Search

Research on opioid use in pregnancy is critically important to understand how the opioid epidemic has affected a generation of children, but also raises significant ethical and legal challenges. Embedded ethicists can help to fill the gaps in ethics oversight for such research, but further guidance is needed to help strike the balance between integration and independence.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for nonhospitalized patients with mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and for individuals exposed to COVID-19 as postexposure prophylaxis. EUAs for oral antiviral drugs have also been issued. Due to increased demand because of the Delta variant, the federal government resumed control over the supply and asked states to ration doses. As future variants (eg, the Omicron variant) emerge, further rationing may be required. We identify relevant ethical principles (ie, benefiting people and preventing harm, equal concern, and mitigating health inequities) and priority groups for access to therapies based on an integrated approach to population health and medical factors (eg, urgently scarce healthcare workers, persons in disadvantaged communities hard hit by COVID-19). Using priority categories to allocate scarce therapies effectively operationalizes important ethical values. This strategy is preferable to the current approach of categorical exclusion or inclusion rules based on vaccination, immunocompromise status, or older age, or the ad hoc consideration of clinical risk factors., Existing proposals for allocating scarce monoclonal antibodies and other treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) focus on vaccination/immunocompromise status and older age; by contrast, we propose that fair allocation requires application of ethical principles that yield different priority categories.

Research in rapidly evolving policy contexts can lead to the following ethical challenges for sponsors and researchers: the study’s standard of care can become different than what patients outside the study receive, there may be political or other pressure to move ahead with unproven interventions, and new findings or revised policies may decrease the relevance of ongoing studies. These ethical challenges are considerable, but not unprecedented. In this article, we review the case of a multinational, randomized, controlled perinatal HIV prevention trial, the “PROMISE” (Promoting Maternal Infant Survival Everywhere) study. PROMISE compared the relative efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV. The sponsor engaged an independent international ethics panel to address controversy about the study’s standard of care and relevance as national and international guidelines changed. This ethics panel concluded that continuing the PROMISE trial as designed was ethically permissible because: (1) participants in all arms received interventions that were effective, and there was insufficient evidence about whether one intervention was more effective or safer than the other, and (2) data from PROMISE could be useful for a diverse range of stakeholders. In general, trials designed to inform rapidly evolving policy issues should develop mechanisms to revisit social value while recognizing that the value of research varies for diverse stakeholders with legitimate reasons to weigh evidence differently. We conclude by providing four reasons that trials may depart from the standard of care after a change in policy, while remaining ethically justifiable, and by suggesting how to improve existing trial oversight mechanisms to address evolving social value.

Adolescent participation in research is critical to inform interventions that improve outcomes for this group. Adolescents and young adults living with HIV often present to care without caregivers, yet caregiver permission is typically required for those younger than 18 years. We evaluated whether understanding of key consent information differed between adolescents ( n = 1,393) and caregiver adults ( n = 169). Compared with caregivers, adolescents aged 10-14 years showed significantly lower understanding, whereas understanding for older adults living with HIV did not differ significantly from caregivers. Risks were the least understood consent information for all age groups. Our findings suggest that for low-risk research, waiving caregiver permission requirements will not compromise the ethical need to ensure understanding of research before enrollment and may allow adolescents greater access to potential research benefits.

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.

The changing clinical research recruitment landscape involves practical challenges but introduces opportunities. Researchers can now identify large numbers of eligible patients through electronic health record review and can directly contact those who have authorized contact. Applying behavioral science-driven strategies to design and frame communication could affect patients' willingness to authorize contact and their understanding of these programs. The ethical and practical implications of various strategies warrant empirical evaluation.We conducted an online survey (Compared to the neutral flyer, individuals who received the positive text flyer were numerically more likely to enroll, but this was not statistically significant (24.2% v. 19.0%,This study demonstrated that employing behavioral science-driven communication strategies for authorization for research contact had an effect on likelihood of hypothetical enrollment but did not significantly affect comprehension. Strategies using simple, positive language and visual tools may be effective and ethically appropriate. Further studies should explore how these and other approaches can help to optimize research recruitment.

BACKGROUND: Adolescents in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have a high burden of HIV, increasing the importance of including adolescents in HIV research. Adolescence is a period of transition that introduces unique ethical challenges for HIV research. The aim of this paper is to describe the ethical-legal barriers to adolescent participation in HIV research studies and potential strategies for including adolescents in LMIC research studies. METHODS: We examined experiences from PATC3H, a research consortium focused on HIV prevention and treatment research in resource-constrained settings. The consortium includes studies in Brazil, Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Zambia, and Uganda. PATC3H researchers were asked to identify ethical and practical challenges for adolescent consent to research participation in these countries. We also used standardized scenarios to facilitate comparison of adolescent consent in these seven countries. Informed by our examination of PATC3H consortium experiences, we conducted a scoping review focused on solutions that could be used to enhance adolescent participation in LMIC HIV studies. FINDINGS: Our consortium experiences demonstrated many ethical challenges, including the following: inconsistent or absent guidance for the conditions under which adolescents can independently consent to research participation; guidelines that fail to account for the full array of adolescents’ lives; and substantial variation in how ethical review committees assess adolescent research studies. Our scoping review identified several potential consent-related strategies to expand adolescent access to HIV research, including waiving parental consent requirements, allowing adolescents to provide independent research consent, and clarifying surrogate decision-making processes. INTERPRETATION: While there are several ethical and practical challenges in adolescent consent to HIV research participation in LMICs, these challenges can be addressed by alternative consent strategies. Guidance on the ethics of adolescent HIV research is needed to increase adolescent participation in research.

We conducted an online experimental survey to evaluate attitudes toward an authorization for contact (AFC) program allowing researchers to contact patients about studies based on electronic record review. A total of 1070 participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 flyers varying in design and framing. Participants were asked to select concerns about and reasons for signing up for AFC. Logistic regression and latent class analysis were conducted. The most commonly selected concerns included needing more information (43%), privacy (40%), and needing more time to think (28%). A minority were not interested in participating in research (16%) and did not want to be bothered (15%). Latent class analysis identified clusters with specific concerns about privacy, lack of interest in research, and not wanting to be bothered. A novel flyer with simple and positive framing was associated with lower odds of both not wanting to be bothered (P = .01) and not being interested in research (P = .01). Many concerns about AFC programs appear nonspecific. Addressing privacy, lack of interest in research, and not wanting to be bothered warrant further study as ways to enhance recruitment.

There is limited guidance on how to assess the ethical acceptability of research risks that extend beyond research participants to third parties (or "research bystanders"). Community or stakeholder engagement has been proposed as one way to address potential harms to community members, including bystanders. Despite widespread agreement on the importance of community engagement in biomedical research, this umbrella term includes many different goals and approaches, agreement on which is ethically required or recommended for a particular context. We analyse the case of a potential Zika virus human challenge trial to assess whether and how community engagement can help promote the ethical acceptability of research posing risks to bystanders. We conclude that, in addition to having intrinsic value, community engagement can improve the identification of bystander risks, effective approaches to minimizing them, and transparency about bystander risks for host communities.

Purpose One third of people newly living with HIV/AIDS are adolescents. Research on adolescent HIV prevention is critical owing to differences between adolescents and adults. Parental permission requirements are often considered a barrier to adolescent enrollment in research, but whether adolescents view this barrier as the most important one is unclear. Methods Adolescents were approached in schools in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, and at a sexually transmitted infection clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Aurora, Colorado. Surveys with a hypothetical vignette about participation in a pre-exposure prophylaxis trial were conducted on smartphones or tablets with 75 adolescents at each site. We calculated descriptive statistics for all variables, using 2-sample tests for equality of proportions with continuity correction. Statistical significance was calculated at p Results Most adolescents thought side effects (77%) and parental consent requirements (69%) were very important barriers to research participation. When asked to rank barriers, adolescents did not agree on a single barrier as most important, but the largest group of adolescents ranked parental consent requirements as most important (29.5%). Parental consent was seen as more of a barrier for adolescents in South Africa than in the United States. Concerns about being experimented on or researchers’ mandatory reporting to authorities were ranked much lower. Finally, most (71%, n = 106) adolescents said they would want to extra support from another adult if parental permission was not required. Conclusion Adolescents consider both parental permission requirements and side effects important barriers to their enrollment in HIV prevention research. Legal reform and better communication strategies may help address these barriers.

Background An understanding of acceptability among potential intervention participants is critical to the design of successful real-world financial incentive (FI) programs. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore adolescent and parent perspectives on the acceptability of using FI to promote engagement in diabetes self-care in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods Focus groups with 46 adolescents with T1D (12-17 years old) and 39 parents of adolescents with T1D were conducted in the Seattle metropolitan area. Semistructured questions addressed participants' current use of incentives to promote change in diabetes self-care and receptivity to a theoretical incentive program administered by a third-party. Qualitative data were analyzed and emergent themes identified. Results Three thematic categories informed participant views about the acceptability of FI programs: (a) the extent to which using FIs in the context of diabetes management fit comfortably into a family's value system, (b) the perceived effectiveness for FIs to promote improved diabetes self-care, and (c) the urgent need for improved self-care due to the threat of diabetes-related health complications. These factors together led most parents and adolescents to be open to FI program participation. Conclusions The results from this qualitative study suggest that well-designed FI programs to support diabetes management are acceptable to families with adolescents with T1D. Additionally, the use of FIs may have the potential to support adolescents with T1D in developing strong self-care habits and ease the often-turbulent transition to independent self-care.

Background The rising prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and the availability of direct acting antivirals for HCV treatment has prompted a public health goal of HCV eradication. Despite the availability of treatment for HCV, treatment programs have generally excluded pregnant individuals. Our objective was to query patients and clinicians to identify barriers to including pregnant individuals in HCV treatment programs. Methods and findings This qualitative investigation included obstetricians and previously/currently pregnant individuals with HCV. Participants completed interviews regarding knowledge of and attitudes towards HCV treatment and perceived barriers to treatment during pregnancy. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Obstetricians (N = 18) and patients (N = 21) described concerns about equity, access, and cost. Both expressed uncertainty about safety and confirmed a need for clinician education. Obstetricians emphasized the lack of professional guidelines. Although some clinicians expressed concern about patient adherence and engagement, patients were largely desirous of treatment; both groups identified potential benefits of antenatal treatment. Conclusions Both patients and obstetricians were generally receptive to HCV treatment in pregnancy and recognized pregnancy as an important window of opportunity for treatment. Our findings suggest the need for further research on maternal-fetal safety of HCV treatment as well as on interventions to ensure fair and appropriate access to HCV treatment for pregnant individuals.

In human challenge trials (HCTs), volunteers are deliberately infected with an infectious agent. Such trials can be used to accelerate vaccine development and answer important scientific questions. Starting early in the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns were raised about using HCTs to accelerate development and approval of a vaccine. Some of those concerns pertained to potential exploitation of and/or lack of truly informed consent from volunteers. Specific areas of concern arose around individuals who may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, as opposed to being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. This pre-registered study is the first large-scale survey to characterize people who, early in the pandemic, expressed interest and intention to volunteer to participate in COVID-19 HCTs. We found that individuals expressing interest in SARS-CoV-2 HCTs exhibit consistently altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. In finding that, early in the pandemic, COVID-19 HCTs were able to attract volunteers whose values align with the nature of these trials, and who are not unusually vulnerable to exploitation, this study may allay some ethical concerns about the volunteers interested in participating in such trials.

IntroductionAdolescents and youth living with HIV (AYLHIV) have lower retention in care, adherence to treatment, and viral suppression compared with adults. Stepped care is a process by which clients are assigned to increasingly intensive services or ‘steps’ according to level of need. Differentiated care, in which stable clients access less frequent services, can be combined with stepped care to align needs and preferences of youth to promote optimal engagement in care.Methods and analysisThis hybrid type I effectiveness implementation cluster randomised trial aims to evaluate a data-informed stepped care (DiSC) intervention for AYLHIV. AYLHIV ages 10–24 receiving care at 24 HIV treatment facilities in Kisumu, Homabay and Migori counties in Kenya will be enrolled. Twelve facilities will be randomised to the DiSC intervention, and 12 will provide standard care. A clinical assignment tool developed by the study team will be used at intervention sites to assign AYLHIV to one of four steps based on risk for loss to follow-up: differentiated care, standard care, counselling services or intensive support services. The primary clinical outcome is retention in care, specifically missed visits (failure to return within 30 days for any visit) and 12-month loss to follow-up. Implementation outcomes are based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. Proportions of missed visits will be compared using mixed effect models clustered by facility and participant.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00011096), Maseno University Ethical Review Committee (MUERC/00917/20) and the Kenya National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (444824). AYLHIV provide written informed consent when legally permitted, or assent with caregiver permission for minors. Study staff will work with a Community Advisory Board, including youth members, to disseminate results via discussions, presentations, journal publications and local or international conferences.Trial registration numberNCT05007717.

To describe the parental experience of recruitment and assess differences between parents who participated and those who declined to enroll in a neonatal clinical trial.This was a survey conducted at 12 US neonatal intensive care units of parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and encephaLopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Questions assessed 6 factors of the parental experience of recruitment: (1) interactions with research staff; (2) the consent experience; (3) perceptions of the study; (4) decisional conflict; (5) reasons for/against participation; and (6) timing of making the enrollment decision.In total, 269 of 387 eligible parents, including 183 of 242 (75.6%) of those who enrolled their children in HEAL and 86 of 145 (59.3%) parents who declined to enroll their children in HEAL, were included in analysis. Parents who declined to enroll more preferred to be approached by clinical team members rather than by research team members (72.9% vs 49.2%, P = .005). Enrolled parents more frequently reported positive initial impressions (54.9% vs 10.5%, P .001). Many parents in both groups made their decision early in the recruitment process. Considerations of reasons for/against participation differed by enrollment status.Understanding how parents experience recruitment, and how this differs by enrollment status, may help researchers improve recruitment processes for families and increase enrollment. The parental experience of recruitment varied by enrollment status. These findings can guide future work aiming to inform optimal recruitment strategies for neonatal clinical trials.

HCV infections have increased in recent years due to injection drug use and the opioid epidemic. Simultaneously, HCV cure has become a reality, with the advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) and expansion of treatment programs. As a result, HCV screening recommendations now include all adults, including pregnant individuals; and many countries have endorsed widespread DAA access as a strategy to achieve HCV eradication. However, almost universally, pregnant individuals have been systematically excluded from HCV clinical research and treatment programs. This omission runs counter to public health strategies focused on elimination of HCV but is consistent with a historical pattern of exclusion of pregnant individuals from research. Our systematic review of publications on HCV treatment with DAAs in pregnancy revealed only one interventional study, which evaluated sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in 8 pregnant individuals. Given the paucity of research on this issue of great public health importance, we aimed to appraise the current landscape of HCV research/treatment and analyze the ethical considerations for responsibly including pregnant individuals. We propose that pregnancy may be an opportune time to offer HCV treatment given improved access, motivation, and other health care monitoring occurring in the antenatal period. Moreover, treatment of pregnant individuals may support the goal of eliminating perinatal HCV transmission and overcome the established challenges with transitioning care after delivery. The exclusion of pregnant individuals without justification denies them and their offspring access to potential health benefits, raising justice concerns considering growing data on DAA safety and global efforts to promote equitable and comprehensive HCV eradication. Finally, we propose a path forward for research and treatment programs during pregnancy to help advance the goal of HCV elimination.

ispartof: VACCINE vol:39 issue:7 pages:1028-1029 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Whether there is an upper limit of net risk that volunteers can consent to in research, and what that limit happens to be, has been the subject of persistent controversy in research ethics. This article defends the concept of an upper limit of risk in research against recent critics and supports the most promising approach for identifying this limit, that of finding comparator activities that are generally accepted in society and pose high levels of risk. However, high-risk activities that have been proposed as relevant comparators involve more certain benefits and confer considerable social esteem to those who take on the risks. This suggests that developing a robust approach to identifying social value, whether by developing a procedural safeguard or a systematic framework, could more effectively identify research with sufficient social value to justify high net risk. Additionally, the social status of research participants should be elevated to be more on par with others who laudably take on high risk for the benefit of others. By attending to the benefits necessary for the justification of high-risk research, the level of allowable risk will no longer be so controversial.

It is widely agreed that an effective response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic needs to include a vaccine that is safe and effective for minors. However, many current vaccine trials have no plans for when to enroll minors. Others have recently proposed enrolling minors as young as 12 years old. This lack of a systematic approach raises 2 concerns. Waiting too long to enroll minors could unjustly deny minors and their families the benefits of a vaccine and has the potential to delay an effective response to the pandemic by a year or longer. At the same time, enrolling minors too soon runs the risk of exposing them to excessive risks. With these concerns in mind, in the present article, we propose recommendations for when and how to enroll minors in vaccine trials for the coronavirus disease 2019.

In their article, Legal and Ethical Considerations Requiring Consent for Apnea Testing in Brain Death Determination, Berkowitz and Garrett (2020) argue that informed consent for apnea testing is le...

Development of an effective vaccine is the clearest path to controlling the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. To accelerate vaccine development, some researchers are pursuing, and thousands of people have expressed interest in participating in, controlled human infection studies (CHIs) with severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (1, 2). In CHIs, a small number of participants are deliberately exposed to a pathogen to study infection and gather preliminary efficacy data on experimental vaccines or treatments. We have been developing a comprehensive, state-of-the-art ethical framework for CHIs that emphasizes their social value as fundamental to justifying these studies. The ethics of CHIs in general are underexplored (3, 4), and ethical examinations of SARS-CoV-2 CHIs have largely focused on whether the risks are acceptable and participants could give valid informed consent (1). The high social value of such CHIs has generally been assumed. Based on our framework, we agree on the ethical conditions for conducting SARS-CoV-2 CHIs (see the table). We differ on whether the social value of such CHIs is sufficient to justify the risks at present, given uncertainty about both in a rapidly evolving situation; yet we see none of our disagreements as insurmountable. We provide ethical guidance for research sponsors, communities, participants, and the essential independent reviewers considering SARS-CoV-2 CHIs.

Brain death, or the determination of death by neurological criteria, has been described as a legal fiction. Legal fictions are devices by which the law treats two analogous things (in this case, biological death and brain death) in the same way so that the law developed for one can also cover the other. Some scholars argue that brain death should be understood as a fiction for two reasons: the way brain death is determined does not actually satisfy legal criteria requiring the permanent cessation of all brain function, and brain death is not consistent with the biological conception of death as involving the irreversible cessation of the functioning of an organism as a whole. Critics counter that the idea that brain death is a legal fiction is deceptive and undemocratic. I will argue that diagnosing brain death as a hidden legal fiction is a helpful way to understand its historical development and current status. For the legal-fictions approach to be ethically justifiable, however, the fact that brain death is a legal fiction not aligned with the standard biological conception of death must be acknowledged and made transparent.

Human challenge trials (HCTs) deliberately infect participants in order to test vaccines and treatments in a controlled setting, rather than enrolling individuals with natural exposure to a disease. HCTs are therefore potentially powerful tools to prepare for future outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases. Yet when an infectious disease is emerging, there is often substantial risk and uncertainty about its complications, and few available interventions, making an HCT ethically complex. In light of the need to consider ethical issues proactively as a part of epidemic preparedness, we use the case of a Zika virus HCT to explore whether and when HCTs might be ethically justified to combat emerging infectious diseases. We conclude that emerging infectious diseases could be appropriate candidates for HCTs and we identify relevant considerations and provide a case example to illustrate when they might be ethically acceptable.

In many regions around the world, those at highest risk for acquiring HIV are young adults and adolescents. Young men who have sex with men (young MSM) in the USA are the group at greatest risk for HIV acquisition, particularly if they are part of a racial or ethnic minority group.1 Adolescent girls and young women have the highest incidence rates of any demographic subgroup in sub-Saharan Africa.2 To reverse the global AIDS pandemic’s toll on these high-risk groups, it is important to deploy the most effective HIV prevention tools to young MSM in the USA, to adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa, and to any other adolescents and young adults at high risk for HIV as products are proven to be safe and efficacious. Although prevention interventions with proven efficacy, such as oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), are available,3–8 they have not been sufficient to stem the tide and an expanded prevention toolkit is urgently needed to serve these populations. The field of HIV prevention continues to identify promising leads in the development of new biomedical prevention products, either delivering antiviral drug topically (eg, the dapivirine vaginal ring) or systemically (eg, injectable cabotegravir). The dapivirine ring has been shown to provide modest protection and is currently being tested in open label studies while injectable cabotegravir is being tested in a large efficacy trial for preventing HIV acquisition. Advances in the field of HIV prevention mean that scientists and regulators must plan for how they will bring prevention tools to populations at high risk for HIV as they conduct efficacy and effectiveness trials. For instance, safety data from younger age groups can also be used in combination with efficacy data from adult studies, where appropriate, as bridging studies to expand labelling to younger ages. If these …

Controlled human infection (CHI) models have been developed for numerous pathogens in order to better understand disease processes and accelerate drug and vaccine testing. In the past, some researchers conducted highly controversial CHIs with vulnerable populations, including children. Ethical frameworks for CHIs now recommend vulnerable populations be excluded because they cannot consent to high risk research. In this paper we argue that CHI studies span a wide spectrum of benefit and risk, and that some CHI studies may involve minimal risk. The categorical exclusion of children from CHIs therefore departs from the standard approach to evaluating research risks, as international regulations and ethical guidance for pediatric research generally permit non-beneficial research with low risks. The paradigm in research ethics has also shifted from focusing on protecting vulnerable participants to recognizing that inclusion can be important as a matter of justice, providing new reasons to question this default exclusion of children from CHIs. Recognizing that pediatric CHIs can raise complex ethical issues and are easy to sensationalize in ways that may threaten the public's trust in research and sponsor institutions, we conclude by describing additional complexities that must be addressed before pediatric CHIs beyond licensed vaccine studies might be ethically acceptable.

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies deliberately infect healthy participants with malaria to test interventions faster and more efficiently. Some argue the study design and high payments offered raise ethical concerns about participants’ understanding of risks and undue inducement. We conducted baseline and exit interviews with 16 CHMI study participants to explore these concerns. Participants described themes including decision-making tension with friends and family, mixed motivations for participating, low study risks but high burdens, fair compensation, sacrificing values, deceiving researchers, and perceived benefits. Our findings do not support concerns that high payments limit understanding of study risks, but suggest participants may lack appreciation of study burdens, withhold information or engage in deception, and experience conflict with others regarding study participation.

Shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as the preferred decision-making model in the clinician-patient relationship. Through collaboration, SDM helps to facilitate evidence-based medical decisions that are closely aligned with patient or surrogate preferences, values, and goals. How to implement SDM in clinical pediatric practice, however, remains elusive, in part because SDM in pediatrics is complicated by the involvement of parents as a special class of surrogate decision-maker. A provisional framework for the process of SDM in pediatrics was recently proposed by Opel to help facilitate its implementation. To identify aspects of the framework that require refinement, we applied it across a diverse range of clinical cases from multiple pediatric specialties. In doing so, several questions surfaced that deserve further scrutiny: (1) For which medical decisions is consideration of SDM required? (2) What is considered medically reasonable when there is variability in standard practice? (3) Can an option that is not consistent with standard practice still be medically reasonable? (4) How should public health implications be factored into SDM? (5) How should variability in preference sensitivity be approached? (6) How should the developing autonomy of adolescents be integrated into SDM?; and (7) How should SDM address parental decisional burden for emotionally charged decisions? We conduct a brief analysis of each question raised to illustrate key areas for future research.

Importance It remains poorly understood how parents decide whether to enroll a child in a neonatal clinical trial. This is particularly true for parents from racial or ethnic minority populations. Understanding factors associated with enrollment decisions may improve recruitment processes for families, increase enrollment rates, and decrease disparities in research participation. Objective To assess differences in parental factors between parents who enrolled their infant and those who declined enrollment for a neonatal randomized clinical trial. Design, Setting, and Participants This survey study conducted from July 2017 to October 2019 in 12 US level 3 and 4 neonatal intensive care units included parents of infants who enrolled in the High-dose Erythropoietin for Asphyxia and Encephalopathy (HEAL) trial or who were eligible but declined enrollment. Data were analyzed October 2019 through July 2020. Exposure Parental choice of enrollment in neonatal clinical trial. Main Outcomes and Measures Percentages and odds ratios (ORs) of parent participation as categorized by demographic characteristics, self-assessment of child’s medical condition, study comprehension, and trust in medical researchers. Survey questions were based on the hypothesis that parents who enrolled their infant in HEAL differ from those who declined enrollment across 4 categories: (1) infant characteristics and parental demographic characteristics, (2) perception of infant’s illness, (3) study comprehension, and (4) trust in clinicians and researchers. Results Of a total 387 eligible parents, 269 (69.5%) completed the survey and were included in analysis. This included 183 of 242 (75.6%) of HEAL-enrolled and 86 of 145 (59.3%) of HEAL-declined parents. Parents who enrolled their infant had lower rates of Medicaid participation (74 [41.1%] vs 47 [55.3%];P = .04) and higher rates of annual income greater than $55 000 (94 [52.8%] vs 30 [37.5%];P = .03) compared with those who declined. Black parents had lower enrollment rates compared with White parents (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.17-0.73). Parents who reported their infant’s medical condition as more serious had higher enrollment rates (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.0-16.3). Parents who enrolled their infant reported higher trust in medical researchers compared with parents who declined (mean [SD] difference, 5.3 [0.3-10.3]). There was no association between study comprehension and enrollment. Conclusions and Relevance In this study, the following factors were associated with neonatal clinical trial enrollment: demographic characteristics (ie, race/ethnicity, Medicaid status, and reported income), perception of illness, and trust in medical researchers. Future work to confirm these findings and explore the reasons behind them may lead to strategies for better engaging underrepresented groups in neonatal clinical research to reduce enrollment disparities.

Ethical guidelines recommend that experimental interventions should be tested in adults first before they are tested and approved in children. Some challenge this paradigm, however, and recommend initiating paediatric testing after preliminary safety testing in adults in certain cases. For instance, commentators have argued for accelerated testing of HIV vaccines in children. Additionally, HIV cure research on the use of very early therapy (VET) in infants, prompted in part by the Mississippi baby case, is one example of a strategy that is currently being tested in infants before it has been well tested in adults. Because infants' immune systems are still developing, the timing of HIV transmission is easier to identify in infants than in adults, and infants who receive VET might never develop the viral reservoirs that make HIV so difficult to eradicate, infants may be uniquely situated to achieve HIV cure or sustained viral remission. Several commentators have now argued for earlier initiation of HIV cure interventions other than (or in addition to) VET in children. HIV cure research is therefore a good case for re-examining the important question of when to initiate paediatric research. I will argue that, despite the potential for HIV cure research to benefit children and the scientific value of involving children in this research, the HIV cure agenda should not accelerate the involvement of children for the following reasons: HIV cure research is highly speculative, risky, aimed at combination approaches and does not compare favourably with the available alternatives. I conclude by drawing general implications for the initiation of paediatric testing, including that interventions that have to be used in combination with others and cures for chronic diseases may not be valuable enough to justify early paediatric testing.

Key Points Question Is the timing of parents' decision on whether to enroll their children in research associated with review of the informed consent form? Findings This online survey study of 88 parents who either enrolled (n = 67) or declined to enroll (n = 21) their child in a weight management intervention study revealed that 67% decided whether to enroll before receiving the consent form. Twenty-five percent who remembered receiving the consent form reported that it taught them new information. Meaning The findings of this study suggest that regulatory review and interventions to improve decision-making should focus on early engagement throughout the recruitment and consent process rather than just consent forms to affect decision-making., Importance Obtaining informed consent is an important ethical obligation for clinical research participation that is imperfectly implemented. Research on improving consent processes often focuses on consent forms, but little is known about consent forms’ influence on decision-making compared with other types of engagement. Objective To evaluate whether parents decide whether to enroll their children in research before or after they receive the consent form. Design, Setting, and Participants An online survey of 88 parents who enrolled or declined to enroll their child in a weight management intervention study between January 2, 2018, and June 24, 2019, was conducted; surveys were completed between February 2, 2018, and July 9, 2019. A 31-item survey asked about impressions of the study throughout the enrollment process, timing of enrollment decisions, and decision-making factors. Responses were summarized descriptively and subgroups were compared using the Fisher exact test or χ2 test. Main Outcomes and Measures Self-reported timing of enrollment decision. Results A total of 106 parents were approached and gave permission for their contact information to be shared with the study team; 22 additional parents declined to allow their information to be shared, and 24 lost contact with the partner study before they could be asked for permission. A total of 88 parents (67 enrollees, 21 decliners) completed the survey (83% participation rate); 79 of 88 reporting gender (instead of sex, as biological sex was not relevant to survey) information were women (91%), 66 participants (75%) were non-Hispanic White, and 63 participants (72%) had annual household incomes greater than or equal to $70 000. No significant differences in respondent characteristics between enrollees and decliners were identified. Fifty-nine parents (67%) responded that they decided whether to enroll in the weight management study before receiving the consent form. Only 17 of 69 parents (25%) who remembered receiving the consent form responded that it taught them new information. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study suggest that interventions to improve informed consent forms may have limited influence on decision-making because many research decisions occur before review of the consent form. It appears that regulatory review and interventions to improve decision-making should focus more on early engagement (eg, recruitment materials). Future studies should test timing of decisions in other types of research with different populations and clinical settings., This survey study examines use of the informed consent form in decision-making by parents on enrollment of their children in a weight management study.

The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa began in the spring of 2014 and has since caused the deaths of over 6,000 people. Since there are no approved treatments or prevention modalities specifically targeted at Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), debate has focused on whether unproven interventions should be offered to Ebola patients outside of clinical trials. Those engaged in the debate have responded rapidly to a complex and evolving crisis, however, and this debate has not provided much opportunity for in-depth analysis. Additionally, the existing literature on access to unproven therapies has focused on contexts like HIV/AIDS and oncology, which are very different than the Ebola epidemic. In this paper, we examine the ethical issues surrounding access to unproven therapies in the context of the recent Ebola outbreak to yield new insights about this controversial and unsettled issue. We argue first that, in this context, the interests of patients in obtaining access to unproven therapies are not fully aligned with the interests of their providers and drug developers. Second, we focus on the resource constraints facing providers, funders, and patients and conclude that they often counsel against the use of unproven interventions against EVD.

The revised Common Rule emphasizes the importance of comprehension as a goal of the informed consent process, requiring consent forms to “facilitate … the prospective subject's or legally authorize...

In 2013, researchers announced that a newborn child from Mississippi, USA might have been functionally cured of HIV by being given combination antiretroviral therapy within hours of birth. Public and media attention has since been captured by the possibility of finding a cure for HIV transmitted from mother to child. Research into the strategy used for the Mississippi patient is crucially important to establish whether it can be replicated and shown to work in diverse populations. At the same time, any ethical issues likely to arise in such studies should be addressed and not ignored in the pursuit of a functional cure. In this Personal View we identify ethical issues that could arise in research towards achievment of a functional cure for HIV in neonates, including difficult trade-offs associated with choosing the study population and questions about the broader social implications of the research, and propose ways to resolve them.

Two critical, recurring questions can arise in many areas of research with human subjects but are poorly addressed in much existing research regulation and ethics oversight: How should research risks to “bystanders” be addressed? And how should research be evaluated when risks are substantial but not offset by direct benefit to participants, and the benefit to society (“social value”) is context-dependent? We encountered these issues while serving on a multidisciplinary, independent expert panel charged with addressing whether human challenge trials (HCTs) in which healthy volunteers would be deliberately infected with Zika virus could be ethically justified ( 1 ). Based on our experience on that panel, which concluded that there was insufficient value to justify a Zika HCT at the time of our report, we propose a new review mechanism to preemptively address issues of bystander risk and contingent social value.

In rapidly evolving medical fields where the standard of care or prevention changes frequently, guidelines are increasingly likely to conflict with what participants receive in research. Although guidelines typically set the standard of care, there are some cases in which research can justifiably deviate from guidelines. When guidelines conflict with research, an ethical issue only arises if guidelines are rigorous and should be followed. Next, it is important that the cumulative evidence and the conclusions reached by the guidelines do not eliminate the need for further research. Even when guidelines are rigorous and the study still asks an important question, we argue that there may be good reasons for deviations in three cases: (1) when research poses no greater net risk than the standard of care; (2) when there is a continued need for additional evidence, for example, when subpopulations are not covered by the guidelines; and (3) less frequently, when clinical practice guidelines can be justified by the evidence, but practitioners disagree about the guidelines, and the guidelines are not consistently followed as a result. We suggest that procedural protections may be especially useful in deciding when studies in the third category can proceed.

Imagine a study in which HIV-infected pregnant women are given antiretroviral treatment (ART) to determine how effectively it will prevent HIV transmission during childbirth. Each mother’s involvement in this study ends with the birth of her child, at which time her access to antiretrovirals provided by the study also ceases. At the outset of the study, the investigator and sponsor agree that after the child’s birth, they will refer mothers who require treatment for their HIV to a national program that provides antiretroviral treatment and care. Assuming the Institutional Review Board (IRB) raises no objections to this plan, should the research team consider their ethical obligations to participants fulfilled? If the investigator and sponsor were to consult the Common Rule, they would find little to suggest that there are any further ethical issues to address.

The proposed study would be a single-arm interventional trial in a community where HIV is endemic. Beginning with a high-dose triple-drug treatment right after birth, treatment would continue in those who test HIV positive for the next two years and then stop to see if HIV has been eradicated. While we believe the general approach can be justified, and some important questions about this study have already been raised in the literature, three additional questions need to be addressed to determine an ethically sound study design. First is whether this study will be perceived by the community as an opportunity or a burden. A second question regards the ideal permission process and whether permission should be obtained by someone who is not involved in clinical care. A third question regards the implications of withdrawing from a study that involves treatment discontinuation and the expectations of the participants and community about subsequent obligations of the researchers. For these questions, there may be more than one acceptable approach, and the critical issue is to work with the community respectfully and as a partner in the study design process.

Advances in life-saving technologies in the past few decades have challenged our traditional understandings of death. Traditionally, death was understood to occur when a person stops breathing, their heart stops beating and they are cold to the touch. Today, physicians determine death by relying on a diagnosis of 'total brain failure' or by waiting a short while after circulation stops. Evidence has emerged, however, that the conceptual bases for these approaches to determining death are fundamentally flawed and depart substantially from the established biological conception of death. We argue that the current approach to determining death consists of two different types of unacknowledged legal fictions. These legal fictions were developed for practices that are largely ethically legitimate but need to be reconciled with the law. The considerable debate over the determination of death in the medical and scientific literature has not informed the public that vital organs are being procured from still-living donors and it seems unlikely that this information can remain hidden for long. Given the instability of the status quo and the difficulty of making the substantial legal changes required by complete transparency, we argue for a second-best policy solution: acknowledging the legal fictions involved in determining death to move in the direction of greater transparency. This may someday result in more substantial legal change to directly confront the challenges raised by life-sustaining and life-preserving technologies without the need for fictions.

According to prominent bioethics scholars and international guidelines, researchers and sponsors have obligations to ensure that the products of their research are reasonably available to research participants and their communities. In other words, the claim is that research is unethical unless it has local social value. In this article, we argue that the existing conception of reasonable availability should be replaced with a social value obligation that extends to the global poor (and not just research participants and host communities). To the extent the social value requirement has been understood as geographically constrained to the communities that host research and the countries that can afford the products of research, it has neglected to include the global poor as members of the relevant society. We argue that a new conception of social value obligations is needed for two reasons. First, duties of global beneficence give reason for researchers, sponsors, and institutions to take steps to make their products more widely accessible. Second, public commitments made by many institutions acknowledge and engender responsibilities to make the products of research more accessible to the global poor. Future research is needed to help researchers and sponsors discharge these obligations in ways that unlock their full potential.

There is wide agreement that communities in lower-income countries should benefit when they participate in multinational research. Debate now focuses on how and to what extent these communities should benefit. This debate has identified compelling reasons to reject the claim that whatever benefits a community agrees to accept are necessarily fair. Yet, those who conduct clinical research may conclude from this rejection that there is no reason to involve communities in the process of deciding how they benefit. Against this possibility, the present manuscript argues that involving host communities in this process helps to promote four important goals: (1) protecting host communities, (2) respecting host communities, (3) promoting transparency, and (4) enhancing social value.

The U.S. federal regulations require investigators conducting nonbeneficial research to obtain the assent of children who are capable of providing it. Unfortunately, there has been no analysis of which children are capable of assent or even what abilities ground the capacity to give assent. Why should investigators be required to obtain the positive agreement of some children, but not others, before enrolling them in research that does not offer a compensating potential for direct benefit? We argue that the scope of children's research decision making should be based on the principles of respect for autonomy and nonmaleficence. These principles imply that the threshold for assent should be fixed at 14 years of age, and a dissent requirement should be adopted for all children in the context of nonbeneficial research.

Globally, there are 5 million young people aged 15-24 years living with HIV, and many more millions are at risk for HIV acquisition. Compelling research questions exist that require the involvement of young people and other vulnerable populations in HIV-related research in diverse settings around the world. Despite this, there remains a reluctance to involve adolescent participants, including young women, in clinical research. Complex and, at times, contradictory legal and ethical requirements can be a challenge. Eth- ical benchmarks can be applied to ensure that research meets high- level standards and is planned for appropriately.