Surgery during COVID-19 crisis conditions: can we protect our ethical integrity against the odds?

COVID-19 is reducing the ability to perform surgical procedures worldwide, giving rise to a multitude of ethical, practical and medical dilemmas. Adapting to crisis conditions requires a rethink of traditional best practices in surgical management, delving into an area of unknown risk profiles. Key challenging areas include cancelling elective operations, modifying procedures to adapt local services and updating the consenting process. We aim to provide an ethical rationale to support change in practice and guide future decision-making. Using the four principles approach as a structure, Medline was searched for existing ethical frameworks aimed at resolving conflicting moral duties. Where insufficient data were available, best guidance was sought from educational institutions: National Health Service England and The Royal College of Surgeons. Multiple papers presenting high-quality, reasoned, ethical theory and practice guidance were collected. Using this as a basis to assess current practice, multiple requirements were generated to ensure preservation of ethical integrity when making management decisions. Careful consideration of ethical principles must guide production of local guidance ensuring consistent patient selection thus preserving equality as well as quality of clinical services. A critical issue is balancing the benefit of surgery against the unknown risk of developing COVID-19 and its associated complications. As such, the need for surgery must be sufficiently pressing to proceed with conventional or non-conventional operative management; otherwise, delaying intervention is justified. For delayed operations, it is our duty to quantify the long-term impact on patients' outcome within the constraints of pandemic management and its long-term outlook.

A literature review of consent declines and consent withdrawals in randomized controlled trials conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: We evaluated the extent of consent declines and consent withdrawals during the COVID-19 pandemic as seen in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and compared it with non-COVID-19 RCTs published at the same time and two historical controls. Methods: PubMed/Medline only was searched using key-word "COVID-19" and "RCTs" separately, and filtered for COVID-19 RCTs and non-COVID-19 RCTs respectively, published during a nine-month period (1 Feb - 1 Nov 2020). Exclusions were study protocols, observational studies, interim analysis of RCT data and RCTs with missing data. Primary outcome measures were the proportion of consent declines and consent withdrawals as percentage of total participants screened and randomized respectively in COVID-19 RCTs. We compared consent declines and consent withdrawals of COVID-19 RCTs with non-COVID-19 RCTs and two earlier studies on the same topic that served as historical controls (non-pandemic setting). Results: The search yielded a total of 111 COVID-19 RCTs and 49 non-COVID-19 RCTs. Of these, 39 (35.13%) COVID-19 RCTs and 11 (22.45%) non-COVID-19 RCTs were finally analysed. A total of 770/17759 (4.3%) consent declines and 100/7607 (1.31%) consent withdrawals were seen in 39 COVID-19 RCTs. A significant difference was observed in consent declines between COVID-19 vs non-COVID-19 RCTs [4.3% vs 11.9%, p < 0.0001] and between COVID-19 RCTs vs two historical controls [(4.3% vs 8.6%, p < 0.0001) and (4.3% vs 21.1%, p < 0.0001), respectively]. Conclusion: RCTs conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic appear to have significantly lower consent declines relative to non-COVID-19 RCTs during pandemic and RCTs conducted in non-pandemic settings.

Teaching Effective Informed Consent Communication Skills in the Virtual Surgical Clerkship.

BACKGROUND: The disruption by the COVID-19 pandemic on undergraduate medical education allowed for assessment of virtual curricular innovations. One of the difficulties encountered in the virtual curriculum is the teaching of clinical competencies that would traditionally require students to undergo in-person simulations and patient encounters. We implemented a novel informed consent activity module, with standardized patients, to improve self-efficacy in communication within our core surgery clerkship. STUDY DESIGN: All medical students who participated in the virtual surgery clerkship were recruited to participate in a retrospective survey study regarding the novel informed consent module. These questions evaluated their perceived competence in 4 domains relating to informed consent: identifying the key elements, describing common challenges, applying the New Mexico Clinical Communication Scale (NMCCS), and documenting. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 90 students participated in the study (38% of the cohort). Respondents to the survey reported that their self-efficacy in communication skills related to informed consent improved as a result of their participation in the activity in each of the 4 domains surveyed (p < 0.01), with the majority of students identifying as satisfactory or above in each domain post-module. Students generally viewed the virtual informed consent activity positively, but noted that it was not the same as an in-person clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: A virtual module of communication skills training, using standardized patients and faculty, improved students' belief in their self-efficacy in obtaining informed consent. This communication module can be useful in a virtual or mixed curricular structure for both current and future medical students.

The Ethics of Repurposing Previously Collected Research Biospecimens in an Infectious Disease Pandemic.

In the early days of a pandemic, repurposing biospecimens from established research projects could prove to be extraordinarily useful in achieving substantial and timely public health benefits. Nonetheless, there are potential ethical and regulatory uncertainties that may impede access to those valuable biospecimens. In this article, we argue that there should be a presumption in favor of using previously collected identifiable research biospecimens without reconsent to directly address an infectious disease pandemic, assuming certain conditions are met. This argument fills a unique yet critical gap in decision-making where the specific consent accompanying the identifiable biospecimens would not otherwise permit repurposing. Further, it suggests that even if gaining reconsent is feasible, doing so in a fast-moving crisis is not necessary. This analysis also attempts to address the ethical concerns of public health authorities who already may have the power to use such specimens but are reluctant to do so.

Rethinking the Importance of the Individual within a Community of Data.

The Covid-19 crisis has underscored the importance of the collection and analysis of clinical and research data and specimens for ongoing work. The federal government recently completed a related revision of the human subjects research regulations, founded in the traditional principles of research ethics, but in this commentary, we argue that the analysis underpinning this revision overemphasized the importance of informed consent, given the low risks of secondary research. Governing the interests of a community is different from governing the interests of individuals, and here we suggest that, moving forward, the analyses of the risks of secondary research protocols be assessed from the perspective of the former.

Informed Consent for Scholarly Articles during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has caused a breakdown in the healthcare system worldwide. The need to rapidly update guidelines in order to control the transmission in the population and for evidenced-based healthcare care has led to the need for timely, voluminous and valid research. Amid the quest for a vaccine and better therapies, researchers clamouring for information has led to a wide variety of ethical issues due to the unique situation. This paper aims to examine the positive and negative aspects of recent changes in the process of obtaining informed consent. The article outlines the various aspects, from history, previously described exemptions to consenting as well as those implemented during the pandemic and the current impact of virtual methods. Further, the authors make recommendations based on the outcome of suggested adjustments described in the literature. This article looks into increasing the awareness of physicians and researchers about ethical issues that need to be addressed to provide optimal care for patients while assuring their integrity and confidentiality.

There are no in-principle ethical objections to controlled voluntary SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, some authors have advocated a program of controlled voluntary infection (CVI) with SARS-CoV-2. Under CVI, during periods where the medical system is under capacity, volunteers from low-risk groups would be intentionally infected after giving informed consent, and then quarantined until they have developed immunity. Proponents claim that this could have benefits for society, such as building herd immunity and ensuring that critical workers won't be incapacitated during the peak of the infection. They also claim that this could have benefits for individuals, such as being safely exempted from lockdown measures and (for individuals who are likely to be infected anyway) ensuring that the infection happens under relatively less dangerous conditions. Some respond that CVI would unethical. Here, I argue that, while CVI may or may not be ill-advised for empirical reasons, there are no in-principle ethical objections to it (i.e., if CVI would work as well as its proponents think, it would be ethical to implement it). I present three arguments for this conclusion. The first is an argument from informed consent: informed consent to relevantly similar medical procedures renders performing these procedures permissible, so informed consent to CVI would render it permissible. The second is an argument from reasonable beneficence: it draws on recent work by Caspar Hare on relevantly similar choices to argue that CVI is permissible. The third is an argument from precedent: smallpox variolation was permissible, and CVI is relevantly similar to that, so CVI is permissible.

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.

"Early transfusion of convalescent plasma in older patients with COVID-19 to prevent disease progression: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial".

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to demonstrate that COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) prevents progression to severe pneumonia in elderly COVID-19 pneumonia patients with chronic comorbidities. Secondary objectives are to demonstrate that CCP decreases the viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs and increases the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titre in recipients. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a randomized, open-label, parallel group, phase II/III study with a superiority framework. The trial starts with a screening phase II designed with two-tailed alpha=0.2. In case of positive results, the trial will proceed in a formally comparative phase III (alpha=0.05). PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 who are at risk according to CDC definition are eligible. Inclusion criteria are all the following: age ≥ 65; pneumonia at CT scan; PaO2/FiO2 ≥300 mmHg; presence of one or more comorbidities; signed informed consent. Exclusion criteria are one of the following: age < 65; PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg; pending cardiopulmonary arrest; refusal to blood product transfusions; severe IgA deficiency; any life-threatening comorbidity or any other medical condition which, in the opinion of the investigator, makes the patient unsuitable for inclusion. The trial is being conducted at three reference COVID-19 centres in the middle of Italy. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) in addition to standard therapy. Patients receive three doses (200 ml/day on 3 consecutive days) of ABO matched CCP. Comparator: Standard therapy MAIN OUTCOMES: A. Primary outcome for Phase II: Proportion of patients without progression in severity of pulmonary disease, defined as worsening of 2 points in the ordinal scale of WHO by day 14. B. Primary outcome for Phase III: Proportion of patients without progression in severity of pulmonary disease, defined as worsening of 2 points in the ordinal scale of WHO by day 14. Secondary outcomes for Phase III: Decreased viral load on nasopharyngeal swab at days 6, 9 and 14; Decreased viremia at days 6 and 9; Increased antibody titer against SARS-CoV2 at days 30 and 60; Proportion of patients with negative of SARS-CoV2 nasopharyngeal swab at day 30; Length of hospital stay; Mortality rate at day 28; Total plasma related adverse event (day 60); Total non-plasma related adverse events (day 60); Severe adverse events (SAE) (day 60). RANDOMISATION: Treatment allocation is randomized with a ratio 1:1 in both phase II and phase III. Randomization sequences will be generated at Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli IRCCS through the RedCap web application. Randomized stratification is performed according to age (under/over 80 years), and sex. BLINDING (MASKING): None, this is an open-label trial. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Phase II: 114 patients (57 per arm). Phase III: 182 patients (91 per arm) TRIAL STATUS: The trial recruitment started on May 27, 2020. The anticipated date of recruitment completion is April 30, 2021. The protocol version is 2 (May 10, 2020). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (May 5, 2020). The Identifier number is NCT04374526 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of treating Healthcare Professionals with the Adsorbed COVID-19 (Inactivated) Vaccine Manufactured by Sinovac - PROFISCOV: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac in symptomatic individuals, with virological confirmation of COVID-19, two weeks after the completion of the two-dose vaccination regimen, aged 18 years or older who work as health professionals providing care to patients with possible or confirmed COVID-19. To describe the occurrence of adverse reactions associated with the administration of each of two doses of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac up to one week after vaccination in Adults (18-59 years of age) and Elderly (60 years of age or more). TRIAL DESIGN: This is a Phase III, randomized, multicenter, endpoint driven, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac. The adsorbed vaccine COVID-19 (inactivated) produced by Sinovac (product under investigation) will be compared to placebo. Voluntary participants will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of the investigational product or the placebo, in a 1: 1 ratio, stratified by age group (18 to 59 years and 60 years or more) and will be monitored for one year by active surveillance of COVID-19. Two databases will be established according to the age groups: one for adults (18-59 years) and one for the elderly (60 years of age or older). The threshold to consider the vaccine efficacious will be to reach a protection level of at least 50%, as proposed by the World Health Organization and the FDA. Success in this criterion will be defined by sequential monitoring with adjustment of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval above 30% for the primary efficacy endpoint. PARTICIPANTS: Healthy participants and / or participants with clinically controlled disease, of both genders, 18 years of age or older, working as health professionals performing care in units specialized in direct contact with people with possible or confirmed cases of COVID-19. Participation of pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding, as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination will not be allowed. Participants will only be included after signing the voluntary Informed Consent Form and ensuring they undergo screening evaluation and conform to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All the clinical sites are located in Brazil. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Experimental intervention: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Life Sciences (Beijing, China) and contains 3 µg/0.5 mL (equivalent to 600 SU per dose) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, and aluminium hydroxide as adjuvant. Control comparator: The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide in a 0.5 mL solution The schedule of both, experimental intervention and placebo is two 0.5 mL doses IM (deltoid) with a two week interval. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of virologically confirmed COVID-19 two weeks after the second vaccination. The virological diagnosis will be confirmed by detection of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid in a clinical sample. The primary safety endpoint is the frequency of solicited and unsolicited local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination according to age group in adult (18-59 years old) and elder (60 years of age or older) subjects. Adverse reactions are defined as adverse events that have a reasonable causal relationship to vaccination. RANDOMISATION: There will be two randomization lists, one for each age group, based on the investigational products to be administered, i.e., vaccine or placebo at a 1: 1 ratio. Each randomization list will be made to include up to 11,800 (18-59 year-old) adults, and 1,260 elderly (60 y-o and older) participants, the maximum number of participants needed per age group. An electronic central randomization system will be used to designate the investigational product that each participant must receive. BLINDING (MASKING): This trial is designed as a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias in the evaluation of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity. The clinical care team, the professionals responsible for the vaccination and the participants will not know which investigational product will be administered. Only pharmacists or nurses in the study who are responsible for the randomization, separation and blinding of the investigational product will have access to unblinded information. The sponsor's operational team will also remain blind. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The total number of participants needed to evaluate efficacy, 13,060 participants, satisfies the needed sample size calculated to evaluate safety. Therefore, the total number obtained for efficacy will be the number retained for the study. Up to 13,060 participants are expected to enter the study, with up to 11,800 participants aged 18 to 59 years and 1,260 elderly participants aged 60 and over. Half of the participants of each group will receive the experimental vaccine and half of them will receive the placebo. The recruitment of participants may be modified as recommended by the Data Safety Monitoring Committee at time of the interim unblinded analysis or blind assessment of the COVID-19 attack rate during the study. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 2.0 - 24-Aug-2020. Recruitment started on July 21st, 2020. The recruitment is expected to conclude in October 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0445659 . Registry on 2 July 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

[Ethics of clinical trials]. / L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques.

TITLE: L'éthique des essais thérapeutiques. ABSTRACT: La pandémie de COVID-19 a conduit certains acteurs reconnus de la médecine à renoncer aux méthodes codifiées de la recherche médicale au profit d'affirmations établies dans l'urgence et sans réelle évaluation scientifique. Autant l'on peut comprendre que certains praticiens recourent à ce qui leur est ainsi proposé, autant cette confusion entre action dans l'urgence et recherche scientifique serait lourde de conséquences si elle venait à se généraliser, et cela à de multiples points de vue : image et rôle de la science, qualité et éthique de la recherche médicale et en fin de compte sort des malades soumis à des traitements mal évalués. Ce sont ces questions qui motivent la mise au point qui suit sur les questions d'éthique associées de longue date aux « essais thérapeutiques ¼, cette procédure rationnelle d'acquisition dans les meilleurs délais d'informations fiables sur les avantages et les risques des traitements dont on envisage l'éventuelle utilisation.