Off-Label Prescription of COVID-19 Vaccines in Children: Clinical, Ethical, and Legal Issues.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the biologics license application for the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine (Comirnaty) on August 23, 2021, opened the door to the off-label vaccination of children younger than the age range currently covered by either the biologics license application (16 years old and older) or the emergency use authorization (12 to 15 years old). Although prescribing medications at doses, for conditions, or in populations other than those approved by the FDA is generally legal and is common in pediatrics, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended against off-label prescription of the coronavirus disease 2019 vaccine. Several commentaries consider a case in which parents ask their child's pediatrician to prescribe the vaccine for their 11-year-old with special health care needs before approval or authorization in her age group. The first commentary considers the potential benefits and risks to the patient, as well as to the family, the provider, and society, emphasizing the unknown risks in younger patients and the need for adequate informed consent. The second commentary describes an algorithm and principles for evaluating off-label prescribing and argues that the current benefits of prescribing Comirnaty off label to children <12 do not outweigh the risks. The third commentary addresses ethical and legal issues, ultimately calling on federal agencies to remove legal barriers to making the vaccine available to children in age groups that currently lack authorization.

Realizing Present and Future Promise of DIY Biology and Medicine through a Trust Architecture.

The speed and scale of the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the limits of current health systems and the potential promise of non-establishment research such as "DIY" research. We consider one example of how DIY research is responding to the pandemic, discuss the challenges faced by DIY research more generally, and suggest that a "trust architecture" should be developed now to contribute to successful future DIY efforts.

The promise of direct-to-consumer COVID-19 testing: ethical and regulatory issues.

Widespread diagnostic and serological (antibody) testing is one key to mitigating the COVID-19 pandemic. While at first, the majority of COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the USA took place in healthcare settings, quickly a direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing market also emerged. In these DTC provision models, the test is initiated by a consumer and the sample collection occurs at home or in a commercial laboratory. Although the provision of DTC tests has potential benefits-such as expanding access to testing and reducing the risk of exposure for consumers and medical personnel-it also raises significant ethical and regulatory concerns. This article reviews these challenges and shows how they parallel and also diverge from prior concerns raised in the DTC health testing arena. The first part of this paper provides an overview of the landscape of diagnostic and serological tests for COVID-19, anticipating how provision models are likely to evolve in the future. The second part discusses five primary issues for DTC COVID-19 tests: test accuracy; potential misinterpretation of results; misleading claims and other misinformation; privacy concerns; and fair allocation of scarce resources. We conclude with recommendations for regulators and companies that aim to ensure ethically marketed DTC COVID-19 tests.

Regulatory flexibility for COVID-19 research.

Clinical research is critical to combatting COVID-19, but regulatory requirements for human subjects protection may sometimes pose a challenge in pandemic circumstances. Although regulators have offered some helpful guidance for research during the pandemic, we identify further compliance challenges regarding institutional review board (IRB) review and approval, informed consent, emergency research, and research involving incarcerated people. Our proposals for regulatory flexibility in these areas seek to satisfy the goals of protecting participants and promoting the development of high-quality evidence to improve patient care. These recommendations may have relevance beyond the COVID-19 pandemic to enhance the efficiency of research oversight and participant protection more broadly.