So much at stake: Ethical tradeoffs in accelerating SARSCoV-2 vaccine development.

BACKGROUND: A sense of urgency exists to develop vaccines against SARS CoV-2, responsible for numerous global cases and deaths, as well as widespread social and economic disruption. Multiple approaches have been proposed to speed up vaccine development, including accelerated randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled human challenge trials (CHI), and wide distribution through an emergency use authorization after collecting initial data. There is a need to examine how best to accelerate vaccine development in the setting of a pandemic, without compromising ethical and scientific norms. METHODS: Trade-offs in scientific and social value between generating reliable evidence about safety and efficacy while promoting rapid vaccine availability are examined along five ethically relevant dimensions: (1) confidence in and generalizability of data, (2) feasibility, (3) speed and cost, (4) participant risks, and (5) social risks. RESULTS: Accelerated individually randomized RCTs permit expeditious evaluation of vaccine candidates using established methods, expertise, and infrastructure. RCTs are more likely than other approaches to be feasible, increase speed and reduce cost, and generate reliable data about safety and efficacy without significantly increasing risks to participants or undermining societal trust. CONCLUSION: Ethical analysis suggests that accelerated RCTs are the best approach to accelerating vaccine development in a pandemic, and more likely than other approaches to enhance social value without compromising ethics or science. RCTs can expeditiously collect rigorous data about vaccine safety and efficacy. Innovative and flexible designs and implementation strategies to respond to shifting incidence and test vaccine candidates in parallel or sequentially would add value, as will coordinated data sharing across vaccine trials. CHI studies may be an important complementary strategy when more is known. Widely disseminating a vaccine candidate without efficacy data will not serve the public health nor achieve the goal of identifying safe and effective SARS Co-V-2 vaccines.

Are we meeting the informational needs of cancer patients and families? Perception of physician communication in pediatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: High-quality oncology care is marked by skillful communication, yet little is known about patient and family communication perceptions or content preferences. Our study sought to elicit pediatric oncology patient and parent perceptions of early cancer communication to establish whether informational needs were met and identify opportunities for enhanced communication throughout cancer care. METHOD: An original survey instrument was developed, pretested, and administered to 129 patients, age 10-18 years, and their parents at 3 cancer centers between 2011 and 2015. Statistical analysis of survey items about perceived communication, related associations, and patient/parent concordance was performed. RESULTS: A greater percentage of participants reported "a lot" of discussion about the physical impact of cancer (patients, 58.1% [n = 75]; parents, 69.8% [n = 90]) compared with impact on quality of life (QOL) (patients, 44.2% [n = 57]; parents, 55.8% [n = 72]) or emotional impact (patients, 31.8% [n = 41]; parents, 43.4% [n = 56]). One fifth of patients (20.9% [n = 27]) reported they had no up-front discussion about the emotional impact of cancer treatment. Parents indicated a desire for increased discussion regarding impact on family life (27.9% [n = 36]), long-term QOL (27.9% [n = 36]), and daily activities (20.2% [n = 26]). Patients more frequently than parents indicated a desire for increased physician/patient discussion around the impact on daily activities (patients, 40.3% [n = 52]; parents, 21.7% [n = 28]; P < .001), long-term QOL (patients, 34.9% [n = 45]; parents, 16.3% [n = 21]; P < .001), pain management (patients, 23.3% [n = 30]; parents, 7% [n = 9]; P < .001), physical symptom management (patients, 24% [n = 31]; parents, 7.8% [n = 10]; P < .001), short-term QOL (patients, 23.3% [n = 30]; parents, 9.3% [n = 12]; P = .001), and curative potential (patients, 21.7% [n = 28]; parents, 8.5% [n = 11]; P = .002, P values calculated using McNemar's test). CONCLUSION: Oncologists may not be meeting the informational needs of many patients and some parents/caregivers. Communication could be enhanced through increased direct physician-patient communication, as well as proactive discussion of emotional symptoms and impact of cancer on QOL.

Does the current consent process minimize the risks of genetics research?

Completion of the human genome project is expected to lead to an increase in the number of individuals who participate in genetics research. The current informed consent process-developed prior to widespread genetics research-may not be sufficient to minimize the research risks that these individuals face. The current consent process focuses on informing individuals of the risks of research participation prior to their research enrollment. However, the risks of genetics research often are influenced by what subjects disclose to others after their research participation has ended. To assess whether the current consent process helps subjects remember the risks of future disclosures and, thereby, minimize the risks of genetics research, we interviewed 130 individuals who had previously participated in genetics research. Nineteen percent recalled that their samples would undergo genetic testing; 16% recalled that samples might be used for future research; 15% recalled that release of research records could affect their insurance status. These data suggest that current consent practices may not minimize the risks of genetics research. To address this concern, Institutional Review Boards and investigators should consider implementing supplemental mechanisms to help subjects remember when forgetting aspects of their research participation could place them at increased risk.

The debate over research on stored biological samples: what do sources think?

BACKGROUND: The debate over informed consent for research on stored biological samples has enormous scientific implications. Unfortunately, there are no data on individuals' attitudes regarding when their consent should be obtained for such research. METHODS: Data were gathered using a telephone survey of 504 individuals living in the United States. Two cohorts were studied: (1) individuals who had participated in clinical research and contributed biological samples and (2) randomly selected Medicare recipients. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 65.8% would require their consent for research on clinically derived, personally identified samples; 27.3% would require it for research on clinically derived samples that are "anonymized." For research-derived samples, 29.0% of the respondents would require their consent if the samples retain personal identifiers; 12.1% would require it if the samples are anonymized before the research is conducted. Also, 88.8% would want to be informed of results of uncertain clinical significance, and 91.9% would not impose greater safeguards on future research on a different disease. CONCLUSIONS: Current practice and policy recommendations regarding research using stored biological samples may be inconsistent with sources' preferences in several respects. In particular, it appears that most sources want to control whether their samples are used for research purposes, are not concerned with the particular disease that will be studied, and want to receive results of uncertain clinical significance. Follow-up research will be needed to assess the generalizability of the current data.

Views of potential subjects toward proposed regulations for clinical research with adults unable to consent.

OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to assess healthy individuals' attitudes toward five of the most prominent proposed safeguards regarding the consent process for research with adults unable to consent. METHOD: Telephone interviews were conducted with 246 individuals with a family history of Alzheimer's disease who had participated in clinical research. RESULTS: The majority of respondents said that they were willing to participate in research if they lost the ability to consent. Few completed a research advance directive. Many had discussed their preferences with their families, and the majority would allow their families to make research decisions for them. CONCLUSIONS: Enrolling individuals who are unable to consent in research that offers no potential for medical benefit is consistent with the preferences of at least some individuals. This suggests that such research should not be prohibited, provided there is sufficient evidence that it is consistent with the preferences of individual subjects. Requiring that such evidence be provided in a formal research advance directive may be unnecessarily restrictive. More research is needed to assess whether the findings in this group of subjects generalize to other groups.

When should "riskier" subjects be excluded from research participation?

The exclusion of potential subjects based on increased risks is a common practice in human subjects research. However, there are no guidelines to ensure that this practice is conducted in a systematic and fair way. This gap in the literature and regulation is addressed by a specific account of a "condition on inclusion risks" (CIR), a condition under which potential subjects should be excluded from research on the basis of increased risks. This account provides a general framework for assessing standard exclusions as well as more controversial ones such as the exclusion of pregnant women and women of childbearing potential from certain types of research.