Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Doctor’s Duty to the Elderly Patient in Clinical Trials

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The ethical principles of beneficence (or non-maleficence), respect for persons and justice apply to both good medical practice and clinical research. Doctors have a duty to offer to their patients, of all ages, the opportunity to take part in clinical trials and to ensure that research is appropriately designed and conducted.

Barriers to participation of elderly patients in clinical trials include complex protocols with onerous outcome measures, a research focus on aggressive therapies with substantial toxicity, restrictive entry criteria unnecessarily excluding concurrent conditions and medication, patients’ and families’ limited expectations of benefits and lack of financial, logistic and social support.

Participation is encouraged when attitudes of care staff towards research are positive, altruistic motives are acknowledged, approval of family members is gained and protocols are designed for patient rather than staff convenience. Special consideration should be given to ensuring that patient consent is fully informed and freely given.

Elderly patients may have more difficulty comprehending consent information and particular attention should be given to compensating for communication and sensory deficits, improving readability of information sheets and consent forms, and considering the use of innovative consent procedures. Those with cognitive impairment and the institutionalised are vulnerable to exploitation and require special consideration and management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Department of Health. National Service Framework for Older People. London: Department of Health, 2001. Available from URL: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nsf/olderpeoplemaindoc.htm [Accessed 2003 Sep 4]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Department of Health. Statistical Bulletin 1999/17: statistics of prescriptions dispensed in the community: 1988–1998. London: Department of Health, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hammerlein A, Derendorf H, Lowenthal DT. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes in the elderly: clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 35: 49–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Atkin PA, Veitch PC, Veitch EM, et al. The epidemiology of serious adverse drug reactions among the elderly. Drugs Aging 1999; 14: 141–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (USA). International Conference on Harmonisation; guideline on studies in support of special populations: geriatrics: availability. Fed Regist 1994; 59: 33398–400

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Commission for then protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1979

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fleischman AR. Developing regulations for research involving adults who lack decision making capacity. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 1999, 110: 131–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. General Medical Council. Research: the role and responsibilities of doctors. London: General Medical Council, 2002. Available from URL: http://www-gmc-uk.org/globa_sections/search_frameset.htm [Accessed 2003 Sep 4]

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nuremberg Code. Permissible medical experiments, trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under Control Council Law No.10: Nuremberg October 1946–April 1949, Vol 2. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1946: 181–2

  10. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Ferney-Voltaire: World Medical Association, 2000. Available from URL: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm [Accessed 2003 Sep 4]

  11. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Vol. 1. Rockville (MD): National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2000. Available from URL: http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/pubs.html. [Accessed 2003 Sep 4]

    Google Scholar 

  12. American Geriatrics Society Ethics and Research Committees. The responsible conduct of research. J Am Geriatr Soc 2001; 49: 1120–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bugeja G, Kumar A, Banerjee AK. Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports. BMJ 1997; 315: 1059

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bayer A, Tadd W. Unjustified exclusion of elderly people from studies submitted to research ethics committee for approval: descriptive study. BMJ 2000; 321: 992–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rogers SL, Farlow MR, Doody SR, et al. A 24 week, double blind placebo controlled trial of donepezil in patients with AD. Neurology 1998; 50: 136–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosier M, Anand R, Cicin-Sian A, et al. Efficacy and safety of rivastigmine in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: international randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1999; 318: 633–58

    Google Scholar 

  17. Weisstub DN, Florez-Arboleda J, Tomossy GF. Establishing the boundaries of ethically permissible research with special populations. Health Law Can 1996; 17: 45–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Koops L, Lindley RI. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2002; 325: 415–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Yastrubetskaya O, Chiu E, O’Connell S. Is good clinical research practice for clinical trials good clinical practice? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 1997; 12: 227–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Yusuf S, Held P, Teo KK, et al. Selection of patients for randomised controlled trials: implications of wide or narrow eligibility criteria. Stat Med 1990; 9: 73–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Britton A, McKee M, Black N, et al. Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy 1999; 4: 112–21

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bene J, Liston R. The special problems of conducting clinical trials in elderly patients. Rev Clin Gerontol 1997; 7: 1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hutchins LF, Unger JM, Crowley JJ, et al. Under-representation of patients 65 years of age or older in cancer-treatment trials. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 2061–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Kemeny M, Muss HB, Kornblith AB, et al. Barriers to participation of older women with breast cancer in clinical trials. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2000; 19: 602a

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lee PY, Alexander KP, Hammill BG, et al. Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2001; 286: 708–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitchell SL, Sullivan EA, Lipsitz LA. Exclusion of elderly subjects from clinical trials for Parkinson’s disease. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1393–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bandyopadhyay S, Bayer AJ, O’Mahoney MS. Age and gender bias in statin trials. QJM 2001; 94: 127–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Trimble EL, Carter CL, Cain D, et al. Representation of older patients in cancer treatment trials. Cancer 1994, 14

    Google Scholar 

  29. Department of Health and Human Services. Medicare coverage issues manual transmittal 126. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000. Available from URL: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/pm_trans/R126CIM.pdf [Accessed 2003 Sep 4]

    Google Scholar 

  30. Monfardini S, Sorio R, Boes GH, et al. Entry and evaluation of elderly patients in European Organisation for research and treatment of Cancer (EORTC) new drug development studies. Cancer 1995; 76: 333–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. The Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study Group. Sociodemographic and clinical predictors of participation in two randomized trials: findings from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study COMS Report No. 7. Control Clin Trials 2001; 22: 526–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaye JM, Lawton P, Kaye D. Attitudes of elderly people about clinical research on aging. Gerontologist 1990; 30: 100–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Maine LL, Rodriguez R, Brown J. Geriatric drug testing: who will volunteer?: a descriptive survey. J Geriatr Drug Ther 1988; 2: 63–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ameer B, Burlingame MB. Difficulties enrolling elderly patients in pharmacokinetic studies. J Geriatr Drug Therapy 1990; 4: 61–7

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cohen-Mansfield J, Kerin P, Pawlson G, et al. Informed consent for research in a nursing home: processes and issues. Gerontologist 1988; 28: 355–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Sachs GA, Stocking CB, Stern R, et al. Ethical aspects of dementia research: informed consent and proxy consent. Clin Res 1994; 42: 403–12

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stanley B, Guido J, Stanley M, et al. The elderly patient and informed consent:empiricalfindings. JAMA 1984; 252: 1302–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Hubal RC. Getting meaningful informed consent from older adults: a structured literature review of empirical research. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998; 46: 517–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Adams J, Silverman M, Musa D, et al. Recruiting older adults for clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 14–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Erlen JA, Sauder RJ, Mellors MP. Incentives in research: ethical issues. Orthop Nurs 1999; 18: 84–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Cherniack EP. Informed consent for medical research by the elderly. Exp Aging Res 2002; 28: 183–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Applebaum PS, Grisso T. Assessing patient’s capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 1635–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. High DM, Doole MM. Ethical and legal issues in conducting research involving elderly subjects. Behav Sci Law 1995; 13: 319–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Alexander M. Clinical determination of mental competence: a theory and a retrospective study. Arch Neurol 1988; 45: 23–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Schindler B, Rachmandi D, Matthews M, et al. Competency and the frontal lobe: the impact of executive dysfunction on decisional capacity. Psychosomatics 1995; 36: 400–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Marson D, Harreil L. Executive dysfunction and loss of capacity to consent to medical treatment in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry 1999; 4: 41–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Dymek MP, Atchison P, Harrell L, et al. Competency to consent to medical treatment in cognitively impaired patients with Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 2001; 56: 17–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. CIOMS/WHO International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: Council for International Organisations of Medical Societies/World Health Organisation, 2002

  49. Spiro HM. Constraint and consent: on being a patient and a subject. N Engl J Med 1975; 293: 1134–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Cassel CK. Research in nursing homes: ethical issues. J Am Geriatr Soc 1985; 33: 795–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Sachs GA, Rhymes J, Cassel CK. Biomedical and behavioural research in nursing homes: guidelines for ethical investigations. J Am Geriatr Soc 1993; 41: 771–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Marson DC, Ingram KK, Cody HA, et al. Assessing the competency of patients with Alzheimer’s disease under different legal standards. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 949–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Pucci E, Belardinelli N, Borsetti G, et al. Information and competency for consent to pharmacological clinical trials in Alzheimer disease: an empirical analysis in patients and family caregivers. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2001; 15: 146–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. CERES. Medical research and you. London: Consumers for Ethics in Research (CERES), 2001

    Google Scholar 

  55. Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, et al. Informed consent: why are its goals imperfectly realised? N Engl J Med 1980; 302: 896–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Featherstone K, Donovan JL. Random allocation or allocation at random?: patient perceptions in a randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1998; 317: 1177–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Riecken HW, Ravich R. Informed consent to biomedical research in veterans administration hospitals. JAMA 1982; 248: 344–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Taub HA. Informed consent, memory and age. Gerontologist 1980; 20: 686–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Taub HA, Baker MT, Sturr JF. Informed consent for research: effects of readability, patient age, and education. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 34: 601–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Howard JM, DeMets D, the BHAT Research Group. How informed is informed consent?. The BHAT experience. Control Clin Trials 1981; 2: 287–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. LoVerde ME, Prochazka AV, Byyny RL. Research consent forms: continued unreadability and increasing length. J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4: 410–2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Grossman SA, Piantadosi S, Covahey C. Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families? J Clin Oncol 1994; 12: 2211–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Ratzan RM. Communication and informed consent in clinical geriatrics. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1986; 23: 17–26

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Royall DR, Cordes J, Polk M. Executive control and the comprehension of medical information by elderly retirees. Exp Aging Res 1997; 23: 301–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Schaeffer MH, Krante DS, Wichmann A, et al. The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med 1996; 100: 261–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Bjorn E, Rossel P, Holm S. Can the written information to research subjects be improved?: an empirical study. J Med Ethics 1999; 25: 263–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Raich PC, Plomer KD, Coyne CA. Literacy, comprehension and informed consent in clinical research. Cancer Invest 2001; 19: 437–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Philipson SJ, Doyle MA, Nightingale C, et al. Effectiveness of a writing improvement intervention program on the readability of the research informed consent document. J Invest Med 1999; 47: 468–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Taub HA, Baker MT, Kline GE, et al. Comprehension of informed consent by young-old through old-old volunteers. Exp Aging Res 1987; 13: 173–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Tymchuk AJ, Ouslander JG, Rahbar B, et al. Medical decisionmaking among elderly people in long-term care. Gerontologist 1988; 28: 59–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Tymchuk AJ, Ouslander JG, Rader N. Informing the elderly: a comparison of four methods. J Am Geriatr Soc 1986; 24: 818–22

    Google Scholar 

  72. Taub HA, Baker MT. Effect of repeated testing upon comprehension of informed consent materials by elderly volunteers. Exp Aging Res 1983; 9: 135–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Grisso T, Appelbaum P. Mentally ill and non-mentally ill patients’ abilities to understand informed consent disclosures for medication: preliminary data. Law Hum Behav 1991; 15: 377–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Olde Rikkert MGM, van der Beckan JHK, ten Have MAMJ, et al. Experienced consent in geriatrics research: a new method to optimize the capacity to consent in frail elderly subjects. J Med Ethics 1997; 23: 271–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Aaronson NK, Visser-Pol E, Leenhouts GH, et al. Telephone-based nursing intervention improves the effectiveness of the informed consent process in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14: 984–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Christensen K, Haroun A, Schneiderman L, et al. Decision making capacity for informed consent in the older population. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1995; 23: 353–65

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Hayley DC, Cassel CK, Snyder L, et al. Ethical and legal issues in nursing home care. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 249–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Bonnie LLB. Research with cognitively impaired subjects: unfinished business in the regulation of human research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997; 54: 105–11

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Brodaty H, Dresser R, Eisner M, et al. Consensus statement: Alzheimer’s disease international and international working group for harmonization of dementia drug guidelines for research involving human subjects with dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 1999; 13: 71–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Holzer JC, Gansler DA, Moczynski NP, et al. Cognitive functions in the informed consent examination process: a pilot study. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1997; 25: 531–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Marson DC, Cody HA, Ingram KK, et al. Neuropsychological predictors of competency in AD using a rational reasons legal standard. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 955–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Janofsky JS, McCarthy RJ, Folstein MF. The Hopkins competency assessment test: a brief method for evaluating patients’ capacity to give informed consent. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1992; 43: 132–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Grisso T, Appelbaum PS, Hill-Fotouhi C. The MacCAT-T: a clinical tool to assess patients’ capacities to make treatment decisions. Psychiatr Serv 1997; 48: 1415–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  84. Marson DC, Earnst KS, Jamil F, et al. Consistency of physicians’ legal standards and personal judgements of competency in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48: 911–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Singer EA, Mullner M. Implications of the EU directive on clinical trials for emergency medicine. BMJ 2002; 324: 1169–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wichman A, Sandler AL. Research involving critically ill subjects in emergency circumstances: new regulations, new challenges. Neurology 1997; 48: 1151–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. White S, Barua P, O’Mahony MS, et al. Research in older patients: consent and assent. Age Ageing 2002; 31Suppl. 1: 33

    Google Scholar 

  88. Sackett DL. Protection for human subjects in medical research. JAMA 2000; 283: 2388–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Antony Bayer has been paid by pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials of medications in elderly patients. Mark Fish is part funded by the Alzheimer’s Society of the United Kingdom. No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, UK

    Antony Bayer & Mark Fish

Authors
  1. Antony Bayer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Fish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antony Bayer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bayer, A., Fish, M. The Doctor’s Duty to the Elderly Patient in Clinical Trials. Drugs Aging 20, 1087–1097 (2003). https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200320150-00002

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002512-200320150-00002

Keywords

Search

Navigation