The ethics of global COVID-19 vaccine allocation

IntroductionPolicies to increase global vaccine access involve HICs making ethically fraught tradeoffs between saving lives at home or abroad. Such policies should be justifiable to the affected populations. Yet there is little robust data on whether HIC residents endorse their countries’ policy choices. Most existing data asks highly simplified questions, without providing background on the ethical tradeoffs involved. These data do not capture the public’s informed views, giving policymakers limited guidance on how to craft international vaccine policy. This paper provides the first nuanced data on the informed views of a representative sample of the U.S. public about providing COVID vaccine to poorer countries.MethodsThis study involved two interventions: a description of ethical arguments for/against providing vaccine to poorer countries and visuals depiction of ethically relevant tradeoffs about providing vaccine to poorer countries at different time points in the US vaccination campaign. A representative sample of 4000 U.S. adults were surveyed, divided evenly into four arms: 1) arguments only;2) tradeoffs only;3) both interventions;4) no interventions.ResultsAcross all four arms, people are more willing to donate vaccines than previously reported, with generosity increasing over time. 43% of respondents were willing to share at an early timepoint when supply was extremely limited, increasing to 54% and 71% at intermediate and current timepoints, respectively. Some specific variables (e.g., political affiliation, age, acceptability of masks) were predictive of willingness to donate and endorsement of specific arguments.DiscussionThese data can guide policy about providing or keeping U.S. vaccine doses as the world navigates the effects of new variants and the potential need for booster shots in the coming months. Given high levels of willingness to donate, U.S. policy could have initiated global vaccine donations earlier and could be more generous currently.

Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project.

INTRODUCTION: While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co-infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy-specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next-generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress. We describe the process, ethical foundations, recommendations and applications of guidance for advancing responsible inclusion of pregnant people in HIV/co-infections research. DISCUSSION: The 26-member international and interdisciplinary Pregnancy and HIV/AIDS: Seeking Equitable Study (PHASES) Working Group was convened to develop ethics-centred guidance for advancing timely, responsible HIV/co-infections research with pregnant people. Deliberations over 3 years drew on extensive qualitative research, stakeholder engagement, expert consultation and a series of workshops. The guidance, initially issued in July 2020, highlights conceptual shifts needed in framing research with pregnant people, and articulates three ethical foundations to ground recommendations: equitable protection from drug-related risks, timely access to biomedical advances and equitable respect for pregnant people's health interests. The guidance advances 12 specific recommendations, actionable within the current regulatory environment, addressing multiple stakeholders across drug development and post-approval research, and organized around four themes: building capacity, supporting inclusion, achieving priority research and ensuring respect. The recommendations describe strategies towards ethically redressing the evidence gap for pregnant people around HIV and co-infections. The guidance has informed key efforts of leading organizations working to advance needed research, and identifies further opportunities for impact by a range of stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are clear pathways towards ethical inclusion of pregnant people in the biomedical research agenda, and strong agreement across the HIV research community about the need for - and the promise of - advancing them. Those who fund, conduct, oversee and advocate for research can use the PHASES guidance to facilitate more, better and earlier evidence to optimize the health and wellbeing of pregnant people and their children.

The Essential Role of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) in Ensuring the Ethics of Global Vaccine Trials to Address Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19O).

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are being developed and implemented with unprecedented speed. Accordingly, trials considered ethical at their inception may quickly become concerning. We provide recommendations for Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs) on monitoring the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine trials, focusing on placebo-controlled trials in low- and middle-income countries.

So much at stake: Ethical tradeoffs in accelerating SARSCoV-2 vaccine development.

BACKGROUND: A sense of urgency exists to develop vaccines against SARS CoV-2, responsible for numerous global cases and deaths, as well as widespread social and economic disruption. Multiple approaches have been proposed to speed up vaccine development, including accelerated randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled human challenge trials (CHI), and wide distribution through an emergency use authorization after collecting initial data. There is a need to examine how best to accelerate vaccine development in the setting of a pandemic, without compromising ethical and scientific norms. METHODS: Trade-offs in scientific and social value between generating reliable evidence about safety and efficacy while promoting rapid vaccine availability are examined along five ethically relevant dimensions: (1) confidence in and generalizability of data, (2) feasibility, (3) speed and cost, (4) participant risks, and (5) social risks. RESULTS: Accelerated individually randomized RCTs permit expeditious evaluation of vaccine candidates using established methods, expertise, and infrastructure. RCTs are more likely than other approaches to be feasible, increase speed and reduce cost, and generate reliable data about safety and efficacy without significantly increasing risks to participants or undermining societal trust. CONCLUSION: Ethical analysis suggests that accelerated RCTs are the best approach to accelerating vaccine development in a pandemic, and more likely than other approaches to enhance social value without compromising ethics or science. RCTs can expeditiously collect rigorous data about vaccine safety and efficacy. Innovative and flexible designs and implementation strategies to respond to shifting incidence and test vaccine candidates in parallel or sequentially would add value, as will coordinated data sharing across vaccine trials. CHI studies may be an important complementary strategy when more is known. Widely disseminating a vaccine candidate without efficacy data will not serve the public health nor achieve the goal of identifying safe and effective SARS Co-V-2 vaccines.

[Covid-19: An ad hoc public health ethics consultation]. / Covid-19: Eine Ad hoc Public-Health-Ethikberatung.

In this paper we describe the process and content of our ad hoc public health ethics consultation for a Bavarian health authority in relation to Covid-19.

Advantages of Using Lotteries to Select Participants for High-Demand Covid-19 Treatment Trials.

As hospitals have experienced a surge of Covid-19 patients, investigators of Covid-19 treatment trials face a difficult problem: when an institution has more eligible and interested patients than trial slots, who should be enrolled? Defining a clear strategy for selecting participants for "high-demand" Covid-19 treatment trials is important to avoid ad hoc and potentially biased decision-making by local investigators, which could inadvertently compromise a trial's social value, participants' interests, or fairness. In this article, we propose a set of ethical criteria for evaluating participant-selection strategies for such trials. We argue that the pandemic context-in particular, great urgency to develop safe and effective treatments, uncertainty surrounding Covid-19, and strain on the health care system that limits the time and effort available for trial enrollment-favors participant-selection strategies that optimize the ease of enrollment and, ideally, social value. A lottery and, where possible, a weighted lottery have important advantages in these respects.