Search

As the nation implements SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in adults at an unprecedented scale, it is now essential to focus on the prospect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations in pediatric populations. To date, no children younger than 12 years have been enrolled in clinical trials. Key challenges and knowledge gaps that must be addressed include (1) rationale for vaccines in children, (2) possible effects of immune maturation during childhood, (3) ethical concerns, (4) unique needs of children with developmental disorders and chronic conditions, (5) health inequities, and (6) vaccine hesitancy. Because COVID-19 is minimally symptomatic in the vast majority of children, a higher acceptable risk threshold is required when evaluating pediatric clinical trials. Profound differences in innate and adaptive immunity during childhood and adolescence are known to affect vaccine responsiveness for a variety of childhood diseases. COVID-19 and the accompanying social disruption, such as the school shutdowns, has been disproportionately damaging to minority and low-income children. In this commentary, we briefly address each of these key issues, specify research gaps, and suggest a broader learning health system approach to accelerate testing and clinical trial development for an ethical and effective strategy to implement a pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine as rapidly and safely as possible. IMPACT: As the US begins an unprecedented implementation of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, substantial knowledge gaps have yet to be addressed regarding vaccinations in the pediatric population. Maturational changes in the immune system during childhood have influenced the effectiveness of pediatric vaccines for other diseases and conditions, and could affect SARS-CoV-2 vaccine responsiveness in children. Given that COVID-19 disease is far milder in the majority of children than in adults, the risk-benefit of a pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine must be carefully weighed. The needs of children with developmental disabilities and with chronic disease must be addressed. Minority and low-income children have been disproportionately adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic; care must be taken to address issues of health equity regarding pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials and allocation. Research and strategies to address general vaccine hesitancy in communities must be addressed in the context of pediatric SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

In transplant medicine, the use of normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) in donation after circulatory determination of death raises ethical difficulties. NRP is objectionable because it restores the donor's circulation, thus invalidating a death declaration based on the permanent cessation of circulation. NRP's defenders respond with arguments that are tortuous and factually inaccurate and depend on introducing extraneous concepts into the law. However, results comparable to NRP's—more and higher‐quality organs and more efficient allocation—can be achieved by removing organs from deceased donors and using normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) to support the organs outside the body, without jeopardizing confidence in transplantation's legal and ethical foundations. Given the controversy that NRP generates and the convoluted justifications made for it, we recommend a prudential approach we call "ethical parsimony," which holds that, in the choice between competing means of achieving a result, the ethically simpler one is to be preferred. This approach makes clear that policy‐makers should favor NMP over NRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the ethical complexities surrounding the informed consent process for a study on early pregnancy renal anhydramnios (EPRA) and its implications for parents considering enrollment. Topics include the study's primary endpoint of short-term neonatal survival; the need for transparency regarding the burdens & long-term care required for infants born with EPRA; and the importance of clear communication about potential outcomes & ethical obligations in the recruitment process.