The ethics of sharing preliminary research findings during public health emergencies: a case study from the 2009 influenza pandemic

Equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics

BACKGROUND

Rapid data sharing can maximize the utility of data. In epidemics and pandemics like Zika, Ebola, and COVID-19, the case for such practices seems especially urgent and warranted. Yet rapidly sharing data widely has previously generated significant concerns related to equity. The continued lack of understanding and guidance on equitable data sharing raises the following questions: Should data sharing in epidemics and pandemics primarily advance utility, or should it advance equity as well? If so, what norms comprise equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics? Do these norms address the equity-related concerns raised by researchers, data providers, and other stakeholders? What tensions must be balanced between equity and other values?

METHODS

To explore these questions, we undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on data sharing in epidemics and pandemics and thematically analyzed identified literature for its discussion of ethical values, norms, concerns, and tensions, with a particular (but not exclusive) emphasis on equity. We wanted to both understand how equity in data sharing is being conceptualized and draw out other important values and norms for data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

RESULTS

We found that values of utility, equity, solidarity, and reciprocity were described, and we report their associated norms, including researcher recognition; rapid, real-time sharing; capacity development; and fair benefits to data generators, data providers, and source countries. The value of utility and its associated norms were discussed substantially more than others. Tensions between utility norms (e.g., rapid, real-time sharing) and equity norms (e.g., researcher recognition, equitable access) were raised.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found support for equity being advanced by data sharing in epidemics and pandemics. However, norms for equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics require further development, particularly in relation to power sharing and participatory approaches prioritizing inclusion. Addressing structural inequities in the wider global health landscape is also needed to achieve equitable data sharing in epidemics and pandemics.

Clinical Data Extraction During Public Health Emergencies: A Blockchain Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore the technical and legal readiness of healthcare institutions for novel data-sharing methods that allow clinical information to be extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) and submitted securely to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) blockchain through a secure data broker (SDB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This assessment was divided into four sections: an institutional EHR readiness assessment, legal consultation, institutional review board application submission, and a test of healthcare data transmission over a blockchain infrastructure.

RESULTS

All participating institutions reported the ability to electronically extract data from EHRs for research. Formal legal agreements were deemed unnecessary to the project but would be needed in future tests of real patient data exchange. Data transmission to the FDA blockchain met the success criteria of data connection from within the four institutions' firewalls, externally to the FDA blockchain via a SDB.

DISCUSSION

The readiness survey indicated advanced analytic capability in hospital institutions and highlighted inconsistency in Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources format utilitzation across institutions, despite requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act. Further testing across more institutions and annual exercises leveraging the application of data exchange over a blockchain infrastructure are recommended actions for determining the feasibility of this approach during a public health emergency and broaden the understanding of technical requirements for multisite data extraction.

CONCLUSION

The FDA's RAPID (Real-Time Application for Portable Interactive Devices) program, in collaboration with Discovery, the Critical Care Research Network's PREP (Program for Resilience and Emergency Preparedness), identified the technical and legal challenges and requirements for rapid data exchange to a government entity using the FDA blockchain infrastructure.

Clinical Data Extraction During Public Health Emergencies: A Blockchain Technology Assessment

OBJECTIVE

We sought to explore the technical and legal readiness of healthcare institutions for novel data-sharing methods that allow clinical information to be extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) and submitted securely to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) blockchain through a secure data broker (SDB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This assessment was divided into four sections: an institutional EHR readiness assessment, legal consultation, institutional review board application submission, and a test of healthcare data transmission over a blockchain infrastructure.

RESULTS

All participating institutions reported the ability to electronically extract data from EHRs for research. Formal legal agreements were deemed unnecessary to the project but would be needed in future tests of real patient data exchange. Data transmission to the FDA blockchain met the success criteria of data connection from within the four institutions' firewalls, externally to the FDA blockchain via a SDB.

DISCUSSION

The readiness survey indicated advanced analytic capability in hospital institutions and highlighted inconsistency in Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources format utilitzation across institutions, despite requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act. Further testing across more institutions and annual exercises leveraging the application of data exchange over a blockchain infrastructure are recommended actions for determining the feasibility of this approach during a public health emergency and broaden the understanding of technical requirements for multisite data extraction.

CONCLUSION

The FDA's RAPID (Real-Time Application for Portable Interactive Devices) program, in collaboration with Discovery, the Critical Care Research Network's PREP (Program for Resilience and Emergency Preparedness), identified the technical and legal challenges and requirements for rapid data exchange to a government entity using the FDA blockchain infrastructure.

Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Major infectious disease outbreaks are a constant threat to human health. Clinical research responses to outbreaks generate evidence to improve outcomes and outbreak control. Experiences from previous epidemics have identified multiple challenges to undertaking timely clinical research responses. This scoping review is a systematic appraisal of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges to clinical research responses to emergency epidemics and solutions identified to address these.

METHODS

A scoping review. We searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Scopus and Epistemonikos) for articles published from 2008 to July 2018. We included publications reporting PEARLES challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics and solutions identified to address these. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted and analysed the data.

RESULTS

Of 2678 articles screened, 76 were included. Most presented data relating to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus outbreak or the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The articles related to clinical research responses in Africa (n = 37), Europe (n = 8), North America (n = 5), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1) and/or globally (n = 22). A wide range of solutions to PEARLES challenges was presented, including a need to strengthen global collaborations and coordination at all levels and develop pre-approved protocols and equitable frameworks, protocols and standards for emergencies. Clinical trial networks and expedited funding and approvals were some solutions implemented. National ownership and community engagement from the outset were a key enabler for delivery. Despite the wide range of recommended solutions, none had been formally evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

To strengthen global preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics, identified solutions for rapid clinical research deployment, delivery, and dissemination must be implemented. Improvements are urgently needed to strengthen collaborations, funding mechanisms, global and national research capacity and capability, targeting regions vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics. Solutions need to be flexible to allow timely adaptations to context, and research led by governments of affected regions. Research communities globally need to evaluate their activities and incorporate lessons learnt to refine and rehearse collaborative outbreak response plans in between epidemics.

Pandemic Influenza: A Comparative Ethical Approach

Community-networks such as families and schools may foster and propagate some types of public health disasters. For such disasters, a communitarian-oriented ethical lens offers useful perspectives into the underlying relational nexus that favors the spread of infection. This chapter compares two traditional bioethical lenses—the communitarian and care ethics framework—vis-à-vis their capacities to engage the moral quandaries elicited by pandemic influenza. It argues that these quandaries preclude the analytical lens of ethical prisms that are individual-oriented but warrant a people-oriented approach. Adopting this dual approach offers both a contrastive and a complementary way of rethinking the underlying socioethical tensions elicited by pandemic influenza in particular and other public health disasters generally.

Ebola and Learning Lessons from Moral Failures: Who Cares about Ethics?

The exercise of identifying lessons in the aftermath of a major public health emergency is of immense importance for the improvement of global public health emergency preparedness and response. Despite the persistence of the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in West Africa, it seems that the Ebola 'lessons learned' exercise is now in full swing. On our assessment, a significant shortcoming plagues recent articulations of lessons learned, particularly among those emerging from organizational reflections. In this article we argue that, despite not being recognized as such, the vast majority of lessons proffered in this literature should be understood as ethical lessons stemming from moral failures, and that any improvements in future global public health emergency preparedness and response are in large part dependent on acknowledging this fact and adjusting priorities, policies and practices accordingly such that they align with values that better ensure these moral failures are not repeated and that new moral failures do not arise. We cannot continue to fiddle at the margins without critically reflecting on our repeated moral failings and committing ourselves to a set of values that engenders an approach to global public health emergencies that embodies a sense of solidarity and global justice.