Third human challenge trial conference, Oxford, United Kingdom, February 6-7, 2020, a meeting report

Fourth Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) meeting - CHIMs in endemic countries, May 22-23, 2023

Earlier meetings laid the foundations for Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs), also known as human challenge studies and human infection studies, including Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) production of the challenge agent, CHIM ethics, environmental safety in CHIM, recruitment, community engagement, advertising and incentives, pre-existing immunity, and clinical, immunological, and microbiological endpoints. The fourth CHIM meeting focused on CHIM studies being conducted in endemic countries. Over the last ten years we have seen a vast expansion of the number of countries in Africa performing CHIM studies, as well as a growing number of different challenge organisms being used. Community and public engagement with assiduous ethical and regulatory oversight has been central to successful introductions and should be continued, in more community-led or community-driven models. Valuable initiatives for regulation of CHIMs have been undertaken but further capacity building remains essential.

Fourth Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) meeting, CHIM regulatory issues, May 24, 2023

Many aspects of Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs, also known as human challenge studies and human infection studies) have been discussed extensively, including Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) production of the challenge agent, CHIM ethics, environmental safety in CHIM, recruitment, community engagement, advertising and incentives, pre-existing immunity, and clinical, immunological, and microbiological endpoints. The fourth CHIM meeting focused on regulation of CHIM studies, bringing together scientists and regulators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries, to discuss barriers and hurdles in CHIM regulation. Valuable initiatives for regulation of CHIMs have already been undertaken but further capacity building remains essential. The Wellcome Considerations document is a good starting point for further discussions.

Ethical Requirements for Human Challenge Studies: A Systematic Review of Reasons

Human challenge studies (HCS) are controlled clinical trials in which participants are deliberately infected with a pathogen. Such trials are being developed for an increasing number of diseases. Partly as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a recent ethical debate about the reasons for and against HCS in general, or rather, about the requirements that individual HCS must fulfill to be ethically acceptable. A systematic review was conducted to categorize and summarize such requirements and the reasons given for them. Ethics literature was searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, BELIT, and PhilPapers; eligibility criteria were articles published in a scientific/scholarly journal (original research, reviews, editorials, opinion pieces, and conference/meeting reports). Of 1,322 records identified, 161 publications were included, with 183 requirements (with associated reasons) in 10 thematic categories extracted via qualitative content analysis. In synthesizing and interpreting the requirements and their reasons, three issues emerge as particularly sensitive in the case of HCS: the meaning of the right to withdraw from research procedures, communication of researchers with the public and various stakeholders, and the conditions of informed consent. However, four other issues, not specific to HCS, stand out as the most controversial: the acceptable level of risk to participants, payment of participants, protection of vulnerable groups, and standards for international collaborations. Controversies in these areas indicate that further debate is warranted, possibly leading to more specific instructions in ethics guidance documents.

Controlled Human Infection Models To Accelerate Vaccine Development

The timelines for developing vaccines against infectious diseases are lengthy, and often vaccines that reach the stage of large phase 3 field trials fail to provide the desired level of protective efficacy. The application of controlled human challenge models of infection and disease at the appropriate stages of development could accelerate development of candidate vaccines and, in fact, has done so successfully in some limited cases. Human challenge models could potentially be used to gather critical information on pathogenesis, inform strain selection for vaccines, explore cross-protective immunity, identify immune correlates of protection and mechanisms of protection induced by infection or evoked by candidate vaccines, guide decisions on appropriate trial endpoints, and evaluate vaccine efficacy. We prepared this report to motivate fellow scientists to exploit the potential capacity of controlled human challenge experiments to advance vaccine development. In this review, we considered available challenge models for 17 infectious diseases in the context of the public health importance of each disease, the diversity and pathogenesis of the causative organisms, the vaccine candidates under development, and each model's capacity to evaluate them and identify correlates of protective immunity. Our broad assessment indicated that human challenge models have not yet reached their full potential to support the development of vaccines against infectious diseases. On the basis of our review, however, we believe that describing an ideal challenge model is possible, as is further developing existing and future challenge models.

A vaccine for human babesiosis: prospects and feasibility

Babesiosis is a tick-borne disease caused by intraerythrocytic Babesia parasites. It is a well-known illness in companion animals and livestock, resulting in substantial economic losses in the cattle industry. Babesiosis is also recognized as an emerging zoonosis of humans in many countries worldwide. There is no vaccine against human babesiosis. Currently, preventive measures are focused on vector avoidance. Although not always effective, treatment includes antimicrobial therapy and exchange transfusion. In this review, we discuss the host's immune response to the parasite, vaccines being used to prevent babesiosis in animals, and lessons from malaria vaccine development efforts to inform the development of a human babesiosis vaccine. An effective human vaccine would be a significant advance towards curtailing this rapidly emerging disease.

Shigella-Controlled Human Infection Models: Current and Future Perspectives

Shigella-controlled human infection models (CHIMs) are an invaluable tool utilized by the vaccine community to combat one of the leading global causes of infectious diarrhea, which affects infants, children and adults regardless of socioeconomic status. The impact of shigellosis disproportionately affects children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) resulting in cognitive and physical stunting, perpetuating a cycle that must be halted. Shigella-CHIMs not only facilitate the early evaluation of enteric countermeasures and up-selection of the most promising products but also provide insight into mechanisms of infection and immunity that are not possible utilizing animal models or in vitro systems. The greater understanding of shigellosis obtained in CHIMs builds and empowers the development of new generation solutions to global health issues which are unattainable in the conventional laboratory and clinical settings. Therefore, refining, mining and expansion of safe and reproducible infection models hold the potential to create effective means to end diarrheal disease and associated co-morbidities associated with Shigella infection.

Critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Owing to the globalization of vaccine clinical trials, as well as advances in technologies, improved research accountability, and robust regulatory and ethical scrutiny, the choice to perform human challenge trials has become evident, and one of the most significant applications of human challenge trials is the assessment of vaccine efficacy. While human challenge trials have largely been conducted in high-income countries, the concept is relatively new in many low- and middle-income countries. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODOLOGY

Using a two-step methodology, we first carried out a systematic literature review that was centered on identifying low- and middle-income countries that are either establishing a framework for, have conducted, or are conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development; secondly, we conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey using a standardized semi-structured online questionnaire administered to eligible stakeholders, to identify the critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries. Seventeen low- and middle-income countries were identified and included in the survey.

RESULTS

The most cited critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries were Informed Consent, Risk Compensation and/or Reimbursement, Participant Safety and/or Public Protection, Community Engagement, Infrastructural Capacity, and Ethical and Regulatory Frameworks.

CONCLUSION

From an empirical perspective, this study provides a list of critical success factors that form the basic structure to guide the design and implementation of further human challenge trials in low- and middle-income countries. Further studies are needed to establish a standardized conceptual framework to aid in the review, approval and overall conduct of human challenge trials in low- and middle-income countries.

Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study

Background: Human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: Mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public's attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: There was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer's ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: The results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .

A site assessment tool for inpatient controlled human infection models for enteric disease pathogens

The use of the controlled human infection model to facilitate product development and to advance understanding of host-pathogen interactions is of increasing interest. While administering a virulent (or infective) organism to a susceptible host necessitates an ongoing evaluation of safety and ethical considerations, a central theme in conducting these studies in a safe and ethical manner that yields actionable data is their conduct in facilities well-suited to address their unique attributes. To that end, we have developed a framework for evaluating potential sites in which to conduct inpatient enteric controlled human infection model to ensure consistency and increase the likelihood of success.

The Controlled Human Infection Model for Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli

The controlled human infection model (CHIM) for enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) has been instrumental in defining ETEC as a causative agent of acute watery diarrhea, providing insights into disease pathogenesis and resistance to illness, and enabling preliminary efficacy evaluations for numerous products including vaccines, immunoprophylactics, and drugs. Over a dozen strains have been evaluated to date, with a spectrum of clinical signs and symptoms that appear to replicate the clinical illness seen with naturally occurring ETEC. Recent advancements in the ETEC CHIM have enhanced the characterization of clinical, immunological, and microbiological outcomes. It is anticipated that omics-based technologies applied to ETEC CHIMs will continue to broaden our understanding of host-pathogen interactions and facilitate the development of primary and secondary prevention strategies.

Human Challenge Studies for Vaccine Development : Regulatory Aspects of Human Challenge Studies

The traditional regulatory pathway for the evaluation of new vaccine candidates generally proceeds from preclinical through three successive phases of human trials, and the demonstration of efficacy is usually done through randomized-controlled clinical trials. However, human challenge trials or controlled human infection models have been used in vaccine clinical development to generate supportive data for establishment of correlates of protection, supportive data for licensure, as well as licensure in the case of Vaxchora® by the US FDA. Despite this, there are no codified regulations from national regulatory authorities (NRAs) that specifically address HCTs, nor guidance related to standardization of approaches to HCTs among regulators. NRAs may agree that HCTs are innovative, promising tools to accelerate vaccine development; however, a strong benefit/risk assessment is needed to ensure the safety of study participants. Lastly, it is important to consider the regulatory framework in which the human challenge trial may be conducted.

Human challenge trials in vaccine development

The increasing recent interest in human challenge studies or controlled human infection model studies for accelerating vaccine development has been driven by the recognition of the unique ability of these studies to contribute to the understanding of response to infection and the performance of vaccines. With streamlining of ethical processes, conduct and supervision and the availability of new investigative tools from immunophenotyping to glycobiology, the potential to derive valuable data to inform vaccine testing and development has never been greater. However, issues of availability and standardization of challenge strains, conduct of studies in disease endemic locations and the iteration between clinical and laboratory studies still need to be addressed to gain maximal value for vaccine development.