Suchergebnisse

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for nonhospitalized patients with mild or moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease and for individuals exposed to COVID-19 as postexposure prophylaxis. EUAs for oral antiviral drugs have also been issued. Due to increased demand because of the Delta variant, the federal government resumed control over the supply and asked states to ration doses. As future variants (eg, the Omicron variant) emerge, further rationing may be required. We identify relevant ethical principles (ie, benefiting people and preventing harm, equal concern, and mitigating health inequities) and priority groups for access to therapies based on an integrated approach to population health and medical factors (eg, urgently scarce healthcare workers, persons in disadvantaged communities hard hit by COVID-19). Using priority categories to allocate scarce therapies effectively operationalizes important ethical values. This strategy is preferable to the current approach of categorical exclusion or inclusion rules based on vaccination, immunocompromise status, or older age, or the ad hoc consideration of clinical risk factors.

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies deliberately infect healthy participants with malaria to test interventions faster and more efficiently. Some argue the study design and high payments offered raise ethical concerns about participants' understanding of risks and undue inducement. We conducted baseline and exit interviews with 16 CHMI study participants to explore these concerns. Participants described themes including decision-making tension with friends and family, mixed motivations for participating, low study risks but high burdens, fair compensation, sacrificing values, deceiving researchers, and perceived benefits. Our findings do not support concerns that high payments limit understanding of study risks, but suggest participants may lack appreciation of study burdens, withhold information or engage in deception, and experience conflict with others regarding study participation.

AbstractIntroductionEngaging adolescents in HIV care and research promotes the development of interventions tailored to their unique needs. Guidelines generally require parental permission for adolescents to receive HIV care/testing or participate in research, with exceptions. Nevertheless, parental permission requirements can restrict adolescent involvement in care and research. To better appreciate prospects for policy reform, we sought to understand the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the development, review and implementation of policies related to adolescents living with HIV.MethodsSemi‐structured individual interviews (IDIs) were conducted from October 2019 to March 2020 with 18 stakeholders with expertise in the (1) development of policy through membership in the Law Society of Kenya or work as a health policy official; (2) review of policy through ethics review committee service; or (3) implementation of policy through involvement in adolescent education. IDIs were conducted in English by Kenyan social scientists, audio‐recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used thematic analysis to identify themes around how policies can be reformed to improve adolescent engagement in HIV care and research.ResultsOur analysis identified three major themes. First, policies should be flexible rather than setting an age of consent. Stakeholders noted that adolescents' capacity for engagement in HIV care and research depended on context, perceived risks and benefits, and "maturity"—and that age was a poor proxy for the ability to understand. Second, policies should evolve with changing societal views about adolescent autonomy. Participants recognized a generational shift in how adolescents learn and mature, suggesting the need for a more frequent review of HIV care and research guidelines. Third, adults should empower adolescent decision‐making. Stakeholders felt that caregivers can gradually involve adolescents in decision‐making to equip them to gain ownership over their health and lives, improving their confidence and capacity.ConclusionsRevising relevant laws to consider context, alternative measures of maturity, and evolving societal views about adolescence, along with supporting caregivers to assist in developing adolescent autonomy may promote more equitable and representative participation of adolescents in HIV care and research. Additional research should explore how to support caregivers and other adults to empower adolescents and improve stakeholder engagement in a more routine process of policy reform.

Research in rapidly-evolving policy contexts can lead to the following ethical challenges for sponsors and researchers: the study's standard of care can become different than what patients outside the study receive, there may be political or other pressure to move ahead with unproven interventions, and new findings or revised policies may decrease the relevance of ongoing studies. These ethical challenges are considerable, but not unprecedented. In this paper, we review the case of a multinational, randomized, controlled perinatal HIV prevention trial, the "PROMISE" (Promoting Maternal Infant Survival Everywhere) study. PROMISE compared the relative efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent mother to child transmission of HIV. The sponsor engaged an independent international ethics panel to address controversy about the study's standard of care and relevance as national and international guidelines changed. This ethics panel concluded that continuing the PROMISE trial as designed was ethically permissible because: (1) participants in all arms received interventions that were effective, and there was insufficient evidence about whether one intervention was more effective or safer than the other; and (2) data from PROMISE could be useful for a diverse range of stakeholders. In general, trials designed to inform rapidly evolving policy issues should develop mechanisms to revisit social value while recognizing that the value of research varies for diverse stakeholders with legitimate reasons to weigh evidence differently. We conclude by providing four reasons that trials may depart from the standard of care after a change in policy, while remaining ethically justifiable, and by suggesting how to improve existing trial oversight mechanisms to address evolving social value.