IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0128209.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Longitudinal Study of Informed Consent in Innovative Therapy Research: Experience and Provisional Recommendations from a Multicenter Trial of Intracerebral Grafting

Author

Listed:
  • Laurent Cleret de Langavant
  • Sophie Sudraud
  • Christophe Verny
  • Pierre Krystkowiak
  • Clémence Simonin
  • Philippe Damier
  • Jean-François Demonet
  • Frédéric Supiot
  • Amandine Rialland
  • David Schmitz
  • Patrick Maison
  • Katia Youssov
  • Anne-Catherine Bachoud-Lévi

Abstract

Background: There is an urgent need to assess and improve the consent process in clinical trials of innovative therapies for neurodegenerative disorders. Methods: We performed a longitudinal study of the consent of Huntington’s disease patients during the Multicenter Fetal Cell Intracerebral Grafting Trial in Huntington’s Disease (MIG-HD) in France and Belgium. Patients and their proxies completed a consent questionnaire at inclusion, before signing the consent form and after one year of follow-up, before randomization and transplantation. The questionnaire explored understanding of the protocol, satisfaction with the information delivered, reasons for participating in the trial and expectations regarding the transplant. Forty-six Huntington’s disease patients and 27 proxies completed the questionnaire at inclusion, and 27 Huntington’s disease patients and 16 proxies one year later. Results: The comprehension score was high and similar for Huntington’s disease patients and proxies at inclusion (72.6% vs 77.8%; P > 0.1) but only decreased in HD patients after one year. The information satisfaction score was high (73.5% vs 66.5%; P > 0.1) and correlated with understanding in both patients and proxies. The motivation and expectation profiles were similar in patients and proxies and remained unchanged after one year. Conclusions: Cognitively impaired patients with Huntington’s disease were capable of consenting to participation in this trial. This consent procedure has presumably strengthened their understanding and should be proposed before signing the consent form in future gene or cell therapy trials for neurodegenerative disorders. Because of the potential cognitive decline, proxies should be designated as provisional surrogate decision-makers, even in competent patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurent Cleret de Langavant & Sophie Sudraud & Christophe Verny & Pierre Krystkowiak & Clémence Simonin & Philippe Damier & Jean-François Demonet & Frédéric Supiot & Amandine Rialland & David Schmitz , 2015. "Longitudinal Study of Informed Consent in Innovative Therapy Research: Experience and Provisional Recommendations from a Multicenter Trial of Intracerebral Grafting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128209
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128209
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128209&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0128209?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0128209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.