Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Controlled Human Infectious Model studies (CHIM) involve deliberately exposing volunteers to pathogens. To discuss ethical issues related to CHIM, the European Vaccine Initiative and the International Alliance for Biological Standardization organised the workshop "Ethical Approval for CHIM Clinical Trial Protocols", which took place on May 30–31, 2023, in Brussels, Belgium. The event allowed CHIM researchers, regulators, ethics committee (EC) members, and ethicists to examine the ethical criteria for CHIM and the role(s) of CHIM in pharmaceutical development. The discussions led to several recommendations, including continued assurance that routine ethical requirements are met, assurance that participants are well-informed, and that preparation of study documents must be both ethically and scientifically sound from an early stage. Study applications must clearly state the rationale for the challenge compared to alternative study designs. ECs need to have clear guidance and procedures for evaluating social value and assessing third-party risks. Among other things, public trust in research requires minimisation of harm to healthy volunteers and third-party risk. Other important considerations include appropriate stakeholder engagement, public education, and access to health care for participants after the study. • A proper communication channel between ethics committees and researchers is of utmost importance. • Researchers must prioritise ethical considerations and ensure that participants are well-informed. • Informed consent could include tests of understanding and provide volunteers with multiple information sources. • Study applications must clearly state the necessity of the study from an ethical and scientific perspective. • Clear guidance for evaluating third-party risks is lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through the Public Health Research Data Forum, global health research funders are working together to increase the availability of public health and epidemiology research data in ways that are equitable, ethical, and efficient. The Wellcome Trust funded the research reported in this special edition as a first step toward building an evidence base on the perspectives of research stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries on the benefits and challenges of sharing health research data. We hope this work will make a key contribution to discussions aimed at creating policy frameworks for data access at local, national, and regional levels that are sensitive to different contexts and ensure the benefits to research and health are realized in an equitable manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the progress of the data-sharing working group established in March 2016 by the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R) to determine the barriers that hinder data sharing in public health emergencies. Topics covered include the importance of research in the assessing the changing situations in public health emergencies, the challenges encountered in data sharing, and the principles of the GloPID-R working group.

Although digital health promotion (DHP) technologies for young people are increasingly available in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there has been insufficient research investigating whether existing ethical and policy frameworks are adequate to address the challenges and promote the technological opportunities in these settings. In an effort to fill this gap and as part of a larger research project, in November 2022, we conducted a workshop in Cape Town, South Africa, entitled 'Unlocking the Potential of Digital Health Promotion for Young People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries'. The workshop brought together 25 experts from the areas of digital health ethics, youth health and engagement, health policy and promotion and technology development, predominantly from sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), to explore their views on the ethics and governance and potential policy pathways of DHP for young people in LMICs. Using the World Café method, participants contributed their views on (i) the advantages and barriers associated with DHP for youth in LMICs, (ii) the availability and relevance of ethical and regulatory frameworks for DHP and (iii) the translation of ethical principles into policies and implementation practices required by these policies, within the context of SSA. Our thematic analysis of the ensuing discussion revealed a willingness to foster such technologies if they prove safe, do not exacerbate inequalities, put youth at the center and are subject to appropriate oversight. In addition, our work has led to the potential translation of fundamental ethical principles into the form of a policy roadmap for ethically aligned DHP for youth in SSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alternative clinical trial designs and methods are increasingly being used in place of the conventional individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) in high-income and in low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) research. These approaches - including adaptive, cluster-randomised and stepped-wedge designs and controlled human infection models - offer a number of potential advantages, including being more efficient and making the clinical trial process more socially acceptable. However, these designs and methods are generally not familiar to researchers, research ethics committees and regulators and their ethical implications have not received sufficient international attention from the bioethics, research, and policymaking communities working together. The ethics of alternative clinical trial designs and methods in LMIC research was chosen as a topic for the 2017 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR). The meeting opened a global dialogue about this emerging issue in research ethics and gave voice to the LMIC perspective. It identified the need to take a multidisciplinary approach and to develop capacity amongst researchers and research ethics committees and regulators to propose, review and regulate these novel designs and methods. Building skills and infrastructure will empower researchers to choose from a broad range of designs and methods and adopt the most scientifically suitable, efficient, ethical and context-appropriate of these. The need for capacity development is most pressing from the LMIC perspective, where limited resources create an urgency to seek the most efficient trial design and method. The aim of this paper is to encourage broad debate about this complex area of research. By opening up this debate, GFBR aims to promote the appropriate and ethical use of novel designs and methods so their full potential to address the health needs in LMICs can be realised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research during pregnancy is affected by multiple ethical challenges which have not received sufficient international attention and consideration from the bioethics, clinical, and policymaking communities working together. Unresolved ethical questions about research in pregnancy have significant detrimental impacts on maternal and newborn health, in part because they inhibit an evidence base being developed on the efficacy and safety of medicines and health interventions for pregnant women. These problems are compounded in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings due to variability in regulatory provisions, the burden of maternal morbidity and mortality, and many social and cultural conventions that impact on pregnant women's ability to participate in research. Research in pregnancy was chosen as a topic for the 2016 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR) meeting, and its timeliness was all the more apparent given the 2016 Zika outbreak, which has deeply affected the Latin American region. The meeting's emerging consensus themes and outputs epitomized the core aims of the GFBR--to give voice to LMIC perspectives as a priority in dialogue about global health research ethics and to promote collaboration. In this instance, the GFBR meeting catalyzed a strong, unified drive to push researchers and policymakers to include pregnant women in research by default: given the complex nature of the topic, this is a significant achievement in addressing an important question of social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In June 2014, the H3Africa Working Group on Ethics organised a workshop with members of over 40 research ethics committees from across Africa to discuss the ethical challenges raised in H3Africa research, and to receive input on the proposed H3Africa governance framework. Prominent amongst a myriad of ethical issues raised by meeting participants were concerns over consent for future use of samples and data, the role of community engagement in large international collaborative projects, and particular features of the governance of sample sharing. This report describes these concerns in detail and will be informative to researchers wishing to conduct genomic research on diseases pertinent to the African research context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa) research seeks to promote fair collaboration between scientists in Africa and those from elsewhere. Here, we outline how concerns over inequality and exploitation led to a policy framework that places a firm focus on African leadership and capacity building as guiding principles for African genomics research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Restrictive measures imposed because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have resulted in severe social, economic and health effects. Some countries have considered the use of immunity certification as a strategy to relax these measures for people who have recovered from the infection by issuing these individuals a document, commonly called an immunity passport. This document certifies them as having protective immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19. The World Health Organization has advised against the implementation of immunity certification at present because of uncertainty about whether long-term immunity truly exists for those who have recovered from COVID-19 and concerns over the reliability of the proposed serological test method for determining immunity. Immunity certification can only be considered if scientific thresholds for assuring immunity are met, whether based on antibodies or other criteria. However, even if immunity certification became well supported by science, it has many ethical issues in terms of different restrictions on individual liberties and its implementation process. We examine the main considerations for the ethical acceptability of immunity certification to exempt individuals from restrictive measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as needing to meet robust scientific criteria, the ethical acceptability of immunity certification depends on its uses and policy objectives and the measures in place to reduce potential harms, and prevent disproportionate burdens on non-certified individuals and violation of individual liberties and rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how Zika virus in the Americas renewed attention on the importance of vector-control strategies to fight the many vector-borne diseases. Topics discussed include how gene drive technology is being explored as a potentially durable and cost-effective strategy for controlling the transmission, how drive is distinct from genome editing and report on same by U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

Background: The rise in genomic and biobanking research worldwide has led to the development of different informed consent models for use in such research. This study analyses consent documents used by investigators in the H3Africa (Human Heredity and Health in Africa) Consortium.Methods: A qualitative method for text analysis was used to analyse consent documents used in the collection of samples and data in H3Africa projects. Thematic domains included type of consent model, explanations of genetics/genomics, data sharing and feedback of test results.Results: Informed consent documents for 13 of the 19 H3Africa projects were analysed. Seven projects used broad consent, five projects used tiered consent and one used specific consent. Genetics was mostly explained in terms of inherited characteristics, heredity and health, genes and disease causation, or disease susceptibility. Only one project made provisions for the feedback of individual genetic results.Conclusion: H3Africa research makes use of three consent models-specific, tiered and broad consent. We outlined different strategies used by H3Africa investigators to explain concepts in genomics to potential research participants. To further ensure that the decision to participate in genomic research is informed and meaningful, we recommend that innovative approaches to the informed consent process be developed, preferably in consultation with research participants, research ethics committees and researchers in Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of research ethics committees (RECs) for data-intensive international research, including in RECs' support for mutual recognition frameworks, the protection of research participants and the role organizations play in verifying secondary research data.