Gelinas, Luke

Background ‘Exception from informed consent’ research requires community consultation to ensure that the views of the local population have been considered. Using market research companies to distribute surveys across local populations is attractive because it ensures adequate response rates. It is not known whether individuals who respond to surveys are typical of the targeted communities. The purpose of this study is to compare the demographics of the survey respondents with that of the general population in the same area. Methods This is an analysis of data collected as part of the ‘Trauma Resuscitation with Group O Whole Blood or Products’ (TROOP) trial. The surveys used a commercial market research service to reach the communities of interest and consisted of 18 questions designed to evaluate respondents’ willingness to be enrolled in the TROOP trial and the demographics of survey respondents. Results Catchment populations varied from 0.5 to 9.4 million residents, with a total of 33.5 million. The racial and ethnic composition of the population (and the survey respondents, in brackets) was 44.8% (57.0%) white, 25.7% (13.4%) Hispanic, 12.7% (19.4%) black, 8.0% (2.5%) multiracial, 7.9% (4.4%) Asian, 0.7% (0.9%) Native American, and 0.2% (0.5%) Islanders. Of the male population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 12.2% (15.3%) were aged 18years to 24 years, 20.5% (22.3%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 18.1% (24.9%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 16.3% (18.5%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 15.5% (14.8%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 17.4% (4.3%) aged 65 years and over. Of the female population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 11.0% (18.5%) were aged 18 years to 24 years, 18.4% (22.6%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 16.4% (23.5%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 15.0% (17.3%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 18.5% (14.1%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 20.6% (3.9%) aged 65 years and over. Conclusions For this trial, using a market research company to distribute community surveys resulted in respondents that are broadly representative of the geographic areas where the trial will be conducted, except for individuals over the age of 65 years and older. This finding provides reassurance to investigators and institutional review boards that the views expressed by respondents are representative of the population where the trial will be conducted. Level of evidence III

Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution’s research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors’ experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.