Bioethics of establishing a CHIM model for dengue vaccine development

Perceptions of members of ethics committees of medical institutions in India on controlled human infection studies (CHIS) following a sensitization workshop: a systematic survey

Controlled Human Infection Studies (CHIS) involving the deliberate exposure of healthy individuals to infectious agents, are emerging as a valuable tool for medical research. This systematic survey explores the perceptions of ethics committee members from various Indian medical research institutions after participating in a sensitization workshop on CHIS. This cross-sectional study was conducted on the workshop participants through an online survey. The workshop was held in a hybrid mode and around 60 participants from four tertiary care institutions and research institutes had participated. A structured questionnaire was used to assess their evolving perspectives, challenges, and recommendations related to CHIS and the effectiveness of the workshop. Both Likert scale and open-ended items were included in the survey. Responses are presented as percentage and views supported through the quotes from responses. Around 43 participants responded to the survey (72%). Participants acknowledged the potential benefits of CHIS but were concerned about the psychological harm and other risks. Challenges were identified in conducting and reviewing CHIS, including regulatory approvals, risk assessment, and robust informed consent. The need for development of regulatory guidelines, specialized training, risk mitigation strategies, community engagement, and compensation mechanisms were highlighted. The sensitization workshop was considered valuable in enhancing participants' understanding of CHIS, although participants expressed a need for continued training and experience to effectively review such studies. With the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) releasing a policy statement on ethical conduct of CHIS in India, this study provides a foundation for future capacity-building initiatives among ethics committee members. The findings emphasize the significance of ongoing dialogue to standardize the ethical review process for CHIS, thus facilitating their acceptance and realization in India's medical research landscape.

Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration

Introduction: Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies provide a unique platform for studying the pathophysiology of infectious diseases and accelerated testing of vaccines and drugs in controlled settings. However, ethical issues shroud them as the disease-causing pathogen is intentionally inoculated into healthy consenting volunteers, and effective treatment may or may not be available. We explored the perceptions of the members of institutional ethics committees (IECs) in India about CHIM studies. Methods: This qualitative exploratory study, conducted across seven sites in India, included 11 focused group discussions (FGD) and 31 in-depth interviews (IDI). A flexible approach was used with the aid of a topic guide. The data were thematically analyzed using grounded theory and an inductive approach. Emerging themes and sub-themes were analyzed, and major emergent themes were elucidated. Results: Seventy-two IEC members participated in the study including 21 basic medical scientists, 29 clinicians, 9 lay people, 6 legal experts and 7 social scientists. Three major themes emerged from this analysis-apprehensions about conduct of CHIM studies in India, a perceived need for CHIM studies in India and risk mitigation measures needed to protect research participants and minimize the associated risks. Conclusion: Development of a specific regulatory and ethical framework, training of research staff and ethics committee members, and ensuring specialized research infrastructure along with adequate community sensitization were considered essential before initiation of CHIM studies in India.

Empowering local research ethics review of antibacterial mass administration research

BACKGROUND

Recent studies using mass drug administration (MDA) of antibiotics to entire communities have focused global attention on the unique ethical challenges of MDA of antibiotics in research and public health interventions. However, there is no specific guidance for Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to review such trials. We surveyed the literature to identify the unique ethical challenges and to strengthen the competencies of RECs or IRBs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in their ethical reviews of these trials.

METHODS

We employed a desk review. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, combining terms for "mass drug administration" with terms for "research ethics committees," "institutional review boards," and "ethics." We reviewed citations of search results to retrieve additional articles. Only articles published and indexed in the above databases up to 6 January 2022 in English were included. Abstracts (without full articles), books and articles that had exclusive veterinary and environmental focus were excluded. We synthesized the literature to identify particularly challenging ethical issues relevant to antibacterial MDA trials in LMICs.

RESULTS

The most challenging ethical issues can be categorised into four broad domains: determining the social value of MDA, assessing risks and benefits, engaging all stakeholders meaningfully, and study design-related ethical challenges. These four domains interact and impact each other. Together, they reveal the need for RECs/IRBs to review MDA studies through a broader lens than that of clinical trials per se. From our findings, we propose a framework to guide the RECs and IRBs in LMICs to perform the initial and continuing review of antibiotic MDA trials. We also recommend strengthening the competencies of LMIC RECs or IRBs through ongoing training and collaboration with RECs or IRBs from high-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

REC/IRB review of research using MDA of antibiotics plays a critical role in assuring the ethical conduct of MDA studies. Local RECs/IRBs should be empowered to review MDA studies comprehensively and competently in order to advance scientific knowledge about MDA and promote improved global health.

Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration

Introduction: Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies provide a unique platform for studying the pathophysiology of infectious diseases and accelerated testing of vaccines and drugs in controlled settings. However, ethical issues shroud them as the disease-causing pathogen is intentionally inoculated into healthy consenting volunteers, and effective treatment may or may not be available. We explored the perceptions of the members of institutional ethics committees (IECs) in India about CHIM studies. Methods: This qualitative exploratory study, conducted across seven sites in India, included 11 focused group discussions (FGD) and 31 in-depth interviews (IDI). A flexible approach was used with the aid of a topic guide. The data were thematically analyzed using grounded theory and an inductive approach. Emerging themes and sub-themes were analyzed, and major emergent themes were elucidated. Results: Seventy-two IEC members participated in the study including 21 basic medical scientists, 29 clinicians, 9 lay people, 6 legal experts and 7 social scientists. Three major themes emerged from this analysis-apprehensions about conduct of CHIM studies in India, a perceived need for CHIM studies in India and risk mitigation measures needed to protect research participants and minimize the associated risks. Conclusion: Development of a specific regulatory and ethical framework, training of research staff and ethics committee members, and ensuring specialized research infrastructure along with adequate community sensitization were considered essential before initiation of CHIM studies in India.

Critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Owing to the globalization of vaccine clinical trials, as well as advances in technologies, improved research accountability, and robust regulatory and ethical scrutiny, the choice to perform human challenge trials has become evident, and one of the most significant applications of human challenge trials is the assessment of vaccine efficacy. While human challenge trials have largely been conducted in high-income countries, the concept is relatively new in many low- and middle-income countries. Thus, the aim of this study was to identify the critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODOLOGY

Using a two-step methodology, we first carried out a systematic literature review that was centered on identifying low- and middle-income countries that are either establishing a framework for, have conducted, or are conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development; secondly, we conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey using a standardized semi-structured online questionnaire administered to eligible stakeholders, to identify the critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries. Seventeen low- and middle-income countries were identified and included in the survey.

RESULTS

The most cited critical success factors for conducting human challenge trials for vaccine development in low- and middle-income countries were Informed Consent, Risk Compensation and/or Reimbursement, Participant Safety and/or Public Protection, Community Engagement, Infrastructural Capacity, and Ethical and Regulatory Frameworks.

CONCLUSION

From an empirical perspective, this study provides a list of critical success factors that form the basic structure to guide the design and implementation of further human challenge trials in low- and middle-income countries. Further studies are needed to establish a standardized conceptual framework to aid in the review, approval and overall conduct of human challenge trials in low- and middle-income countries.

A situation analysis of competences of research ethics committee members regarding review of research protocols with complex and emerging study designs in Uganda

Background

Over the past two decades, Uganda has experienced a significant increase in clinical research driven by both academia and industry. This has been combined with a broader spectrum of research proposals, with respect to methodologies and types of intervention that need evaluation by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) with associated increased requirement for expertise. We assessed the competencies of REC members regarding review of research protocols with complex and emerging research study designs. The aim was to guide development of a training curriculum to improve the quality of scientific and ethical review.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study design, with quantitative data collection methods. Research Ethics Committee members completed a structured pre-coded questionnaire on current competence with complex and emerging study design. REC members were asked to outline a list of additional topics for which they needed training. Data from coded questions were entered into Epidata Version 3.1 and then exported to STATA Version14.1 for analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed and findings are presented using percentages and frequencies.

Results

We enrolled 55 REC members from 6 RECs who have a total of 97 members. The majority of whom were males (56.4%, n = 31/55). The level of competence for review of selected study design was lowest for Controlled Human Infection Model (10.9%, n = 6) and reverse pharmacology design (10.9%, n = 6), and highest for cluster randomized study design (52.7%, n = 29) and implementation science research (52.7%, n = 29).

Conclusion

Competence for review of research protocols with complex and emerging study design was low among participating REC members. We recommend prioritising training of REC members on complex and emerging study designs to enhance quality of research protocol review.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00692-6.

Stakeholder views on the acceptability of human infection studies in Malawi

BACKGROUND

Human infection studies (HIS) are valuable in vaccine development. Deliberate infection, however, creates challenging questions, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where HIS are new and ethical challenges may be heightened. Consultation with stakeholders is needed to support contextually appropriate and acceptable study design. We examined stakeholder perceptions about the acceptability and ethics of HIS in Malawi, to inform decisions about planned pneumococcal challenge research and wider understanding of HIS ethics in LMICs.

METHODS

We conducted 6 deliberative focus groups and 15 follow-up interviews with research staff, medical students, and community representatives from rural and urban Blantyre. We also conducted 5 key informant interviews with clinicians, ethics committee members, and district health government officials.

RESULTS

Stakeholders perceived HIS research to have potential population health benefits, but they also had concerns, particularly related to the safety of volunteers and negative community reactions. Acceptability depended on a range of conditions related to procedures for voluntary and informed consent, inclusion criteria, medical care or support, compensation, regulation, and robust community engagement. These conditions largely mirror those in existing guidelines for HIS and biomedical research in LMICs. Stakeholder perceptions pointed to potential tensions, for example, balancing equity, safety, and relevance in inclusion criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest HIS research could be acceptable in Malawi, provided certain conditions are in place. Ongoing assessment of participant experiences and stakeholder perceptions will be required to strengthen HIS research during development and roll-out.

Ethics of alternative trial designs and methods in low-resource settings

This editorial introduces articles in this Special Issue, which are based on presentations given at the 2017 meeting of the Global Forum of Bioethics in Research meeting. The main themes presented at the meeting were the use of cluster randomized trials, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, and controlled human infection models in research conducted in low-resource settings. The editorial sets out which ethical issues may arise in the context of alternative trial designs and describes the articles in this issue that addresses some or more of the ethical issues, such as justification of the research design, risk-benefit evaluations and consent.

Conducting human challenge studies in LMICs: A survey of researchers and ethics committee members in Thailand

Questions have been raised over the acceptability of conducting human challenge studies in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Most of these concerns are based on theoretical considerations and there exists little data on the attitudes of stakeholders in these countries. This study examines the view of researchers and REC members in Thailand regarding the design and conduct of challenge studies in the country. A questionnaire was developed based on ethical frameworks for human challenge studies. The target respondents included those who had experience with health-related research at universities, non-university hospitals, and research institutes. A total of 240 respondents completed the on-line survey. In general, the respondents felt that the ethical issues raised by human challenge studies in LMICS do not differ significantly from those in high income countries, including: scientific rationale, safety, appropriate risks, and robust informed consent process. In contrast, issues that have been described as important for human challenge studies in LMICs were rated as having lower importance, including: a publicly available rationale, national priority, and community engagement. Responses did not vary significantly between researchers in different fields, nor between researchers and REC members. These findings provide an important perspective for assessing existing frameworks for human challenges studies in LMICs.