Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection

A pilot recruitment strategy to enhance ethical and equitable access to Covid-19 pediatric vaccine trials

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.

Appropriate inclusion of adult research participants with intellectual disability: an in-depth review of guidelines and policy statements

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.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law

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.

Xenotransplantation Clinical Trials and Equitable Patient Selection

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.

The fertility of moral ambiguity in precision medicine

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.

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

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.

Randomised controlled trials in medical AI: ethical considerations

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.

Ethical Criteria for Improved Human Subject Protections in Phase I Healthy Volunteer Trials

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.

'Experimental pregnancy' revisited

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.

Ethical considerations in international clinical trial site selection

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.

Reviewing fair subject selection considerations for the unique case of post sequelae COVID-19 translational studies

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.

Allocation of Opportunities to Participate in Clinical Trials during the Covid-19 Pandemic and Other Public Health Emergencies

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.

Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project

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.

Incentives and payments in pragmatic clinical trials: Scientific, ethical, and policy considerations

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.

An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials

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.

Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia

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.

Advantages of Using Lotteries to Select Participants for High-Demand Covid-19 Treatment Trials

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.