Challenges to biobanking in LMICs during COVID-19: time to reconceptualise research ethics guidance for pandemics and public health emergencies?

The International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Public Health Research Toolkit: A report from the Surveillance, Risk Assessment and Policy Sub-group of the ISBT Transfusion Transmitted Infectious Diseases Working Party

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Data provided from blood donors have contributed to the understanding of public health epidemiology and policy decisions. A recent example was during the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic when blood services monitored the seroprevalence in blood donors. Based on this experience, blood services have the opportunity to expand their role and participate in public health surveillance and research. The aim of this report is to share available resources to assist blood services in this area.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Surveillance, Risk Assessment and Policy (SRAP) Sub-group of the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Transfusion Transmitted Infectious Diseases (TTID) Working Party developed a Public Health Research Toolkit to assist blood services and researchers interested in expanding their role in public health research.

RESULTS

The ISBT Public Health Research Toolkit provides resources for what blood services can offer to public health, examples of donor research studies, the utility of donor data and website links to public health agencies. The toolkit includes a customizable template for those interested in establishing and managing a biobank.

CONCLUSION

The ISBT Public Health Research Toolkit includes resources to increase the recognition of the role blood donors can play in public health and to help blood services gain commitment and funding from various agencies for new research and surveillance.

A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments, multilateral public health organisations and research institutions to undertake research quickly to inform their responses to the pandemic. Most COVID-19-related studies required swift approval, creating ethical and practical challenges for regulatory authorities and researchers. In this paper, we examine the landscape of ethics review processes in Africa during public health emergencies (PHEs).

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (Web of Science, PUBMED, MEDLINE Complete, and CINAHL) to identify articles describing ethics review processes during public health emergencies and/or pandemics. We selected and reviewed those articles that were focused on Africa. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, country and disease(s) reference, broad areas of (ethical) consideration, paper type, and approach.

RESULTS

Of an initial 4536 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 1491 articles, and identified 72 articles for full review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion. Of these nine articles, five referenced West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and experiences linked to the Ebola virus disease. Two articles focused on South Africa and Kenya, while the other two articles discussed more general experiences and pitfalls of ethics review during PHEs in Africa more broadly. We found no articles published on ethics review processes in Africa before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and only a few before the COVID-19 outbreak. Although guidelines on protocol review and approval processes for PHEs were more frequently discussed after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, these did not focus on Africa specifically.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a gap in the literature about ethics review processes and preparedness within Africa during PHEs. This paper underscores the importance of these processes to inform practices that facilitate timely, context-relevant research that adequately recognises and reinforces human dignity within the quest to advance scientific knowledge about diseases. This is important to improve fast responses to PHEs, reduce mortality and morbidity, and enhance the quality of care before, during, and after pandemics.

Informed consent and trial prioritization for clinical studies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder experiences and viewpoints

BACKGROUND

Very little is known about the practice-oriented challenges and potential response strategies for effective and efficient translation of informed consent and study prioritization in times of a pandemic. This stakeholder interview study aimed to identify the full spectrum of challenges and potential response strategies for informed consent and study prioritization in a pandemic setting.

METHODS

We performed semi-structured interviews with German stakeholders involved in clinical research during the COVID-19 pandemic. We continued sampling and thematic text analysis of interview transcripts until thematic saturation of challenges and potential response strategies was reached.

RESULTS

We conducted 21 interviews with investigators, oversight bodies, funders and research support units. For the first topic informed consent we identified three main themes: consent challenges, impact of consent challenges on clinical research, and potential strategies for consent challenges. For the second topic prioritization of clinical studies, we identified two main themes: perceived benefit of prioritization and potential strategies for prioritization. All main themes are further specified with subthemes. A supplementary table provides original quotes from the interviews for all subthemes.

DISCUSSION

Potential response strategies for challenges with informed consent and study prioritization partly share common ground. High quality procedures for study prioritization, for example, seem to be a core response strategy in dealing with informed consent challenges. Especially in a research environment with particularly high uncertainty regarding potential treatment effects and further limitations for valid informed consent should the selection of clinical trials be very well justified from a scientific, medical, and ethics viewpoint.

Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea

BACKGROUND

Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government's pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020-February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021-February 2023) for long-term preparedness.

RESULTS

The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week: the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training).

CONCLUSION

As a result of South Korea's commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.

The Importance and Challenges of Implementing and Maintaining Biorepositories for High-Consequence Veterinary and One Health Pathogens in South-East Asia

Introduction

Emerging infectious diseases pose a threat to public health and the economy, especially in developing countries. Southeast Asian veterinary laboratories handle numerous high-risk pathogens, making pathogen accountability crucial for safe handling and storage.

Methods

Thirteen veterinary laboratories in Cambodia (n = 1), Lao People's Democratic Republic (n = 1), and Thailand (n = 11) participated in a study conducted between 2019 and 2020. Data were collected using a questionnaire, group discussions, and interviews.

Conclusion

Significant gaps in biosecurity and biorepository management were recognized and discussed in the context of regional biosafety and biosecurity. Laboratories could use the findings and recommendations of the study to develop or improve their pathogen inventory and biosecurity systems. Governments play a significant role in setting standards and regulations and providing necessary support for laboratories to maintain inventory controls sustainably and have a very important role to play in ensuring biosafety and biosecurity compliance.

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

Research-Related Stakeholders' Perspectives on Sociocultural Considerations in Biobanking Practice in South Africa

Background: Biobanking practice continues to proliferate in South Africa, yet little is known about how stakeholders engage with social, cultural, and religious considerations in this area of research. This study was undertaken to establish the perspectives of South African stakeholders (researchers, biobankers, clinicians, and research committee members) on sociocultural considerations in biobanking research. Methods: This in-depth exploratory study used semistructured face-to-face or Skype interviews with 25 purposively selected stakeholders involved in the biobanking-related practice. The study sample comprised biobankers, clinicians, researchers, postgraduate students in biobanking research, and research ethics committee members in South Africa. The interview focused on social and cultural challenges facing the biobanking practice in the country. Further probes included stakeholder perspectives on ownership and custodianship of stored biosamples. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the collected data. Results and Discussion: Several themes arose from the data analysis. These included respondents' perceptions of poor understanding of biobanking among research participants and communities; inconsistency in defining ownership and custodianship of biosamples; variability in respondents' understanding of cultural, religious, and social implications of biobanking; the notion of distrust; and building trust in biobanking. There were also inconsistencies in respondents' recognition of social, cultural, and/or religious influences on participant decision-making in biobanking research. Respondents highlighted that a general climate of distrust existed in the biobanking practice in South Africa. Conclusion: There is a need for greater stakeholder awareness of sociocultural considerations in biobanking practice in South Africa. One possible way to achieve this could be through the availability of training programs aimed at improving stakeholder understanding of the sociocultural context for biobanking practice in addition to greater efforts at community engagement with respect to all biobanking activities and research.

Biobanking in LMIC settings for infectious diseases: Challenges and enablers

Biobanking facilities are well established in high-income settings, where substantial funding has been invested in infrastructure. In contrast, such facilities are much less developed in resource-restricted settings. However, low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) still face a disproportionately high infectious diseases burden. Thus, the further development of infrastructure facilities, including biobanks is warranted as an important component of this unfolding clinical research environment. This perspective manuscript summarises the challenges and enablers for biobanking in LMICs, with a particular focus on infectious diseases, incorporating some of the lessons learned from the recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

Biobanks in the low- and middle-income countries of the Arab Middle East region: challenges, ethical issues, and governance arrangements—a qualitative study involving biobank managers

Background

Biobanks have recently been established in several low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the Arab region of the Middle East. We aimed to explore the views of biobank managers regarding the challenges, ethical issues, and governance arrangements of their biobanks.

Methods

In-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of eight biobank managers from Egypt (6), Jordan (1), and Sudan (1). Interviews were performed either face-to-face, by phone, or via Zoom and lasted approximately 45–75 min. After verbal consent, interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The authors performed a thematic analysis of the transcripts independently and then integrated the themes via a consensus process.

Results

Biobank managers discussed the main challenges in establishing their biobanks. These included the staff’s lack of experience and training, limited funds, deficit awareness of biobanks, obtaining funding from different sources. Only four reported they were active in distributing biospecimens and health data to researchers. Six biobanks used a broad consent model, one used tiered consent, and another allowed participants to opt-out of being recontacted. Five managers avoided partnerships with pharmaceutical companies due to concerns with unfavorable reactions from the community. Five managers did not have clear policies for returning research results to the donors. Five expressed challenges with sample and data sharing with international collaborators; all five used material transfer agreements. The biobank managers revealed variable governance arrangements and activities with community involving awareness and educational efforts rather than active engagement. Several expressed the importance of transparency with the operations of their biobanks and gaining the trust of their stakeholders.

Conclusion

Managers of biobanks in LMICs in the Arab Middle East encounter financial, operational, and social challenges toward their sustainability efforts. Discussions with key stakeholders are warranted to manage ethical issues involving informed consent, privacy, data sharing, and the return of results. We recommend that biobank managers in the Arab Middle East form collaborative networks within the region and internationally, develop trusting governance relationships with their stakeholders, and pursue engagement activities with their communities to enhance trust.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00822-8.

International Efforts and Next Steps to Advance COVID-19 Vaccines Research and Production in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Equitable and efficient distribution of COVID-19 vaccines continues to be a key issue in global health, and a targeted approach is needed to meet the World Health Organization's world vaccination targets. Although some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are developing their own vaccines to address the distribution problem, legal and technical challenges have had a negative impact on productivity. This article explores relevant international legal instruments that can enable faster research and development of COVID-19 vaccines in LMICs, focusing on the role of biosafety standards, biological materials transfer, and key knowledge sharing. Our analysis has established that the potential of existing global health legal instruments has yet to be realized in order to close the productivity gap in LMICs and strengthen their vaccine manufacturing capacity. Additionally, mutual recognition of vaccine efficacy has become a new challenge for achieving global vaccination targets. We argue that the World Health Organization should continue its leading position by developing a more practical and targeted framework to help LMICs overcome challenges arising from technology transfer, knowledge sharing, and politics.