COVID-19 vaccine trials with children: ethics pointers

As healthcare authorities around the world strive to get as many citizens as possible vaccinated against the SAR-CoV-2 virus, many countries have begun including children in the population groups to be vaccinated. Properly designed clinical trials involving children are important to ensure safety, efficacy, and dosage of therapies in (developing) children. Within the complex health, social, and political scenario of the ongoing pandemic, ethics committees and policy makers in low-income and middle-income settings need to consider additional ethical questions when called on to review phase III COVID-19 vaccine trials involving in children. We set out some of the ethical questions to keep in mind before, during, and after the implementation of phase III COVID-19 vaccine trials in limited resource settings. Specifically, we discuss and offer succinct answers to the following questions: How relevant will the trial vaccine be for the population participating in the trial? Should vaccines that have not been approved for use among adults be approved for use in trials with children? Which children should be involved in COVID-19 vaccine trials? What criteria of informed consent are to be adopted with minors? Placebo versus an existing already approved vaccine? What specific duties of ancillary care should be taken into consideration for COVID-19 vaccines especially in low-income and middle-income countries? The answers we offer are considerations that can serve as ‘things to think about’ when reviewing or implementing COVID-19 trials involving children in low-income settings.

Research Ethics

Chapter 10 addresses the duties of researchers, particularly those in the medical field, again contending that the relational moral theory is revealing relative to Western competitors. It first proffers a new account of the obligation to obtain free and informed consent to participate in a study, as something to be upheld not so much as a way to promote health (utilitarianism) or to avoid degrading autonomy (Kantianism), but more as a way to respect people as capable of communal or friendly relationship. Rightness as friendliness is next shown to entail duties of confidentiality, albeit, plausibly, ones not as stringent as what is common in Western ethical thought. Lastly, the chapter argues that the communal ethic grounds a powerful account of ancillary care obligations—duties to compensate for harms that have befallen study participants that the study did not cause—by giving an account that challenges an influential autonomy-based theory of them.

Ancillary-Care Obligations

Medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations have, until recently, been ignored by the authoritative guidelines on the ethics of medical research. Ancillary care is medical care, often unrelated to what is under study, that is not required by sound science, safe trial conduct, morally optional promises, or redressing research injuries. The question is when medical researchers have moral responsibilities to provide such care if their study participants need it. This question shows up insistently in studies done in resource-poor areas and—as the question of whether to return incidental findings—in genomic and imaging studies. After laying out six desiderata for a fully adequate account of medical researchers’ ancillary-care obligations, this chapter critically evaluates six potential grounds for such obligations—the duty of rescue, human rights, rectificatory justice, professional-role obligations, the researcher–participant relationship, and partial entrustment. It closes by suggesting the possibility of combining two or more of these grounds.

Practices and Attitudes toward Returning Genomic Research Results to Low-Resource Research Participants

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Many research programs are challenged to accommodate low-resource research participants’ (LRRP) ancillary care needs when returning genomic research results. We define LRRP as those who are low income, uninsured, underinsured, or facing barriers to act upon the results returned. This study evaluates current policies and practices surrounding return of results (RoR) to LRRP, as well as the attitudes of investigators toward providing ancillary care to LRRP. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A semi-structured interview study was conducted with representatives of 35 genomic research programs nationwide. Eligible programs were returning, or planning to return, medically actionable genomic results to participants. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Three content categories emerged from this study, including: (1) RoR structures, (2) barriers to RoR to LRRP, and (3) solutions to meet community and LRRP needs. Three major structures of RoR emerged: (1) RoR Embedded in Clinical Care, (2) RoR Independent of Clinical Care, and (3) Reliance on Clinical Partnerships to Facilitate RoR. Inadequacy of program resources to address the needs of LRRP was commonly considered a significant obstacle. The attitudes and views of informants regarding responsibility to provide ancillary care for LRRP receiving genomic results were highly varied. Some informants believed that genomic sequencing and testing was not a priority for LRRP because of other pressing issues in their lives, such as housing and food insecurity. Research programs differ regarding whether clinical and social support for LRRP is considered within the purview of the research team. Some programs instituted accommodations for LRRP, including social work referral and insurance enrollment assistance. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Support to access downstream treatment is not readily available for LRRP in many genomic research programs. Development of best practices and policies for managing RoR to LRRP is needed.

What do we know about ancillary care practices in East and Southern Africa? A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Background: Despite growing calls for the provision of ancillary care to study participants during medical research, there remains a noticeable gap in ethical guidelines for medical researchers in resource-constrained settings (RCS). We reviewed recent studies to determine the extent to which ancillary care is provided in East and Southern Africa and to examine the ethical justifications researchers provide to support their views on ancillary care obligations. Methods: A systematic search for qualitative and mixed methods studies on ancillary care was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, African Wide Information, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Department of Bioethics and H3 Africa websites and Google Scholar were further searched. Studies conducted in East and Southern Africa between 2004 and 2020, as well as those that reported on ancillary care provided to study participants were included. All studies included in this review were evaluated for methodological quality as well as bias risk. NVivo version 12 was used for thematic analysis. Results: Overall, 4,710 articles were identified by the initial search. After the data extraction and quality assessment, 24 articles were included. Key areas presented include ancillary care approaches and the themes of researcher motivation for providing ancillary care and expectations of participants in medical research. The review shows that while some international researchers do provide ancillary care to their study participants, approaches are not standardised without consistent guidelines for ethical practice for ancillary care. We found limited empirical studies in RCS that report on ancillary care, hence findings in this review are based on single studies rather than a collection of multiple studies. Conclusions: This paper emphasizes the value of establishing ethics guidelines for medical researchers in RCS who consider provision of ancillary care to their participants, and the need to account for these ethical guidelines in medical research.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in inpatient and outpatient settings in a Veterans Affairs healthcare system

Background Healthcare personnel and patients are at risk to acquire severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in healthcare settings, including in outpatient clinics and ancillary care areas. Methods Between May 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021, we identified clusters of 3 or more COVID-19 cases in which nosocomial transmission was suspected in a Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Asymptomatic employees and patients were tested for SARS-CoV-2 if they were identified as being at risk through contact tracing investigations; for 7 clusters all personnel and/or patients in a shared work area were tested regardless of exposure history. Whole genome sequencing was performed to determine the relatedness of SARS-CoV-2 samples from the clusters and from control employees and patients. Results Of 14 clusters investigated, 7 occurred in community-based outpatient clinics, 1 in the emergency department, 3 in ancillary care areas, and 3 on hospital medical/surgical wards that did not provide care for patients with known COVID-19 infection. Eighty-one of 82 (99%) symptomatic COVID-19 cases and 31 of 35 (89%) asymptomatic cases occurred in healthcare personnel. Sequencing analysis provided support for several transmission events between co-workers and in 2 cases supported transmission from healthcare personnel to patients. There were no documented transmissions from patients to personnel. Conclusions Clusters of COVID-19 with nosocomial transmission predominantly involved healthcare personnel and often occurred in outpatient clinics and ancillary care areas. There is a need for improved measures to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by healthcare personnel in inpatient and outpatient settings.

Algorithm for the support of non-related (serious) adverse events in an Ebola vaccine trial in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Implementing an Ebola vaccine trial in a remote area in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and being confronted with a dysfunctional health care system and acute unmet health needs of participants, ethical considerations were made regarding the ancillary care obligations of the sponsor and researchers. Spurred by the occurrence of non-related (serious) adverse events (NR-SAEs), the Universities of Antwerp and Kinshasa jointly developed an algorithm, accompanied by an algorithm policy. The algorithm consists of a set of consecutive questions with binary response options, leading to structured, non-arbitrary and consistent support and management for each NR-SAE. It is the result of dialogue and collaboration between the sponsor (University of Antwerp) and the principal investigator (University of Kinshasa), consultation of literature, and input of research ethics and social sciences experts. The characteristics of the project and its budgetary framework were taken into account, as well as the local socioeconomic and healthcare situation. The algorithm and related policy have been approved by the relevant ethics committee (EC), so field implementation will begin when the study activities resume in November 2021. Lessons learnt will be shared with the relevant stakeholders within and outside DRC.If NR-SAEs are not covered by a functioning social welfare system, sponsors and researchers should develop a feasible, standardised and transparent approach to the provision of ancillary care. National legislation and contextualised requirements are therefore needed, particularly in low/middle-income countries, to guide researchers and sponsors in this process. Protocols, particularly of clinical trials conducted in areas with ‘access to care’ constraints, should include adequate ancillary care arrangements. Furthermore, it is essential that local ECs systematically require ancillary care provisions to enhance the well-being and protection of the rights of research participants. This project was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Managing ancillary care in resource-constrained settings: Dilemmas faced by frontline HIV prevention researchers in a rural area in South Africa

Background We describe the findings from a research ethics case study, linked with a team evaluating a package of intervention services to prevent HIV infection in adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) living in a rural and poor setting of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Methods We conducted qualitative interviews (n=77) with members of the linked research team evaluating the intervention programme, programme implementing staff, AGYW enrolled in the intervention programme, caregivers, ethics committee members, Public Engagement officers, community advisory board members and community stakeholders. Data were analysed iteratively using thematic framework analysis. Themes were determined by the study aims combined with an inductive development of codes emerging from the data. Results The findings show that the burden of providing ancillary care fell primarily on the shoulders of frontline researchers and programme staff. Dilemmas around responding to gender-based violence illustrated the limits of ‘referral to services’ as a solution for meeting ancillary care obligations in contexts with barriers to basic health and social services. Conclusion Our findings show important gaps in meeting ancillary care needs. Participants’ needs required social and economic support which frontline researchers and implementing partners were not able to meet, causing moral distress.