Background: Many patients may be mentally incompetent or physically unable to give informed consent at the acute stage of stroke. Accordingly, we aimed to investigate the modalities of informed consent in urgent therapeutic stroke trials, the awareness of patients and relatives regarding stroke clinical trials and the impact of decision making on patients and relatives. Methods: We present a study of 56 acute ischemic stroke patients who were randomized in 4 trials (2 trials testing neuroprotective agents, 1 testing thrombolysis and 1 testing antithrombotic agents). A standardized questionnaire was used to assess the modalities of informed consent in this setting. Results: The mean age was 67.1 (SD 12.6) years. The mean baseline Scandinavian Stroke Scale (SSS) score was 23.8 (SD 10.5). Only 13 patients (23% of cases) gave consent while relatives gave consent for 43 patients (77%). The main reason for not getting consent from the patient was aphasia in 29 patients (67.4%). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the two independent factors influencing the ability to give consent are age and baseline neurological deficit as assessed by the SSS score. Concerning the psychological impact of consent, none of the 10 patients who answered our questionnaire declared feeling uncomfortable when giving consent, while 7 out of the 13 relatives who could be reached declared they felt uncomfortable, mainly because of the psychological stress induced by urgent decision making. Conclusions: Our study emphasizes the specific ethical difficulties of informed consent in the setting of acute stroke research. Only a minority of patients are able to give consent at the acute stage. Increasing age and neurological deficit are independent predictors of inability to give consent. Thus, the responsibility for consent usually relies on relatives with potential inaccuracy of decision concerning the patient’s wish or even conflict of interest. Further evaluation of the psychological impact of decision on relatives is needed in this setting of acute stroke.

Keywords:
Clinical trial, Informed consent, Acute stroke, Ethics
1.
Doyal L: Informed consent in medical research: Journals should not publish research to which patients have not given fully informed consent – with three exceptions. BMJ 1997;314:1107–1111.
2.
The Ethics and Humanities Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology: Ethical issues in clinical research in neurology: Advancing knowledge and protecting human research subjects. Neurology 1998;50:592–595.
3.
Ellis SJ, Matthews C, Weatherby SJ: Informed consent is flawed. Lancet 2001;357:149–150.
4.
Cassell EJ, Leon AC, Kaufman SG: Preliminary evidence of impaired thinking in sick patients. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:1120–1123.
5.
Ciccone A, Sterzi R, Crespi V, Defanti CA, Pasetti C, for the Bioethics and Neurology Study Group of the Italian Neurological Society: Thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke: The patient’s point of view. Cerebrovasc Dis 2001;12:335–340.
6.
Alves WA, Macciocchi SN: Ethical considerations in clinical neuroscience. Current concepts in neuroclinical trials. Stroke1996;27:1903–1909.
7.
Schaeffer MH, Krantz DS, Wichman A, Masur H, Reed E, Vinicky JK: The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med 1996;100:261–268.
8.
Schats R, Brilstra EH, Rinkel GJE, Algra A, Van Gijn J: Informed consent in trials for neurological emergencies: The example of subarachnoid haemorrhage. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:988–991.
9.
Bateman BT, Meyers PM, Schumacher HC, Mangla S, Pile-Spellman J: Conducting stroke research with an exception from the requirement for informed consent. Stroke 2003;34:1317–1323.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
2005
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.