Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): A few ethical considerations.

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are studies in which the need for patients to physically access hospital-based trial sites is reduced or eliminated. The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a significant increase in DCT: a survey shows that 76% of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and Contract Research Organizations adopted decentralized techniques during the early phase of the pandemic. The implementation of DCTs relies on the use of digital tools such as e-consent, apps, wearable devices, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), telemedicine, as well as on moving trial activities to the patient's home (e.g., drug delivery) or to local healthcare settings (i.e., community-based diagnosis and care facilities). DCTs adapt to patients' routines, allow patients to participate regardless of where they live by removing logistical barriers, offer better access to the study and the investigational product, and permit the inclusion of more diverse and more representative populations. The feasibility and quality of DCTs depends on several requirements including dedicated infrastructures and staff, an adequate regulatory framework, and partnerships between research sites, patients and sponsors. The evaluation of Ethics Committees (ECs) is crucial to the process of innovating and digitalizing clinical trials: adequate assessment tools and a suitable regulatory framework are needed for evaluation by ECs. DCTs also raise issues, many of which are of considerable ethical significance. These include the implications for the relationship between patients and healthcare staff, for the social dimension of the patient, for data integrity (at the source, during transmission, in the analysis phase), for personal data protection, and for the possible risks to health and safety. Despite their considerable growth, DCTs have only received little attention from bioethicists. This paper offers a review on some ethical implications and requirements of DCTs in order to encourage further ethical reflection on this rapidly emerging field.

Many trials of hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 were redundant and potentially unethical: an analysis of the NIH clinical trials registry.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to map the landscape of trials investigating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in order to draw conclusions about how clinical trials have been conducted in the pandemic environment and offer potential regulatory recommendations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified and captured data related to registered studies using HCQ to treat SARS-CoV-2 registered with the publicly available National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Trials Registry between February and November 2020. RESULTS: Between February and November 2020, 206 studies investigating HCQ in SARS-CoV-2 were registered with the NIH Clinical Trials Registry. As of November 2020, 135 studies were listed as ongoing, 22 have been completed, and 46 are either suspended or have been terminated. Reasons for suspension or termination included difficulties with patient recruitment (n = 9), emerging evidence showing a lack of benefit of HCQ (n = 7), and recommendations by regulatory boards to discontinue (n = 10). CONCLUSION: Many clinical trials of HCQ were launched in the first months of the pandemic, and a significant proportion of them remained active as of November 2020. The medical community appears to have responded very quickly to political interest in HCQ, while responding much more slowly to the evolving medical evidence of its lack of efficacy.

Exploration and Ethical Analysis of Open-label Pediatric Vaccine Trials in a Pandemic.

Young children will ultimately need to be vaccinated to stop the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Initial studies of vaccine were performed in adults. Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard. In the COVID-19 pandemic, many questions need to be answered about the ethics and feasibility of these trials. Given the harms of the COVID-19 pandemic and the now-known efficacy of the vaccines in adults and teens, the question of whether clinical equipoise exists for a placebo-controlled trial of vaccines in younger children remains. Parents may be reluctant to enroll children in these trials because they want their child to receive the vaccine or because they are worried about vaccines or clinical trials in general. One option for gathering data on tolerability and efficacy in children would be to use a nonrandomized trial to enroll parents willing to vaccinate their children and those who are hesitant. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such an open-label trial that could provide guidance for future pandemics. (Clin Ther.

Trials for second generation Covid-19 vaccines: Revisiting the debate over placebo use in developing country clinical trials.

This article compares the current debate over the use of placebos in developing country clinical trials of second generation Covid-19 vaccines with the debates over previous paradigmatic cases raising similar issues. Compared to the earlier zidovudine and Surfaxin trials, Covid-19 vaccine trials are likely to confer lower risk to placebo groups and to offer a greater number and variety of alternative study designs. However, turning to the developing world to conduct studies that would be unacceptable in developed countries, simply on the ground that Covid-19 vaccines are generally unavailable in developing countries, is not ethically justifiable. This is so whether the justification is rooted in total absence of vaccine in a given country or in developing country vaccine prioritisation practices, because at root both derive from economic, not scientific conditions. However, the advent of variants that may create genuine uncertainty as to comparator vaccine effectiveness could justify a placebo control, depending on vaccine characteristics, variant prevalence, the degree of variant resistance, and the acceptability of immune-bridging studies. These factors must be considered together in the necessary case-by-case assessment of the ethical justification for any proposed trial.

"No" to placebo-controlled trials of Covid-19 vaccines.

Recently the WHO Ad Hoc Expert Group proposed that it is ethical to continue placebo-controlled Covid-19 vaccine trials in countries where vaccines are not available even if this vaccine is marketed and being used elsewhere. The reason for this proposal is the usual scientific argument claiming that these trials are the most efficient method to obtain reliable results, and individuals in these countries will continue to get the local standard of care, meaning no vaccination, and thus participants are not being left worse off. We refute this argument on two counts. First the global equity and justice issue, that the scarcity of vaccines in most countries is created by the rich nations that have hoarded vaccines. Second, the science versus research ethics issue, that there are valid scientific methods like non-inferiority trials which can give reliable results, and that applying a standard of care imposed by rich nations is both unethical and possibly exploitative. Thus, we feel that the WHO Ad Hoc Expert Group is wrong in proposing to continue placebo-controlled Covid-19 vaccine trials.

Problematic Covid-19 vaccine trials in times of vaccine nationalism.

Thanks to an impressive R&D effort, three vaccines for Covid-19 have been conditionally approved by stringent regulators as of February 2021, and sixteen have entered the WHO evaluation process. However, they all need to keep on being evaluated in clinical trials. The WHO Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Next Steps for Covid-19 Vaccine suggested that countries with limited or no access to an effective vaccine could ethically permit placebo-controlled trials, even if effective vaccines were already being marketed elsewhere. Here, I argue that inclusion in a placebo-controlled trial is ethically sound for those who would be in any case ineligible for vaccination outside the trial, and as long as the access to the vaccine outside the trial depends on a transparent and just allocation framework. Conversely, carrying out placebo-controlled studies in countries where vaccines are not (or are insufficiently) available because of unequal global allocation, would be unethical, as an ethical strategy cannot be built on an unethical premise.

SARS-CoV-2 Human Challenge Trials: Rethinking the Recruitment of Healthy Young Adults First.

In the midst of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, researchers across the globe are still working to develop effective vaccines. To expedite this process even further, human challenge trials have been proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO) as an alternative to conventional approaches. In such trials, healthy volunteers are deliberately infected with the pathogen of interest, enabling scientists to study the infection process and facilitate further research on treatments or prophylactics, including vaccines. While human challenge trials would offer a collective benefit to society, minimizing the risks is always difficult. Ethical controversy thus inevitably surrounds these trials. Typically, healthy young adults are recruited to serve as the first candidate subjects for human challenge trials because they are generally considered to represent a low-risk population. Here, we present three reasons for doubt about this healthy-young-adults-first criterion and give justification for also recruiting healthy older adults (or not-young adults), meaning those over 30 years of age, to participate in such trials for SARS-CoV-2.

Short Communication: Combining Ethics With Efficiency-Israel Defense Forces' Experience in Clinical Trials During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, first reported in China, soon spread worldwide, has evolved into one of the most complex global public health crises the world has encountered in the last several decades. Conducting military medical research is vital to study the unique influences of military service conditions on soldiers' health and to improve the medical response in various emergency periods. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Medical Corps maintains an Institutional Review Board (IRB) which reviews clinical studies conducted within the IDF. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the IRB of the IDF had to rapidly implement procedural modifications in order to comply with expanding urgent demands for research without compromising ethical standards. The ethical dilemmas and the IDF policy and perspective are outlined in this article.