Challenges and strategies to research ethics in conducting COVID-19 research

The number of research involving human subjects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is surging, bringing challenges to the ethical review committee (ERC) in terms of reviewing speed and special ethical considerations under the pandemic. However, the existing ethical review system and regulations have their limitations to meet the demand for a prompt and efficient epidemic control. Since the research under the public health emergency is different from that carried out in familiar situations to design and implementation, the strategy for a satisfactory ERC response should balance the duty of protecting individual participants as well as the special public needs derived from the disease control. It is suggested that the ethical review-related regulations need to be updated, and a unified supervision system to the overall ERC is required. ERC collaboration, capacity-improving and efficiency-improving measures need to be taken. With respect to the reviewing guidelines, it is suggested that the international norms should be explained with more consideration of the local condition and the exceptional circumstances in this public health emergency. A joint effort needs to be taken for better research conduction.

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.

Risk to bystanders in clinical trials: A symposium

This symposium takes a critical look at the ethics of impact on "bystanders" to clinical research. By that we mean study non-participants who nevertheless are at risk of being affected by the study in some way. This introduction suggests some questions to consider while reading through the symposium contributions, and gives a précis of each.

Regulating impact on bystanders in clinical trials: An unsettled frontier

This article informally reviews key research ethics guidelines and regulations, academic scholarship, and research studies and finds wide variety in how they consider risk to bystanders in medical research (namely, non-participants whom studies nevertheless place at risk). Some of these key sources give no or very little consideration to bystanders, while others offer them the utmost protection (greater than they offer study participants). This unsettled frontier would benefit from a deeper investigation of the ethics of protecting research bystanders.

Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment

Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort.In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks.These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

The Ebola clinical trials: a precedent for research ethics in disasters

The West African Ebola epidemic has set in motion a collective endeavour to conduct accelerated clinical trials, testing unproven but potentially lifesaving interventions in the course of a major public health crisis. This unprecedented effort was supported by the recommendations of an ad hoc ethics panel convened in August 2014 by the WHO. By considering why and on what conditions the exceptional circumstances of the Ebola epidemic justified the use of unproven interventions, the panel's recommendations have challenged conventional thinking about therapeutic development and clinical research ethics. At the same time, unanswered ethical questions have emerged, in particular: (i) the specification of exceptional circumstances, (ii) the specification of unproven interventions, (iii) the goals of interventional research in terms of individual versus collective interests, (iv) the place of adaptive trial designs and (v) the exact meaning of compassionate use with unapproved interventions. Examination of these questions, in parallel with empirical data from research sites, will help build pragmatic foundations for disaster research ethics. Furthermore, the Ebola clinical trials signal an evolution in the current paradigms of therapeutic research, beyond the case of epidemic emergencies.

An activist's argument that participant values should guide risk-benefit ratio calculations in HIV cure research

The patient empowerment movement, spurred by AIDS activism in the 1980s, quickly evolved to encompass how study participants are considered and treated in clinical research. Initially, people fearing death of AIDS sought early access to experimental medications that had not undergone rigorous testing in hopes of extending their lives. Thirty years on, scientists are asking a different set of ethical questions about clinical research, this time in the pursuit of either a sterilising cure or long-term remission for HIV. Instead of hastening access to experimental drugs for the sickest, researchers are now testing interventions for eradicating or controlling the virus in typically very healthy HIV-positive individuals who have the most to lose from such interventions if something goes wrong. While clinical researchers and ethicists debate the merits and limits of this type of research they should avoid discounting altruistic motivations as a powerful factor in a prospective study participant's decisions to assume risks. My conversations with four men who participated in HIV cure studies confirmed the capacity of these people to make carefully considered decisions about risks and the sometimes substantial influence/sway of non-clinical benefits that may come from participation in cure-oriented research. Studies must undergo ethical and clinical review before proceeding, and not all participants of such studies will be able to weigh or understand risks and benefits as those profiled here. But respecting the self-agency of people living with HIV should be a goal in the design and conduct of cure research.

Must research benefit human subjects if it is to be permissible?

Must medical experiments with human subjects offer them a 'favourable risk-benefit ratio', that is, more expectation of benefit than harm or burden, if they are to be judged as ethically justified? Ethical justification is easier for experiments that do offer net benefit to subjects, but ethical justification is possible also for some experiments that do not. Basic science experiments with healthy volunteers and 'Phase I' drug trials that seek to determine tolerable dosage levels are routinely approved by ethical review committees; moreover, guidance they receive from government funding agencies specifically asks them to weigh risks to subjects against benefits to subjects and also benefits to those who may benefit from the knowledge gained in the experiment. If a puzzle remains, it is why there remains any assumption that research ethics requires a 'favourable risk-benefit ratio' for the individual research subject.

Risk and radical uncertainty in HIV research

How much risk can we expose our research subjects to? There is a special challenge answering this question when the evidence on which we base our assessments of risk is fragmentary, conflicting or sparse. Such evidence does not support precise assignments of risk (eg, there is a 24.8% chance that this patient will develop AIDS in the next year if she participates in my study). At best it supports imprecise assignments of risk (eg, there is between a 5% and 35% chance that this patient will develop AIDS in the next year if she participates in my study). Here I discuss three approaches to evaluating risk when probability assignments are imprecise-an optimistic approach, a moderate approach and a pessimistic approach. I offer a practical reason to favour the pessimistic approach.

First-in-human HIV-remission studies: reducing and justifying risk

Interest and excitement surround the possibility of developing measures that produce sustained or permanent HIV remission in infected individuals. First-in-human (FIH) trials are one step in exploring this possibility. Initial human trials raise the usual ethical issues associated with human research, and a set of distinct issues. Because the potential direct benefits to FIH trial volunteers will be either small or non-existent, trial risks must be justified by the social value of the information the trials are expected to produce. To minimise and justify risks, researchers must have solid preclinical evidence that FIH trials will be safe and produce information relevant to human health improvements. Researchers must also adopt adequate study safeguards to protect FIH subjects. An ethically defensible study population must be selected as well.

Why high-risk, non-expected-utility-maximising gambles can be rational and beneficial: the case of HIV cure studies

Some early phase clinical studies of candidate HIV cure and remission interventions appear to have adverse medical risk-benefit ratios for participants. Why, then, do people participate? And is it ethically permissible to allow them to participate? Recent work in decision theory sheds light on both of these questions, by casting doubt on the idea that rational individuals prefer choices that maximise expected utility, and therefore by casting doubt on the idea that researchers have an ethical obligation not to enrol participants in studies with high risk-benefit ratios. This work supports the view that researchers should instead defer to the considered preferences of the participants themselves. This essay briefly explains this recent work, and then explores its application to these two questions in more detail.

The morality of risks in research: reflections on Kumar

Reflecting on the contribution by Rahul Kumar to the symposium, I consider the following topics in relation to risks in research: (1) treating someone as a mere means; (2) aggregation; (3) different conceptions of contractualism; (4) uncertainty; (5) paternalism and complicity.

A Systematic Review of Ebola Treatment Trials to Assess the Extent to Which They Adhere to Ethical Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Objective: To determine to what extent each trial met criteria specified in three research frameworks for ethical trial conduct. Design: Systematic review and narrative analysis.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Data sources: MEDBASE and EMBASE databases were searched using a specific search strategy. The Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the PROSPERO database and trial registries were examined. A grey literature search and citation search were also carried out. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies were included where the intervention was being used to treat Ebola in human subjects regardless of study design, comparator or outcome measured. Studies were eligible if they had taken place after the 21st March 2014. Unpublished as well as published studies were included. Included studies: Sixteen studies were included in the data synthesis. Data was extracted on study characteristics as well as any information relating to ten ethical areas of interest specified in the three research frameworks for ethical trial conduct and an additional criterion of whether the study received ethics approval from a research ethics committee. Synthesis of results: Eight studies were judged to fully comply with all eleven criteria. The other eight studies all had at least one criteria where there was not enough information available to draw any conclusions. In two studies there were ethical concerns regarding the information provided in relation to at least one ethical criteria. Description of the effect: One study did not receive ethical approval as the authors argued that treating approximately one hundred patients consecutively for compassionate reasons did not constitute a clinical trial. Furthermore, after the patients were treated, physicians in Sierra Leone did not release reports of treatment results and so study conclusions had to be made based on unpublished observations. In another study the risk-benefit ratio of the trial drug does not appear to be favourable and the pre-trial evidence base for its effectiveness against Ebola is speculative.

CONCLUSIONS

Some limited and appropriate deviation from standard research expectations in disaster situations is increasingly accepted. However, this is not an excuse for poor ethics oversight and international regulations are in place which should not be ignored. New guidelines are needed that better define the boundaries between using medicines for compassionate use and conducting a clinical trial. Greater support should be offered for local research ethics committees in affected areas so that they can provide robust ethical review. Further systematic reviews should be carried out in epidemics of any novel infectious diseases to assess if comparable findings arise.

Ethical Challenges in Infant Feeding Research

Infants have a complex set of nutrient requirements to meet the demands of their high metabolic rate, growth, and immunological and cognitive development. Infant nutrition lays the foundation for health throughout life. While infant feeding research is essential, it must be conducted to the highest ethical standards. The objective of this paper is to discuss the implications of developments in infant nutrition for the ethics of infant feeding research and the implications for obtaining informed consent. A search was undertaken of the papers in the medical literature using the PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Knowledge, Proquest, and CINAHL databases. From a total of 9303 papers identified, the full text of 87 articles that contained discussion of issues in consent in infant feeding trials were obtained and read and after further screening 42 papers were included in the results and discussion. Recent developments in infant nutrition of significance to ethics assessment include the improved survival of low birth weight infants, increasing evidence of the value of breastfeeding and evidence of the lifelong importance of infant feeding and development in the first 1000 days of life in chronic disease epidemiology. Informed consent is a difficult issue, but should always include information on the value of preserving breastfeeding options. Project monitoring should be cognisant of the long term implications of growth rates and early life nutrition.

Guardianship and Clinical Research Participation: The Case of Wards with Disorders of Consciousness

We review relevant federal law about research on human subjects and state laws on guardian authority to determine whether guardians can consent on behalf of their wards to participation in research. The Common Rule is silent on the issue as are most state guardianship laws. Our analysis shows significant variation in guardians' decision-making authority in the states that do regulate wards' participation in research.We consider how the appointment of guardians for patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) impacts such patients' access to research. We assert that it is important that such persons be permitted to participate in research, so that their conditions and potential medical interventions can be studied, and that those with similar conditions can benefit from the knowledge gained from these studies. We argue that state guardianship laws should be adapted to specifically give guardians the authority to consent to research on behalf of wards who may be able to regain decisional capacity.

Paying Research Participants: Regulatory Uncertainty, Conceptual Confusion, and a Path Forward

The practice of offering payment to individuals in exchange for their participation in clinical research is widespread and longstanding. Nevertheless, such payment remains the source of substantial debate, in particular about whether or the extent to which offers of payment coerce and/or unduly induce individuals to participate. Yet, the various laws, regulations, and ethical guidelines that govern the conduct of human subjects research offer relatively little in the way of specific guidance regarding what makes a payment offer ethically acceptable-or not. Moreover, there is a lack of definitional agreement regarding what the terms coercion and undue inducement mean in the human subjects research context. It is, therefore, unsurprising that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) experience confusion about how to evaluate offers of payment, and lean toward conservative approaches. These trends are exemplified by our pilot data regarding the ways in which some IRB members and investigators (mis)understand the concepts of coercion and undue inducement, as well as the ways in which certain research institutions oversee offers of payment at a local level. This article systematically examines the legal and ethical dimensions of offering payment to research participants. It argues that many concerns about offers of payment to research participants can be attributed to the misguided view that such offers ought to be treated differently than offers of payment in other contexts, a form of "research exceptionalism." We show that rejection of research exceptionalism with respect to payment helps settle open debates about both how best to define coercion and undue influence, and how to understand the relation between these concepts and offers of payment. We argue for adoption of our preferred definitions, ideally by regulatory authorities, and against the conventional conservatism toward payment of research participants. Instead, we draw attention to the rarely asked, even radical, question: are research participants paid enough? We conclude by arguing that we ought to change the default to favor, rather than encourage suspicion of, offers of payment to research participants.

Counterfactual Consent and the Use of Deception in Research

The use of deception for the purposes of research is a widespread practice within many areas of study. If we want to avoid either absolute acceptance or absolute rejection of this practice then we require some method of distinguishing between those uses of deception which are morally acceptable and those which are not. In this article I discuss the concept of counterfactual consent, and propose a related distinction between counterfactual-defeating deception and counterfactual-compatible deception. The aim is to show that this proposed distinction will be useful in furthering the debate regarding the use of deception for the purposes of research.

Testing the waters: Ethical considerations for including PrEP in a phase IIb HIV vaccine efficacy trial

BACKGROUND

The field of HIV prevention research has recently experienced some mixed results in efficacy trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis, vaginal microbicides, and HIV vaccines. While there have been positive trial results in some studies, in the near term, no single method will be sufficient to quell the epidemic. Improved HIV prevention methods, choices among methods, and coverage for all at-risk populations will be needed. The emergence of partially effective prevention methods that are not uniformly available raises complex ethical and scientific questions regarding the design of ongoing prevention trials.

METHODS

We present here an ethical analysis regarding inclusion of pre-exposure prophylaxis in an ongoing phase IIb vaccine efficacy trial, HVTN 505. This is the first large vaccine efficacy trial to address the issue of pre-exposure prophylaxis, and the decisions made by the protocol team were informed by extensive stakeholder consultations. The key ethical concerns are analyzed here, and the process of stakeholder engagement and decision-making described.

DISCUSSION

This discussion and analysis will be useful as current and future research teams grapple with ethical and scientific study design questions emerging with the rapidly expanding evidence base for HIV prevention.

Is pharmacologic research on pregnant women with psychoses ethically permissible?

There is a consistent view in the literature that research on pregnant woman with psychoses is ethically questionable or impermissible. This paper provides a critical appraisal of these views by asking whether pharmacologic research on pregnant women with psychosis for maternal, fetal, and newborn benefit is ethically permissible. We examine separately the documented clinical benefits and risks to the pregnant patient, the fetal patient, and the neonatal and pediatric patient. The outcomes reported in the pertinent literature do not support the conclusion that pharmacologic management of psychosis during pregnancy results in documented, unacceptable risk to the pregnant, fetal, or neonatal patient and is therefore ethically ruled out. Claims that research on the pharmacologic management of psychosis during pregnancy is ethically impermissible because of unacceptable risk of harm to pregnant, fetal, neonatal, or pediatric patients cannot therefore be supported. Having shown that such research is permissible, we then ask what ethical considerations should guide study design. We show that Phase I studies are appropriate and can meet the requirements of the Common Rule, which are more specific than international guidance. As a matter of professionally responsible obstetric practice, pregnant women with psychoses should be included, and not be neglected, in research for both maternal and fetal benefit.

Understanding, interests and informed consent: a reply to Sreenivasan

It is widely agreed that the view of informed consent found in the regulations and guidelines struggles to keep pace with the ever-advancing enterprise of human subjects research. Over the last 10 years, there have been serious attempts to rethink informed consent so that it conforms to our considered judgments about cases where we are confident valid consent has been given. These arguments are influenced by an argument from Gopal Sreenivasan, which apparently shows that a potential participant's consent to research participation can be perfectly valid even if she fails to understand the risk-benefit profile of the study. I argue that Sreenivasan's argument fails. The set of clinical trials that is supposed to be ethical in the face of this kind of ignorance is empty. However, I argue that his argument is nonetheless instructive in allowing us to identify three important but neglected areas for future conceptual research on informed consent. I close by arguing that research on these identified questions promises to yield a defensible view of consent, lessen the burden of ambiguity on researchers attempting to obtain consent to research participation, and facilitate socially valuable research.

Examining the ethics of clinical use of unproven interventions outside of clinical trials during the Ebola epidemic

The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa began in the spring of 2014 and has since caused the deaths of over 6,000 people. Since there are no approved treatments or prevention modalities specifically targeted at Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), debate has focused on whether unproven interventions should be offered to Ebola patients outside of clinical trials. Those engaged in the debate have responded rapidly to a complex and evolving crisis, however, and this debate has not provided much opportunity for in-depth analysis. Additionally, the existing literature on access to unproven therapies has focused on contexts like HIV/AIDS and oncology, which are very different than the Ebola epidemic. In this paper, we examine the ethical issues surrounding access to unproven therapies in the context of the recent Ebola outbreak to yield new insights about this controversial and unsettled issue. We argue first that, in this context, the interests of patients in obtaining access to unproven therapies are not fully aligned with the interests of their providers and drug developers. Second, we focus on the resource constraints facing providers, funders, and patients and conclude that they often counsel against the use of unproven interventions against EVD.

Selecting the right tool for the job

There are competing ethical concerns when it comes to designing any clinical research study. Clinical trials of possible treatments for Ebola virus are no exception. If anything, the competing ethical concerns are exacerbated in trying to find answers to a deadly, rapidly spreading, infectious disease. The primary goal of current research is to identify experimental therapies that can cure Ebola or cure it with reasonable probability in infected individuals. Pursuit of that goal must be methodologically sound, practical and consistent with prevailing norms governing human subjects research. Some maintain that only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a placebo or standard-of-care arm can meet these conditions. We maintain that there are alternative trial designs that can do so as well and that sometimes these are preferable to RCTs.