R&D during public health emergencies: the value(s) of trust, governance and collaboration

In January 2021, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director–general of the WHO, warned that the world was ‘on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure [that] will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world’s poorest countries’. We are now past the brink. Many high-income countries have vaccinated their populations (which, in some cases, includes third and even fourth doses) and are loosening public health and social measures, while low-income and middle-income countries are struggling to secure enough supply of vaccines to administer first doses. While injustices abound in the deployment and allocation of COVID-19 vaccines, therapies and diagnostics, an area that has hitherto received inadequate ethical scrutiny concerns the upstream structures and mechanisms that govern and facilitate the research and development (R&D) associated with these novel therapies, vaccines and diagnostics. Much can be learnt by looking to past experiences with the rapid deployment of R&D in the context of public health emergencies. Yet, much of the ‘learning’ from past epidemics and outbreaks has largely focused on technical or technological innovations and overlooked the essential role of important normative developments; namely, the importance of fostering multiple levels of trust, strong and fair governance, and broad research collaborations. In this paper, we argue that normative lessons pertaining to the conduct of R&D during the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic in West Africa provide important insights for how R&D ought to proceed to combat the current COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious disease threats.

WHO guidance on COVID-19 vaccine trial designs in the context of authorized COVID-19 vaccines and expanding global access: Ethical considerations

While the degree of COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and uptake varies at both national and global levels, increasing vaccination coverage raises questions regarding the standard of prevention that ought to apply to different settings where COVID-19 vaccine trials are hosted. A WHO Expert Group has developed guidance on the ethical implications of conducting placebo-controlled trials in the context of expanding global COVID-19 vaccine coverage. The guidance also considers alternative trial designs to placebo controlled trials in the context of prototype vaccines, modified vaccines, and next generation vaccines.

COVID-19 vaccination certificates and lifting public health and social measures: ethical considerations

Background: To reopen society, various countries are planning or have implemented differential public health and social measures (PHSMs) for COVID-19-vaccinated individuals, by exempting these individuals from some of these measures or restricting access to specific activities or services to them. Aims: To examine the ethical considerations raised by differential PHSMs in domestic contexts on the basis of individual vaccination status verified by vaccination certificates. Discussion: Decisions on whether and when measures should be lifted specifically for vaccinated individuals should be guided by scientific and ethical considerations. These considerations include the public health risks of differential lifting, particularly in a context where a substantial portion of society is not vaccinated; mitigation of inequities and unfair disadvantages for unvaccinated individuals; and whether to permit other health certificates or credentials besides proof of vaccination as alternative options to access specific activities or services, as a way to balance public health and freedom of movement. Conclusion: Vaccination certificates may undermine a population-based approach to COVID-19 vaccination to achieve and accelerate universal lifting of PHSMs, result in unfair and inequitable health and social outcomes, and generate social divisions at a time when solidarity within (and between) countries is necessary to navigate the pandemic and its burdens. Further research on the ethical acceptability and impact of COVID-19 vaccine certificates in countries that have implemented them should be carried out to inform future ethical considerations on this issue.

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

Digital technology and disease surveillance in the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Infectious diseases pose a risk to public health, requiring efficient strategies for disease prevention. Digital health surveillance technologies provide new opportunities to enhance disease prevention, detection, tracking, reporting and analysis. However, in addition to concerns regarding the effectiveness of these technologies in meeting public health goals, there are also concerns regarding the ethics, legality, safety and sustainability of digital surveillance technologies. This scoping review examines the literature on digital surveillance for public health purposes during the COVID-19 pandemic to identify health-related applications of digital surveillance technologies, and to highlight discussions of the implications of these technologies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The scoping review will be guided by the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the guidelines outlined by Colquhoun et al and Levac et al. We will search Medline (Ovid), PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), ACM Digital Library, Google Scholar and IEEE Explore for relevant studies published between December 2019 and December 2020. The review will also include grey literature. Data will be managed and analysed through an extraction table and thematic analysis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Findings will be disseminated through traditional academic channels, as well as social media channels and research briefs and infographics. We will target our dissemination to provincial and federal public health organisations, as well as technology companies and community-based organisations managing the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What do we mean by critical and ethical global engagement? Questions from a research partnership between universities in Canada and Rwanda

Language - the words we use - can play a key role in enabling or limiting transformation of inequalities in the field of global health. At the same time, given the interdisciplinary, intersectoral, and international nature of much global health work, intended meanings, commitments, and underlying values for words used cannot be taken for granted. This commentary sets out to clarify, and in this manner render available for further discussion and debate, the phrase 'critical and ethical global engagement' (CEGE). It derives from discussions between scholars and partners in research, education, and healthcare practice based at one Canadian and two Rwanda institutions. Initially, our aim was to conceptualise the term 'critical and ethical global engagement' in order to guide our own practices. As the complexity of the values, commitments, and considerations underlying our use of this phrase emerged, however, we realised these discussions merited being captured and shared, to facilitate further exploration and exchange on this phrase.

Informing 'good' global health research partnerships: A scoping review of guiding principles

Background: Several sets of principles have been proposed to guide global health research partnerships and mitigate inequities inadvertently caused by them. The existence of multiple sets of principles poses a challenge for those seeking to critically engage with and develop their practice. Which of these is best to use, and why? To what extent, if any, is there agreement across proposed principles?

Objective: The objectives of this review were to: (1) identify and consolidate existing documents and principles to guide global health research partnerships; (2) identify areas of overlapping consensus, if any, regarding which principles are fundamental in these partnerships; (3) identify any lack of consensus in the literature on core principles to support these partnerships.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted to gather documents outlining ‘principles’ of good global health research partnerships. A broad search of academic databases to gather peerreviewed literature was conducted, complemented by a hand-search of key global health funding institutions for grey literature guidelines.

Results: Our search yielded nine sets of principles designed to guide and support global health research partnerships. No single principle recurred across all documents reviewed. Most frequently cited were concerns with mutual benefits between partners (n = 6) and equity (n = 4). Despite a lack of consistency in the inclusion and definition of principles, all sources highlighted principles that identified attention to fairness, equity, or justice as an integral part of good global health research partnerships.

Conclusions: Lack of consensus regarding how principles are defined suggests a need for further discussion on what global health researchers mean by ‘core’ principles. Research partnerships should seek to interpret the practical meanings and requirements of these principles through international consultation. Finally, a need exists for tools to assist with implementation of these principles to ensure their application in research practice.

Should COVID-19 Vaccines Authorized for Emergency Use Be Considered "Essential" Medicines?

A critical debate in the race to develop, market, and distribute COVID-19 vaccines could define the future of this pandemic: How much evidence demonstrating a vaccine's safety and efficacy should be required before it is considered "essential"? If a COVID-19 vaccine were to be designated an essential medicine by the World Health Organization, this would invoke special "core" human rights duties for governments to provide the vaccine as a matter of priority irrespective of resource constraints. States would also have duties to make the vaccine available in adequate amounts, in the appropriate dosage forms, with assured quality and adequate information, and at an affordable price. This question is especially critical and unique given that COVID-19 vaccines have in many cases been authorized for use via national emergency use authorization processes-mechanisms that enable the public to gain access to promising medical products before they have received full regulatory approval and licensure. In this paper, we examine whether unlicensed COVID-19 vaccines authorized for emergency use should ever be considered essential medicines, thereby placing prioritized obligations on countries regarding their accessibility and affordability.

Top five ethical lessons of COVID-19 that the world must learn

As the world reflects upon one year since the first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and prepare for and experience surges in cases, it is important to identify the most crucial ethical issues that might lie ahead so that countries are able to plan accordingly. Some ethical issues are rather obvious to predict, such as the ethical issues surrounding the use of immunity certificates, contact tracing, and the fair allocation of vaccines globally. Yet, the most significant ethical challenge that the world must address in the next year and beyond is to ensure that we learn the ethical lessons of the first year of this pandemic. Learning from our collective experiences thus far constitutes our greatest moral obligation. Appreciating that decision-making in the context of a pandemic is constrained by unprecedented complexity and uncertainty, beginning in June 2020, an international group of 17 experts in bioethics spanning 15 countries (including low-, middle-, and high-income countries) met virtually to identify what we considered to be the most significant ethical challenges and accompanying lessons faced thus far in the COVID-19 pandemic. Once collected, the group met over the course of several virtual meetings to identify challenges and lessons that are analytically distinct in order to identify common ethical themes under which different challenges and lessons could be grouped. The result, described in this paper, is what this expert group consider to be the top five ethical lessons from the initial experience with COVID-19 that must be learned.

Learning Lessons from COVID-19 Requires Recognizing Moral Failures

The most powerful lesson learned from the 2013-2016 outbreak of Ebola in West Africa was that we do not learn our lessons. A common sentiment at the time was that Ebola served as a "wake-up call"-an alarm which signalled that an outbreak of that magnitude should never have occurred and that we are ill-prepared globally to prevent and respond to them when they do. Pledges were made that we must learn from the outbreak before we were faced with another. Nearly five years later the world is in the grips of a pandemic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). It is therefore of no surprise that we are now yet again hearing that the COVID-19 pandemic serves as the "wake-up call" we need and that there are many lessons to be learned to better prepare us for future outbreaks. Will anything be different this time around? We argue that nothing will fundamentally change unless we truly understand and appreciate the nature of the lessons we should learn from these outbreaks. Our past failures must be understood as moral failures that offer moral lessons. Unless we appreciate that we have a defect in our collective moral attitude toward remediating the conditions that precipitate the emergence of outbreaks, we will never truly learn.

Immunity certification for COVID-19: ethical considerations

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights.

Ethical conditions for accelerating COVID-19 vaccine research

There is a dire need to produce a safe and effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine as quickly as possible to avert an enormous burden of morbidity and mortality. This need for speed has thus far resulted in significant deviations from standard approaches to vaccine research and regulatory approval. Yet, pandemics do not obviate the need for rigorous scientific evaluation of potential interventions and adherence to universal ethical standards. Consequently, steps taken to accelerate clinical research in the context of the current pandemic require an explicit ethical justification, particularly if we expect public trust in the vaccine. We argue that accelerating COVID-19 vaccine research can be ethically justified, but only if social value, scientific validity, and a favourable risk-benefit ratio can be maintained or enhanced when doing so.

Exploring the ethical issues in research using digital data collection strategies with minors: A scoping review

While emerging digital health technologies offer researchers new avenues to collect real-time data, little is known about current ethical dimensions, considerations, and challenges that are associated with conducting digital data collection in research with minors. As such, this paper reports the findings of a scoping review which explored existing literature to canvass current ethical issues that arise when using digital data collection in research with minors. Scholarly literature was searched using electronic academic databases for articles that provided explicit ethical analysis or presented empirical research that directly addressed ethical issues related to digital data collection used in research with minors. After screening 1,156 titles and abstracts, and reviewing 73 full-text articles, 20 articles were included in this review. Themes which emerged across the reviewed literature included: consent, data handling, minors' data rights, observing behaviors that may result in risk of harm to participants or others, private versus public conceptualizations of data generated through social media, and gatekeeping. Our findings indicate a degree of uncertainty which invariably exists with regards to the ethics of research that involves minors and digital technology. The reviewed literature suggests that this uncertainty can often lead to the preclusion of minors from otherwise important lines of research inquiry. While uncertainty warrants ethical consideration, increased ethical scrutiny and restricting the conduct of such research raises its own ethical challenges. We conclude by discussing and recommending the ethical merits of co-producing ethical practice between researchers and minors as a mechanism to proceed with such research while addressing concerns around uncertainty.

Social distancing, social justice, and risk during the COVID-19 pandemic

Social distancing is an important and necessary measure to help arrest the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it does place persons who are socially or politically marginalized, including those who are of lower socio-economic status, at risk of further harms. In other words, marginalized or disadvantaged persons are at risk of both contracting SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of harms that may come about because of the social distancing measures themselves. Finally, a third layer of risk faced by marginalized persons would be the overuse of utility (i.e., maximize the benefit of resource x) as the primary ethics principle upon which to make allocation decisions, since oftentimes it is resource-intensive to help those in positions of social marginality. This three-fold risk of harm to which marginalized persons are subjected runs counter to the very notion of social justice that underpins public health. Social distancing in a socially just manner requires dialoguing with affected populations and providing social supports to marginalized persons, regardless of the associated costs.

Adequate surgical margins for dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans - A multi-centre analysis

BACKGROUND

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a locally aggressive tumour. Adequate margins have a positive impact on recurrence rates. The aim of this study is to assess how adequate margins are achieved and secondly which additional treatment modalities might be necessary to achieve adequate margins.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Patients with DFSP treated between 1991 and 2016 at three tertiary centres were included. Patient- and tumour characteristics were obtained from a prospectively held database and patient files.

RESULTS

A total of 279 patients with a median age of 39 (Interquartile range [IQ], 31-50) years and a median follow-up of 50 (IQ, 18-96) months were included. When DFSP was preoperatively confirmed by biopsy and resected with an oncological operation in a tertiary centre, in 86% was had clear pathological margins after one excision. Wider resection margins were significantly correlated with more reconstructions (p = 0.002). A substantial discrepancy between the primary surgical macroscopic and the pathological margins was found with a median difference of 22 (range, 10-46) mm (Fig. 1). There was no significant influence of the width of the pathological clear margins (if > 1 mm) and the recurrence rate (p = 0.710).

CONCLUSION

The wider the resection margins, the more likely it is to obtain clear pathological margins, but the more likely patients will need any form of reconstruction after resection. The aim of the primary excision should be wide surgical resection, where the width of the margin should be balanced against the need for reconstructions and surgical morbidity.

Key Ethical Concepts and Their Application to COVID-19 Research

During the WHO-GloPID COVID-19 Global Research and Innovation Forum meeting held in Geneva on the 11th and 12th of February 2020 a number of different ethical concepts were used. This paper briefly states what a number of these concepts mean and how they might be applied to discussions about research during the COVID-19 pandemic and related outbreaks. This paper does not seek to be exhaustive and other ethical concepts are, of course, relevant and important.

Publication Ethics During Public Health Emergencies Such as the COVID-19 Pandemic

Public health emergencies require real-time, accurate information to guide effective responses. Rapid publication of information can, therefore, advance both the scientific validity and the social value of research conducted in these contexts. Consequently, medical journals place a high priority on rapidly publishing reports on these emergencies, which the media often report on to the public. Today, the focus is on the rapid publication of research related to the COVID-19 outbreak. Tomorrow, it might be an influenza pandemic or a crisis related to a vaping-related illness. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 14, 2020: e1-e2. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305686).

Point-of-care lung ultrasound in patients with COVID-19 - a narrative review

Ultrasound imaging of the lung and associated tissues may play an important role in the management of patients with COVID-19-associated lung injury. Compared with other monitoring modalities, such as auscultation or radiographic imaging, we argue lung ultrasound has high diagnostic accuracy, is ergonomically favourable and has fewer infection control implications. By informing the initiation, escalation, titration and weaning of respiratory support, lung ultrasound can be integrated into COVID-19 care pathways for patients with respiratory failure. Given the unprecedented pressure on healthcare services currently, supporting and educating clinicians is a key enabler of the wider implementation of lung ultrasound. This narrative review provides a summary of evidence and clinical guidance for the use and interpretation of lung ultrasound for patients with moderate, severe and critical COVID-19-associated lung injury. Mechanisms by which the potential lung ultrasound workforce can be deployed are explored, including a pragmatic approach to training, governance, imaging, interpretation of images and implementation of lung ultrasound into routine clinical practice.

Deploying the Precautionary Principle to Protect Vulnerable Populations in Canadian Post-Market Drug Surveillance

Drug regulatory bodies aim to ensure that patients have access to safe and effective drugs; however, no matter the quality of pre-licensure studies, uncertainty will remain regarding the safety and effectiveness of newly approved drugs until a large and diverse population uses those drugs. Recent analyses of Canada’s post-market drug surveillance (PMDS) system have found that Canada’s PMDS system requires strengthening and that efforts must be improved to monitor and address the safety and effectiveness of approved drugs among vulnerable populations. Given the uncertainty that exists when drugs enter the market, some have suggested that the precautionary principle is relevant to guiding decision-making in this context. This paper responds to recommendations that the Canadian PMDS system should be responsive to the health needs of vulnerable populations by assessing the utility of deploying the precautionary principle to guide a post-market strategy for vulnerable populations.