Taking the bull by the horns: Ethical considerations in the design and implementation of an Ebola virus therapy trial

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity.

Methods

Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context.

Results

We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges.

Conclusion

In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity. Methods: Based on informal literature reviews and meetings with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe what can be learned about research partnership equity from these experiences. Results: We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review the normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges. Conclusion: These observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Addressing challenges for clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Major infectious disease outbreaks are a constant threat to human health. Clinical research responses to outbreaks generate evidence to improve outcomes and outbreak control. Experiences from previous epidemics have identified multiple challenges to undertaking timely clinical research responses. This scoping review is a systematic appraisal of political, economic, administrative, regulatory, logistical, ethical and social (PEARLES) challenges to clinical research responses to emergency epidemics and solutions identified to address these.

METHODS

A scoping review. We searched six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, PsycINFO, Scopus and Epistemonikos) for articles published from 2008 to July 2018. We included publications reporting PEARLES challenges to clinical research responses to emerging epidemics and pandemics and solutions identified to address these. Two reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted and analysed the data.

RESULTS

Of 2678 articles screened, 76 were included. Most presented data relating to the 2014-2016 Ebola virus outbreak or the H1N1 outbreak in 2009. The articles related to clinical research responses in Africa (n = 37), Europe (n = 8), North America (n = 5), Latin America and the Caribbean (n = 3) and Asia (n = 1) and/or globally (n = 22). A wide range of solutions to PEARLES challenges was presented, including a need to strengthen global collaborations and coordination at all levels and develop pre-approved protocols and equitable frameworks, protocols and standards for emergencies. Clinical trial networks and expedited funding and approvals were some solutions implemented. National ownership and community engagement from the outset were a key enabler for delivery. Despite the wide range of recommended solutions, none had been formally evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

To strengthen global preparedness and response to the COVID-19 pandemic and future epidemics, identified solutions for rapid clinical research deployment, delivery, and dissemination must be implemented. Improvements are urgently needed to strengthen collaborations, funding mechanisms, global and national research capacity and capability, targeting regions vulnerable to epidemics and pandemics. Solutions need to be flexible to allow timely adaptations to context, and research led by governments of affected regions. Research communities globally need to evaluate their activities and incorporate lessons learnt to refine and rehearse collaborative outbreak response plans in between epidemics.

[Epidemic and emerging prone-infectious diseases: Lessons learned and ways forward]

Africa along side with south-east Asia are the epicentres of emerging and epidemic prone-infectious diseases and megacity biosecurity threat scenarios. Massive mobility and reluctance in the populations exposed to epidemic and emerging prone-infectious diseases coupled by a weak health system made disease alert and control measures difficult to implement. The investigation of virus detection and persistence in semen across a range of emerging viruses is useful for clinical and public health reasons, in particular for viruses that lead to high mortality or morbidity rates or to epidemics. Innovating built facility to safely treat patients with highly pathogenic infectious diseases is urgently need, not only to prevent the spread of infection from patients to healthcare workers but also to offer provision of relatively invasive organ support, whenever considered appropriate, without posing additional risk to staff. Despite multiple challenges, the need to conduct research during epidemics is inevitable, and candidate products must continue undergoing rigorous trials. Preparedness including management of complex humanitarian crises with community distrust is a cornerstone in response to high consequence emerging infectious disease outbreaks and imposes strengthening of the public health response infrastructure and emergency outbreak systems in high-risk regions.

What motivates Ebola survivors to donate plasma during an emergency clinical trial? The case of Ebola-Tx in Guinea

INTRODUCTION

During the 2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic, the Ebola-Tx trial evaluated the use of convalescent plasma (CP) in Guinea. The effectiveness of plasmapheresis trials depends on the recruitment of plasma donors. This paper describes what motivated or deterred EVD survivors to donate CP, providing insights for future plasmapheresis trials and epidemic preparedness.

METHODS

This qualitative study, part of Ebola-Tx, researched and addressed emergent trial difficulties through interviewing, participant observation and focus group discussions. Sampling was theoretical and retroductive analysis was done in NVivo 10.

RESULTS

Willingness or hesitance to participate in plasma donation depended on factors at the interface of pre-existing social dynamics; the impact of the disease and the consequent emergency response including the trial set-up. For volunteers, motivation to donate was mainly related to the feeling of social responsibility inspired by having survived EVD and to positive perceptions of plasmapheresis technology despite still unknown trial outcomes. Conversely, confidentiality concerns when volunteering due to stigmatization of survivors and perceived decrease in vital strength and in antibodies when donating, leading to fears of loss in protection against EVD, were main deterrents. The dynamic (dis)trust in Ebola Response Actors and in other survivors further determined willingness to participate and lead to the emergence/decline of rumours related to blood stealing and treatment effectiveness. Historic inter-ethnic relations in the health care setting further defined volunteering along socio-economic and ethnic lines. Finally, lack of follow-up and of dedicated care further impacted on motivation to volunteer.

CONCLUSIONS

Ebola-Tx was the first trial to solicit and evaluate blood-product donation as an experimental treatment on a large scale in Sub-Saharan Africa. An effective donation system requires directly engaging with emergent social barriers and providing an effective ethical response, including improved and transparent communication, effective follow-up after donation, assuring confidentiality and determining ethical incentives.

Use of convalescent plasma in Ebola virus infection

The recent Ebola virus epidemics which threatened three West African countries (Dec.2014-Apr.2016) has urged global collaborative health organizations and countries to set up measures to stop the infection and to treat patients, near half of them being at risk of death. Convalescent plasma-recovered from rescued West Africans-was considered a feasible therapeutic option. Efficacy was difficult to evaluate because of numerous unknowns (especially evolution of neutralizing antibodies), prior to the cessation of active transmission. This raises a large body of questions spanning epidemiological, virological, immunological but also ethical, sociological and anthropological aspects, alongside with public health concerns, in order to be better prepared to the next outbreak. This essay summarizes efforts made by a large number of groups worldwide, and attempts to address still unanswered questions on the benefit of specific versus non-specific plasma on altered-leaking-vascular endothelia in Ebola infection.

The Role of the Laboratory and Transfusion Service in the Management of Ebola Virus Disease

The Ebola outbreak that began in 2013 infected and killed record numbers of individuals and created unprecedented challenges, including containment and treatment of the virus in resource-strained West Africa as well as the repatriation and treatment for patients in the United States and Europe. Valuable lessons were learned, especially the important role that the laboratory and transfusion service plays in the treatment for patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD) by providing data for supportive care and fluid resuscitation as well as the generation of investigational therapies such as convalescent plasma (CP). To provide treatment support, laboratories had to evaluate and update procedures to ensure the safety of laboratory personnel. Because there is no licensed EVD-specific treatment, CP was used in more than 99 patients with only 1 possible severe adverse event reported. However, given the biologic variability inherent in CP as well as the small number of patient treated in a nonrandomized fashion, the efficacy of CP in the treatment of EVD remains unknown.

•

Patients with Ebola virus disease were treated in the United States and Europe for the first time.

•

Laboratories played a vital role in supportive care and experimental therapies for Ebola virus disease.

•

Convalescent plasma has unknown efficacy in treating Ebola virus disease.

Research Ethics Governance in Times of Ebola

The Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) ethics review board (ERB) has been solicited in an unprecedented way to provide advice and review research protocols in an ‘emergency’ mode during the recent Ebola epidemic. Twenty-seven Ebola-related study protocols were reviewed between March 2014 and August 2015, ranging from epidemiological research, to behavioural research, infectivity studies and clinical trials with investigational products at (very) early development stages. This article examines the MSF ERB’s experience addressing issues related to both the process of review and substantive ethical issues in this context. These topics include lack of policies regarding blood sample collection and use, and engaging communities regarding their storage and future use; exclusion of pregnant women from clinical and vaccine trials; and the difficulty of implementing timely and high-quality qualitative/anthropological research to consider potential upfront harms. Having noticed different standards across ethics committees (ECs), we propose that when multiple ethics reviews of clinical and vaccine trials are carried out during a public health emergency they should be accompanied by transparent communication between the ECs involved. The MSF ERB experience should trigger a broader discussion on the ‘optimal’ ethics review in an emergency outbreak and what enduring structural changes are needed to improve the ethics review process.