Development of Common Data Elements for Use in Chiari Malformation Type I Clinical Research: An NIH/NINDS Project

ABSTRACT The management of Chiari I malformation (CMI) is controversial because treatment methods vary and treatment decisions rest on incomplete understanding of its complex symptom patterns, etiologies, and natural history. Validity of studies that attempt to compare treatment of CMI has been limited because of variable terminology and methods used to describe study subjects. The goal of this project was to standardize terminology and methods by developing a comprehensive set of Common Data Elements (CDEs), data definitions, case report forms (CRFs), and outcome measure recommendations for use in CMI clinical research, as part of the CDE project at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) of the US National Institutes of Health. A working group, comprising over 30 experts, developed and identified CDEs, template CRFs, data dictionaries, and guidelines to aid investigators starting and conducting CMI clinical research studies. The recommendations were compiled, internally reviewed, and posted online for external public comment. In October 2016, version 1.0 of the CMI CDE recommendations became available on the NINDS CDE website. The recommendations span these domains: Core Demographics/Epidemiology; Presentation/Symptoms; Co-Morbidities/Genetics; Imaging; Treatment; and Outcome. Widespread use of CDEs could facilitate CMI clinical research trial design, data sharing, retrospective analyses, and consistent data sharing between CMI investigators around the world. Updating of CDEs will be necessary to keep them relevant and applicable to evolving research goals for understanding CMI and its treatment.

Realizing Informed Consent in Times of Controversy: Lessons from the SUPPORT Study

This Essay examines the elegantly simple idea that consent to medical treatment or participation in human research must be “informed” to be valid. It does so by using as a case study the controversial clinical research trial known as the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial (“SUPPORT”). The Essay begins by charting, through case law and the adoption of the common rule, the evolution of duties to secure fully informed consent in both research and treatment. The Essay then utilizes the SUPPORT study, which sought to pinpoint the level of saturated oxygen that should be provided to extremely low birth weight infants to demonstrate modern complexities and shortcomings of the duty to secure informed consent. This Essay shows how the duty is measured by foreseeability of risks and benefits in human research and why federal regulators believed the tradeoffs in risk and benefits from differing oxygen levels administered in the support study were foreseeable. It then explores the contours of the duty to secure informed consent when applied to researchers who also serve as treating physicians, highlighting how common law duties differ in jurisdictions that apply the professional standard and those that apply the patient-centered material risk standard. This Essay provides new insight into what the law must do to make real the notion that [e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his body.”