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.

Liver transplantation from active COVID-19 donors: Is it ethically justifiable?

The debate on the opportunity to use organs from donors testing positive for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in recipients with naïve resolved or active COVID-19 is ongoing. We aim to present the ethical analyses underlying the decision to perform liver transplantation (LT) in selected patients with resolved or active COVID-19 in Italy. We used Jonsen, Siegler, and Winslade's Four-Boxes casuistic method, addressing the four topics considered as constitutive of the essential structure of single clinical cases for their ethical analysis (medical indications, patient preferences, quality of life, and contextual features) to enable decision-making on a case-by-case basis. Based on these topics, we elucidate the meaning and balance among the principles of biomedical ethics. Clinical ethics judgment based on the relation between the risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 along with its potentially negative effects and the expected benefits of transplant lead to consider LT as clinically appropriate. Shared decision-making allows the integration of clinical options with the patient's subjective preferences and considerations, enabling a valid informed consent specifically tailored to the patients' individual circumstances. The inclusion of carefully selected SARS-CoV-2 positive donors represents an opportunity to offer lifesaving LT to patients who might otherwise have limited opportunities to receive one. COVID-19 positive donor livers are fairly allocated among equals, and respect for fundamental rights of the individual and the broader community in a context of healthcare rationing is guaranteed.The ethical analysis of the decision to perform LT in selected patients shows that the decision is ethically justifiable.

Vulnerability and ethical issues faced by general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: some reflections and lessons learned.

Vulnerability during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is an emotional state that affects all of us globally. The Italian experience shows that our general practitioners (GPs) seem to have a higher rate of death due to COVID-19 infection than other physicians.

Festina lente.

The provisions adopted in Italy for clinical trials on medicinal products and medical devices for the epidemiological emergency caused by COVID-19 had an impact also on the functioning of Ethics Committees (ECs). All COVID-19 clinical trials are evaluated preliminarily by the Technical Scientific Committee of the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). They are then evaluated by the Clinical Trial Office of the Competent Authority (AIFA) and by the EC of the Lazzaro Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases. On the basis of this experience, several parties have recommended the adoption of a new structure that envisages the involvement of a single EC for the activation of new studies, similar to the system put in place for studies on COVID-19. Rather than a single EC with jurisdiction over the entire country, we could envisage the accreditation of a certain number of ECs, possibly subdivided by therapeutic fields, with the trials to be evaluated distributed among them, so that each is authorised to issue an opinion that is valid nationally.

Criteria for allocation of life-saving resources during the SARS-COV-2 pandemic: ethical implications and aspects of legal liability.

The issue of political, institutional and professional liability in the context of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic is currently widely debated and involves several levels of investigation. One crucial aspect relates to the allocation of life-saving resources in situations where there is an imbalance between need and availability and the associated questions of ethical and legal liability. This work looks at the implications of the criteria applied to rationing under extraordinary conditions and the issue of their legitimacy. Considering the European scenario, we describe the approach taken by Italy in proposing criteria for pandemic triage of intensive treatment and highlight certain problems and critical issues. We emphasise that the decision, based on a comparative assessment, to deny treatment to a patient in critical condition, compromising that patient's right to care, exceeds the scope of decision-making autonomy of the professional concerned and requires a theoretical and procedural definition shared at multiple levels of society.

Ethics of triage for intensive-care interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: Age or disability related cut-off policies are not justifiable

Public health emergencies such as pandemics can put health systems in a position where they need to ration medical equipment and interventions because the resources available are not sufficient to meet demand. In public health management, the fair allocation of resources is a permanent and cross-sector issue since resources, and especially economic resources, are not infinite. During the COVID-19 pandemic resources need to be allocated under conditions of extreme urgency and uncertainty. One very problematic aspect has concerned intensive care medicine and age discrimination has been among the most hotly discussed issues, as age has been touted as a probable criterion for selection. In this paper we analyse some documents originating from scientific societies and medical associations, mainly related to EU sphere and available in English, French, Spanish and Italian (Switzerland, Spain, Belgium, France, England and Italy), concerning the criteria for admission to the intensive care units. We highlights how, in most of these documents, it is explicitly stated that ?age itself? is not a criterion for patient selection. Our conclusion is that these criteria should be defined in advance of a crisis situation and be grounded in clinical indicators. Establishing ?cut-off? policies with regard to criteria such as age or chronic disability is definitely an unjustifiable form of discrimination even in the context of a public health emergency.