Physicians around the world report to using placebos in a variety of situations and with varying degrees of frequency. Inconsistent methodologies, however, complicate interpretation and prevent direct comparisons across studies. While US- and Canada-based physicians share similar professional standards, Canada harbours a less-litigious universal healthcare model with no formal placebo-related policy—factors that may impact how physicians view and use placebos.

Methods

To compare American and Canadian data, we circulated an online survey to academic physicians practicing in Canada, collected anonymous responses, and extracted those of internists and rheumatologists for comparison to US data obtained through parallel methodologies.

Results

Whereas our data show overall concordance across the border—from definitions to ethical limitations and therapeutic potential—differences between American- and Canadian-based placebo practices merit acknowledgement. For example, compared to 45%-80% among US-based respondents, only 23±7% of Canada-based respondents reported using placebos in clinical practice. However, 79±7% of Canada-respondents—a figure comparable to US data—professed to prescribing at least one form of treatment without proven or expected efficacy. Placebo interventions including unwarranted vitamins and herbal supplements (impure placebos) as well as sugar pills and saline injections (pure placebos) appear more common in Canada, where more doctors described placebos as “placebos” (rather than “medications”) and used them as a “diagnostic” tool (rather than a means of placating patient demands for treatment).

Interpretation

Cross-border variation in the use of clinical placebos appears minor despite substantial differences in health care delivery system, malpractice climate, and placebo-related policy. The prevalence of impure placebos in both Canadian and US clinics raises ethical and practical questions currently unaddressed by policy and warranting investigation.