Coronavirus Human Infection Challenge Studies: Assessing Potential Benefits and Risks

The Fragility of Scientific Rigour and Integrity in "Sped up Science": Research Misconduct, Bias, and Hype and in the COVID-19 Pandemic

During the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, preclinical and clinical research were sped up and scaled up in both the public and private sectors and in partnerships between them. This resulted in some extraordinary advances, but it also raised a range of issues regarding the ethics, rigour, and integrity of scientific research, academic publication, and public communication. Many of the failures of scientific rigour and integrity that occurred during the pandemic were exacerbated by the rush to generate, disseminate, and implement research findings, which not only created opportunities for unscrupulous actors but also compromised the methodological, peer review, and advisory processes that would usually identify sub-standard research and prevent compromised clinical or policy-level decisions. While it would be tempting to attribute these failures of science and its translation solely to the "unprecedented" circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the reality is that they preceded the pandemic and will continue to arise once it is over. Existing strategies for promoting scientific rigour and integrity need to be made more rigorous, better integrated into research training and institutional cultures, and made more sophisticated. They might also need to be modified or supplemented with other strategies that are fit for purpose not only in public health emergencies but in any research that is sped-up and scaled up to address urgent unmet medical needs.

Exploring willingness to participate in future Human Infection Studies in Lusaka, Zambia: A nested qualitative exploratory study

Human Infection Studies (HIC) involve intentional infection of volunteers with a challenge agent or pathogen with the aim of understanding and developing vaccines as well as understanding the disease pathophysiology in a well-controlled environment. Though Africa carries the highest burden of vaccine-preventable diseases, the region is only now being primed to conduct HIC relevant to its population. Given the imminent introduction of HIC in Zambia, we sought to understand potential participants’ willingness to volunteer for such studies. We used a qualitative exploratory approach to understand the potential participants’ perceptions on willingness to participate in HIC using the example of typhoid. Healthy adults, recruited using random selection and purposive sampling from higher learning institutions in Lusaka, participated in 15 in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 5 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) respectively. Participants considered typhoid a serious disease with potential for life-long consequences and death. After sharing audio-visual materials introducing the concepts of HIC, some participants expressed open willingness to participate or alternatively the need to consult parents and professors, and expressed fear of death and illness. Though willing to be quarantined for up to six months, participants expressed concerns regarding separation from family and duties, having insufficient information to decide, inadequate access to care, severe disease, life-long injury or side-effects, death, and vaccine failure. These concerns along with possibility of underlying conditions that compromise individual immunity, competing priorities, parental refusal, and distrust of study or vaccine efficacy could lead to refusal to participate. Reasons for willingness to participate included monetary compensation, altruism and being part of a team that comes up with a vaccine. Though afraid of deliberate typhoid infection, potential participants are willing to consider participation if given adequate information, time to consult trusted persons, compensation and assurance of adequate care.

SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies: ethics and risk minimisation

COVID-19 poses an exceptional threat to global public health and well-being. Recognition of the need to develop effective vaccines at unprecedented speed has led to calls to accelerate research pathways ethically, including by conducting challenge studies (also known as controlled human infection studies (CHIs)) with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19). Such research is controversial, with concerns being raised about the social, legal, ethical and clinical implications of infecting healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 for research purposes. Systematic risk evaluations are critical to inform assessments of the ethics of any proposed SARS-CoV-2 CHIs. Such evaluations will necessarily take place within a rapidly changing and at times contested epidemiological landscape, in which differing criteria for the ethical acceptability of research risks have been proposed. This paper critically reviews two such criteria and evaluates whether the use of effective treatment should be a necessary condition for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV-2 CHIs, and whether the choice of study sites should be influenced by COVID-19 incidence levels. The paper concludes that ethical evaluations of proposed SARS-CoV-2 CHIs should be informed by rigorous, consultative and holistic approaches to systematic risk assessment.