Adaptive, platform trials assessing therapies for hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Informed consent forms omitted a few important elements of information.

Background: The information provided to participants of adaptive platform trials assessing therapies for COVID-19 inpatients is unknown. We aim to evaluate it by reviewing participant information sheets/informed consent forms (PIS/ICFs). Methods: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 March 2022) to identify non-industry-sponsored adaptive platform phase 2+ trials with publicly available protocols and PIS/ICFs, selecting versions closest to the initial one. We assessed the elements of information included in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki as present, absent, or deficient (incompletely described). Results: We included PIS/ICFs of 11 trials (ACCORD-2, ACTIV-1IM, Bari-SolidAct, CATALYST, Discovery, HEAL-COVID, ITAC, RECOVERY, REMAP-COVID, Solidarity and TACTIC-R), which were 4-32 pages long (median (md) = 11). Between two and 11 (md = 6) of the 25 different elements of information assessed were omitted or deficiently described in the PIS/ICFs of the 11 trials. Information about providing trial results, investigators' conflicts of interest, post-study provisions, payment to and anticipated expenses for participants, number of participants, and on whether participants will receive new information that could impact their decision on staying in the trial, were omitted or deficiently described in at least five PIS/ICFs. Conclusions: Investigators failed to include a few important elements of information in the trial's PIS/ICF deemed relevant by international standards. In protocols of future trials, investigators should explain why elements of information specified in the Good Clinical Practice guidelines and/or by the Declaration of Helsinki were omitted from the PIS/ICFs.

Frailty as a Priority-Setting Criterion for Potentially Lifesaving Treatment-Self-Fulfilling Prophecy, Circularity, and Indirect Discrimination?

Frailty is a state of increased vulnerability to poor resolution of homeostasis after a stressor event. Frailty is most frequently assessed in the old using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CSF) which ranks frailty from 1 to 9. This assessment typically takes less than one minute and is not validated in patients with learning difficulties or those under 65 years old. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed guidelines that use "frailty" as one of the priority-setting criteria for how scarce, but potentially lifesaving, health care resources should be allocated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar guidelines have been developed elsewhere. This paper discusses the ethical implications of such rationing and argues that this is an unproven and ethically problematic form of health care rationing. It specifically discusses: (1) how the frailty ascription becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, (2) the problematic use of "frailty" in COVID-19 "triage," (3) the circularity of the link between age and frailty, (4) indirect discrimination because of the use of a seemingly neutral criterion in health care rationing, and (5) the difficult link between comorbidities and frailty. It is found that there was no research into the use of global frailty scores as a criterion for access to acute treatment before January 2020 and so it is concerning how readily frailty scoring has been adopted to ration access to potentially lifesaving treatments. Existing gerontological frailty scoring systems have not been developed for this purpose, and repurposing them creates significant ethical issues.

Equipoise, standard of care and consent: responding to the authorisation of new COVID-19 treatments in randomised controlled trials.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale research and pharmaceutical regulatory processes have proceeded at a dramatically increased pace with new and effective, evidence-based COVID-19 interventions rapidly making their way into the clinic. However, the swift generation of high-quality evidence and the efficient processing of regulatory authorisation have given rise to more specific and complex versions of well-known research ethics issues. In this paper, we identify three such issues by focusing on the authorisation of molnupiravir, a novel antiviral medicine aimed at reducing the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to multiply in the body, for clinical use by the National Health Service in England and the concomitant testing of molnupiravir through the large-scale Platform Adaptive trial of Novel antiviRals for eArly treatMent of COVID-19 In the Community randomised control trial. By analysing the ways in which the authorisation and clinical use of molnupiravir complicate standard approaches to clinical equipoise, standard of care and participant consent in the PANORAMIC randomised control trial, we will explain some of ethical implications for clinical trials that aim to study the efficacy and safety of new COVID-19 and other therapeutics when conditional authorisation has already been granted and when such treatments have already been made available to patients by national health providers.

Availability of oral antivirals against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the requirement for an ethical prescribing approach.

The first two oral antivirals, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, are now becoming available in many countries. These medicines will be indicated to treat mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in non-hospitalised patients who are at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. These antivirals should be prescribed within 5 days of symptom onset, and after SARS-CoV-2 infection has been confirmed. However, the availability of these antivirals will be scarce for some time due to manufacturing constraints. Each country should establish a policy on the conditions under which these antivirals can be prescribed. Such a policy should be based on the fulfilment of five ethical elements: transparency, relevance, appeals, enforcement, and fairness. Following the principles of distributive justice, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir should be prescribed according to a hierarchy of predicted efficacy, ideally on the basis of an evidence-based scoring system. The placebo-controlled randomised trials that supported the temporary authorisation of these two antivirals were conducted in unvaccinated patients with COVID-19, so an evidence-based prescription practice would only use these drugs for unvaccinated patients until further data become available. However, in the countries that authorised these antivirals in 2021 (the UK and the USA), both vaccinated and unvaccinated patients meeting particular requirements have access to these antivirals. Due to the complexity of prioritisation, national health authorities should start issuing their draft policies as soon as possible and these policies should be regularly updated. The effectiveness of these antivirals against the omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 must be urgently assessed. Once implemented, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir must show their effectiveness and safety in the real world, and health systems must be adequately adapted for the correct use of these antivirals.

Ongoing and future COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials: challenges and opportunities.

Large-scale deployment of COVID-19 vaccines will seriously affect the ongoing phases 2 and 3 randomised placebo-controlled trials assessing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates. The effect will be particularly acute in high-income countries where the entire adult or older population could be vaccinated by late 2021. Regrettably, only a small proportion of the population in many low-income and middle-income countries will have access to available vaccines. Sponsors of COVID-19 vaccine candidates currently in phase 2 or initiating phase 3 trials in 2021 should consider continuing the research in countries with limited affordability and availability of COVID-19 vaccines. Several ethical principles must be implemented to ensure the equitable, non-exploitative, and respectful conduct of trials in resource-poor settings. Once sufficient knowledge on the immunogenicity response to COVID-19 vaccines is acquired, non-inferiority immunogenicity trials-comparing the immune response of a vaccine candidate to that of an authorised vaccine-would probably be the most common trial design. Until then, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trials will continue to play a role in the development of new vaccine candidates. WHO or the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences should define an ethical framework for the requirements and benefits for trial participants and host communities in resource-poor settings that should require commitment from all vaccine candidate sponsors from high-income countries.

Resource allocation in the Covid-19 health crisis: are Covid-19 preventive measures consistent with the Rule of Rescue?

The Covid-19 pandemic has led to a health crisis of a scale unprecedented in post-war Europe. In response, a large amount of healthcare resources have been redirected to Covid-19 preventive measures, for instance population-wide vaccination campaigns, large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing, and the large-scale distribution of protective equipment (e.g., N95 respirators) to high-risk groups and hospitals and nursing homes. Despite the importance of these measures in epidemiological and economic terms, health economists and medical ethicists have been relatively silent about the ethical rationales underlying the large-scale allocation of healthcare resources to these measures. The present paper seeks to encourage this debate by demonstrating how the resource allocation to Covid-19 preventive measures can be understood through the paradigm of the Rule of Rescue, without claiming that the Rule of Rescue is the sole rationale of resource allocation in the Covid-19 pandemic.

Back to WHAT? The role of research ethics in pandemic times.

The Covid-19 pandemic creates an unprecedented threatening situation worldwide with an urgent need for critical reflection and new knowledge production, but also a need for imminent action despite prevailing knowledge gaps and multilevel uncertainty. With regard to the role of research ethics in these pandemic times some argue in favor of exceptionalism, others, including the authors of this paper, emphasize the urgent need to remain committed to core ethical principles and fundamental human rights obligations all reflected in research regulations and guidelines carefully crafted over time. In this paper we disentangle some of the arguments put forward in the ongoing debate about Covid-19 human challenge studies (CHIs) and the concomitant role of health-related research ethics in pandemic times. We suggest it might be helpful to think through a lens differentiating between risk, strict uncertainty and ignorance. We provide some examples of lessons learned by harm done in the name of research in the past and discuss the relevance of this legacy in the current situation.

Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia.

A number of papers have appeared recently arguing for the conclusion that it is ethically acceptable to infect healthy volunteers with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as part of research projects aimed at developing COVID-19 vaccines or treatments. This position has also been endorsed in a statement by a working group for the WHO. The papers generally argue that controlled human infection (CHI) is ethically acceptable if (1) the risks to participants are low and therefore acceptable, (2) the scientific quality of the research is high, (3) the research has high social value, (4) participants give full informed consent, and (5) there is fair selection of participants. All five conditions are necessary premises in the overall argument that such research is ethically acceptable. The arguments concerning risk and informed consent have already been critically discussed in the literature. This paper therefore looks specifically at the arguments relating to condition 3 'high social value' and condition 5 'fair selection of participants' and shows that whereas they may be valid, they are not sound. It is highly unlikely that the conditions that are necessary for ethical CHI trials to take place will be fulfilled. Most, if not all, CHI trials will thus be well intentioned but unethical.