Chen, Donna T.

Background —Stroke is a complex genetic disorder with a variable phenotype. Investigations of heritable factors in complex genetic disorders use pedigree and genetic techniques, which pose different ethical and methodological challenges than those routinely encountered in therapeutic research. Building consensus on acceptable research practices in this field is vital to the success of multicentered collaborations. Summary of Review —We review important ethical and methodological concerns related to the collection, storage, and release of pedigree research information. The human studies aspects of pedigree research are complicated methodologically because individuals can be active or passive participants and pedigrees can be proband derived, partially validated, or fully validated. Current research ethics frameworks do not work well outside of a dyadic researcher-subject relationship. Privacy and confidentiality for family members must be considered in pedigree research. Investigators should anticipate potential conflicts of interest among family members when designing a pedigree research protocol. Conclusions —We propose a “proband-initiated contact” methodology in which the proband or the proband’s designate allows identification of potential families without breaching the privacy of individuals in the family. In situations in which family history data are collected without direct contact between researchers and individuals in the proband’s family, an Institutional Review Board may waive consent by family members after appropriate review of the protocol and application of rules for granting waivers of consent. Certificates of Confidentiality should be considered.

Background and Purpose— In stroke and other brain disorders, severely affected phenotypes often impair decision-making capacity. Severity is in part under genomic control. Therefore, scientifically valid research into genetic risk may require inclusion of such impaired individuals. U.S. Federal regulations do not detail rules governing enrollment of adults with impaired decision-making capacity into genetic research. Rather, policy and practice are locally determined. This study was conducted to obtain data on how investigators and IRBs handle surrogate authorization to enroll probands into a genetic study where some may lack capacity because of ischemic stroke. Methods— Sequential surveys of sites from an ongoing North American study investigating genetic risks for ischemic stroke (2003: 49 sites, response rate=100%; 2007: 53 sites; response rate=91%) assessed whether and how investigators enroll adults with impaired decision-making capacity and determined frequency of IRB approval for enrollment by surrogate authorization. Results— Approximately 40% of sites report that their IRBs do not approve surrogate authorization to enroll stroke patients—43% (21/49) in 2003 and 35% (17/48) in 2007. Thirty-three percent of sites report evaluating eligible adults who lacked capacity to provide their own informed consent; 18% (9/49) in 2003 and 15% (7/48) in 2007 have enrolled these individuals. Surrogate enrollment is the most common method used. Most sites have not enrolled any individual lacking capacity to give his or her own consent. Conclusions— Our study suggests that enrollment by surrogate authorization into stroke genetic research is often not approved by IRBs, and even when allowed is frequently not used. For disorders like stroke, this situation has significant implications for scientific validity.

Background and Purpose— The extent of potential consent bias in observational studies elucidating genetic and environmental contributions to ischemic stroke is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to assess differences in stroke cohort characteristics between those who provided informed consent and those whose enrollment was authorized by surrogate decision makers. Methods— The Ischemic Stroke Genetics Study (ISGS) is a prospective, 5-center, case-control study of first-ever ischemic stroke. Demographic, clinical, and stroke characteristics were compared between cases enrolled by self versus by surrogate. Data from one site that limits enrollment only to those able to self-consent were also analyzed to compare those who enrolled with those not able to consent. Results— Overall, 10% (54 of 517) were enrolled using surrogate authorization. Self-consented and surrogate-authorized cases did not differ significantly in age, sex, or conventional risk factors. Surrogate-authorized cases had significantly more severe stroke deficits, larger infarcts, and infarcts localizing to left supratentorial regions. Similarly, at the site restricting enrollment, stroke severity and characteristics differed between self-consented individuals and those otherwise eligible but unable to provide consent. Conclusions— Failure to permit surrogate authorization in genetic studies of ischemic stroke may skew enrollment toward less severe strokes caused by smaller infarcts. This potential consent bias may undermine the ability to identify genetic determinants of risk and severity and suggests that surrogate enrollment in these studies can be ethically justifiable.