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.

Objective Research recruitment through patient portals (ie, patient-facing, web-based clinical interfaces) has the potential to be effective, efficient, and inclusive, but best practices remain undefined. We sought to better understand how patients view this recruitment approach. Materials and Methods We conducted 6 focus groups in Atlanta, GA and Seattle, WA with members of patient advisory committees and the general public. Discussions addressed acceptability of patient portal recruitment and communication preferences. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive codes. Iterative team discussions identified major themes. Results Of 49 total participants, 20 were patient advisory committee members. Participants’ mean age was 49 (range 18–74); 59% identified as non-Hispanic White and 31% as Black/African American. Participants were supportive of patient portal recruitment and confident that messages were private and legitimate. Participants identified transparency and patient control over whether and how to participate as essential features. Concerns included the frequency of research messages and the ability to distinguish between research and clinical messages. Participants also discussed how patient portal recruitment might affect diversity and inclusion. Discussion Focus group participants generally found patient portal recruitment acceptable and perceived it as secure and trustworthy. Transparency, control, and attention to inclusiveness were identified as key considerations for developing best practices. Conclusion For institutions implementing patient portal recruitment programs, continued engagement with patient populations can help facilitate translation of these findings into best practices and ensure that implemented strategies accomplish intended goals.

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.

ImportanceMinoritized groups are less likely to receive COVID-19 therapeutics, but few studies have identified potential methods to reduce disparities.ObjectiveTo determine whether screening plus outreach, when compared with referral alone, increases identification of vulnerable pediatric patients at high risk for severe disease eligible for COVID-19 therapeutics from low-resourced communities.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA retrospective cohort study of COVID-19 medication allocation between January 1, 2022, and February 15, 2022, at Lurie Children’s Hospital, a quaternary care children’s hospital, in Chicago, Illinois. The cohorts were pediatric patients referred for COVID-19 therapeutics or with a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction within the hospital system followed by outreach. Screening involved daily review of positive cases of SARS-CoV-2, followed by medical record review for high-risk conditions, and communication with clinicians and/or patients and families to offer therapy.ExposuresDiagnosis of COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary measure was difference in child opportunity index (COI) scores between the 2 cohorts. Secondary measures included presence and duration of symptoms at diagnosis, medication uptake, race and ethnicity, insurance type, qualifying medical condition, sex, primary language, and age.ResultsOf 145 total patients, the median (IQR) age was 15 (13-17) years, and most were male (87 participants [60.0%]), enrolled in public insurance (83 participants [57.2%]), and members of minoritized racial and ethnic groups (103 participants [71.0%]). The most common qualifying conditions were asthma and/or obesity (71 participants [49.0%]). From 9869 SARS-CoV-2 tests performed, 94 eligible patients were identified via screening for COVID-19 therapeutics. Fifty-one patients were identified via referral. Thirty-two patients received medication, of whom 8 (25%) were identified by screening plus outreach alone. Compared with referred patients, patients in the screening plus outreach group were more likely to have moderate, low, or very low COI composite scores (70 patients [74.5%] vs 27 patients [52.9%]); public insurance (65 patients [69.1%] vs 18 patients [35.3%]); and asthma or obesity (60 patients [63.8%] vs 11 patients [21.6%]). Patients in the referral group were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (23 patients [45.1%] vs 19 patients [20.2%]) and receive medication (24 patients [47.1%] vs 8 patients [8.5%]).Conclusions and RelevanceCompared with referral patients, screening plus outreach patients for COVID-19 medications were more socially vulnerable, with lower COI scores, and more likely to have asthma or obesity. Future studies should investigate communication strategies to improve uptake of these medications after outreach.

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.

Background: Providing individuals with immediate, consistent inducements for health behaviors that do not provide proximal tangible benefits may promote adherence to diabetes self-management behaviors. Objective: To evaluate whether financial incentives lead to improvement in glycemic control and self-management behaviors in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled crossover study with 12-18 year olds with type 1 diabetes. Adolescents self-selected target self-management behaviors (e.g., increase continuous glucose monitor [CGM] sensor wear time) and outcome goals (e.g., improve time in range [TIR]) and could earn up to $180 in each 3-month intervention cycle. Adolescents cycled through 3 study arms every 3 months: gain-framed payment where adolescents earned money for meeting behavioral goals, loss-framed payment where adolescents lost a portion of a weekly payment for not meeting behavioral goals, and usual care. Adolescents earned or lost $1.75 per day in the financial incentives arms, and a $2.75 weekly bonus for meeting their outcome-based goal. Goals were modeled against study arms with generalized linear mixed models to account for the longitudinal nature of the crossover design. Results: Out of 39 participants (mean age 16.1 years, 54% male, mean baseline HbA1c 9.42%, 38% insulin pump use, 95% CGM use) , 34 completed the trial. Mean HbA1c aggregated over all interventions was lower compared to baseline at 9.07% (p=0.13) and there was no difference in HbA1c among the 3 arms. Compared to the mean TIR for those under usual care of 39%, mean TIR under gain- and loss-frames were 45% (p Conclusions: Financial incentives can improve adolescent self-management behaviors and time in range in the short term and merits further longitudinal study to evaluate the effects on glycemic control and health care utilization. Disclosure F. Malik: n/a. T. Chen: None. M. Manzueta: None. J. Yi-frazier: None. C. Pihoker: None. J. L. Leblanc: None. S. K. Shah: None. D. Wright: None. Funding American Diabetes Association (1-18-ICTS-100)

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.

Introduction The appropriate role of evidence in health policy decision making is controversial and requires more data on how decisions are actually made. Option B+ is a strategy to prevent mother to child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV that involves starting pregnant, HIV-positive women on triple drug antiretroviral therapy (ART) and continuing for life. It was rapidly adopted by sub-Saharan African countries with limited scientific evidence for its efficacy and safety, without waiting for the results from an ongoing randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing PMTCT strategies. Methods We interviewed 14 senior HIV policymakers in nine sub-Saharan African countries about factors influencing their adoption of Option B+. ResultsWhile scientific evidence was important to the decision to adopt Option B+, policymakers were persuaded by data that did not come from RCTs. Other factors also played an important role including: evidence for ancillary benefits, simplicity, alignment with other values and priorities, and ease of integration with existing programmes. ConclusionsIn adopting Option B+, gold-standard scientific evidence played a relatively minor role; other considerations were more important. Future research could help researchers determine whether these factors are influential in other contexts and to develop evidence that is more responsive to the needs of policymakers.

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.

Purpose: Adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) often struggle with diabetes self-care tasks and achieving optimal glycemic control. Financial incentive (FI) programs may improve T1D self-care and health outcomes. We aimed to quantify adolescent preferences for the structure of FI. Methods: We performed a discrete choice experiment with 12-18 year-olds with T1D from two pediatric hospital endocrinology clinics in Seattle (n = 185) and Boston (n = 141). We used a literature review and focus groups to identify key attributes of FI: (1) monthly value of the reward, (2) payment structure (positive vs. negative reinforcement), and (3) difficulty of behaviors being incentivized. Using these three attributes, we generated a balanced set of profiles representing hypothetical FI using a fractional factorial design. In twelve choice questions, adolescents were shown a pair of profiles and chose the FI option more likely to motivate them to increase adherence to recommended self-care. The options presented were tailored to adolescents’ modes of insulin administration and glucose monitoring and to adolescents’ individual rating of the difficulty of completing each behavior. We used a multinomial logit choice model to analyze data. Results: The value of the reward was the primary driver of preferences, accounting for 50% of preferences. Adolescents significantly preferred FI with a positive vs. negative reinforcement payment structure ($5.17 (95% CI: $4.11, $6.25)) and preferred higher FI for performing hard vs. easier behaviors ($6.95 (95% CI: $4.57, $8.33)). Preferences were associated with respondent age and HbA1c (p Conclusions: Adolescent stated preferences should inform the design of a T1D FI intervention, which can then be tested in randomized controlled trials to determine the impact of FI on T1D self-care adherence and health outcomes. Latent class analyses can identify subgroups with differential preferences and will explore subgroup characteristics. Disclosure D. Wright: None. K. Chalmers: None. J. L. Leblanc: None. J. Yi-frazier: None. S. K. Shah: None. K. Garvey: None. K. Senturia: None. C. Pihoker: None. F. Malik: None. Funding American Diabetes Association (1-18-ICTS-100 to D.W.)

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.

In human challenge trials, volunteers are deliberately infected with a pathogen to accelerate vaccine development and answer key scientific questions. In the U.S., preparations for challenge trials with the novel coronavirus are complete, and in the U.K., challenge trials have recently begun. However, ethical concerns have been raised about the potential for invalid consent or exploitation. These concerns largely reflect worries that challenge trial volunteers may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, rather than being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. We conducted the first large-scale survey of intended human challenge trial volunteers and found that SARS-CoV-2 challenge trial volunteers exhibit high levels of altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. Findings indicate that challenge trials with the novel coronavirus can attract volunteers with background conditions, attitudes, and motivations that should allay key ethical concerns.

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.

This chapter will provide an overview of the major ethical issues arising in the context of research with children, in both clinical and social science research. In addition to addressing ongoing debates and controversies, it will include timely examples, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cure research in children and pediatric research on vaccines to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The history, current standards, controversies, and recent developments related to pediatric research will be addressed in six sections: 1) when to start research in children; 2) acceptable risk–benefit ratios; 3) interpretation of minimal risk; 4) justification for non-beneficial research; 5) informed consent, assent, and dissent; and 6) emerging issues. The chapter will close by pointing to future areas of potential controversy and continued growth in pediatric research ethics.

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.

Highlights • Quickly finding a safe and effective vaccine against SARS Co-V-2 would be of great value. • Collecting rigorous safety and efficacy data without compromising ethical and scientific norms is critical. • The best approach is accelerated individually randomized controlled trials. • Premature distribution could hamper public health and finding safe, effective SARS CoV-2 vaccines., 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.

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.

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.

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.