The landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials in Latin America and the Caribbean: assessment and challenges

Advancing collaborative research for health: why does collaboration matter?

The calls for health research to be collaborative are ubiquitous-even as part of a recent World Health Assembly resolution on clinical trials-yet the arguments in support of collaborative research have been taken for granted and are absent in the literature. This article provides three arguments to justify why health research ought to be collaborative and discusses trade-offs to be considered among the ethical values guiding each argument.

Clinical trials and their impact on policy during COVID-19: a review

Background

Of over 8,000 recorded randomised trials addressing COVID-19, around 80% were of treatments, and 17% have reported results. Approximately 1% were adaptive or platform trials, with 25 having results available, across 29 journal articles and 10 preprint articles.

Methods

We conducted an extensive literature review to address four questions about COVID-19 trials, particularly the role and impact of platform/adaptive trials and lessons learned.

Results

The key findings were: Q1. Social value in conducting trials and uptake into policy? COVID-19 drug treatments varied substantially and changed considerably, with drugs found effective in definitive clinical trials replacing unproven drugs. Dexamethasone has likely saved ½-2 million lives, and was cost effective across a range of countries and populations, whereas the cost effectiveness of remdesivir is uncertain. Published economic and health system impacts of COVID-19 treatments were infrequent. Q2. Issues with adaptive trial designs. Of the 77 platform trials registered, 6 major platform trials, with approximately 50 treatment arms, recruited ~135,000 participants with funding over $100 million. Q3. Models of good practice. Streamlined set-up processes such as flexible and fast-track funding, ethics, and governance approvals are vital. To facilitate recruitment, simple and streamlined research processes, and pre-existing research networks to coordinate trial planning, design, conduct and practice change are crucial to success. Q4. Potential conflicts to avoid? When treating patients through trials, balancing individual and collective rights and allocating scarce resources between healthcare and research are challenging. Tensions occur between commercial and non-commercial sectors, and academic and public health interests, such as publication and funding driven indicators and the public good.

Conclusion

There is a need to (i) reduce small, repetitive, single centre trials, (ii) increase coordination to ensure robust research conducted for treatments, and (iii) a wider adoption of adaptive/platform trial designs to respond to fast-evolving evidence landscape.

Preparing ethical review systems for emergencies: next steps

Ethical review systems need to build on their experiences of COVID-19 research to enhance their preparedness for future pandemics. Recommendations from representatives from over twenty countries include: improving relationships across the research ecosystem; demonstrating willingness to reform and adapt systems and processes; and making the case robustly for better resourcing.

Health science research barriers and facilitators in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis: scoping review

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed a great challenge on health research because of the pressing need to respond promptly and effectively to this crisis situation. It is important to offer a high level perspective of the main barriers and facilitators found when conducting health science studies during the COVID-19 crisis and to discuss the research initiatives suggested by global, regional or local health research authorities.

Materials and methods

A systematic scoping review was carried out. A literature search was conducted in the Medline, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and Google Scholar databases. Original research studies, review and opinion articles and editorials available in full text published in Spanish, English or Portuguese between January 2020 and May 2021 were included. Two authors working independently selected the papers and collected the data. The barriers and facilitators identified were described and organized in four categories according to the literature: sociocultural, administrative, organizational and methodological. Official documents and communications from global, regional and local health and research authorities were also included. Results are presented in narrative and table form.

Results

Overall, 26 documents were selected for data analysis and synthesis. The barriers most frequently mentioned in the literature include issues with access to participants, ethics committees paperwork, biological risk for the researchers, and lack of inter and intra-institutional coordination. On the other hand, the facilitators identified include the adoption of on-line solutions, cooperative work among research actors, and a more flexible informed consent process. Regarding the initiatives disseminated by health and research authorities, four strategies were identified: prioritization of research questions, cooperation and inclusion promotion, fight against infodemia, and strengthening of the methodological quality of the studies.

Conclusions

Continued cooperation and interoperability among institutions, countries and disciplines to facilitate future research processes is a challenge in the context of the pandemic; similarly, it is now important to maintain open science and funding of cooperative studies when other priorities emerge. Likewise, there is an evident need to develop and sustain efficient information management systems to help with decision-making. Ongoing review of the effects of the pandemic on health research practice is needed in order to gain comprehensive insights of what we need to learn as a society from this crisis.

Governance frameworks for COVID-19 research ethics review and oversight in Latin America: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Research has been an essential part of the COVID-19 pandemic response, including in Latin American (LA) countries. However, implementing research in emergency settings poses the challenge of producing valuable knowledge rapidly while upholding research ethical standards. Research ethics committees (RECs) therefore must conduct timely and rigorous ethics reviews and oversight of COVID-19 research. In the LA region, there is limited knowledge on how countries have responded to this need. To address this gap, the objective of our project is to explore if LA countries developed policies to streamline ethics review and oversight of research in response to the pandemic while ensuring its adherence to ethical standards, and to analyze to what extent these governance frameworks are in accordance with international guidance.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive and exploratory study assessing the COVID-19 research ethics governance frameworks of 19 LA countries, considering 4 dimensions based on international COVID-19 ethics guidance documents: (i) ethics review organizational model adopted, (ii) measures to coordinate between RECs and other research stakeholders, (iii) operational guidance for RECs, and (iv) key ethical issues for review and oversight of COVID-19 research.

RESULTS

10 out of 19 LA countries have some policy to streamline ethics review of COVID-19 research. Of these countries only 6 issued comprehensive documents following international guidance that contemplate strategies with recommendations for concrete actions for a timely and rigorous review.

CONCLUSION

LA countries adopted partial strategies and operational guidance that may demonstrate a lack of a comprehensive view of research ethics for the review and oversight of COVID-19 research. Continuing efforts should be directed to strengthen LA countries' research capacity to respond timely and ethically to future health emergencies. Past lessons and the ones from this pandemic should be the basis to develop international standards and operational guidelines for ethics review and oversight of any research for public health emergencies.

Comparative analysis of regulatory framework on biobanking to inform policymakers in Central America and the Dominican Republic

Background.  The clinical and scientific importance of biobanks has been highlighted.  Ethical governance and regulatory oversight for biobanks should be in place to preserve and promote ethical and responsible conduct of research. Methods. This is an analytical documentary study of the regulatory scope concerning biobanks in Central America and the Dominican Republic. From the International Compilation of Human Research Standards 2020 edition of the Office of Human Research Protection Department of Health and Human Services of the United States of America identified the existing guidelines applicable to human research in each of the eight SICA member countries. Regulatory aspects searched for and the analysis was based on the recommendations set forth in Guideline 11 on the collection, storage, and use of biological materials and related data in the International Ethical Guidelines for Research Related to Human Health. Results. There is a lack of specific guidelines for the collection, use, and storage of human biological materials for research purposes, and the creation of biobanks in the countries been studied. No country in Central America and the Dominican Republic region has specific regulations for the creation of biobanks for research purposes. The term "biobank" was not found in the revised regulations. However, there are good examples of ethical governance of research in general in the region been Costa Rica, Panamá, and Guatemala examples of advances towards this direction. Conclusions. There is a need to move forward the governance and regulatory framework of biobanks in Central America and the Dominican which can be seen as an opportunity for international cooperation and regulatory collaborative agenda within this region.