Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 39
Filter
1.
Journal of Medical Ethics: Journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics ; 47(5):360, 2021.
Article in English | APA PsycInfo | ID: covidwho-20233782

ABSTRACT

Comments on an article by J. T. Monrad (see record 2020-61038-012). Monrad presented several issues about secondary vaccine trials. It lays out the case in which a vaccine has been tested through phases I-III and is being deployed. Subsequently, consideration is being given to conducting 'trials for another vaccine for the pathogen'. Monrad stated: 'In summary, we may say that researchers have strong prima facie reasons not to conduct a secondary vaccine trial.' Monrad discusses several factors meriting careful consideration about the need for developing and testing more than one vaccine: relative efficacy, length of immunity, adverse reactions (reactogenicity), ease of storage and administration, economic and logistical factors. What is not addressed are the ethical duties that exist when there are competing phase III vaccine candidates for COVID- 19. Ethically, a subject is allowed to quit a trial at any time. But how might this work in a vaccine trial with multiple candidates? If someone has received an experimental vaccine, they need to be informed of what to do should they wish to subsequently try an approved vaccine. But will companies and researchers with financial stakes in one vaccine readily disclose other options either initially or mid-trial? If a subject got experimental vaccine, there may be more of a chance of having an adverse immune reaction to an additional vaccine that is approved. So they may not wish to do anything. Thus, as part of all informed consents for phase three trials, participants need to be told that at the time some vaccine is approved, they will be told whether or not they received the test vaccine or the placebo so as to help participants make their decision as to whether to get another approved vaccine or not. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

3.
Lancet Respir Med ; 10(12): e107, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2313917
6.
Eur J Intern Med ; 2022 Oct 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2240061
10.
Lancet ; 399(10325): 626-627, 2022 02 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683781
12.
Lancet ; 398(10317): 2186-2192, 2021 12 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1521624

ABSTRACT

Since the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the USA in January, 2020, over 46 million people in the country have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorisations from the US Food and Drug Administration, with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine receiving full approval on Aug 23, 2021. When paired with masking, physical distancing, and ventilation, COVID-19 vaccines are the best intervention to sustainably control the pandemic. However, surveys have consistently found that a sizeable minority of US residents do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The most severe consequence of an inadequate uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has been sustained community transmission (including of the delta [B.1.617.2] variant, a surge of which began in July, 2021). Exacerbating the direct impact of the virus, a low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines will prolong the social and economic repercussions of the pandemic on families and communities, especially low-income and minority ethnic groups, into 2022, or even longer. The scale and challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign are unprecedented. Therefore, through a series of recommendations, we present a coordinated, evidence-based education, communication, and behavioural intervention strategy that is likely to improve the success of COVID-19 vaccine programmes across the USA.


Subject(s)
Behavior Therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/transmission , Communication , Immunization Programs , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Politics , United States , Vaccination Refusal/psychology
13.
Am J Bioeth ; 21(12): 4-19, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1475698

ABSTRACT

After witnessing extraordinary scientific and regulatory efforts to speed development of and access to new COVID-19 interventions, patients facing other serious diseases have begun to ask "where's our Operation Warp Speed?" and "why isn't Emergency Use Authorization an option for our health crises?" Although this pandemic bears a number of unique features, the response to COVID-19 offers translatable lessons, in both its successes and failures, for non-pandemic diseases. These include the importance of collaborating across sectors, supporting the highest-priority research efforts, adopting rigorous and innovative trial designs, and sharing reliable information quickly. In addition, the regulatory response to the pandemic demonstrates that lowering standards for marketing authorization can result in increased safety concerns, missed opportunities for research and treatment, and delays in determining what works. Accordingly, policymakers and patient advocates seeking to build on the COVID-19 experience for non-pandemic diseases with unmet treatment needs should focus their efforts on promoting robust and efficient research designs, improving access to clinical trials, and facilitating use of the Food and Drug Administration's existing Expanded Access pathway.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Drug Development , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Vaccine ; 39(44): 6451-6453, 2021 10 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1447215
16.
Clin Transplant ; 35(10): e14421, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304087

ABSTRACT

Solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients were not included in the COVID-19 vaccine trials that have justified vaccine administration to millions worldwide and will be critical to ending the pandemic. The risks of COVID-19 for SOT candidates and recipients combined with data about this population's response to other vaccines has led to transplant centers recommending vaccination for their candidates and recipients in accordance with guidance from major transplant organizations. Relevant ethics considerations include: weighing the low risk of vaccination causing transplant complications against potentially limited antibody response of vaccines for transplant recipients; the equitable distribution of vaccines among vulnerable populations; the duty to steward and respect organs as limited resources; the duty to support vaccination; and patient autonomy. Vaccinated transplant patients and candidates should also consider participating in research studies to better understand the efficacy and potential long-term risks in this patient population. There are difficult scenarios, like timing transplant after second vaccine dose, when to administer the second dose to a partially vaccinated candidate who gets an organ match, whether to vaccinate a recent transplant recipient with low exposure risk and which vaccine to use. Here we provide ethics considerations for vaccinating different groups within the transplant population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Organ Transplantation , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Transplant Recipients , Vaccination
17.
J Community Health ; 46(6): 1161-1169, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230268

ABSTRACT

The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed the difficulty of the US public health system to respond effectively to vulnerable subpopulations, causing disproportionate rates of morbidity and mortality. New York Haredi-Orthodox Jewish communities represent a group that have been heavily impacted by Covid-19. Little research has examined their experience or perceptions toward Covid-19 and vaccines. We conducted a cross-sectional, observational study to explore the experience of Covid-19 among Haredim. Paper surveys were self-administered between December 2020 and January 2021 in Haredi neighborhood pediatricians' offices in Brooklyn, New York. Of 102 respondents, 43% reported either a positive SARS-CoV-2 viral or antibody test. Participants trusted their physicians, Orthodox medical organizations, and rabbinic leaders for medical information. Knowledge of Covid-19 transmission and risk was good (69% answered ≥ 4/6 questions correctly). Only 12% of respondents would accept a Covid-19 vaccine, 41% were undecided and 47% were strongly hesitant. Independent predictors of strong vaccine hesitancy included believing natural infection to be better than vaccination for developing immunity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.28; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-14.86), agreement that prior infection provides a path toward resuming communal life (aOR 4.10; 95% CI 1.22-13.77), and pandemic-related loss of trust in physicians (aOR 5.01; 95% CI 1.05-23.96). The primary disseminators of health information for self-protective religious communities should be stakeholders who understand these groups' unique health needs. In communities with significant Covid-19 experience, vaccination messaging may need to be tailored toward protecting infection-naïve individuals and boosting natural immunity against emerging variants.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Attitude , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Jews , New York , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
18.
J Med Ethics ; 47(11): 775-776, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1219239
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL