Ethical issues surrounding controlled human infection challenge studies in endemic low-and middle-income countries

Ethical Requirements for Human Challenge Studies: A Systematic Review of Reasons

Human challenge studies (HCS) are controlled clinical trials in which participants are deliberately infected with a pathogen. Such trials are being developed for an increasing number of diseases. Partly as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there has been a recent ethical debate about the reasons for and against HCS in general, or rather, about the requirements that individual HCS must fulfill to be ethically acceptable. A systematic review was conducted to categorize and summarize such requirements and the reasons given for them. Ethics literature was searched in PubMed, Google Scholar, BELIT, and PhilPapers; eligibility criteria were articles published in a scientific/scholarly journal (original research, reviews, editorials, opinion pieces, and conference/meeting reports). Of 1,322 records identified, 161 publications were included, with 183 requirements (with associated reasons) in 10 thematic categories extracted via qualitative content analysis. In synthesizing and interpreting the requirements and their reasons, three issues emerge as particularly sensitive in the case of HCS: the meaning of the right to withdraw from research procedures, communication of researchers with the public and various stakeholders, and the conditions of informed consent. However, four other issues, not specific to HCS, stand out as the most controversial: the acceptable level of risk to participants, payment of participants, protection of vulnerable groups, and standards for international collaborations. Controversies in these areas indicate that further debate is warranted, possibly leading to more specific instructions in ethics guidance documents.

Strategic and scientific contributions of human challenge trials for vaccine development: facts versus fantasy

The unprecedented speed of delivery of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic vaccines has redefined the limits for all vaccine development. Beyond the aspirational 100-day timeline for tomorrow's hypothetical pandemic vaccines, there is a sense of optimism that development of other high priority vaccines can be accelerated. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, an intense and polarised academic and public discourse arose concerning the role of human challenge trials for vaccine development. A case was made for human challenge trials as a powerful tool to establish early proof-of-concept of vaccine efficacy in humans, inform vaccine down selection, and address crucial knowledge gaps regarding transmission, pathogenesis, and immune protection. We review the track record of human challenge trials contributing to the development of vaccines for 19 different pathogens and discuss relevant limitations, barriers, and pitfalls. This Review also highlights opportunities for efforts to broaden the scope and boost the effects of human challenge trials, to accelerate all vaccine development.

The Case for Human Challenge Trials in COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated rapid research to aid in the understanding of the disease and the development of novel therapeutics. One option is to conduct controlled human infection trials (CHITs). In this article I examine the history of deliberate human infection and CHITs and their utilization prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, key ethical considerations of CHITs in the COVID-19 setting, an analysis of the World Health Organization's (WHO) Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies, and a review of the two COVID-19 CHITs that have already commenced, their compliance with the WHO criteria and other ethical considerations.

Perceptions and acceptability of the controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) model in The Gambia: a qualitative study

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies, i.e. the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with malaria parasites to study immune response and/or test drug or vaccine efficacy, are increasingly being conducted in malaria endemic countries, including in sub-Saharan Africa. However, there have been few studies on the perceptions and acceptability of CHMI by the local communities. This qualitative study assessed the perception and acceptability of such studies in The Gambia following the first CHMI study conducted in the country in March-May 2018. Data were collected through non-participant observation, in-depth interviews and focus group discussions and analyzed using NVivo 12 software with an inductive-deductive approach. Sixty-seven participants were involved, including volunteers enrolled in the CHMI, community stakeholders and members of the Gambian Ethics Committee. Respondents expressed a positive view about CHMI. Key motivating factors for participation were the financial compensation, comprehensive health checks, and willingness to support malaria research. Risks associated with participation were considered low. Concerns raised included the frequency of bleeding and the blood volume collected.

Current Clinical Landscape and Global Potential of Bacteriophage Therapy

In response to the global spread of antimicrobial resistance, there is an increased demand for novel and innovative antimicrobials. Bacteriophages have been known for their potential clinical utility in lysing bacteria for almost a century. Social pressures and the concomitant introduction of antibiotics in the mid-1900s hindered the widespread adoption of these naturally occurring bactericides. Recently, however, phage therapy has re-emerged as a promising strategy for combatting antimicrobial resistance. A unique mechanism of action and cost-effective production promotes phages as an ideal solution for addressing antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections, particularly in lower- and middle-income countries. As the number of phage-related research labs worldwide continues to grow, it will be increasingly important to encourage the expansion of well-developed clinical trials, the standardization of the production and storage of phage cocktails, and the advancement of international collaboration. In this review, we discuss the history, benefits, and limitations of bacteriophage research and its current role in the setting of addressing antimicrobial resistance with a specific focus on active clinical trials and case reports of phage therapy administration.

Meeting Summary: Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forum, 2021

The 2021 Global Vaccine and Immunization Research Forum highlighted the considerable advances and recent progress in research and development for vaccines and immunization, critically reviewed lessons learned from COVID-19 vaccine programs, and looked ahead to opportunities for this decade. For COVID-19, decades of investments in basic and translational research, new technology platforms, and vaccines targeting prototype pathogens enabled a rapid, global response. Unprecedented global coordination and partnership have played an essential role in creating and delivering COVID-19 vaccines. More improvement is needed in product attributes such as deliverability, and in equitable access to vaccines. Developments in other priority areas included: the halting of two human immunodeficiency virus vaccine trials due to lack of efficacy in preventing infection; promising efficacy results in Phase 2 trials of two tuberculosis vaccines; pilot implementation of the most advanced malaria vaccine candidate in three countries; trials of human papillomavirus vaccines given in single-dose regimens; and emergency use listing of a novel, oral poliomyelitis type 2 vaccine. More systematic, proactive approaches are being developed for fostering vaccine uptake and demand, aligning on priorities for investment by the public and private sectors, and accelerating policy making. Participants emphasized that addressing endemic disease is intertwined with emergency preparedness and pandemic response, so that advances in one area create opportunities in the other. In this decade, advances made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic should accelerate availability of vaccines for other diseases, contribute to preparedness for future pandemics, and help to achieve impact and equity under Immunization Agenda 2030.

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.

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.

Undertaking Community Engagement for a Controlled Human Malaria Infection Study in Kenya: Approaches and Lessons Learnt

Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with disease-causing pathogens under controlled conditions. These studies are "controlled" by way of using specific types of pathogens, including dose, and the availability of emergency medical facilities to research volunteers. Most HIS involve diseases whose treatment is known and are done to accelerate the development of novel therapeutics such as vaccines, to address emerging and existing infectious diseases. Traditionally, HIS have been conducted primarily in high-income countries (HICs) but are now increasingly being conducted in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). In LMICs settings, HIS are likely to raise concerns among various stakeholders including participating populations and regulatory bodies, that are unfamiliar with this type of research. Deliberately infecting a healthy individual with a disease-causing pathogen seems to go against the normal practice of medicine of "do no harm". Such types of studies can give rise to increased rumors and jeopardize research participation in study activities, including non-HIS research. Community engagement can be one approach to address particular issues that HIS studies raise through meaningfully engaging with communities, where views and voices inform the conduct of HIS studies. In addition, engagement can inform the ethical conduct and acceptability of HIS studies in LMICs settings and provide opportunities for sharing information, listening to, and responding to concerns and views from potential participants, and the larger community in which the study would be conducted. Despite community engagement being an important aspect to consider, very few published and gray literature cover the types of approaches that have been used, and lessons learnt in engagement for HIS. This article outlinesthe community engagement approaches that were used to engage stakeholders and communities for malaria HIS-controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), undertaken in Kilifi, Kenya. It outlines the engagement activities across the research cycle, from activities conducted during protocol development, to planning, and implementation of the study. We discuss the challenges experienced, lessons learnt, and provide some recommendations for engagement around HIS.

Challenges in Developing a Controlled Human Tuberculosis Challenge Model

Controlled human infection models (CHIMs) have provided pivotal scientific advancements, contributing to the licensure of new vaccines for many pathogens. Despite being one of the world's oldest known pathogens, there are still significant gaps in our knowledge surrounding the immunobiology of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tb). Furthermore, the only licensed vaccine, BCG, is a century old and demonstrates limited efficacy in adults from endemic areas. Despite good global uptake of BCG, tuberculosis (TB) remains a silent epidemic killing 1.4 million in 2019 (WHO, Global tuberculosis report 2020). A mycobacterial CHIM could expedite the development pipeline of novel TB vaccines and provide critical understanding on the immune response to TB. However, developing a CHIM for such a complex organism is a challenging process. The first hurdle to address is which challenge agent to use, as it would not be ethical to use virulent M. tb. This chapter describes the current progress and outstanding issues in the development of a TB CHIM. Previous and current human studies include both aerosol and intradermal models using either BCG or purified protein derivative (PPD) as a surrogate agent. Future work investigating the use of attenuated M. tb is underway.

Peculiarities of Zika Immunity and Vaccine Development: Lessons from Dengue and the Contribution from Controlled Human Infection Model

The Zika virus (ZIKV) was first isolated from a rhesus macaque in the Zika forest of Uganda in 1947. Isolated cases were reported until 2007, when the first major outbreaks of Zika infection were reported from the Island of Yap in Micronesia and from French Polynesia in 2013. In 2015, ZIKV started to circulate in Latin America, and in 2016, ZIKV was considered by WHO to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern due to cases of Congenital Zika Syndrome (CZS), a ZIKV-associated complication never observed before. After a peak of cases in 2016, the infection incidence dropped dramatically but still causes concern because of the associated microcephaly cases, especially in regions where the dengue virus (DENV) is endemic and co-circulates with ZIKV. A vaccine could be an important tool to mitigate CZS in endemic countries. However, the immunological relationship between ZIKV and other flaviviruses, especially DENV, and the low numbers of ZIKV infections are potential challenges for developing and testing a vaccine against ZIKV. Here, we discuss ZIKV vaccine development with the perspective of the immunological concerns implicated by DENV-ZIKV cross-reactivity and the use of a controlled human infection model (CHIM) as a tool to accelerate vaccine development.

Assessing public perception of a sand fly biting study on the pathway to a controlled human infection model for cutaneous leishmaniasis

BACKGROUND

A controlled human infection model (CHIM) involves deliberate exposure of volunteers to pathogens to assess their response to new therapies at an early stage of development. We show here how we used public involvement to help shape the design of a CHIM to support future testing of candidate vaccines for the neglected tropical disease cutaneous leishmaniasis, a disease transmitted by the bite of infected sand flies in tropical regions.

METHODS

We undertook a public involvement (PI) consultation exercise to inform development of a study to test the safety and effectiveness of a sand fly biting protocol using uninfected sand flies (FLYBITE: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03999970 ) and a CHIM using Leishmania major-infected sand flies (LEISH_Challenge: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04512742 ), both taking place in York, UK. We involved 10 members of the public including a patient research ambassador and a previous CHIM volunteer. The session took place at The University of York, UK and examined draft study volunteer-facing material and included the CHIM study design, potential adverse events and therapeutic interventions at study endpoints. A discussion of the scientific, ethical, humanitarian and economic basis for the project was presented to the participants to provoke discourse. An inductive, thematic analysis was used to identify the participants' key concerns.

RESULTS

Themes were identified relating to i) quality of volunteer-facing written information, ii) improving study design, and iii) factors to motivate involvement in the research. Group participants responded positively to the overall study aims. Initial concerns were expressed about potential risks of study involvement, but further explanation of the science and mitigations of risk secured participant support. Participants provided advice and identified improved terminology to inform the volunteer-facing material. Lastly, treatment options were discussed, and excision of any cutaneous lesion was favoured over alternatives as a treatment.

CONCLUSION

The consultation exercise provided invaluable information which led to improved study design and enhanced clarity in the volunteer-facing material. The session also reinforced the need to maintain public trust in scientific rigour prior to initiation of any study. The investigators hope that this description strengthens understanding of PI in clinical research, and encourages its use within other studies.

Coronavirus Human Infection Challenge Studies: Assessing Potential Benefits and Risks

Human infection challenge studies (HCS) have been proposed as a means to accelerate SARS-CoV2 vaccine development and thereby help to mitigate a prolonged global public health crisis. A key criterion for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV2 HCS is that potential benefits outweigh risks. Although the assessment of risks and benefits is meant to be a standard part of research ethics review, systematic comparisons are particularly important in the context of SARS-CoV2 HCS in light of the significant potential benefits and harms at stake as well as the need to preserve public trust in research and vaccines. In this paper we explore several considerations that should inform systematic assessment of SARS-CoV-2 HCS. First, we detail key potential benefits of SARS-CoV-2 HCS including, but not limited to, those related to the acceleration of vaccine development. Second, we identify where modelling is needed to inform risk-benefit (and thus ethical) assessments. Modelling will be particularly useful in (i) comparing potential benefits and risks of HCS with those of vaccine field trials under different epidemiological conditions and (ii) estimating marginal risks to HCS participants in light of the background probabilities of infection in their local community. We highlight interactions between public health policy and research priorities, including situations in which research ethics assessments may need to strike a balance between competing considerations.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

Ethical issues surrounding controlled human infection challenge studies in endemic low-and middle-income countries

Controlled human infection challenge studies (CHIs) involve intentionally exposing research participants to, and/or thereby infecting them with, micro-organisms. There have been increased calls for more CHIs to be conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where many relevant diseases are endemic. This article is based on a research project that identified and analyzed ethical and regulatory issues related to endemic LMIC CHIs via (a) a review of relevant literature and (b) qualitative interviews involving 45 scientists and ethicists with relevant expertise. In this article we argue that though there is an especially strong case for conducting CHIs in endemic (LMIC) settings, certain ethical issues related to the design and conduct of such studies (in such settings) nonetheless warrant particularly careful attention. We focus on ethical implications of endemic LMIC CHIs regarding (a) potential direct benefits for participants, (b) risks to participants, (c) third-party risks, (d) informed consent, (e) payment of participants, and (f) community engagement. We conclude that there is a strong ethical rationale to conduct (well-designed) CHIs in endemic LMICs, that certain ethical issues warrant particularly careful consideration, and that ethical analyses of endemic LMIC CHIs can inform current debates in research ethics more broadly.

Informed consent for controlled human infection studies in low- and middle-income countries: Ethical challenges and proposed solutions

In controlled human infection studies (CHIs), participants are deliberately exposed to infectious agents in order to better understand the mechanism of infection or disease and test therapies or vaccines. While most CHIs have been conducted in high-income countries, CHIs have recently been expanding into low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). One potential ethical concern about this expansion is the challenge of obtaining the voluntary informed consent of participants, especially those who may not be literate or have limited education. In some CHIs in LMICs, researchers have attempted to address this potential concern by limiting access to literate or educated populations. In this paper, we argue that this practice is unjustified, as it does not increase the chances of obtaining valid informed consent and therefore unfairly excludes illiterate populations and populations with lower education. Instead, we recommend that investigators improve the informed consent process by drawing on existing data on obtaining informed consent in these populations and interventions aimed at improving their understanding. Based on a literature review, we provide concrete suggestions for how to follow this recommendation and ensure that populations with lower literacy or education are given a fair opportunity to protect their rights and interests in the informed consent process.

Human infection challenge studies in endemic settings and/or low-income and middle-income countries: key points of ethical consensus and controversy

Human infection challenge studies (HCS) involve intentionally infecting research participants with pathogens (or other micro-organisms). There have been recent calls for more HCS to be conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where many relevant diseases are endemic. HCS in general, and HCS in LMICs in particular, raise numerous ethical issues. This paper summarises the findings of a project that explored ethical and regulatory issues related to LMIC HCS via (i) a review of relevant literature and (ii) 45 qualitative interviews with scientists and ethicists. Among other areas of consensus, we found that there was widespread agreement that LMIC HCS can be ethically acceptable, provided that they have a sound scientific rationale, are accepted by local communities and meet usual research ethics requirements. Unresolved issues include those related to (i) acceptable approaches to trade-offs between the scientific aim to produce generalisable results and the protection of participants, (iii) the sharing of benefits with LMIC populations, (iii) the acceptable limits to risks and burdens for participants, (iv) the potential for third-party risk and whether the degree of acceptable third-party risk is different in endemic settings, (v) the conditions under which (if any) it would be appropriate to recruit children for disease-causing HCS, (v) appropriate levels of payment to participants and (vi) appropriate governance of (LMIC) HCS. This paper provides preliminary analyses of these ethical considerations in order to (i) inform scientists and policymakers involved in the planning, conduct and/or governance of LMIC HCS and (ii) highlight areas warranting future research. Insofar as this article focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided is relevant to HCS (in HICs or LMICs) involving pandemic diseases including COVID19.