Risk, benefit, and social value in Covid-19 human challenge studies: pandemic decision making in historical context.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists and researchers proposed human challenge studies as a way to speed development of a vaccine that could prevent disease and end the global public health crisis. The risks to healthy volunteers of being deliberately infected with a deadly and novel pathogen were not low, but the benefits could have been immense. This essay is a history of the three major efforts to set up a challenge model and run challenge studies in 2020 and 2021. The pharmaceutical company Johnson and Johnson, the National Institutes of Health in the United States, and a private-public partnership of industry, university, and government partners in Britain all undertook preparations. The United Kingdom's consortium began their Human Challenge Programme in March of 2021.Beyond documenting each effort, the essay puts these scientific and ethical debates in dialogue with the social, epidemiological, and institutional conditions of the pandemic as well as the commercial, intellectual, and political systems in which medical research and Covid-19 challenge studies operated. It shows how different institutions understood risk, benefit, and social value depending on their specific contexts. Ultimately the example of Covid-19 challenge studies highlights the constructedness of such assessments and reveals the utility of deconstructing them retrospectively so as to better understand the interplay of medical research and research ethics with larger social systems and historical contexts.

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: A joint HRA/WHO workshop.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

Innovative vaccine approaches-a Keystone Symposia report.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines was the result of decades of research to establish flexible vaccine platforms and understand pathogens with pandemic potential, as well as several novel changes to the vaccine discovery and development processes that partnered industry and governments. And while vaccines offer the potential to drastically improve global health, low-and-middle-income countries around the world often experience reduced access to vaccines and reduced vaccine efficacy. Addressing these issues will require novel vaccine approaches and platforms, deeper insight how vaccines mediate protection, and innovative trial designs and models. On June 28-30, 2021, experts in vaccine research, development, manufacturing, and deployment met virtually for the Keystone eSymposium "Innovative Vaccine Approaches" to discuss advances in vaccine research and development.

Ethical Challenges in Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Vaccine as Well as New Drug Research and Development

To review systematically the progress of all domestic and foreign clinical trials since the emergence of the COVID-19 epidemic and the overview of human challenge study (HCS) in the past year, grasp relevant information of ethical review, and explores the feasibility of human challenge study and provide references for stake holders. Based on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registration Center and clinical trial. gov, clinical trials that were consistent with COVID-19 was searched, and the deadline was June 11, 2020.Basic information was extracted and the number of trials was selected from the research type, clinical stage, recruitment status, and ethical passing status. Literature search was conducted based on Pubmed between January 1, 2019 and June 11, 2020.According to the included literature, basic information was extracted and opinions were reported on HCS. 638 and 1935 clinical trials were carried out at home and abroad respectively, of which the number of clinical trials carried out in Hubei reached 323. China and the United States conducted more interventional trials, and the United States had the most clinical trials entered in Phase II, there were a total of 142. Most of the clinical trials were in the stage of recruiting research subjects. In addition, a total of 539 clinical trials in China had passed ethical approval. A total of 5 documents were included in the Human Challenge Study, four maintained a positive attitude towards HCS and put forward corresponding thinking about ethical review. Under the COVID-19, clinical trials for new drugs and new coronavirus vaccines have rapidly increased, which puts forward higher requirements for the progress of ethical review. In the face of such public health emergencies and special research, it is urgent to establish a sound ethical review system and an ethical review system, as well as to construct an ethical model for special research. © 2021, Editorial Board of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. All right reserved.

Prioritizing second-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through low-dosage challenge studies.

The design of human challenge studies balances scientific validity, efficiency and study safety. This Perspective explores some advantages and disadvantages of 'low-dosage' challenge studies, in the setting of testing second-generation vaccines against COVID-19. Compared with a conventional vaccine challenge, a low-dosage vaccine challenge would be more likely to start, and start earlier. A low-dosage challenge would also be less likely to rule out a vaccine candidate that would have potentially been effective, particularly in certain target uses. A key ethical advantage of a low-dosage challenge over a conventional challenge is that both it and its dose escalation process are safer for each participant. Low-dosage studies would require larger numbers of participants than conventional challenges, but this and other potential disadvantages are less serious than they may initially appear. Overall, low-dosage challenges should be considered for certain roles such as prioritizing between second-generation vaccines against COVID-19.

Human Challenge Studies to Accelerate Coronavirus Vaccine Licensure.

Controlled human challenge trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates could accelerate the testing and potential rollout of efficacious vaccines. By replacing conventional phase 3 testing of vaccine candidates, such trials may subtract many months from the licensure process, making efficacious vaccines available more quickly. Obviously, challenging volunteers with this live virus risks inducing severe disease and possibly even death. However, we argue that such studies, by accelerating vaccine evaluation, could reduce the global burden of coronavirus-related mortality and morbidity. Volunteers in such studies could autonomously authorize the risks to themselves, and their net risk could be acceptable if participants comprise healthy young adults, who are at relatively low risk of serious disease following natural infection, if they have a high baseline risk of natural infection, and if during the trial they receive frequent monitoring and, following any infection, the best available care.

Testing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy through deliberate natural viral exposure.

BACKGROUND: A vaccine trial with a conventional challenge design can be very fast once it starts, but it requires a long prior process, in part to grow and standardize challenge virus in the laboratory. This detracts somewhat from its overall promise for accelerated efficacy testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine candidates, and from the ability of developing countries and small companies to conduct it. AIMS: We set out to identify a challenge design that avoids this part of the long prior process. SOURCES: Literature in trial design (including a proof of concept flu challenge trial by B. Killingley et al.), vaccinology, medical ethics, and various aspects of COVID response. CONTENT: A challenge design with deliberate natural viral exposure avoids the need to grow culture. This new design is described and compared both to a conventional challenge design and to a conventional phase III field trial. In comparison, the proposed design has ethical, scientific, and feasibility strengths. IMPLICATIONS: The proposed new design should be considered for future vaccine trials.

Human challenge trials in vaccine development.

The increasing recent interest in human challenge studies or controlled human infection model studies for accelerating vaccine development has been driven by the recognition of the unique ability of these studies to contribute to the understanding of response to infection and the performance of vaccines. With streamlining of ethical processes, conduct and supervision and the availability of new investigative tools from immunophenotyping to glycobiology, the potential to derive valuable data to inform vaccine testing and development has never been greater. However, issues of availability and standardization of challenge strains, conduct of studies in disease endemic locations and the iteration between clinical and laboratory studies still need to be addressed to gain maximal value for vaccine development.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

COVID-19 vaccines: ethical framework concerning human challenge studies.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic associated with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus continues to spread worldwide. The most favorable epidemic control scenario, which provides long-term protection against COVID-19 outbreak, is the development and distribution of an effective and safe vaccine. The need to develop a new COVID-19 vaccine is pressing; however, it is likely to take a long time, possibly several years. This is due to the time required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the proposed vaccine. and the time required to manufacture and distribute millions of doses. OBJECTIVES: To accelerate this development and associated safety testing, the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers has been suggested. The purpose of this short communication is to describe the ethical aspects of this type of testing, RESULTS: Deliberate infection of volunteers with a dangerous virus such as SARS-CoV-2 was initially considered unethical by researchers; but the current pandemic is so different from previous ones that these studies are considered ethical if certain criteria are met. Participants in human challenge studies must be relatively young, in good health and must receive the highest quality medical care, with frequent monitoring. Tests should also be performed with great caution and specialized medical supervision. Besides, the fact that obtaining vaccines faster through deliberate infection studies of healthy people has greater benefits than risks, has been demonstrated by obtaining other vaccines in other historical pandemics such as: smallpox, influenza, malaria, typhoid fever, Dengue fever and Zika. CONCLUSIONS: One possibility to shorten the time required for the development of COVID-19 vaccines is to reduce clinical phases II and III by using human challenge studies through eliberate infection of healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 after administration of the candidate vaccine. Accelerating the development of a COVID-19 vaccine even for a few weeks or months would have a great beneficial impact on public health by saving many lives.

Coronavirus Human Infection Challenge Studies: Assessing Potential Benefits and Risks.

Human infection challenge studies (HCS) have been proposed as a means to accelerate SARS-CoV2 vaccine development and thereby help to mitigate a prolonged global public health crisis. A key criterion for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV2 HCS is that potential benefits outweigh risks. Although the assessment of risks and benefits is meant to be a standard part of research ethics review, systematic comparisons are particularly important in the context of SARS-CoV2 HCS in light of the significant potential benefits and harms at stake as well as the need to preserve public trust in research and vaccines. In this paper we explore several considerations that should inform systematic assessment of SARS-CoV-2 HCS. First, we detail key potential benefits of SARS-CoV-2 HCS including, but not limited to, those related to the acceleration of vaccine development. Second, we identify where modelling is needed to inform risk-benefit (and thus ethical) assessments. Modelling will be particularly useful in (i) comparing potential benefits and risks of HCS with those of vaccine field trials under different epidemiological conditions and (ii) estimating marginal risks to HCS participants in light of the background probabilities of infection in their local community. We highlight interactions between public health policy and research priorities, including situations in which research ethics assessments may need to strike a balance between competing considerations.

Why Challenge Trials of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Could Be Ethical Despite Risk of Severe Adverse Events.

Human challenge trials to test the efficacy of vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus behind Covid-19, could save considerable time and many lives. But they may initially seem unethical because they expose healthy volunteers to a live virus that is killing many people and for which no cure exists. This article argues that this is not the correct test of their ethics. The correct test is comparative. And in the special circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, human challenge trials meet the correct test better than standard efficacy testing would.