Ethical issues in therapeutic use and research in pregnant and breastfeeding women.

Pregnant or potentially pregnant women have historically been excluded from clinical trials of new medications. However, it is increasingly recognised that it is imperative to generate evidence from the population in whom the drugs are likely to be used to inform safe, evidence-based shared clinical decision making. Reluctance by researchers and regulators to perform such studies often relates to concerns about risk, particularly to the foetus. However, this must be offset against the risk of untreated disease or using a drug in pregnancy where safety, efficacy and dosing information are not known. This review summarises the historical perspective, and the ethical and legal frameworks that inform the conduct of such research, then highlights examples of innovative practice that have enabled high quality, ethical research to proceed to inform the evidence-based use of medication in pregnancy.

Investing in justice: ethics, evidence, and the eradication investment cases for lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis.

It has been suggested that initiatives to eradicate specific communicable diseases need to be informed by eradication investment cases to assess the feasibility, costs, and consequences of eradication compared with elimination or control. A methodological challenge of eradication investment cases is how to account for the ethical importance of the benefits, burdens, and distributions thereof that are salient in people's experiences of the diseases and related interventions but are not assessed in traditional approaches to health and economic evaluation. We have offered a method of ethical analysis grounded in theories of social justice. We have described the method and its philosophical rationale and illustrated its use in application to eradication investment cases for lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis, 2 neglected tropical diseases that are candidates for eradication.

Genomics and infectious disease: a call to identify the ethical, legal and social implications for public health and clinical practice.

Advances in genomics are contributing to the development of more effective, personalized approaches to the prevention and treatment of infectious diseases. Genetic sequencing technologies are furthering our understanding of how human and pathogen genomic factors - and their interactions - contribute to individual differences in immunologic responses to vaccines, infections and drug therapies. Such understanding will influence future policies and procedures for infectious disease management. With the potential for tailored interventions for particular individuals, populations or subpopulations, ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) may arise for public health and clinical practice. Potential considerations include balancing health-related benefits and harms between individuals and the larger community, minimizing threats to individual privacy and autonomy, and ensuring just distribution of scarce resources. In this Opinion, we consider the potential application of pathogen and host genomic information to particular viral infections that have large-scale public health consequences but differ in ELSI-relevant characteristics such as ease of transmission, chronicity, severity, preventability and treatability. We argue for the importance of anticipating these ELSI issues in advance of new scientific discoveries, and call for the development of strategies for identifying and exploring ethical questions that should be considered as clinical, public health and policy decisions are made.

Social justice and HIV vaccine research in the age of pre-exposure prophylaxis and treatment as prevention.

The advent of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and treatment as prevention (TasP) as means of HIV prevention raises issues of justice concerning how most fairly and equitably to apportion resources in support of the burgeoning variety of established HIV treatment and prevention measures and further HIV research, including HIV vaccine research. We apply contemporary approaches to social justice to assess the ethical justification for allocating resources in support of HIV vaccine research given competing priorities to support broad implementation of HIV treatment and prevention measures, including TasP and PrEP. We argue that there is prima facie reason to believe that a safe and effective preventive HIV vaccine would offer a distinct set of ethically significant benefits not provided by current HIV treatment or prevention methods. It is thereby possible to justify continued support for HIV vaccine research despite tension with priorities for treatment, prevention, and other research. We then consider a counter-argument to such a justification based on the uncertainty of successfully developing a safe and effective preventive HIV vaccine. Finally, we discuss how HIV vaccine research might now be ethically designed and conducted given the new preventive options of TasP and PrEP, focusing on the ethically appropriate standard of prevention for HIV vaccine trials.