1
|
Muller WJ, Jhaveri R, Heald-Sargent T, Macy ML, Heard-Garris N, Shah S, Paquette E. A pilot recruitment strategy to enhance ethical and equitable access to Covid-19 pediatric vaccine trials. Clin Trials 2024; 21:390-396. [PMID: 38140914 DOI: 10.1177/17407745231217299] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic disproportionately impacted communities with lower access to health care in the United States, particularly before vaccines were widely available. These same communities are often underrepresented in clinical trials. Efforts to ensure equitable enrollment of participants in trials related to treatment and prevention of Covid-19 can raise concerns about exploitation if communities with lower access to health care are targeted for recruitment. METHODS To enhance equity while avoiding exploitation, our site developed and implemented a three-part recruitment strategy for pediatric Covid-19 vaccine studies. First, we publicized a registry for potentially interested participants. Next, we applied public health community and social vulnerability indices to categorize the residence of families who had signed up for the registry into three levels to reflect the relative impact of the pandemic on their community: high, medium, and low. Finally, we preferentially offered study participation to interested families living in areas categorized by these indices as having high impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on their community. RESULTS This approach allowed us to meet goals for study recruitment based on public health metrics related to disease burden, which contributed to a racially diverse study population that mirrored the surrounding community demographics. While this three-part recruitment strategy improved representation of minoritized groups from areas heavily impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, important limitations were identified that would benefit from further study. CONCLUSION Future use of this approach to enhance equitable access to research while avoiding exploitation should test different methods to build trust and communicate with underserved communities more effectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- William J Muller
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Ravi Jhaveri
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Taylor Heald-Sargent
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Michelle L Macy
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Division of Emergency Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Nia Heard-Garris
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Division of Advanced General Pediatrics & Primary Care, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Mary Ann & J. Milburn Smith Child Health Outcomes, Research and Evaluation Center, Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Seema Shah
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Division of Advanced General Pediatrics & Primary Care, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
- Mary Ann & J. Milburn Smith Child Health Outcomes, Research and Evaluation Center, Stanley Manne Children's Research Institute, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Erin Paquette
- Department of Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Pediatrics, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
- Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Meierer K, Borry P, Sanchini V. Appropriate inclusion of adult research participants with intellectual disability: an in-depth review of guidelines and policy statements. Account Res 2024; 31:259-280. [PMID: 36031953 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2022.2119136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/15/2022]
Abstract
The history of human-subject experimentation has shown the need for safeguards to protect participants from abuse. Balancing participant protection with adequate representation of the adult intellectual disability population in research presents an important challenge. Our study aimed to analyze guidance on the appropriate inclusion of adults with intellectual disability who are or are not able to consent to biomedical research participation. Terminology, consent and type of ethically acceptable research provisions relevant to adult participants with intellectual disability were comprehensively reviewed in a selection of 17 international and national ethical research guidelines and statements. Most guidelines and statements recommend that adult participants with intellectual disability who are unable to consent be included when it is not possible to conduct the same research with adults capable of independent decision-making, or when there is therapeutic benefit and only minimal risk. Instead of naming specific requirements, the Australian statement stands out by asserting the "individual right" to participate. Assent requirements for incapacitated adults are not explicitly mentioned in most documents reviewed. There appears to be room for further description of the importance of careful capacity assessments and solid assent requirements in ethical research guidance documentation to promote meaningful participation of adults with intellectual disability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Klara Meierer
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal Quebec, Canada
| | - Pascal Borry
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Virginia Sanchini
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Center for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Martin S, Ancillotti M, Slokenberga S, Matar A. A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law. BMC Med Ethics 2024; 25:48. [PMID: 38689214 PMCID: PMC11059645 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-024-01040-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 05/02/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sylvia Martin
- Center for Research and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
| | - Mirko Ancillotti
- Center for Research and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
| | | | - Amal Matar
- Center for Research and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
- Clinical Immunology and Transfusion Medicine Department, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Xenotransplant patient selection recommendations restrict clinical trial participation to seriously ill patients for whom alternative therapies are unavailable or who will likely die while waiting for an allotransplant. Despite a scholarly consensus that this is advisable, we propose to examine this restriction. We offer three lines of criticism: (1) The risk-benefit calculation may well be unfavorable for seriously ill patients and society; (2) the guidelines conflict with criteria for equitable patient selection; and (3) the selection of seriously ill patients may compromise informed consent. We conclude by highlighting how the current guidance reveals a tension between the societal values of justice and beneficence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher Bobier
- Department of Theology and Philosophy, Hendrickson Institute for Ethical Leadership, St. Mary's University of Minnesota, Winona, MN, USA
| | - Daniel Rodger
- Operating Department Practice, Institute of Health and Social Care, School of Allied and Community Health, London South Bank University, London, UK
- Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Knox JBL, Svendsen MN. The fertility of moral ambiguity in precision medicine. MEDICINE, HEALTH CARE, AND PHILOSOPHY 2023; 26:465-476. [PMID: 37280471 PMCID: PMC10243698 DOI: 10.1007/s11019-023-10160-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Although precision medicine cuts across a large spectrum of professions, interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial moral deliberation has yet to be widely enacted, let alone formalized in this field. In a recent research project on precision medicine, we designed a dialogical forum (i.e. 'the Ethics Laboratory') giving interdisciplinary and cross-sectorial stakeholders an opportunity to discuss their moral conundrums in concert. We organized and carried out four Ethics Laboratories. In this article, we use Simone de Beauvoir's concept of moral ambiguity as a lens to frame the participants' experience with fluid moral boundaries. By framing our approach through this concept we are able to elucidate irremediable moral issues that are collectively underexplored in the practice of precision medicine. Moral ambiguity accentuates an open and free space where different types of perspectives converge and can inform each other. Based on our study, we identified two dilemmas, or thematic interfaces, in the interdisciplinary moral deliberations which unfolded in the Ethics Laboratories: (1) the dilemma between the individual and the collective good; and (2) the dilemma between care and choice. Through our investigation of these dilemmas, we show how Beauvoir's concept of moral ambiquity not only serves as a fertile catalyst for greater moral awareness but, furthermore, how the concept can become an indispensable part of the practices of and the discourse about precision medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeanette Bresson Ladegaard Knox
- Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark
- University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Mette Nordahl Svendsen
- Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Building, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Awan FA, Becker AB, Wang Y, Kimmelman J. Participant Recruitment From Low- and Middle-Income Countries for Pivotal Trials of Drugs Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration : A Cross-Sectional Analysis. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175:1675-1684. [PMID: 36410007 DOI: 10.7326/m22-1857] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many participants in clinical trials supporting U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals are recruited from outside the United States, including from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Where participants are recruited for pivotal trials has implications for ethical research conduct and generalizability. OBJECTIVE To describe LMIC recruitment for pivotal trials of newly approved drugs for cancer, neurologic disease, and cardiovascular disease. DESIGN Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING Pivotal trials of new cancer, cardiovascular, and neurologic drugs approved from 2012 to 2019 matched to ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA records, and publications. MEASUREMENTS Host countries and available per country enrollments were extracted. The primary end point was the proportion of pivotal trials enrolling participants in LMICs. The secondary end point was the proportion of pivotal trial participants contributed by LMICs for each indication area. RESULTS Data were obtained from 66 new drugs and 144 pivotal clinical trials. All cardiovascular approvals (12 drugs, 29 trials) and neurologic approvals (26 drugs, 54 trials) were analyzed, as well as a random sample of cancer approvals (28 of 85 drugs [33%]) matched to their pivotal trials (61 of 210 trials [29%]). Among the trials, 56% in cancer, 79% in cardiovascular disease, and 56% in neurology recruited from an LMIC. For multicountry trials, country-level enrollment figures were not available for 71 trials (55%). For those reporting per country enrollment, the percentage of participants recruited from LMICs was 8% for cancer trials, 36% for cardiovascular trials, and 17% for neurology trials. LIMITATIONS The study was limited to FDA-approved drugs in 3 areas, including a sample of cancer drugs. Pivotal trials of nonapproved drugs or drugs for other indications were not captured. CONCLUSION Most pivotal trials for FDA-approved drugs recruit from LMICs. Publications and FDA documents generally do not provide country-level data on recruitment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE None.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fareed A Awan
- Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine, Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (F.A.A., Y.W., J.K.)
| | - Andrew B Becker
- Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota (A.B.B.)
| | - Yuetong Wang
- Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine, Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (F.A.A., Y.W., J.K.)
| | - Jonathan Kimmelman
- Studies of Translation, Ethics and Medicine, Department of Equity, Ethics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (F.A.A., Y.W., J.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Grote T. Randomised controlled trials in medical AI: ethical considerations. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2022; 48:899-906. [PMID: 33990429 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-107166] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2020] [Revised: 03/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a surge of high-profile publications on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for medical diagnosis and prognosis. While AI provides various opportunities for medical practice, there is an emerging consensus that the existing studies show considerable deficits and are unable to establish the clinical benefit of AI systems. Hence, the view that the clinical benefit of AI systems needs to be studied in clinical trials-particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs)-is gaining ground. However, an issue that has been overlooked so far in the debate is that, compared with drug RCTs, AI RCTs require methodological adjustments, which entail ethical challenges. This paper sets out to develop a systematic account of the ethics of AI RCTs by focusing on the moral principles of clinical equipoise, informed consent and fairness. This way, the objective is to animate further debate on the (research) ethics of medical AI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas Grote
- Ethics and Philosophy Lab, Cluster of Excellence "Machine Learning: New Perspectives for Science", University of Tübingen, Tübingen D-72076, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Walker RL, MacKay D, Waltz M, Lyerly AD, Fisher JA. Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials. Ethics Hum Res 2022; 44:2-21. [PMID: 36047278 PMCID: PMC9931499 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Phase I healthy volunteer trials test the safety and tolerability of investigational pharmaceuticals. In them, participants are exposed to study-drug risks without the possibility of direct medical benefit and typically must spend days or weeks in a residential research facility. Monetary payments are used to incentivize enrollment and compensate participants for their time. Together, these features of phase I healthy volunteer trials create a research context that differs markedly from most other clinical research, including by enrolling disproportionate numbers of economically disadvantaged people of color as participants. Due to these unique trial features and participation patterns, traditional biomedical research oversight offers inadequate ethical and policy guidance for phase I healthy volunteer research. This article details five ethical criteria crafted to be responsive to the particularities of this type of research: translational science value, fair opportunity and burden sharing, fair compensation for service, experiential welfare, and enhanced voice and recourse.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca L Walker
- Professor of social medicine and of philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Douglas MacKay
- Associate professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Margaret Waltz
- Research associate in the Department of Social Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Anne D Lyerly
- Professor of social medicine and on the core faculty in the Center for Bioethics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| | - Jill A Fisher
- Professor of social medicine and on the core faculty in the Center for Bioethics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lyerly AD. 'Experimental pregnancy' revisited. THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS 2022; 43:253-266. [PMID: 35859087 PMCID: PMC9299403 DOI: 10.1007/s11017-022-09578-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled "Experimental Pregnancy." It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit "Experimental Pregnancy" and offer two ways in which Bob's analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy's presumed exceptionalism.
Collapse
|
10
|
Miller J, Millum J. Ethical considerations in international clinical trial site selection. BMJ Glob Health 2022; 7:bmjgh-2021-008012. [PMID: 35387769 PMCID: PMC8987699 DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-008012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2021] [Accepted: 03/14/2022] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
New medicines and vaccines are predominantly tested in high-income countries. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted, the populations who can benefit from these interventions are not limited to these wealthier regions. One-third of novel Food and Drug Administration approved drugs, sponsored by large companies, treat infectious diseases like tuberculosis and HIV, which disproportionately affect low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The medicines for non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are also relevant to LMIC health needs, as over three-quarters of deaths from NCDs occur in LMICs. There are concerns clinical trial data may not extrapolate across geographical regions, as product effectiveness can vary substantially by region. The pentavalent rotavirus vaccine, for example, had markedly lower efficacy in LMICs. Efficacy variations have also been found for other vaccines and drugs. We argue there are strong ethical arguments for remedying some of this uneven distribution of clinical trial sites by geography and income. Chief among them, is that these disparities can impede equitable access to the benefits of clinical research, such as representation in the evidence base generated to guide prescribing and use of medicines and vaccines. We suggest trial site locations should be made more transparent and for later stage trials their selection should be informed by the global distribution of disease burden targeted by an experimental product. Countries with high prevalence, incidence, severity or infection transmission rates for targeted diseases should have real opportunities to engage in and enrol their populations in trials for novel medicines and vaccines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer Miller
- Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA,Equity Research and Innovation Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA,Program for Biomedical Ethics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA,Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Joseph Millum
- Philosophy, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Reviewing fair subject selection considerations for the unique case of post sequelae COVID-19 translational studies. J Clin Transl Sci 2022; 6:e91. [PMID: 36003210 PMCID: PMC9389279 DOI: 10.1017/cts.2022.425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2022] [Revised: 06/24/2022] [Accepted: 06/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Fair inclusion of research subjects is necessary to ensure that post-acute sequelae COVID-19 (PASC) research results benefit all members of society. Scientists should conduct research on a broad sample of individuals who represent clinically relevant factors influencing a disease. Without demographic diversity and sociological and environmental variability, research outputs are less likely to apply to different populations and would thus increase health disparities. The goal of this narrative literature review and ethical analysis is to apply fair selection criteria to PASC research studies. We briefly highlight the importance of fair subject selection in translational research and then identify features of PASC, as well as PASC research, that hinder fair inclusion of research participants. We will demonstrate that determining an adequate and representative sample is not simply a matter of ensuring greater diversity; rather, fairness requires a broader evaluation of risks, burdens, and benefits specific to underrepresented populations. We provide recommendations to ensure fair subject selection in PASC research and promote translation toward positive health outcomes for all individuals, including the most vulnerable.
Collapse
|
12
|
Spector-Bagdady K, Lynch HF, Bierer BE, Gelinas L, Hull SC, Magnus D, Meyer MN, Sharp RR, Sugarman J, Wilfond BS, Yearby R, Mohapatra S. Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies. Hastings Cent Rep 2022; 52:51-58. [PMID: 34908169 PMCID: PMC9414770 DOI: 10.1002/hast.1297] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Covid-19 raised many novel ethical issues including regarding the allocation of opportunities to participate in clinical trials during a public health emergency. In this article, we explore how hospitals that have a scarcity of trial opportunities, either overall or in a specific trial, can equitably allocate those opportunities in the context of an urgent medical need with limited therapeutic interventions. We assess the three main approaches to allocating trial opportunities discussed in the literature: patient choice, physician referral, and randomization/lottery. As, we argue, none of the three typical approaches are ethically ideal for allocating trial opportunities in the pandemic context, many hospitals have instead implemented hybrid solutions. We offer practical guidance to support those continuing to face these challenges, and we analyze options for the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kayte Spector-Bagdady
- Associate Director of the Center for Bioethics & Social Sciences in Medicine and Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Michigan Medical School
| | - Holly Fernandez Lynch
- John Russell Dickson, MD Presidential Assistant Professor of Medical Ethics and Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania
| | - Barbara E. Bierer
- Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital
| | - Luke Gelinas
- IRB Chair at Advarra and a Senior Advisor for the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard
| | - Sara Chandros Hull
- Director of the NHGRI Bioethics Core and member of the Department of Bioethics faculty at the National Institutes of Health
| | - David Magnus
- Thomas A. Raffin Professor of Medicine and Biomedical Ethics and Professor of Pediatrics at Stanford University
| | - Michelle N. Meyer
- Assistant professor and the associate director of research ethics in the Center for Translational Bioethics and Health Care Policy at Geisinger Health System
| | | | - Jeremy Sugarman
- Harvey M. Meyerhoff Professor of Bioethics and Medicine and deputy director for medicine of the Berman Institute of Bioethics at the Johns Hopkins University
| | - Benjamin S. Wilfond
- Professor in the Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine and investigator at the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children’s Research Institute
| | - Ruqaiijah Yearby
- Full professor and member of the Center for Health Law Studies at Saint Louis University School of Law and co-founder and Executive Director of Saint Louis University’s Institute for Healing Justice and Equity
| | - Seema Mohapatra
- Murray Visiting Professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lyerly AD, Beigi R, Bekker L, Chi BH, Cohn SE, Diallo DD, Eron J, Faden R, Jaffe E, Kashuba A, Kasule M, Krubiner C, Little M, Mfustso‐Bengo J, Mofenson L, Mwapasa V, Mworeko L, Myer L, Penazzato M, Rid A, Shapiro R, Singh JA, Sullivan K, Vicari M, Wambui J, White A, Wickremsinhe M, Wolf L. Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project. J Int AIDS Soc 2021; 24:e25846. [PMID: 34910846 PMCID: PMC8673925 DOI: 10.1002/jia2.25846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 10/21/2021] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co-infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy-specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next-generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress. We describe the process, ethical foundations, recommendations and applications of guidance for advancing responsible inclusion of pregnant people in HIV/co-infections research. DISCUSSION The 26-member international and interdisciplinary Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study (PHASES) Working Group was convened to develop ethics-centred guidance for advancing timely, responsible HIV/co-infections research with pregnant people. Deliberations over 3 years drew on extensive qualitative research, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation and a series of workshops. The guidance, initially issued in July 2020, highlights conceptual shifts needed in framing research with pregnant people, and articulates three ethical foundations to ground recommendations: equitable protection from drug-related risks, timely access to biomedical advances and equitable respect for pregnant people's health interests. The guidance advances 12 specific recommendations, actionable within the current regulatory environment, addressing multiple stakeholders across drug development and post-approval research, and organized around four themes: building capacity, supporting inclusion, achieving priority research and ensuring respect. The recommendations describe strategies towards ethically redressing the evidence gap for pregnant people around HIV and co-infections. The guidance has informed key efforts of leading organizations working to advance needed research, and identifies further opportunities for impact by a range of stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS There are clear pathways towards ethical inclusion of pregnant people in the biomedical research agenda, and strong agreement across the HIV research community about the need for - and the promise of - advancing them. Those who fund, conduct, oversee and advocate for research can use the PHASES guidance to facilitate more, better and earlier evidence to optimize the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and their children.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne Drapkin Lyerly
- Department of Social Medicine and Center for BioethicsUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Richard Beigi
- Department of ObstetricsGynecology & Reproductive SciencesUPMC Magee‐Women's HospitalPittsburghPennsylvaniaUSA
| | - Linda‐Gail Bekker
- Desmond Tutu HIV Centre and Department of MedicineUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
| | - Benjamin H. Chi
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Susan E. Cohn
- Department of MedicineFeinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern UniversityChicagoIllinoisUSA
| | | | - Joseph Eron
- Department of Medicine and Center for AIDS ResearchUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Ruth Faden
- Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of BioethicsBaltimoreMarylandUSA
| | - Elana Jaffe
- Department of Social Medicine and Center for BioethicsUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Angela Kashuba
- Eshelman School of Pharmacy and Department of MedicineUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Mary Kasule
- Botswana‐Baylor Centre for Clinical ExcellenceGabaroneBotswana
| | | | - Maggie Little
- Kennedy Institute for Ethics and Department of PhilosophyGeorgetown UniversityWashingtonDCUSA
| | - Joseph Mfustso‐Bengo
- Center of Bioethics for Eastern & Southern Africa and Department of Health Systems and PolicyCollege of MedicineUniversity of MalawiZombaMalawi
| | - Lynne Mofenson
- Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS FoundationWashingtonDCUSA
| | | | - Lillian Mworeko
- International Community of Women Living with HIV Eastern AfricaKampalaUganda
| | - Landon Myer
- Division of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsSchool of Public Health and Family MedicineUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
| | | | - Annette Rid
- Department of BioethicsThe Clinical CenterNational Institutes of HealthBethesdaMarylandUSA
| | - Roger Shapiro
- Department of Immunology and Infectious DiseasesHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonMassachusettsUSA
| | - Jerome Amir Singh
- Howard College School of LawUniversity of KwaZulu‐NatalKwaZulu‐NatalSouth Africa
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Sciences, University of TorontoTorontoOntarioCanada
| | - Kristen Sullivan
- Department of Social Medicine and Center for BioethicsUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | | | - Jacque Wambui
- National Empowerment Network of People Living with HIV and AIDS in Kenya (NEPHAK)African Communities Advisory Board (AfroCAB)LusakaZambia
| | - Amina White
- Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA
| | - Marisha Wickremsinhe
- Ethox Centre and Wellcome Centre for Ethics and HumanitiesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Leslie Wolf
- Center for LawHealth & Society and College of Law and School of Public HealthGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaGeorgiaUSA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Garland A, Weinfurt K, Sugarman J. Incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials: Scientific, ethical, and policy considerations. Clin Trials 2021; 18:699-705. [PMID: 34766524 DOI: 10.1177/17407745211048178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Pragmatic clinical trials are increasingly used to generate knowledge about real-world clinical interventions. However, they involve some distinctive ethical and regulatory challenges. In this article, we examine a set of issues related to incentives and other payments to patients in pragmatic clinical trials. Although many of the ethical concerns related to incentives and payments in explanatory trials pertain to pragmatic clinical trials, the pragmatic features may introduce additional challenges. These include those related to the risk of incentives and payments undermining the scientific validity and social value of pragmatic clinical trials, the sources of data used in pragmatic clinical trials, and when the pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under waivers of consent. Based on our examination of these matters, we offer some preliminary recommendations regarding incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials, recognizing that additional data and experiences are needed to refine them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Garland
- Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Kevin Weinfurt
- Department of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jeremy Sugarman
- Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Meyer MN, Gelinas L, Bierer BE, Hull SC, Joffe S, Magnus D, Mohapatra S, Sharp RR, Spector-Bagdady K, Sugarman J, Wilfond BS, Lynch HF. An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials. Clin Trials 2021; 18:226-233. [PMID: 33530721 PMCID: PMC8009845 DOI: 10.1177/1740774520988669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle N Meyer
- Center for Translational Bioethics and Health Care Policy and The Steele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA
| | | | - Barbara E Bierer
- Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Sara Chandros Hull
- Department of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Steven Joffe
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - David Magnus
- Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Seema Mohapatra
- Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Richard R Sharp
- Biomedical Ethics Program, Division of Health Care Policy Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Kayte Spector-Bagdady
- Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Jeremy Sugarman
- Berman Institute of Bioethics and Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Benjamin S Wilfond
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Holly Fernandez Lynch
- Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
MacKay D, Walker RL. Paying for Fairness? Incentives and Fair Subject Selection. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2021; 21:35-37. [PMID: 33616492 PMCID: PMC8049526 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1870766] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
|
17
|
Holm S. Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia. JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS 2020; 46:569-573. [PMID: 32616623 PMCID: PMC7371481 DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106476] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Revised: 06/15/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 05/05/2023]
Abstract
A number of papers have appeared recently arguing for the conclusion that it is ethically acceptable to infect healthy volunteers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as part of research projects aimed at developing COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. This position has also been endorsed in a statement by a working group for the WHO. The papers generally argue that controlled human infection (CHI) is ethically acceptable if (1) the risks to participants are low and therefore acceptable, (2) the scientific quality of the research is high, (3) the research has high social value, (4) participants give full informed consent, and (5) there is fair selection of participants. All five conditions are necessary premises in the overall argument that such research is ethically acceptable. The arguments concerning risk and informed consent have already been critically discussed in the literature. This paper therefore looks specifically at the arguments relating to condition 3 'high social value' and condition 5 'fair selection of participants' and shows that whereas they may be valid, they are not sound. It is highly unlikely that the conditions that are necessary for ethical CHI trials to take place will be fulfilled. Most, if not all, CHI trials will thus be well intentioned but unethical.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Søren Holm
- CSEP, Department of Law, School of Social Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Center for Medical Ethics, HELSAM, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Iyer AA, Hendriks S, Rid A. Advantages of Using Lotteries to Select Participants for High-Demand Covid-19 Treatment Trials. Ethics Hum Res 2020; 42:35-40. [PMID: 32567239 PMCID: PMC7361753 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
As hospitals have experienced a surge of Covid‐19 patients, investigators of Covid‐19 treatment trials face a difficult problem: when an institution has more eligible and interested patients than trial slots, who should be enrolled? Defining a clear strategy for selecting participants for “high‐demand” Covid‐19 treatment trials is important to avoid ad hoc and potentially biased decision‐making by local investigators, which could inadvertently compromise a trial's social value, participants’ interests, or fairness. In this article, we propose a set of ethical criteria for evaluating participant‐selection strategies for such trials. We argue that the pandemic context—in particular, great urgency to develop safe and effective treatments, uncertainty surrounding Covid‐19, and strain on the health care system that limits the time and effort available for trial enrollment—favors participant‐selection strategies that optimize the ease of enrollment and, ideally, social value. A lottery and, where possible, a weighted lottery have important advantages in these respects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander A Iyer
- Fellow in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center
| | - Saskia Hendriks
- Bioethicist in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center
| | - Annette Rid
- Bioethicist in the Department of Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Schaefer GO. Context is Needed When Assessing Fair Subject Selection. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:20-22. [PMID: 31990254 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701742] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
|
20
|
Steel R. Risk Limits in Fair Subject Selection. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:30-32. [PMID: 31990258 PMCID: PMC7039310 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701733] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
|
21
|
Iyer AA, Hendriks S, Rid A. The Challenge of Selecting Participants Fairly in High-Demand Clinical Trials. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:35-38. [PMID: 31990250 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Annette Rid
- National Institutes of Health Clinical Center
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Smith E, Dupras C. Fair Subject Selection Procedures Must Consider Scientific Uncertainty and Variability in Risk and Benefit Perception. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:33-35. [PMID: 31990259 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
|
23
|
Giunta H, Sharp RR. Can the Principles of Research Ethics Help Us Distribute Clinical Resources More Fairly? THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:1-4. [PMID: 31990257 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2020.1711353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
|
24
|
Jecker NS. Upstream Influences and Fair Subject Selection. THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BIOETHICS : AJOB 2020; 20:22-24. [PMID: 31990261 DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2019.1701751] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Nancy S Jecker
- University of Washington School of Medicine
- University of Johannesburg
| |
Collapse
|