Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jamrozik E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7598752 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:COVID-19 poses an extraordinary threat to global public health and an effective vaccine could provide a key means of overcoming this crisis. Human challenge studies involve the intentional infection of research participants and can accelerate or improve vaccine development by rapidly providing estimates of vaccine safety and efficacy. Human challenge studies of low virulence coronaviruses have been done in the past and human challenge studies with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been proposed. These studies of coronaviruses could provide considerable benefits to public health; for instance, by improving and accelerating vaccine development. However, human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in particular might be controversial, in part, for ethical reasons. The ethical issues raised by such studies thus warrant early consideration involving, for example, broad consultation with the community. This Personal View provides preliminary analyses of relevant ethical considerations regarding human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, including the potential benefits to public health and to participants, the risks and uncertainty for participants, and the third-party risks (ie, to research staff and the wider community). We argue that these human challenge studies can reasonably be considered ethically acceptable insofar as such studies are accepted internationally and by the communities in which they are done, can realistically be expected to accelerate or improve vaccine development, have considerable potential to directly benefit participants, are designed to limit and minimise risks to participants, and are done with strict infection control measures to limit and reduce third-party risks.
| S-EPMC7259898 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7476299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In recent years, the number of approved and investigational agents that can be safely administered for the treatment of lymphoma patients for a prolonged period of time has substantially increased. Many of these novel agents are evaluated in early-phase clinical trials in patients with a wide range of malignancies, including solid tumors and lymphoma. Furthermore, with the advances in genome sequencing, new "basket" clinical trial designs have emerged that select patients based on the presence of specific genetic alterations across different types of solid tumors and lymphoma. The standard response criteria currently in use for lymphoma are the Lugano Criteria which are based on [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography or bidimensional tumor measurements on computerized tomography scans. These differ from the RECIST criteria used in solid tumors, which use unidimensional measurements. The RECIL group hypothesized that single-dimension measurement could be used to assess response to therapy in lymphoma patients, producing results similar to the standard criteria. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing 47 828 imaging measurements from 2983 individual adult and pediatric lymphoma patients enrolled on 10 multicenter clinical trials and developed new lymphoma response criteria (RECIL 2017). We demonstrate that assessment of tumor burden in lymphoma clinical trials can use the sum of longest diameters of a maximum of three target lesions. Furthermore, we introduced a new provisional category of a minor response. We also clarified response assessment in patients receiving novel immune therapy and targeted agents that generate unique imaging situations.
| S-EPMC5834038 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the majority of clinical trial activity took place face to face within clinical or research units. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a significant shift towards trial delivery without in-person face-to-face contact or "Remote Trial Delivery". The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) assembled a Remote Trial Delivery Working Group to consider challenges and enablers to this major change in clinical trial delivery and to provide a toolkit for researchers to support the transition to remote delivery. The NIHR Remote Trial Delivery Working Group evaluated five key domains of the trial delivery pathway: participant factors, recruitment, intervention delivery, outcome measurement and quality assurance. Independent surveys were disseminated to research professionals, and patients and carers, to ascertain benefits, challenges, pitfalls, enablers and examples of good practice in Remote Trial Delivery. A toolkit was constructed to support researchers, funders and governance structures in moving towards Remote Trial Delivery. The toolkit comprises a website encompassing the key principles of Remote Trial Delivery, and a repository of best practice examples and questions to guide research teams. The patient and carer survey received 47 respondents, 34 of whom were patients and 13 of whom were carers. The professional survey had 115 examples of remote trial delivery practice entered from across England. Key potential benefits included broader reach and inclusivity, the ability for standardisation and centralisation, and increased efficiency and patient/carer convenience. Challenges included the potential exclusion of participants lacking connectivity or digital skills, the lack of digitally skilled workforce and appropriate infrastructure, and validation requirements. Five key principles of Remote Trial Delivery were proposed: national research standards, inclusivity, validity, cost-effectiveness and evaluation of new methodologies. The rapid changes towards Remote Trial Delivery catalysed by the COVID-19 pandemic could lead to sustained change in clinical trial delivery. The NIHR Remote Trial Delivery Working Group provide a toolkit for researchers recommending five key principles of Remote Trial Delivery and providing examples of enablers.
| S-EPMC8665850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportancePragmatic clinical trials that seek informed consent after randomization (ie, postrandomization consent) are increasingly used, but debate on ethics persists because control arm patients are not specifically informed about the trials and randomization occurs before consent for the trials. The public's attitude toward postrandomization consent trials is unknown, but the way the trials are described could bias people's views.ObjectivesTo assess the attitudes of the US general public toward postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trials and to measure potential framing and other factors associated with those attitudes.Design, setting, and participantsAn online, 2 × 2 experimental survey (fielded between February 23 and April 3, 2018) portraying 4 scenarios of postrandomization informed consent (with prior broad consent for medical record use) was conducted. These scenarios included traditional randomized clinical trial language framing vs alternative framing in a high-stakes trial (ie, survival in leukemia) or low-stakes trial (ie, blood glucose level in diabetes). A total of 3793 individuals invited to participate were part of an existing panel representative of the US general public (GfK KnowledgePanel).Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of participants who would recommend that an ethics review board approve a postrandomization consent pragmatic trial.ResultsA total of 2042 of 3739 invitees (54.6%) responded; after exclusion of 38 incomplete surveys, 2004 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 997 (49.8%) were women, 1440 (71.9%) were white non-Hispanic, 199 (9.9%) were black non-Hispanic, and 233 (11.6%) were Hispanic. Mean (SD) age was 47.5 (17.4) years. Across scenarios, weighted data showed that 75.4% of the participants would recommend approval of the postrandomization consent pragmatic trial, 20.4% would probably not recommend approval, and 4.2% would definitely not recommend approval. Approval was not sensitive to framing language (traditional vs new framing in high-stakes scenario, 74.3% vs 76.8%, P = .40; in low-stakes scenario, 77.7% vs 72.9%, P = .10) or to the stakes (low vs high stakes in traditional framing, 77.7% vs 74.3%, P = .25; in new framing, 72.9% vs 76.8%, P = .18). Better understanding of the postrandomization consent design was associated with higher rate of approval (78.1% vs 65.0%, P = .002 for high-stakes scenario; 77.2% vs 64.9%, P = .004 for low-stakes scenario), especially among those with less education. However, opinions about personal involvement in the control arm were more cautious (range depending on scenario, 45.6%-59.7%) and sensitive to stakes but not to framing.Conclusions and relevanceThe public's generally high rate of approval of the ethics of postrandomization informed consent for pragmatic trial designs does not appear to be affected by whether postrandomization consent design is framed using traditional randomized clinical trial terminology, regardless of the stakes of the trial. Promoting better understanding of the design may increase its acceptance by the public.
| S-EPMC6324565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) commonly occurs after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) despite standard prophylactic immune suppression. Intensified universal prophylaxis approaches are effective but risk possible overtreatment and may interfere with the graft-versus-malignancy immune response. Here we summarize conceptual and practical considerations regarding preemptive therapy of chronic GVHD, namely interventions applied after HCT based on evidence that the risk of developing chronic GVHD is higher than previously appreciated. This risk may be anticipated by clinical factors or risk assignment biomarkers or may be indicated by early signs and symptoms of chronic GVHD that do not fully meet National Institutes of Health diagnostic criteria. However, truly preemptive, individualized, and targeted chronic GVHD therapies currently do not exist. In this report, we (1) review current knowledge regarding clinical risk factors for chronic GVHD, (2) review what is known about chronic GVHD risk assignment biomarkers, (3) examine how chronic GVHD pathogenesis intersects with available targeted therapeutic agents, and (4) summarize considerations for preemptive therapy for chronic GVHD, emphasizing trial development, including trial design and statistical considerations. We conclude that robust risk assignment models that accurately predict chronic GVHD after HCT and early-phase preemptive therapy trials represent the most urgent priorities for advancing this novel area of research.
| S-EPMC8934187 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The European Working group on Sarcopenia in Older People recently updated the diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia. It is yet unclear how these modified criteria influence the rate of diagnosis in high risk populations, such as liver cirrhosis. We therefore assessed if the new diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia impacts on sarcopenia prevalence in liver cirrhosis. Within two years 114 cirrhotic patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. Sarcopenia was determined by muscle strength (handgrip strength), muscle mass (lumbal muscle index) and muscle performance (gait speed). Using the 2019 definition, the rate of pre-sarcopenia was significantly lower (30.7% versus 3.5%) due to the different starting points (2010 muscle mass, 2019 muscle strength) and cut-off values (muscle strength). The change in diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia drastically influences the rate of pre-sarcopenia diagnosis in cirrhotics. To evaluate, which diagnostic criteria should be chosen to diagnose sarcopenia in liver cirrhosis patients, prospective studies are needed.
| S-EPMC7071440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Autopsy has been a foundation of pathology training for many years, but hospital autopsy rates are notoriously low. At the 2014 meeting of the Association of Pathology Chairs, some pathologists suggested removing autopsy from the training curriculum of pathology residents to provide additional months for training in newer disciplines, such as molecular genetics and informatics. At the same time, the American Board of Pathology received complaints that newly hired pathologists recently certified in anatomic pathology are unable to perform an autopsy when called upon to do so. In response to a call to abolish autopsy from pathology training on the one hand and for more rigorous autopsy training on the other, the Association of Pathology Chairs formed the Autopsy Working Group to examine the role of autopsy in pathology residency training. After 2 years of research and deliberation, the Autopsy Working Group recommends the following:Autopsy should remain a component of anatomic pathology training.A training program must have an autopsy service director with defined responsibilities, including accountability to the program director to record every autopsy performed by every resident.Specific entrustable activities should be defined that a resident must master in order to be deemed competent in autopsy practice, as well as criteria for gaining the trust to perform the tasks without direct supervision.Technical standardization of autopsy performance and reporting must be improved.The current minimum number of 50 autopsies should not be reduced until the changes recommended above have been implemented.
| S-EPMC6117865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe a recently recognized disease entity, limbic-predominant age-related TDP-43 encephalopathy (LATE). LATE neuropathological change (LATE-NC) is defined by a stereotypical TDP-43 proteinopathy in older adults, with or without coexisting hippocampal sclerosis pathology. LATE-NC is a common TDP-43 proteinopathy, associated with an amnestic dementia syndrome that mimicked Alzheimer's-type dementia in retrospective autopsy studies. LATE is distinguished from frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP-43 pathology based on its epidemiology (LATE generally affects older subjects), and relatively restricted neuroanatomical distribution of TDP-43 proteinopathy. In community-based autopsy cohorts, ∼25% of brains had sufficient burden of LATE-NC to be associated with discernible cognitive impairment. Many subjects with LATE-NC have comorbid brain pathologies, often including amyloid-β plaques and tauopathy. Given that the 'oldest-old' are at greatest risk for LATE-NC, and subjects of advanced age constitute a rapidly growing demographic group in many countries, LATE has an expanding but under-recognized impact on public health. For these reasons, a working group was convened to develop diagnostic criteria for LATE, aiming both to stimulate research and to promote awareness of this pathway to dementia. We report consensus-based recommendations including guidelines for diagnosis and staging of LATE-NC. For routine autopsy workup of LATE-NC, an anatomically-based preliminary staging scheme is proposed with TDP-43 immunohistochemistry on tissue from three brain areas, reflecting a hierarchical pattern of brain involvement: amygdala, hippocampus, and middle frontal gyrus. LATE-NC appears to affect the medial temporal lobe structures preferentially, but other areas also are impacted. Neuroimaging studies demonstrated that subjects with LATE-NC also had atrophy in the medial temporal lobes, frontal cortex, and other brain regions. Genetic studies have thus far indicated five genes with risk alleles for LATE-NC: GRN, TMEM106B, ABCC9, KCNMB2, and APOE. The discovery of these genetic risk variants indicate that LATE shares pathogenetic mechanisms with both frontotemporal lobar degeneration and Alzheimer's disease, but also suggests disease-specific underlying mechanisms. Large gaps remain in our understanding of LATE. For advances in prevention, diagnosis, and treatment, there is an urgent need for research focused on LATE, including in vitro and animal models. An obstacle to clinical progress is lack of diagnostic tools, such as biofluid or neuroimaging biomarkers, for ante-mortem detection of LATE. Development of a disease biomarker would augment observational studies seeking to further define the risk factors, natural history, and clinical features of LATE, as well as eventual subject recruitment for targeted therapies in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6536849 | biostudies-literature
Project description:DICER1 syndrome is a rare genetic disorder that predisposes to a wide spectrum of tumors. Developing surveillance protocols for this syndrome is challenging because uncertainty exists about the clinical efficacy of surveillance, and appraisal of potential benefits and harms vary. In addition, there is increasing evidence that germline DICER1 pathogenic variants are associated with lower penetrance for cancer than previously assumed. To address these issues and to harmonize DICER1 syndrome surveillance programs within Europe, the Host Genome Working Group of the European branch of the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOPE HGWG) and Clinical Guideline Working Group of the CanGene-CanVar project in the United Kingdom reviewed current surveillance strategies and evaluated additional relevant literature. Consensus was achieved for a new surveillance protocol and information leaflet that informs patients about potential symptoms of DICER1-associated tumors. The surveillance protocol comprises a minimum program and an extended version for consideration. The key recommendations of the minimum program are: annual clinical examination from birth to age 20 years, six-monthly chest X-ray and renal ultrasound from birth to age 6 years, and thyroid ultrasound every 3 years from age 8 to age 40 years. The surveillance program for consideration comprises additional surveillance procedures, and recommendations for DICER1 pathogenic variant carriers outside the ages of the surveillance interval. Patients have to be supported in choosing the surveillance program that best meets their needs. Prospective evaluation of the efficacy and patient perspectives of proposed surveillance recommendations is required to expand the evidence base for DICER1 surveillance protocols.
| S-EPMC8484187 | biostudies-literature