Background: Shared decision-making using a decision aid is required for patients undergoing implantation of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). It is unknown how much this process has impacted patients’ experiences or choices. Effective shared decision-making requires an understanding of how patients make ICD decisions. A qualitative key informant study was chosen to capture the breadth of patients’ experiences making ICD decisions in the context of required shared decision-making. Methods and Results: We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 patients referred to electrophysiology clinics for the consideration of primary prevention ICD implantation. Purposeful sampling from a prior survey study evaluating mandated shared decision-making was based on patient characteristics and responses to the initial survey questions. Qualitative descriptive analysis of the interviews was performed using a multilevel coding strategy. Patients’ paths to an ICD decision often involved multiple visits with multiple clinicians. However, the decision aid was almost exclusively provided to the patient during electrophysiology clinic visits. Some patients used the numeric data in the decision aid to make an ICD decision based on the risk–benefit profile; others made decisions based on other data or based on trust in clinicians’ recommendations. Patients highlighted information related to living with the device as particularly important in helping them to make their ICD decisions. Some patients struggled with the emotional aspects of making an ICD decision. Conclusions: Patients’ ICD decision-making paths poses a challenge to episodic shared decision-making and may make tools such as decision aids perfunctory if used solely during the electrophysiology visit. Understanding patients’ ICD decision-making paths, especially in the context of encounters with primary cardiologists, can inform the implementation strategies of shared decision-making help to enhance its impact. Components of decision aids focusing on the experience of living with an ICD rather than probabilistic data may also be more impactful, although the nature of their impact will differ.

Controversy over informed consent for clinical trials in acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has existed for over 30 years.1 2 3 How can a patient with dyspnoea and angina in need of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention possibly make an informed, considered decision about whether to enrol in a clinical trial? Some authors have argued that seeking consent for research in this context is not only impracticable but unethical.4 Nevertheless, it has remained standard practice to ask STEMI patients or surrogates to consent to enrolment in trials. The recent Unfractionated Heparin versus Bivalirudin in Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (HEAT-PPCI) trial, in which patients were randomised without prospective consent, has forced a re-examination of this long simmering question.5 6 7 This discussion is particularly timely given the growing emphasis on pragmatic comparative effectiveness trials that integrate clinical care and research. We contend that the principle of respect for persons supports involving patients in enrolment decisions for trials, even when trials pose few risks and patients cannot give valid consent.

Objectives: There has been significant debate over what consent process, if any, should be used for clinical trials that compare two or more interventions within the standard of care. Some claim that all clinical trials should obtain in-depth research consent because they use subjects to obtain data for the benefit of future patients. Others argue that clinical trials that are limited to interventions within the standard of care do not need to obtain research consent at all. Settling this debate is especially challenging in the emergency setting. The potential for significant morbidity and mortality provides a strong reason to obtain research consent for standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. Yet, the emergency setting also introduces significant barriers to traditional in-depth research consent. The present article considers to what extent a targeted consent process can resolve these tensions. Data Synthesis: We first identified the ethical goals that are promoted by obtaining consent for standard-of-care research and the barriers to obtaining consent that arise in the emergency setting. We then evaluated whether, despite the barriers, it is possible to develop a targeted consent process that promotes the goals for consent in the context of standard-of-care trials. Conclusions: Targeted consent offers an ethically appropriate way to obtain consent for many standard-of-care trials in the emergency setting. For studies subject to U.S. regulations, and those subject to other regulations that include similar consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure and written form provide a way to satisfy research regulations without blocking valuable studies. For trials that qualify for a waiver of the consent requirements, targeted consent's verbal disclosure is preferable to waiving consent, provided a slight delay is consistent with appropriate care, and there is a capacitated patient or surrogate available.

Background: Emergent informed consent for clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke is challenging. The role and value of consent are controversial, and insufficient data exist regarding patients’ and surrogates’ experiences. Methods and Results: We conducted structured interviews with patients (or surrogates) enrolled in AMI or acute stroke trials at 6 sites between 2011 and 2016. Primary domains included trial recall, consent experiences, and preferences regarding involvement. Descriptive and test statistics were used to characterize responses and explore relationships between key domains and characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine associations between key covariates and consent preferences. There were 176 (84 stroke, 92 AMI) completed interviews. Most stroke respondents (82%) were surrogates; all AMI respondents were patients. Average time from trial enrollment to interview was 1.9years (stroke) and 2.8years (AMI); 89% of stroke and 62% of AMI respondents remembered being in the trial, and among these respondents, 80% (stroke) and 44% (AMI) remembered reading some of the consent form. Over 90% reported not feeling pressure to enroll, being treated in a caring way, and being treated with dignity. A minority (16% stroke and 26% AMI) reported they would have preferred not to be asked for consent. Just over half (61% stroke and 53% AMI) recalled a postenrollment conversation about the study. Conclusions: Most respondents felt they were treated respectfully and were glad they had been asked for consent. Trial recall was relatively low, and many respondents recalled little postenrollment discussion. Further development of context-sensitive approaches to consent is important.

Background: Informed consent for acute myocardial infarction and stroke research is challenging. Time for enrollment decisions is limited, patients and family are usually stressed, and being asked to participate in research is often unexpected. Despite these barriers, patients and surrogates have reported a preference for prospective involvement in research decisions and generally positive views of the consent process. It is unknown what drives positive or negative consent experiences. These data are crucial to making consent processes more context appropriate. Methods and Results: We conducted a qualitative interview study with 27 patients and surrogates enrolled in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials in the past 5 years. Purposive sampling from the P-CARE (Patient-Centered Approaches to Research Enrollment) study was based on participant characteristics and responses to initial patient-centered interviews. In-depth interviews used open-ended questions to explore factors influencing consent experiences. Qualitative descriptive analysis was performed utilizing a multilevel coding strategy. Participants identified specific researcher behaviors as important, including expressions of respect, professionalism, and nonpressuring communication. Participants preferred consent conversations focused on risks/benefits and the trial protocol. They had varying views of consent forms and communicated several reasons the form was valuable unrelated to informational content. Participants also valued postenrollment interactions as opportunities to ask questions and learn about the study. Conclusions: Barriers to consent in acute myocardial infarction and stroke trials are unavoidable, but participants identified productive ways to demonstrate respect for patients during enrollment conversations. These include key researcher behaviors, concentrating consent discussions on what participants find most important, and structured postenrollment follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular clinical trials depend on patient enrollment. Enrollment rates appear inadequate, but little is known about how frequently patients accept or decline offers of enrollment. The objective of this study was to assess trends and predictors of patient acceptance of offers to enroll in clinical trials for cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We utilized an established database containing all randomized, controlled trials (n=1224) in cardiovascular disease published between 2001 and 2012 in the 8 highest-impact general medical and cardiology journals. Studies were eligible if the number of patients approached and number of patients declining enrollment could be ascertained from published materials. All studies were screened for eligibility. Each eligible study was reviewed by 3 co-authors. All discrepancies were resolved by the group. The main outcome was acceptance rate, defined as the number of patients enrolled divided by the number patients who were eligible and approached. Only 21.7% (n=266) of studies provided information sufficient to assess patient enrollment and refusals. The median acceptance rate across trials was 83.2%. Significant predictors of higher enrollment included: enrollment in the acute setting (P=0.031); geographical region (P<0.001 for group); and trial sponsorship (P=0.006 for group). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of reporting data sufficient to calculate acceptance rates are low. This compromises the ability to identify drivers of low enrollment and assess trial generalizability. However, the high rates of acceptance observed suggest that factors other than patients' decisions may be the primary drivers of declining rates of trial enrollment.

Objectives: Novel approaches to advance the field of vaccinology must be investigated, and are particularly of importance for influenza in order to produce a more effective vaccine. A systematic review of human challenge studies for influenza was performed, with the goal of assessing safety and ethics and determining how these studies have led to therapeutic and vaccine development. A systematic review of systems biology approaches for the study of influenza was also performed, with a focus on how this technology has been utilized for influenza vaccine development. Methods: The PubMed database was searched for influenza human challenge studies, and for systems biology studies that have addressed both influenza infection and immunological effects of vaccination. Results: Influenza human challenge studies have led to important advancements in therapeutics and influenza immunization, and can be performed safely and ethically if certain criteria are met. Many studies have investigated the use of systems biology for evaluating immune response to influenza vaccine, and several promising molecular signatures may help advance our understanding of pathogenesis and be used as targets for influenza interventions. Combining these methodologies has the potential to lead to significant advances in the field of influenza vaccinology and therapeutics. Conclusions: Human challenge studies and systems biology approaches are important tools that should be used in concert to advance our understanding of influenza infection and provide targets for novel therapeutics and immunizations.

Background-—“Financial toxicity” is a concern for patients, but little is known about how patients consider out-of-pocket cost in decisions. Sacubitril-valsartan provides a contemporary scenario to understand financial toxicity. It is guideline recommended for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet out-of-pocket costs can be considerable. Methods and Results-—Structured interviews were conducted with 49 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at heart failure clinics and inpatient services. Patient opinions of the drug and its value were solicited after description of benefits using graphical displays. Descriptive quantitative analysis of closed-ended responses was conducted, and qualitative descriptive analysis of text data was performed. Of participants, 92% (45/49) said that they would definitely or probably switch to sacubitril-valsartan if their physician recommended it and out-of-pocket cost was $5 more per month than their current medication. Only 43% (21/49) would do so if out-of-pocket cost was $100 more per month (P<0.001). At least 40% across all income categories would be unlikely to take sacubitril-valsartan at $100 more per month. Participants exhibited heterogeneous approaches to cost in decision making and varied on their use and interpretation of probabilistic information. Few (20%) participants stated physicians had initiated a conversation about cost in the past year. Conclusions-—Out-of-pocket cost variation reflective of contemporary cost sharing substantially influenced stated willingness to take sacubitril-valsartan, a guideline-recommended therapy with mortality benefit. These findings suggest a need for cost transparency to promote shared decision making. They also demonstrate the complexity of cost discussion and need to study how to incorporate out-of-pocket cost into clinical decisions.

Clinical research is critical to combatting COVID-19, but regulatory requirements for human subjects protection may sometimes pose a challenge in pandemic circumstances. Although regulators have offered some helpful guidance for research during the pandemic, we identify further compliance challenges regarding institutional review board (IRB) review and approval, informed consent, emergency research, and research involving incarcerated people. Our proposals for regulatory flexibility in these areas seek to satisfy the goals of protecting participants and promoting the development of high-quality evidence to improve patient care. These recommendations may have relevance beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to enhance the efficiency of research oversight and participant protection more broadly.

Background. Presenting numeric data alone may result in patients underappreciating clinically significant benefits. Contextualizing statements to counter this may raise concern about absence of neutrality. These issues arose during construction of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan, a heart failure medication associated with a ∼3% absolute reduction in 2-year mortality that carries high out-of-pocket cost. A contextualizing statement framing this as a “pretty big benefit” was incorporated. The impact of statements like this within decision aids is unknown. Objective. This online Qualtrics survey sought to deepen understanding of benefit framing by testing the impact of varying contextualizing statements within a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan. Design. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of six abbreviated versions of a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan that varied only by contextualizing statement (ranging from strongly neutral to strongly positive and using relative and absolute risk reductions). Participants were asked to answer questions regarding the likelihood of taking the medication at a cost of $50/month and their perception of the drug’s benefits. Results. A total of 1873 participants who were demographically similar to the heart failure population completed the survey. Fifty-four percent were willing to take sacubitril-valsartan at $50/month. Each of the five experimental contextualizing statements was compared with the baseline version; no significant differences were observed in reported likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. After controlling for demographics and covariates, group assignment did not predict likelihood of taking the medication. Higher income, better self-reported health status, and younger age were associated with increased likelihood of taking sacubitril-valsartan. Limitations. This study used a hypothetical scenario and evaluated one method of delivering contextualizing statements. Conclusions. Contextualizing statements as tested within this decision aid did not affect decision making.