COVID-19 Ethics and Research

Most patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction receive pharmacotherapy with major or moderate drug-gene interactions

BACKGROUND

How variations predicted by pharmacogenomic testing to alter drug metabolism and therapeutic response affect outcomes for patients with disorders of gut- brain interaction is unclear.

AIMS

To assess the prevalence of pharmacogenomics-predicted drug-gene interactions and symptom outcomes for patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction.

METHODS

Patients who were treated in our clinical practice for functional dyspepsia/bowel disorder underwent pharmacogenomic testing. The change in symptoms from baseline to 6 months was compared for patients with variations in CYP2D6 and CYP2C19, which metabolize neuromodulators, and SLC6A4, which encodes the sodium- dependent serotonin transporter.

RESULTS

At baseline, 79 of 94 participants (84%) had at least one predicted major drug- gene interaction, and all 94 (100%) had at least one predicted moderate interaction. For the 44 participants who completed a survey of their symptoms at 6 months, the mean (SD) irritable bowel syndrome-symptom severity score decreased from 284 (71) at baseline to 231 (95) at 6 months (p < 0.001). Among patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the decrease in symptom severity (p = 0.03) and pain (p = 0.002) scores from baseline to 6 months was greater for patients with a homozygous SLC6A4 long/long genotype (n = 30) (ie, increased serotonin transporter activity) than for patients with homozygous short/short or heterozygous long/short genotypes (n = 64). Symptom outcomes were not affected by CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 variations.

CONCLUSIONS

The homozygous SLC6A4 long/long genotype confers better symptom resolution for patients with disorders of gut-brain interaction who take selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors than do the homozygous short/short or heterozygous long/short genotypes.

Presenting Methodological Resilience for Conducting Research with Vulnerable Populations During Current and Future Pandemics: A Case Study with IPV Shelters and Survivors in the United States

Purpose

In this brief report, we highlight the challenges that we experienced while attempting to conduct primary data collection with intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors living in an IPV emergency shelter throughout the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic and our strategies to overcome them.

Method

In the summer of 2021, we began collecting data on a study investigating maternal-child bonding while living in IPV emergency shelters. We proposed a 14-day electronic daily diary methodology with follow-up semi-structured interview. The purpose of the study was to understand what factors affect maternal-child bonding to support survivors' relationships with their children while living in an emergency shelter.

Results

We encountered two global obstacles to study implementation: the Institutional Review Board (IRB) pausing in-person data collection and low IPV shelter utilization. In what we term methodological resilience, we engaged in innovative and flexible team work to overcome these barriers. Specific strategies centered on creating an entirely remote data collection process and expanding our geographic area and participant eligibility criteria.

Conclusions

Implications for researchers include greater communication with IRB offices, planning for multi-state recruitment, triangulated recruitment methods, reminder texts for participants and incremental incentives to ensure continued engagement with the study.

Adapting an In-Home Randomized Intervention Trial Protocol for COVID-19 Precautions

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted the status of clinical trials in the United States, requiring researchers to reconsider their approach to research studies. In light of this, we discuss the changes we made to the protocol of the Home Air Filtration for Traffic-Related Air Pollution (HAFTRAP) study, a randomized crossover trial of air filtration in homes next to a major highway. The senior authors designed the trial prior to the pandemic and included in-person data collection in participants' homes. Because of the pandemic, we delayed the start of our trial in order to revise our study protocol to ensure the health and well-being of participants and staff during home visits. To our knowledge, there have been few reports of attempts to continue in-home research during the pandemic.

METHODS

When pandemic-related protective measures were imposed in March 2020, we were close to launching our trial. Instead, we postponed recruitment, set a new goal of starting in September 2020, and spent the summer of 2020 revising our protocol by developing increased safety precautions. We reviewed alternative approaches to installing portable air filtration units in study participants' homes, in order to reduce or eliminate entry into homes. We also developed a COVID-19 safety plan that covered precautionary measures taken to protect both field team staff and study participants.

RESULTS

Our primary approach was to minimize contact with participants when collecting the following measures in their homes: (1) placing portable air filtration units; (2) conducting indoor air quality monitoring; (3) obtaining blood samples and blood pressure measurements; and (4) administering screening, consent, and follow-up questionnaires that coincided with collection of biological measures. Adapting our public health trial resulted in delays, but also helped ensure ethical and safe research practices. Perceived risk of COVID-19 infection appeared to have been the primary factor for an individual in deciding whether or not to participate in our trial, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, when less was known about COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

We needed to be flexible, creative, and calm when collaborating with community members, the IRB, and the universities, while repeatedly adjusting to changing guidelines as we determined what worked and what did not for in-home data collection. We learned that high-quality air monitoring data could be collected with minimal in-person contact and without compromising the integrity of the trial. Furthermore, we were able to collect blood pressure and phlebotomy data with minimal risk to the participant.

Accessing unproven interventions in the COVID-19 pandemic: discussion on the ethics of 'compassionate therapies' in times of catastrophic pandemics

Since the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, an array of off-label interventions has been used to treat patients, either provided as compassionate care or tested in clinical trials. There is a challenge in determining the justification for conducting randomised controlled trials over providing compassionate use in an emergency setting. A rapid and more accurate evaluation tool is needed to assess the effect of these treatments. Given the similarity to the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) pandemic in Africa in 2014, we suggest using a tool designed by the WHO committee in the aftermath of the EVD pandemic: Monitored Emergency Use of Unregistered and Investigational Interventions (MEURI). Considering the uncertainty around SARS-CoV-2, we propose using an improved MEURI including the Plan-Do-Study-Act tool. This combined tool may facilitate dynamic monitoring, analysing, re-evaluating and re-authorising emergency use of unproven treatments and repeat it in cycles. It will enable adjustment and application of outcomes to clinical practice according to changing circumstances and increase the production of valuable data to promote the best standard of care and high-quality research-even during a pandemic.

How COVID-19 changed clinical research strategies: a global survey

OBJECTIVE

Clinical research has faced new challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to excessive operational demands affecting all stakeholders. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on clinical research strategies and compared different adaptations by regulatory bodies and academic research institutions in a global context, exploring what can be learned for possible future pandemics.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey and identified and assessed different COVID-19-specific adaptation strategies used by academic research institutions and regulatory bodies.

RESULTS

All 19 participating academic research institutions developed and followed similar strategies, including preventive measures, manpower recruitment, and prioritisation of COVID-19 projects. In contrast, measures for centralised management or coordination of COVID-19 projects, project preselection, and funding were handled differently amongst institutions. Regulatory bodies responded similarly to the pandemic by implementing fast-track authorisation procedures for COVID-19 projects and developing guidance documents. Quality and consistency of the information and advice provided was rated differently amongst institutions.

CONCLUSION

Both academic research institutions and regulatory bodies worldwide were able to cope with challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic by developing similar strategies. We identified some unique approaches to ensure fast and efficient responses to a pandemic. Ethical concerns should be addressed in any new decision-making process.

Moral distress amid COVID-19: A frontline emergency nurse's perspective

ABSTRACT

ED nurses are at high risk for developing moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Predisposing factors include limited resources, inadequate staffing, PPE shortages, and caring for vulnerable populations. This article explores personal and organizational strategies to help nurses cope with moral distress.

Increased Utilization of Virtual Visits and Electronic Approaches in Clinical Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Thereafter

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research and the use of electronic approaches to mitigate this impact.

METHODS

We compared the utilization of electronic consenting, remote visits, and remote monitoring by study monitors in all research studies conducted at Mayo Clinic sites (Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic (ie, between May 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020). Participants are consented through a participant-tracking system linked to the electronic health record.

RESULTS

Between May 2019, and December 2020, there were 130,800 new consents across every modality (electronic and paper) to participate in a non-trial (107,176 [82%]) or a clinical trial (23,624 [18%]). New consents declined from 5741 in February 2020 to 913 in April 2020 but increased to 11,864 in November 2020. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) proportion of electronic consent increased from 22 (2%) before to 45 (20%) during the pandemic (P=.001). Mean (SD) remote electronic consenting increased from 0.3 (0.5%) to 29 (21%) (P<.001). The mean (SD) number of patients with virtual visits increased from 3.5 (2.4%) to 172 (135%) (P=.003) per month between pre-COVID (July 2019 to February 2020) and post-COVID (March to December 2020) periods. Virtual visits used telemedicine (68%) or video (32%). Requests for remote monitor access to complete visits increased from 44 (17%) per month between May 2019 and February 2020 to 111 (74%) per month between March and December 2020 (P=.10).

CONCLUSION

After a sharp early decline, the enrollment of new participants and ongoing study visits recovered during the COVID-19 pandemic. This recovery was accompanied by the increased use of electronic tools.

Comparative effectiveness of biofeedback and injectable bulking agents for treatment of fecal incontinence: Design and methods

Fecal incontinence (FI), the involuntary passage of stool, is common and can markedly impair the quality of life. Among patients who fail initial options (pads or protective devices, bowel modifying agents, and pelvic floor exercises), the options are pelvic floor biofeedback (BIO), perianal injection with bulking agents (INJ), and sacral nerve electrical stimulation (SNS), which have not been subjected to head-to-head comparisons. This study will compare the safety and efficacy of BIO and INJ for managing FI. The impact of these approaches on quality-of-life and psychological distress, cost effectiveness, and predictors of response to therapy will also be evaluated. Six centers in the United States will enroll approximately 285 patients with moderate to severe FI. Patients who have 4 or more FI episodes over 2 weeks proceed to a 4-week trial of enhanced medical management (EMM) (ie, education, bowel management, and pelvic floor exercises). Thereafter, 194 non-responders as defined by a less than 75% reduction in the frequency of FI will be randomized to BIO or INJ. Three months later, the efficacy, safety, and cost of therapy will be assessed; non-responders will be invited to choose to add the other treatment or SNS for the remainder of the study. Early EMM responders will be re-evaluated 3 months later and non-responders randomized to BIO or INJ. Standardized, and where appropriate validated approaches will be used for study procedures, which will be performed by trained personnel. Prospectively collected data on care costs and resource utilization will be used for cost effectiveness analyses.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement

IMPORTANCE

Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete.

OBJECTIVE

As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances.

EVIDENCE

A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders.

FINDINGS

The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.

Teaching Epidemiology Online (Pandemic Edition)

In response to the threat posed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many universities are encouraging or requiring online instruction. Teaching an epidemiology course online is different in many respects from teaching in person. In this article, we review specific approaches and strategies related to teaching epidemiology online during the pandemic and beyond, including a discussion of options for course format, grading and assessment approaches, pandemic-related contingencies, and the use of technology. Throughout this article we present practical, epidemiology-specific teaching examples. Moreover, we also examine 1) how the lessons learned about the practice of epidemiology during the pandemic can be integrated into the didactic content of epidemiology training programs and 2) whether epidemiologic pedagogy and teaching strategies should change in the long term, beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has served to heighten our awareness of concerns related to student health and safety, as well as issues of accessibility, equity, and inclusion. Our goal is to present a practical overview connecting pandemic-era online teaching with thoughts about the future of epidemiologic instruction.

COVID-19 and the generation of novel scientific knowledge: Research questions and study designs

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

One of the sectors challenged by the COVID-19 pandemic is medical research. COVID-19 originates from a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and the scientific community is faced with the daunting task of creating a novel model for this pandemic or, in other words, creating novel science. This paper is the first part of a series of two papers that explore the intricate relationship between the different challenges that have hindered biomedical research and the generation of scientific knowledge during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

During the early stages of the pandemic, research conducted on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was chaotic and sparked several heated debates with respect to the scientific methods used and the quality of knowledge generated. Research on HCQ is used as a case study in both papers. The authors explored biomedical databases, peer-reviewed journals, pre-print servers, and media articles to identify relevant literature on HCQ and COVID-19, and examined philosophical perspectives on medical research in the context of this pandemic and previous global health challenges.

RESULTS

This paper demonstrates that a lack of prioritization among research questions and therapeutics was responsible for the duplication of clinical trials and the dispersion of precious resources. Study designs, aimed at minimising biases and increasing objectivity, were, instead, the subject of fruitless oppositions. The duplication of research works, combined with poor-quality research, has greatly contributed to slowing down the creation of novel scientific knowledge.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges in terms of (1) finding and prioritising relevant research questions and (2) choosing study designs that are appropriate for a time of emergency.

Pivoting in Context: Using the Forging Alliances in Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Research Model to Collaborate During COVID-19

ABSTRACT

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers have been faced with challenges in maintaining interdisciplinary research collaborations. The purpose of this article is to apply and expand a previously introduced model to sustaining new interdisciplinary research collaborations: Forging Alliances in Interdisciplinary Rehabilitation Research (FAIRR). FAIRR is a logic model that can be used as a guide to create interdisciplinary rehabilitation research teams. In this article, the authors propose expanding FAIRR by including strategies for sustaining interdisciplinary rehabilitation research collaborations: modifying inputs (resources needed to assemble a team and to conduct research activities), shifting activities (steps taken to move the interdisciplinary collaboration forward), and examining what impacts the fit between inputs and activities. Two examples are used to highlight the application of the FAIRR model to interdisciplinary collaborations during COVID-19.

Moral distress in medicine: An ethical analysis

Moral distress is a negative emotional response that occurs when physicians know the morally correct action but are prevented from taking it because of internal or external constraints. Moral distress undermines a physician's ethical integrity, leading to anger, poor job satisfaction, reduced quality of care and burnout. Scarce literature exists on the ethical aspects of moral distress in medicine. We conducted an ethical analysis of moral distress as experienced by physicians and analysed it from the literature using two predominant ethical theories: principlism and care ethics. Finally, we consider the emergence of moral distress in medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic.

New Methodologies for Conducting Maternal, Infant, and Child Nutrition Research in the Era of COVID-19

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak rapidly became a worldwide pandemic in early 2020. In Australia, government-mandated restrictions on non-essential face-to-face contact in the healthcare setting have been crucial for limiting opportunities for COVID-19 transmission, but they have severely limited, and even halted, many research activities. Our institute's research practices in the vulnerable populations of pregnant women and young infants needed to adapt in order to continue without exposing participants, or staff, to an increased risk of exposure to COVID-19. Here, we discuss our pre-and-post COVID-19 methods for conducting research regarding nutrition during pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood. We discuss modifications to study methods implemented to avoid face-to-face contact when identifying and recruiting potential participants, gaining informed consent, conducting appointments, and collecting outcome data, and the implications of these changes. The COVID-19 pandemic has required numerous changes to the conduct of research activities, but many of those modifications will be useful in post-COVID-19 research settings.

Obstacles and Considerations Related to Clinical Trial Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic from the research and science community has been vigorous, with information being released faster than that of any other event in human history. Articles related to the virus were being rapidly published by January 2020. A small fraction of these publications comprised reports of prospective clinical trials (0.25%), and many of these trials have imparted conflicting conclusions, leading to confusion among the public and the scientific community. Additionally, the pandemic has raised many serious scientific and ethical concerns related to clinical research. In this review, we divided the conduct of clinical research trials into three steps and critically reviewed each step, along with the challenges and obstacles arising amid the ongoing crisis. The clinical research steps we reviewed include (1) clinical trial design factors such as social and scientific value, feasibility, single vs. multicenter trials, randomization, control groups, endpoints, off-label and compassionate use of medications, data analysis, and verifying the integrity of data; (2) ethical issues such as committee approvals, efficiency, virtual visits and remote monitoring, informed consent, shipping investigational products, and external monitoring and audits; and (3) publication and sharing of preprints, press releases, social media, and misinformation. The COVID-19 pandemic is adversely affecting existing clinical trials for other ailments and diseases, including cancer, with most trials being delayed or deferred. Although urgency is needed to communicate effective treatment and prevention strategies for COVID-19, research efforts should maintain the same high-quality core ethical principles that governed human subject research before the pandemic. Despite the catastrophic devastation caused by the pandemic, the adoption of more flexible, cost-effective methods of conducting clinical trials (without compromising ethical conduct, safety, or data integrity, while maintaining research efficiency) represents a potential silver lining. Streamlining clinical research will help to congruently address other important health issues, despite the ongoing COVID-19 crisis.

Health research system resilience: lesson learned from the COVID-19 crisis

Producing evidence in epidemics is crucial to control the current epidemic and prevent its recurrence in the future. Data must be collected and analyzed rapidly to recognize the most efficient and feasible methods with proper timelines. However, there are many challenges a research system may encounter during a crisis. This article has presented lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic for health research system (HRS) to deal with current and future crises. Therefore, a HRS needs to produce and use evidence in such a situation. The components Knowledge Translation Self-Assessment Tool for Research Institutes (SATORI) framework was used to review the actions required and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic in a national HRS. This framework consists of four categories of defining the research question, conducting research, translating the research results, and promoting the use of evidence. The work is proposed actions in response to the COVID-19 crisis and improving a HRS's resilience. While COVID-19 has serious harm to the health and broader socio-economic consequences, this threat should be accounted for as an opportunity to make research systems more accountable and responsible in the timely production and utilization of knowledge. It is time to seriously think about how HRS can build a better back to be resilient to potential shock and prepare for unforeseen emerging conditions.

COVID-19 vaccines: ethical framework concerning human challenge studies

Background

The pandemic associated with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus continues to spread worldwide. The most favorable epidemic control scenario, which provides long-term protection against COVID-19 outbreak, is the development and distribution of an effective and safe vaccine. The need to develop a new COVID-19 vaccine is pressing; however, it is likely to take a long time, possibly several years. This is due to the time required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the proposed vaccine. and the time required to manufacture and distribute millions of doses.

Objectives

To accelerate this development and associated safety testing, the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers has been suggested. The purpose of this short communication is to describe the ethical aspects of this type of testing,

Results

Deliberate infection of volunteers with a dangerous virus such as SARS-CoV-2 was initially considered unethical by researchers; but the current pandemic is so different from previous ones that these studies are considered ethical if certain criteria are met. Participants in human challenge studies must be relatively young, in good health and must receive the highest quality medical care, with frequent monitoring. Tests should also be performed with great caution and specialized medical supervision. Besides, the fact that obtaining vaccines faster through deliberate infection studies of healthy people has greater benefits than risks, has been demonstrated by obtaining other vaccines in other historical pandemics such as: smallpox, influenza, malaria, typhoid fever, Dengue fever and Zika.

Conclusions

One possibility to shorten the time required for the development of COVID-19 vaccines is to reduce clinical phases II and III by using human challenge studies through eliberate infection of healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 after administration of the candidate vaccine. Accelerating the development of a COVID-19 vaccine even for a few weeks or months would have a great beneficial impact on public health by saving many lives.

Graphical abstract

"We are Alone in This Battle": A Framework for a Coordinated Response to COVID-19 in Nursing Homes

As of May 2020, nursing home residents account for a staggering one-third of the more than 80,000 deaths due to COVID-19 in the U.S. This pandemic has resulted in unprecedented threats to achieving and sustaining care quality even in the best nursing homes, requiring active engagement of nursing home leaders in developing solutions responsive to the unprecedented threats to quality standards of care delivery during the pandemic. This perspective offers a framework, designed with the input of nursing home leaders, to facilitate internal and external decision-making and collective action to address these threats. Policy options focus on assuring a shared understanding among nursing home leaders and government agencies of changes in the operational status of nursing homes throughout the crisis, improving access to additional essential resources needed to mitigate the crisis' impact, and promoting shared accountability for consistently achieving accepted standards in core quality domains.