A Personalized Patient Preference Predictor for Substituted Judgments in Healthcare: Technically Feasible and Ethically Desirable

When making substituted judgments for incapacitated patients, surrogates often struggle to guess what the patient would want if they had capacity. Surrogates may also agonize over having the (sole) responsibility of making such a determination. To address such concerns, a Patient Preference Predictor (PPP) has been proposed that would use an algorithm to infer the treatment preferences of individual patients from population-level data about the known preferences of people with similar demographic characteristics. However, critics have suggested that even if such a PPP were more accurate, on average, than human surrogates in identifying patient preferences, the proposed algorithm would nevertheless fail to respect the patient's (former) autonomy since it draws on the 'wrong' kind of data: namely, data that are not specific to the individual patient and which therefore may not reflect their actual values, or their reasons for having the preferences they do. Taking such criticisms on board, we here propose a new approach: the Personalized Patient Preference Predictor (P4). The P4 is based on recent advances in machine learning, which allow technologies including large language models to be more cheaply and efficiently 'fine-tuned' on person-specific data. The P4, unlike the PPP, would be able to infer an individual patient's preferences from material (e.g., prior treatment decisions) that is in fact specific to them. Thus, we argue, in addition to being potentially more accurate at the individual level than the previously proposed PPP, the predictions of a P4 would also more directly reflect each patient's own reasons and values. In this article, we review recent discoveries in artificial intelligence research that suggest a P4 is technically feasible, and argue that, if it is developed and appropriately deployed, it should assuage some of the main autonomy-based concerns of critics of the original PPP. We then consider various objections to our proposal and offer some tentative replies.

A partner protection package for HIV cure-related trials involving analytical treatment interruptions

Analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs) have become a key methodological approach to evaluate the effects of experimental HIV cure-related research interventions. During ATIs, sex partners of trial participants might be at risk of acquiring HIV. This risk raises both ethical and feasibility concerns about ATI trials. We propose a partner protection package (P3) approach to address these concerns. A P3 approach would provide guidance to investigators, sponsors, and those who are designing and implementing context-specific partner protections in HIV cure-related trials involving ATIs. The approach would also help assure institutional review boards, trial participants, and communities that ATI trials with a P3 would provide appropriate partner protections. We offer a prototype P3 framework that delineates three basic considerations for protecting participants' sex partners during ATI trials: (1) ensuring the scientific and social value of the ATI and the trial, (2) reducing the likelihood of unintended HIV transmission, and (3) ensuring prompt management of any acquired HIV infection. We outline possible ways of implementing these basic considerations.

We need to talk about values: a proposed framework for the articulation of normative reasoning in health technology assessment

It is acknowledged that health technology assessment (HTA) is an inherently value-based activity that makes use of normative reasoning alongside empirical evidence. But the language used to conceptualise and articulate HTA's normative aspects is demonstrably unnuanced, imprecise, and inconsistently employed, undermining transparency and preventing proper scrutiny of the rationales on which decisions are based. This paper - developed through a cross-disciplinary collaboration of 24 researchers with expertise in healthcare priority-setting - seeks to address this problem by offering a clear definition of key terms and distinguishing between the types of normative commitment invoked during HTA, thus providing a novel conceptual framework for the articulation of reasoning. Through application to a hypothetical case, it is illustrated how this framework can operate as a practical tool through which HTA practitioners and policymakers can enhance the transparency and coherence of their decision-making, while enabling others to hold them more easily to account. The framework is offered as a starting point for further discussion amongst those with a desire to enhance the legitimacy and fairness of HTA by facilitating practical public reasoning, in which decisions are made on behalf of the public, in public view, through a chain of reasoning that withstands ethical scrutiny.

Ethics of Controlled Human Infection Studies With Hepatitis C Virus

Global elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) will be difficult to attain without an effective HCV vaccine. Controlled human infection (CHI) studies with HCV were not considered until recently, when highly effective treatment became available. However, now that successful treatment of a deliberate HCV infection is feasible, it is imperative to evaluate the ethics of establishing a program of HCV CHI research. Here, we evaluate the ethics of studies to develop an HCV CHI model in light of 10 ethical considerations: sufficient social value, reasonable risk-benefit profile, suitable site selection, fair participant selection, robust informed consent, proportionate compensation or payment, context-specific stakeholder engagement, fair and open collaboration, independent review and oversight, and integrated ethics research. We conclude that it can be ethically acceptable to develop an HCV CHI model. Indeed, when done appropriately, developing a model should be a priority on the path toward global elimination of HCV.

Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted

Risks and benefits of some clinical research may be altered.

The Essential Role of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) in Ensuring the Ethics of Global Vaccine Trials to Address Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19O)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are being developed and implemented with unprecedented speed. Accordingly, trials considered ethical at their inception may quickly become concerning. We provide recommendations for Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) on monitoring the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine trials, focusing on placebo-controlled trials in low- and middle-income countries.

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.

Patients' Priorities for Surrogate Decision-Making: Possible Influence of Misinformed Beliefs

BACKGROUND

Many patients have three primary goals for how treatment decisions are made for them in the event of decisional incapacity. They want to be treated consistent with their preferences and values, they want their family to be involved in making decisions, and they want to minimize the stress on their family. The present paper investigates how patients' beliefs about surrogate decision-making influence which of these three goals they prioritize. Methods: Quantitative survey of 1,169 U.S. patients to assess their beliefs about surrogate decision-making, and how these beliefs influence patients' priorities for surrogate decision-making. Results: Most patients believed that families in general (68.8%) and their own family in particular (83.4%) frequently, almost always, or always know which treatments the patient would want in the event of incapacity. Patients with these beliefs were more likely to prioritize the goal of involving their family in treatment decision-making over the goal of minimizing family stress. Most patients (77.4%) also believed their family would experience significant stress from helping to make treatment decisions. However, patients' priorities were largely unchanged by this belief. Conclusions: Prior reports suggest that patients overestimate the extent to which their family knows which treatments they want in the event of decisional incapacity. The present analysis adds that these patients might be more likely to prioritize the goal of involving their family in treatment decision-making, even when this results in the family experiencing significant distress. This finding highlights that patients' misinformed beliefs about their family's knowledge might influence patients' priorities for surrogate decision-making, raising important questions for clinical practice, policy, and future research.

Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2021.1983665.

Ethical challenges for a new generation of early-phase pediatric gene therapy trials

After decades of setbacks, gene therapy (GT) is experiencing major breakthroughs. Five GTs have received US regulatory approval since 2017, and over 900 others are currently in development. Many of these GTs target rare pediatric diseases that are severely life-limiting, given a lack of effective treatments. As these GTs enter early-phase clinical trials, specific ethical challenges remain unresolved in three domains: evaluating risks and potential benefits, selecting participants fairly, and engaging with patient communities. Drawing on our experience as clinical investigators, basic scientists, and bioethicists involved in a first-in-human GT trial for an ultrarare pediatric disease, we analyze these ethical challenges and offer points to consider for future GT trials.

Informed consent for controlled human infection studies in low- and middle-income countries: Ethical challenges and proposed solutions

In controlled human infection studies (CHIs), participants are deliberately exposed to infectious agents in order to better understand the mechanism of infection or disease and test therapies or vaccines. While most CHIs have been conducted in high-income countries, CHIs have recently been expanding into low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One potential ethical concern about this expansion is the challenge of obtaining the voluntary informed consent of participants, especially those who may not be literate or have limited education. In some CHIs in LMICs, researchers have attempted to address this potential concern by limiting access to literate or educated populations. In this paper, we argue that this practice is unjustified, as it does not increase the chances of obtaining valid informed consent and therefore unfairly excludes illiterate populations and populations with lower education. Instead, we recommend that investigators improve the informed consent process by drawing on existing data on obtaining informed consent in these populations and interventions aimed at improving their understanding. Based on a literature review, we provide concrete suggestions for how to follow this recommendation and ensure that populations with lower literacy or education are given a fair opportunity to protect their rights and interests in the informed consent process.

Judging the social value of controlled human infection studies

In controlled human infection (CHI) studies, investigators deliberately infect healthy individuals with pathogens in order to study mechanisms of disease or obtain preliminary efficacy data on investigational vaccines and medicines. CHI studies offer a fast and cost-effective way of generating new scientific insights, prioritizing investigational products for clinical testing, and reducing the risk that large numbers of people are exposed to ineffective or harmful substances in research or in practice. Yet depending on the pathogen, CHI studies can involve significant risks or burdens for participants, pose risks to individuals or communities not involved in the research, and lead to public controversy. It is therefore essential to ensure that the risks of CHI studies are justified by their social value-that is, their potential to generate benefits for society-and that public trust can be maintained. In this paper, we aim to clarify how research sponsors, research ethics committees and other reviewers should judge the social value of CHI studies. We develop a list of relevant considerations for making social value judgments based on the standard view of social value. We then use this list to discuss the example of potentially conducting dengue virus CHI studies in endemic settings. We argue that dengue virus CHI studies in endemic settings would fall on the higher end of the spectrum of social value, mostly because of their potential to redirect all fields of future dengue research. Drawing on this discussion, we derive several general recommendations for how reviewers should judge the social value of CHI studies.

Integrating public health programs and research after the malaria vaccine implementation program (MVIP): Recommendations for next steps

BACKGROUND

In February 2020, international controversy arose about the ethical acceptability of the WHO Malaria Vaccine Implementation Program (MVIP). Whereas some have argued that this program must be seen as research that is not in line with international ethical standards, notably regarding informed consent and local ethical review, some WHO representatives consider the MVIP as a public health implementation program that need not adhere to these standards.

METHODS

We performed a case analysis in light of the 2016 CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research involving Humans.

FINDINGS

We argue that the MVIP has a substantial research component, and that it is prudent to therefore apply ethical norms for research involving humans, such as the CIOMS guidelines. Accordingly, we agree that the ethical requirements of informed consent and independent ethical review have not been met. In addition, we are concerned that the study might not meet CIOMS's social value requirement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We urge WHO to release more details about the process that led to the MVIP program and make the MVIP protocol publicly available. The full protocol should be assessed by the relevant ethics committees, new and already enrolled parents should be informed about the uncertainties under investigation and given a real opportunity to consent or refuse (continued) participation, communities should be engaged, and aspects of MVIP that require alteration in light of ethical review should be altered, if possible. Furthermore, in order to improve good ethical practices, it is necessary to engage in international debate regarding the integration of research and public health programs. Procedurally, vaccine implementation programs that combine both prevention and research should involve the wider international ethics community and ensure participation of the target populations in setting the proper conditions for launching such programs.

So much at stake: Ethical tradeoffs in accelerating SARSCoV-2 vaccine development

BACKGROUND

A sense of urgency exists to develop vaccines against SARS CoV-2, responsible for numerous global cases and deaths, as well as widespread social and economic disruption. Multiple approaches have been proposed to speed up vaccine development, including accelerated randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled human challenge trials (CHI), and wide distribution through an emergency use authorization after collecting initial data. There is a need to examine how best to accelerate vaccine development in the setting of a pandemic, without compromising ethical and scientific norms.

METHODS

Trade-offs in scientific and social value between generating reliable evidence about safety and efficacy while promoting rapid vaccine availability are examined along five ethically relevant dimensions: (1) confidence in and generalizability of data, (2) feasibility, (3) speed and cost, (4) participant risks, and (5) social risks.

RESULTS

Accelerated individually randomized RCTs permit expeditious evaluation of vaccine candidates using established methods, expertise, and infrastructure. RCTs are more likely than other approaches to be feasible, increase speed and reduce cost, and generate reliable data about safety and efficacy without significantly increasing risks to participants or undermining societal trust.

CONCLUSION

Ethical analysis suggests that accelerated RCTs are the best approach to accelerating vaccine development in a pandemic, and more likely than other approaches to enhance social value without compromising ethics or science. RCTs can expeditiously collect rigorous data about vaccine safety and efficacy. Innovative and flexible designs and implementation strategies to respond to shifting incidence and test vaccine candidates in parallel or sequentially would add value, as will coordinated data sharing across vaccine trials. CHI studies may be an important complementary strategy when more is known. Widely disseminating a vaccine candidate without efficacy data will not serve the public health nor achieve the goal of identifying safe and effective SARS Co-V-2 vaccines.

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.

[Covid-19: An ad hoc public health ethics consultation]

In this paper we describe the process and content of our ad hoc public health ethics consultation for a Bavarian health authority in relation to Covid-19.

Regulating international clinical research: an ethical framework for policy-makers

The global distribution of clinical trials is shifting to low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and adequate regulations are essential for protecting the rights and interests of research participants in these countries. However, policy-makers in LMICs can face an ethical trade-off: stringent regulatory protections for participants can lead researchers or sponsors to conduct their research elsewhere, potentially depriving the local population of the opportunity to benefit from international clinical research. In this paper, we propose a three-step ethical framework that helps policy-makers to navigate this trade-off. We use a recent set of regulatory protections in Chile to illustrate the practical value of our proposed framework, providing original ethical analysis and previously unpublished data from Chile obtained through freedom of information requests.

Judging the Social Value of Health-Related Research: Current Debate and Open Questions

On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Belmont Report-one of the foundational documents of modern research ethics-this article reviews the ethical debate about the social value of health-related research with human participants. It shows that the Belmont Report discusses the social value of research only cursorily, much like most of the research ethics literature until recently. The article then reviews the current debate and open questions about the social value of health-related research, organized around three questions: (1) is social value a necessary ethical requirement for health-related research with human participants? (2) if so, how should a social value requirement should be specified? and (3) how should such a requirement be implemented in practice?

Affordability and Non-Perfectionism in Moral Action

One rationale policy-makers sometimes give for declining to fund a service or intervention is on the grounds that it would be 'unaffordable', which is to say, that the total cost of providing the service or intervention for all eligible recipients would exceed the budget limit. But does the mere fact that a service or intervention is unaffordable present a reason not to fund it? Thus far, the philosophical literature has remained largely silent on this issue. However, in this article, we consider this kind of thinking in depth. Albeit with certain important caveats, we argue that the use of affordability criteria in matters of public financing commits what Parfit might have called a 'mistake in moral mathematics'. First, it fails to abide by what we term a principle of 'non-perfectionism' in moral action: the mere fact that it is practically impossible for you to do all the good that you have reason to do does not present a reason not to do whatever good you can do. And second, when used as a means of arbitrating between which services to fund, affordability criteria can lead to a kind of 'numerical discrimination'. Various attendant issues around fairness and lotteries are also discussed.

Evaluating the risks of public health programs: Rational antibiotic use and antimicrobial resistance

Existing ethical frameworks for public health provide insufficient guidance on how to evaluate the risks of public health programs that compromise the best clinical interests of present patients for the benefit of others. Given the relevant similarity of such programs to clinical research, we suggest that insights from the long-standing debate about acceptable risk in clinical research can helpfully inform and guide the evaluation of risks posed by public health programs that compromise patients' best clinical interests. We discuss how lessons learned regarding the ethics of risk in one context can be fruitfully transferred to the other, using the example of a so-called 'rational antibiotic use' guideline that limits antimicrobial prescribing in order to curb antimicrobial resistance.

Innovation as a value in healthcare priority-setting: the UK experience

All healthcare systems operate with limited resources and therefore need to set priorities for allocating resources across a population. Trade-offs between maximising health and promoting health equity are inevitable in this process. In this paper, we use the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) as an example to examine how efforts to promote healthcare innovation in the priority-setting process can complicate these trade-offs. Drawing on NICE guidance, health technology assessment reports and relevant policy documents, we analyse under what conditions NICE recommends the National Health Service fund technologies of an "innovative nature", even when these technologies do not satisfy NICE's cost-effectiveness criteria. Our findings fail to assuage pre-existing concerns that NICE's approach to appraising innovative technologies curtails its goals to promote health and health equity. They also reveal a lack of transparency and accountability regarding NICE's treatment of innovative technologies, as well as raising additional concerns about equity. We conclude that further research needs to evaluate how NICE can promote health and health equity alongside healthcare innovation and draw some general lessons for healthcare priority-setting bodies like NICE.

Tackling anti-microbial resistance: ethical framework for rational antibiotic use

Background

To reduce the effect of antimicrobial resistance and to preserve antibiotic effectiveness, clinical guidelines and health policy documents call for the rational use of antibiotics, which aims to reduce unnecessary or minimally effective antibiotic use.

Methods

Through ethical analysis, we show that rational use programmes can lead to ethical conflicts, because they sometimes place patients at risk of harm-for example, a delayed switch to second-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia can lead to substantial increases in mortality.

Results

Implementing the rational use of antibiotics can lead to conflicts between promoting patients' clinical interests and preserving antibiotic effectiveness for future use. The resulting ethical dilemma for clinicians, patients and policy makers has so far not been adequately addressed.

Conclusions

Existing guidance for acceptable risks in clinical research can help to define risk thresholds for the rational use of antibiotics. We develop an ethical framework that allows clinicians and policy-makers to evaluate policies for rational antibiotic use in six practical steps. This framework can help guide clinical practice and health policy.

Choices in vaccine trial design in epidemics of emerging infections

In a Policy Forum, Marc Lipsitch and colleagues discuss trial design issues in infectious disease outbreaks.

Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: towards a consensus

BACKGROUND

This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds.

METHODS

The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise).

CONCLUSIONS

Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

Public participation in decision-making on the coverage of new antivirals for hepatitis C

Purpose - New hepatitis C medicines such as sofosbuvir underline the need to balance considerations of innovation, clinical evidence, budget impact and equity in health priority-setting. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of public participation in addressing these considerations. Design/methodology/approach - The paper employs a comparative case study approach. It explores the experience of four countries - Brazil, England, South Korea and the USA - in making coverage decisions about the antiviral sofosbuvir and involving the public and patients in these decision-making processes. Findings - Issues emerging from public participation ac tivities include the role of the universal right to health in Brazil, the balance between innovation and budget impact in England, the effect of unethical medical practices on public perception in South Korea and the legitimacy of priority-setting processes in the USA. Providing policymakers are receptive to these issues, public participation activities may be re-conceptualized as processes that illuminate policy problems relevant to a particular context, thereby promoting an agenda-setting role for the public. Originality/value - The paper offers an empirical analysis of public involvement in the case of sofosbuvir, where the relevant considerations that bear on priority-setting decisions have been particularly stark. The perspectives that emerge suggest that public participation contributes to raising attention to issues that need to be addressed by policymakers. Public participation activities can thus contribute to setting policy agendas, even if that is not their explicit purpose. However, the actualization of this contribution is contingent on the receptiveness of policymakers.

In Defense of a Social Value Requirement for Clinical Research

Many guidelines and commentators endorse the view that clinical research is ethically acceptable only when it has social value, in the sense of collecting data which might be used to improve health. A version of this social value requirement is included in the Declaration of Helsinki and the Nuremberg Code, and is codified in many national research regulations. At the same time, there have been no systematic analyses of why social value is an ethical requirement for clinical research. Recognizing this gap in the literature, recent articles by Alan Wertheimer and David Resnik argue that the extant justifications for the social value requirement are unpersuasive. Both authors conclude, contrary to almost all current guidelines and regulations, that it can be acceptable across a broad range of cases to conduct clinical research which is known prospectively to have no social value. The present article assesses this conclusion by critically evaluating the ethical and policy considerations relevant to the claim that clinical research must have social value. This analysis supports the standard view that social value is an ethical requirement for the vast majority of clinical research studies and should be mandated by applicable guidelines and policies.

Public Reasoning and Health-Care Priority Setting: The Case of NICE

Health systems that aim to secure universal patient access through a scheme of prepayments-whether through taxes, social insurance, or a combination of the two-need to make decisions on the scope of coverage that they guarantee: such tasks often falling to a priority-setting agency. This article analyzes the decision-making processes at one such agency in particular-the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)-and appraises their ethical justifiability. In particular, we consider the extent to which NICE's model can be justified on the basis of Rawls's conception of "reasonableness." This test shares certain features with the well-known Accountability for Reasonableness (AfR) model but also offers an alternative to it, being concerned with how far the values used by priority-setting agencies such as NICE meet substantive conditions of reasonableness irrespective of their procedural virtues. We find that while there are areas in which NICE's processes may be improved, NICE's overall approach to evaluating health technologies and setting priorities for health-care coverage is a reasonable one, making it an exemplar for other health-care systems facing similar coverage dilemmas. In so doing we offer both a framework for analysing the ethical justifiability of NICE's processes and one that might be used to evaluate others.

Towards Equity in Health: Researchers Take Stock

For the 2016 end-of-the-year editorial, the PLOS Medicine editors asked 7 global health leaders to discuss developments relevant to the equitable provision of medical care to all populations. The result is a collection of expert views on ethical trial design, research during outbreaks, high-burden infectious diseases, diversity in research and protection of migrants.

Phase I Cancer Trials and Palliative Care: Antagonism, Irrelevance, or Synergy?

This article synthesizes the presentations and conclusions of an international symposium on Phase 1 oncology trials, palliative care, and ethics held in 2014. The purpose of the symposium was to discuss the intersection of three independent trends that unfolded in the past decade. First, large-scale reviews of hundreds of Phase I trials have indicated there is a relatively low risk of serious harm and some prospect of clinical benefit that can be meaningful to patients. Second, changes in the design and analysis of Phase I trials, the introduction of "targeted" investigational agents that are generally less toxic, and an increase in Phase I trials that combine two or more agents in a novel way have changed the conduct of these trials and decreased fears and apprehensions about participation. Third, the field of palliative care in cancer has expanded greatly, offering symptom management to late-stage cancer patients, and demonstrated that it is not mutually exclusive with disease-targeted therapies or clinical research. Opportunities for collaboration and further research at the intersection of Phase 1 oncology trials and palliative care are highlighted.

The potential exploitation of research participants in high income countries who lack access to health care

There are millions of individuals living in North America and the European Union who lack access to healthcare services. When these individuals participate in research, they are at increased risk of being exposed to the risks and burdens of clinical trials without realizing the benefits that result from them. The mechanisms that have been proposed to ensure that research participants in low- and middle-income countries are not exploited are unlikely to protect participants in high-income countries. The present manuscript argues that one way to address concerns about exploitation in high-income countries would be to require sponsors to provide targeted benefits such as medical treatment during the trial, or the study drug after the trial. The latter could be achieved through extension studies, expanded access programs, or named-patient programs. Sponsors also might provide non-medical benefits, such as education or social support. Ethical and regulatory guidance should be revised to ensure that research participants in high-income countries who lack access to healthcare services receive sufficient benefits.

Do Patients Want their Families or their Doctors to Make Treatment Decisions in the Event of Incapacity, and Why?

BACKGROUND

Current practice relies on patient-designated and next-of-kin surrogates, in consultation with clinicians, to make treatment decisions for patients who lose the ability to make their own decisions. Yet, there is a paucity of data on whether this approach is consistent with patients' preferences regarding who they want to make treatment decisions for them in the event of decisional incapacity.

METHODS

Self-administered survey of patients at a tertiary care center.

RESULTS

Overall, 1169 respondents completed the survey (response rate=59.8%). Of the 229 respondents who had previously designated a surrogate, 78.2% wanted their surrogate to make treatment decisions in the event of decisional incapacity, whereas 21.8% wanted their doctors to make treatment decisions. Of the 822 respondents who had not designated a surrogate, 66.1% wanted their family to make treatment decisions, whereas 33.9% wanted their doctors to make treatment decisions. The most common explanation provided for why respondents wanted their surrogate or family to make treatment decisions for them in the event of decisional incapacity was the belief that loved ones knew the patient's treatment preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to current practice, 33.9% of respondents who had not designated a surrogate, and 21.8% of those who had designated a surrogate indicated that they wanted their doctors to make treatment decisions for them in the event of decisional incapacity. Moreover, many of those who wanted their surrogates or family members to make treatment decisions explained this preference by citing a belief that loved ones knew the patient's treatment preferences. This belief is undermined by prior research which suggests that surrogates and family members frequently are unable to predict which treatments their charges would want. Future research should assess these two concerns with current practice and, where necessary, identify approaches to address them.

A new method for making treatment decisions for incapacitated patients: what do patients think about the use of a patient preference predictor?

BACKGROUND

Surrogates frequently are unable to predict which treatment their charges would want and also can experience significant distress as a result of making treatment decisions. A new method, the patient preference predictor (PPP), has been proposed as a possible way to supplement the process of shared decision-making to address these two concerns. The PPP predicts which treatment the patient would want based on which treatment similar patients want in similar circumstances. The present article describes the results of the first evaluation to assess whether patients support the use of a PPP.

METHODS

Self-administered survey of patients at a tertiary care centre.

RESULTS

Overall, 1169 respondents completed the survey (response rate=59.8%). In the event that the respondent became unable to make decisions due to a car accident, 78.9% would want the PPP to be incorporated into the process of making treatment decisions for them. In contrast, 15.2% of respondents would not want the PPP to be used for them. Respondents who endorsed the PPP cited the possibility that its use could increase the chances that they receive the treatments they prefer and/or reduce the burdens on their surrogate decision-maker.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of respondents endorsed the possibility of incorporating a PPP into the process of shared decision-making based on its potential to increase surrogates' predictive accuracy and/or reduce surrogate distress. These data provide strong patient support for further research to assess whether, in practice, the use of a PPP can increase the chances that incapacitated patients receive the treatments they prefer and reduce the burden of making decisions on their surrogates.

Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK

The use of prisoners as research participants is controversial. Efforts to protect them in response to past exploitation and abuse have led to strict regulations and reluctance to involve them as participants. Hence, prisoners are routinely denied the opportunity to participate in research. In the absence of comprehensive information regarding prisoners' current involvement in research, we examined UK prisoners' involvement through review of research applications to the UK National Research Ethics Service. We found that prisoners have extremely limited access to research participation. This analysis was augmented by a survey of those involved in research and research governance (UK researchers and Research Ethics Committee members). Our results suggest that pragmatic concerns regarding the perceived burden of including prisoners are far more prominent in motivating their exclusion than ethical concerns or knowledge of regulations. While prisoners may remain a vulnerable research population due to constraints upon their liberty and autonomy and the coercive nature of the prison environment, routine exclusion from participation may be disadvantageous. Rigorous ethical oversight and the shift in the prevailing attitude towards the risks and benefits of participation suggest that it may be time for research to be more accessible to prisoners in line with the principle of equivalence in prison healthcare. We suggest the necessary first step in this process is a re-examination of current guidance in the UK and other countries with exclusions.

Research led by participants: a new social contract for a new kind of research

In recent years, there have been prominent calls for a new social contract that accords a more central role to citizens in health research. Typically, this has been understood as citizens and patients having a greater voice and role within the standard research enterprise. Beyond this, however, it is important that the renegotiated contract specifically addresses the oversight of a new, path-breaking approach to health research: participant-led research. In light of the momentum behind participant-led research and its potential to advance health knowledge by challenging and complementing traditional research, it is vital for all stakeholders to work together in securing the conditions that will enable it to flourish.

Ethical Rationale for the Ebola "Ring Vaccination" Trial Design

The 2014 Ebola virus epidemic is the largest and most severe ever recorded. With no approved vaccines or specific treatments for Ebola, clinical trials were launched within months of the epidemic in an unprecedented show of global partnership. One of these trials used a highly innovative "ring vaccination" design. The design was chosen for operational, scientific, and ethical reasons--in particular, it was regarded as ethically superior to individually randomized placebo-controlled trials. We scrutinize the ethical rationale for the ring vaccination design. We argue that the ring vaccination design is ethical but fundamentally equivalent to placebo-controlled designs with respect to withholding a potentially effective intervention from the control group. We discuss the implications for the ongoing ring vaccination trial and future research.