Ethics and administrative jurisprudence of the rights of subjects of research in pandemic (COVID-19): role of the scientific ethics committees: Chile / Ética y jurisprudencia administrativa de los derechos de los sujetos de investigación en pandemia (COVID-19): función de los comités éticos científicos: Chile

RESUMEN: Todo gobierno debe reaccionar rápida y efectivamente ante cualquier pandemia, Chile no es la excepción y apoyado en el estado de Excepción Constitucional, ha tenido que implementar medidas que podrían involucrar poca información sobre las percepciones de las personas y las reacciones durante la implementación de las restricciones. Las instituciones internacionales de salud han determinado que es un deber moral realizar investigaciones que generen evidencia que promuevan y mejoren la atención de la salud y la mitigación de la pandemia, instando a reducir los "obstáculos" prácticos de la revisión ética. Los objetivos de este trabajo fueron analizar desde las perspectivas de las consideraciones éticas y jurídicas, el rol que cumplen los Comités Éticos Científicos en el manejo y la protección de las personas durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. La metodología de trabajo se basó en la recolección de la información de Instituciones nacionales e internacionales de Salud y luego analizarla según la jurisprudencia administrativa del gobierno de Chile. Se concluye que los cambios de criterios que deben observar los CECs en el proceso de revisión de los protocolos de los proyectos de investigación científica, deben velar por proteger los derechos de los pacientes y sujetos de investigación en cuanto puede involucrar información sensible, más aún, si se consideran las graves consecuencias de su transgresión, dar un sentido distinto al que corresponda a las normas sobre derechos de pacientes, puede resultar en "falta de servicio" y eventual vulneración en los derechos del sujeto de investigación. La labor de los CEC, debe realizarse siempre desde una interpretación restrictiva, reconociendo la función pública que cumplen como parte integrante de la labor ética encomendada por el legislador al efecto.

SUMMARY: Every government must react quickly and effectively to any pandemic, Chile is no exception and supported by the state of Constitutional Exception, it has had to implement measures that could involve little information about people's perceptions and reactions during the implementation of the restrictions. International health institutions have determined that it is a moral duty to carry out research that generates evidence that promotes and improves health care and the mitigation of the pandemic, urging to reduce the practical "obstacles" to ethical review. The objective of this study was to analyze from the perspectives of ethical and legal considerations, the role that Scientific Ethics Committees play in the management and protection of people during the COVID-19 pandemic. The methodology used was based on collecting information from national and international Health Institutions and then analyzing it according to the administrative jurisprudence of the Chilean government. It is concluded that the changes in criteria that the CECs must observe in the process of reviewing the protocols of scientific research projects, must ensure the protection of the rights of patients and research subjects insofar as it may involve sensitive information, even more if the serious consequences of its transgression are considered. Giving a different meaning to the one that corresponds may result in "lack of service" and eventual violation of the rights of the research subject. The task of the CEC, must always be carried out from a restrictive interpretation, recognizing the public function that they fulfill as an integral part of the ethical work entrusted by the legislators to that effect.

Lack of detectable short-term effects of a single dose of ivermectin on the human immune system.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin is widely used in human and animal medicine to treat and prevent parasite nematode infections. It has been suggested that its mode of action requires the host immune system, as it is difficult to reproduce its clinical efficacy in vitro. We therefore studied the effects of a single dose of ivermectin (Stromectol®-0.15 mg/kg) on cytokine levels and immune cell gene expression in human volunteers. This dose reduces bloodstream microfilariae rapidly and for several months when given in mass drug administration programmes. METHODS: Healthy volunteers with no travel history to endemic regions were given 3-4 tablets, depending on their weight, of either ivermectin or a placebo. Blood samples were drawn immediately prior to administration, 4 h and 24 h afterwards, and complete blood counts performed. Serum levels of 41 cytokines and chemokines were measured using Luminex® and expression levels of 770 myeloid-cell-related genes determined using the NanoString nCounter®. Cytokine levels at 4 h and 24 h post-treatment were compared to the levels pre-treatment using simple t tests to determine if any individual results required further investigation, taking p = < 0.05 as the level of significance. NanoString data were analysed on the proprietary software, nSolver™. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in complete blood counts or cytokine levels at either time point between people given ivermectin versus placebo. Only three genes showed a significant change in expression in peripheral blood mononuclear cells 4 h after ivermectin was given; there were no significant changes 24 h after drug administration or in polymorphonuclear cells at either time point. Leukocytes isolated from those participants given ivermectin showed no difference in their ability to kill Brugia malayi microfilariae in vitro. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data do not support a direct effect of ivermectin, when given at the dose used in current filarial elimination programmes, on the human immune system. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03459794 Registered 9th March 2018, Retrospectively registered https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03459794?term=NCT03459794&draw=2&rank=1 .

Stakeholder Perspectives on Engaging With Cerebral Palsy Research Studies After Onset of COVID-19 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on perspectives toward participation in cerebral palsy (CP) research. DESIGN: An online survey with questions relating to the comfort levels of research participation was filled out by people who had CP or had a child with CP. SETTING: The online survey was administered through Research Electronic Data Capture platform. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 233 (n=233) individuals with CP (42.5%; n=99) or with a child with CP (57.1%; n=133) consented and at least partially completed the online survey (n=210 complete; n=23 partially complete). All participants resided in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Readiness to participate was analyzed in the context of the time point for research participation during COVID-19 and whether or not the study offered direct benefits to participants. RESULTS: Participants were consistently willing to participate sooner in studies that offered direct benefit than in those that did not. Adults responding for themselves had sooner time points for studies without direct benefit compared with parents answering for a child (P=.030). Gross Motor Function Classification System level, but not age or CP type, affected the time point for studies without direct benefit (P=.017). Personal values influenced selected time point for studies without direct benefit (P=.007), whereas environmental factors affected the time point for studies with direct benefit (P=.002). Local COVID-19 incidence rates were not associated with time points for either research type; however, respondents expected precautions to be taken if they chose to participate. CONCLUSIONS: As the pandemic evolves, researchers should consider the perspectives of potential participants as well as ethical and safety factors when reinitiating in-person CP research.

COVID-19 vaccination: The impact on the selection criteria of the convalescent plasma donors.

Clinical management protocols for COVID-19 are evolving rapidly as more information about the epidemiology and pathophysiological changes in COVID-19 become available. However, no definite treatment of COVID-19 has been found till date. The COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) therapy has emerged as an important investigational therapy in the management of COVID-19 patients. Additionally, the regulatory agencies, in particular, the Indian blood transfusion council must release some interim recommendations for the blood centres on the CCP blood donor eligibility criteria after COVID-19 vaccination. More clinical trials are needed to know the efficacy of the CCP harvested from COVID-19 recovered individuals who have been vaccinated against those COVID-19 recovered individuals who are not vaccinated to understand the vaccine impact on the IgG titres of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Human Infection Challenge Experiments: Then and Now.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.

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.