SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Vaccines.

Viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by the current vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Moreover, if some variants of concern have increased transmissibility or virulence, the importance of efficient public health measures and vaccination programs will increase. The global response must be both timely and science based.

Governing the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator: towards greater participation, transparency, and accountability.

The Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) is a multistakeholder initiative quickly constructed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to a catastrophic breakdown in global cooperation. ACT-A is now the largest international effort to achieve equitable access to COVID-19 health technologies, and its governance is a matter of broad public importance. We traced the evolution of ACT-A's governance through publicly available documents and analysed it against three principles embedded in the founding mission statement of ACT-A: participation, transparency, and accountability. We found three challenges to realising these principles. First, the roles of the various organisations in ACT-A decision making are unclear, obscuring who might be accountable to whom and for what. Second, the absence of a clearly defined decision making body; ACT-A instead has multiple centres of legally binding decision making and uneven arrangements for information transparency, inhibiting meaningful participation. Third, the nearly indiscernible role of governments in ACT-A, raising key questions about political legitimacy and channels for public accountability. With global public health and billions in public funding at stake, short-term improvements to governance arrangements can and should now be made. Efforts to strengthen pandemic preparedness for the future require attention to ethical, legitimate arrangements for governance.

Preparing ethical review systems for emergencies: next steps.

Ethical review systems need to build on their experiences of COVID-19 research to enhance their preparedness for future pandemics. Recommendations from representatives from over twenty countries include: improving relationships across the research ecosystem; demonstrating willingness to reform and adapt systems and processes; and making the case robustly for better resourcing.

Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices.

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to "unlearn" what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than 'pre-print', such as 'Unrefereed manuscript', "Manuscript awaiting peer review" or ''Non-reviewed manuscript"; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating 'Caution-Not Peer Reviewed'; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

The Case for Why Africa Should Host COVID-19 Candidate Vaccine Trials.

In response to provocative comments by 2 European clinicians and scientists, the World Health Organization Director General has declared that Africa will not host COVID-19 vaccine trials. Such a stance risks stigmatizing COVID-19 vaccine trials in Africa and depriving Africa of critical research. To the contrary, there is a critical need for Africa to host COVID-19 vaccine trials on public health, scientific, and ethics grounds.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic response on other health research.

While governments have been focusing on the unprecedented disruption to the global economy caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the urgent need for COVID-19 research, other health research has become a casualty of the pandemic. Major research operations that are unrelated to COVID-19 have been significantly diminished or suspended entirely because of either COVID-19-related legal restrictions or logistical, staffing or operational concerns. Billions of people globally are currently affected by lockdowns or curfews. Since the timescale of such restrictive measures is unknown and subject to change, many studies are now in limbo and the welfare of tens of thousands of study participants is at risk. These circumstances have introduced complex ethical challenges that merit urgent attention from international sponsors, researchers and regulators. Certain sponsors and regulators have published guidelines on how the COVID-19-related disruptions to clinical research should be managed. Although these guidelines provide a good starting point in navigating the challenges of the evolving pandemic, they only apply to those researchers funded or governed by these bodies. Here, we provide guidelines on managing such disruptions that apply beyond these specific settings. We highlight some of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on other ongoing research projects that are unrelated to COVID-19 and provide practical guidance on how the welfare of affected study participants should be managed. We conclude that policy-makers, sponsors, researchers and regulators must adopt a more flexible approach to ensure participant safety, while maintaining data integrity and complying with good clinical practices.

Pendant que les gouvernements se concentrent sur les profonds bouleversements que la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) engendre pour l'économie mondiale ainsi que sur l'urgence des recherches qui y sont consacrées, d'autres études sont touchées de plein fouet par la pandémie. Plusieurs travaux de recherche d'importance majeure, sans lien avec la COVID-19, ont considérablement ralenti ou ont été totalement interrompus. Soit en raison des restrictions légales relatives à la COVID-19, soit à cause de problèmes logistiques, opérationnels ou d'effectifs. En ce moment, des milliards de personnes à travers le monde sont soumises à un confinement ou un couvre-feu. Comme la durée de telles mesures restrictives est inconnue et susceptible de changer, de nombreuses études sont actuellement en suspens et le bien-être de dizaines de milliers de participants est menacé. Ces circonstances particulières ont entraîné des défis éthiques complexes, qui requièrent une attention immédiate de la part des promoteurs, chercheurs et organismes de réglementation internationaux. Certains promoteurs et organismes de réglementation ont publié des directives sur la manière de gérer les interruptions de recherches cliniques dues à la COVID-19. Elles offrent un bon point de départ pour négocier les écueils au fil de l'évolution de la pandémie, mais elles ne s'appliquent qu'aux chercheurs financés ou administrés par ces instances. Dans le présent document, nous proposons donc des directives destinées à mieux gérer de telles interruptions, au-delà de ce cadre spécifique. Nous soulignons quelques-uns des effets de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur d'autres projets de recherche en cours qui n'ont aucun rapport avec la maladie, et nous donnons des conseils pratiques sur la manière de garantir le bien-être des participants aux études concernées. Enfin, nous parvenons à la conclusion que les législateurs, promoteurs, chercheurs et organismes de réglementation doivent adopter une approche plus souple, afin d'assurer la sécurité des participants tout en préservant l'intégrité des données et en respectant les bonnes pratiques cliniques.

Mientras que los gobiernos se han centrado en la perturbación sin precedentes de la economía global que la enfermedad del coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) ha causado y en la urgente necesidad de investigar sobre esta enfermedad, otras investigaciones sanitarias se han convertido en víctimas de la pandemia. Las principales actividades de investigación que no están relacionadas con la COVID-19 se han reducido de manera significativa o se han suspendido por completo debido a las restricciones legales relacionadas con la COVID-19 o a los problemas logísticos, de personal u operativos. En la actualidad, el confinamiento o los toques de queda afectan a miles de millones de personas en todo el mundo. Muchos estudios se encuentran ahora en el limbo y el bienestar de decenas de miles de sus participantes está en peligro debido a que se desconoce el calendario de esas medidas restrictivas y está sujeto a cambios. Estas circunstancias han planteado desafíos éticos complejos que merecen una atención urgente por parte de los patrocinadores, los investigadores y los organismos reguladores internacionales. Algunos patrocinadores y organismos reguladores han publicado pautas sobre cómo se deben gestionar las perturbaciones relacionadas con la COVID-19 en la investigación clínica. Aunque estas pautas constituyen un buen punto de partida para hacer frente a los desafíos de la pandemia que está evolucionando, solo se aplican a los investigadores que son financiados o gestionados por estos organismos. En este documento, se ofrecen pautas para gestionar esas perturbaciones que se extienden más allá de estos entornos específicos. Se resaltan algunos de los efectos de la pandemia de la COVID-19 en otros proyectos de investigación en curso que no están relacionados con esta enfermedad y se proporcionan pautas prácticas sobre cómo se debe gestionar el bienestar de los participantes afectados en el estudio. Se concluye que los responsables de formular las políticas, los patrocinadores, los investigadores y los organismos reguladores deben adoptar un enfoque más flexible para garantizar la seguridad de los participantes, al tiempo que se mantiene la integridad de los datos y se cumplen las buenas prácticas clínicas.

High incidence and persistence of hepatitis B virus infection in individuals receiving HIV care in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV), Human Immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Tuberculosis (TB) are common infections in South Africa. We utilized the opportunity of care provision for HIV-TB co-infected patients to better understand the relationship between these coinfections, determine the magnitude of the problem, and identify risk factors for HBV infection in HIV infected patients with and without TB in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken in 2018. In-care HIV infected patients were included in the analysis. Results from clinical records were analysed to determine the prevalence, incidence, persistence and factors associated with HBsAg positivity in HIV-infected patients with or without TB co-infection. RESULTS: A total of 4292 HIV-infected patients with a mean age of 34.7 years (SD: 8.8) were included. Based on HBsAg positivity, the prevalence of HBV was 8.5% (363/4292) [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.7-9.3] at baseline and 9.4% (95%CI: 8.6-10.3%) at end of follow-up. The HBV incidence rate was 2.1/100 person-years (p-y). Risk of incident HBV infection was two-fold higher among male patients (HR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.14-3.92), while severe immunosuppression was associated with a greater than two-fold higher risk of persistent infection (adjusted risk ratio (RR) 2.54; 95% CI 1.06-6.14; p = 0.004. Additionally, active TB at enrolment was associated with a two-fold higher risk of incident HBV infection (aHR 2.38; 95% CI: 0.77-7.35). CONCLUSION: The provision of HIV care and treatment in high HBV burden settings provide a missed opportunity for HBV screening, immunization and care provision.

Informed consent and community engagement in open field research: lessons for gene drive science.

BACKGROUND: The development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system has generated new possibilities for the use of gene drive constructs to reduce or suppress mosquito populations to levels that do not support disease transmission. Despite this prospect, social resistance to genetically modified organisms remains high. Gene drive open field research thus raises important questions regarding what is owed to those who may not consent to such research, or those could be affected by the proposed research, but whose consent is not solicited. The precise circumstances under which informed consent must be obtained, and from whom, requires careful consideration. Furthermore, appropriate engagement processes should be central to any introduction of genetically modified mosquitos in proposed target settings. DISCUSSION: In this work, international guidance documents on informed consent and engagement are reviewed and applied to the genetically modified mosquito research context. Five analogous research endeavours that involve area-wide / open field experiments are reviewed. The approach of each in respect to the solicitation of individual informed consent and community engagement are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: While the solicitation of individual informed consent in host settings of gene drive field trials may not be possible or feasible in some instances, local community and stakeholder engagement will be key to building trust towards the proposed conduct of such research. In this regard, the approaches taken by investigators and sponsors of political science field research and weather modification field research should be avoided. Rather, proponents of gene drive field research should look to the Eliminate Dengue field trials, cluster randomised trials, and pragmatic clinical trials for guidance regarding how the solicitation of individual informed consent of host communities ought to be managed, and how these communities ought to be engaged.

Undue inducement: a case study in CAPRISA 008.

: Participant safety and data integrity, critical in trials of new investigational drugs, are achieved through honest participant report and precision in the conduct of procedures. HIV prevention post-trial access studies in middle-income countries potentially offer participants many benefits including access to proven efficacious but unlicensed technologies, ancillary care that often exceeds local standards-of-care, financial reimbursement for participation and possibly unintended benefits if participants choose to share or sell investigational drugs. This case study examines the possibility that this combination of benefits may constitute an undue inducement for some participants in middle-income countries, where economic challenges are prevalent. A case study is presented of a single participant in a cohort of 382 participants who used concealment, fabrication and deception to ensure eligibility for a post-trial access study of an unlicensed HIV prevention technology at potential risk to her health and that of her fetus. A root cause analysis revealed her desire to access HIV prevention during an unplanned pregnancy with a partner whose faithfulness was in question. Researchers should consider implementation of systems to efficiently identify similar cases without inconveniencing the majority of participants TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01691768.

Humanitarian access to unapproved interventions in public health emergencies of international concern.

Jerome Singh considers how regulatory mechanisms can allow access to experimental interventions in humanitarian emergencies such as the Ebola epidemic.

Routine feedback of test results to participants in clinic- and survey-based surveillance of HIV.

Surveillance for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in low- and middle-income countries started in the 1980s. However, the questions of whether the results of HIV tests should be given to participants, and if so how, has still not been resolved. In the absence of effective treatment, it was considered acceptable to withhold results from HIV-positive participants. However, when antiretroviral treatment is available, some argue for beneficence - that it is the researcher's duty to return the test results to all those who provide samples for surveillance. The corollary is that only participants who wish to receive their test results would be eligible to participate in surveys. Others argue for autonomy - that to obtain a more representative result for the general population, surveys should not exclude participants who do not wish to receive their test results. This round table discussion takes a closer look at those two arguments. We believe that the global community should work towards routine feedback of HIV surveillance while ensuring that participants receive and understand their test results.

La surveillance du virus de l'immunodéficience humaine (VIH) dans les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire a commencé dans les années 1980. Les résultats des tests VIH doivent-ils être communiqués aux participants et si oui, comment ? En l'absence de traitement efficace, il avait été jugé acceptable de ne pas divulguer leur séropositivité aux participants infectés par le VIH. En revanche, dès lors qu'un traitement antirétroviral est disponible, certains évoquent le principe de bienfaisance et estiment qu'il est du devoir du chercheur de communiquer les résultats des tests à tous ceux qui ont fourni des échantillons à des fins de surveillance. Mais le corollaire est que seuls les participants qui acceptent d'être informés des résultats de leur test seraient alors éligibles pour participer à ce type d'enquêtes. D'autres avancent le principe d'autonomie, en disant que pour obtenir un résultat plus représentatif de la population générale, ces enquêtes ne doivent pas exclure les participants qui ne souhaitent pas recevoir leurs résultats. Cette table ronde examine en détail ces deux positions. Nous pensons que la communauté internationale devrait œuvrer pour une rétroaction systématique autour de la surveillance du VIH, en veillant à ce que les participants reçoivent et comprennent les résultats de leurs tests.

El seguimiento del virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) en países de ingresos bajos y medios empezó en los años ochenta. ¿Deberían proporcionarse los resultados de las pruebas del VIH a los participantes? Si es así, ¿de qué modo? A falta de tratamiento efectivo, se consideró aceptable retener los resultados de los participantes VIH-positivos. Sin embargo, cuando se dispone de tratamiento antirretroviral, hay quien defiende la beneficencia, es decir, que es el deber del investigador informar de los resultados de las pruebas a todos aquellos que proporcionen muestras para el seguimiento. La consecuencia de esto es que solo los participantes que quieran recibir los resultados de sus pruebas reunirían los requisitos para participar en las encuestas. Otros defienden la autonomía, es decir, que para obtener un resultado más representativo de la población en general, las encuestas no deberían excluir a los participantes que no quieran recibir los resultados de sus pruebas. Este debate de mesa redonda analiza con más detenimiento estos dos argumentos. Creemos que la comunidad mundial debería trabajar por la información rutinaria del seguimiento del VIH, al mismo tiempo que garantiza que los participantes reciban y entiendan los resultados de sus pruebas.

Challenges with participant reimbursement: experiences from a post-trial access study.

Reimbursement of trial participants remains a frequently debated issue, with specific guidance lacking. Trials combining post-trial access and implementation science may necessitate new strategies and models. CAPRISA 008, a post-trial access study testing the feasibility of using family planning services to rollout a prelicensure HIV prevention intervention, tried to balance the real-life scenario of no reimbursement for attendance at public sector clinics with that of a trial including some visits that focused on research procedures and others that focused on standard of care procedures. A reduced reimbursement was offered for 'standard of care' visits, meant primarily to cover transport costs to and from the clinic only. This impacted negatively on accrual, retention and participant morale, primarily due to the protracted delay in regulatory approval, during which time, the costs of living, including travel costs had increased. Relevant guidelines were reviewed and institutional policy was updated to incorporate the South African National Health Research Ethics Committee guidelines on reimbursement (taking into account participant time, travel and inconvenience). The reimbursement amount for 'standard of care' visits was increased accordingly. The question remains whether a trial that combines post-trial access with implementation science, with clear benefits for the participants and the provision of above standard medical care, should have reimbursement rates that approach those of a proof-of-concept trial, for 'standard of care' visits.

Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings.

BACKGROUND: Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) is one of the world's leading humanitarian medical organizations. The increased emphasis in MSF on research led to the creation of an ethics review board (ERB) in 2001. The ERB has encouraged innovation in the review of proposals and the interaction between the ERB and the organization. This has led to some of the advances in ethics governance described in this paper. DISCUSSION: We first update our previous work from 2009 describing ERB performance and then highlight five innovative practices: • A new framework to guide ethics review • The introduction of a policy exempting a posteriori analysis of routinely collected data • The preapproval of "emergency" protocols • General ethical approval of "routine surveys" • Evaluating the impact of approved studies. The new framework encourages a conversation about ethical issues, rather than imposing quasi-legalistic rules, is more engaged with the specific MSF research context and gives greater prominence to certain values and principles. Some of the innovations implemented by the ERB, such as review exemption or approval of generic protocols, may run counter to many standard operating procedures. We argue that much standard practice in research ethics review ought to be open to challenge and revision. Continued interaction between MSF researchers and independent ERB members has allowed for progressive innovations based on a trustful and respectful partnership between the ERB and the researchers. In the future, three areas merit particular attention. First, the impact of the new framework should be assessed. Second, the impact of research needs to be defined more precisely as a first step towards being meaningfully assessed, including changes of impact over time. Finally, the dialogue between the MSF ERB and the ethics committees in the study countries should be enhanced. SUMMARY: We hope that the innovations in research ethics governance described may be relevant for other organisations carrying out research in fragile contexts and for ethics committees reviewing such research.

Balancing efficiency, equity and feasibility of HIV treatment in South Africa - development of programmatic guidance.

South Africa, the country with the largest HIV epidemic worldwide, has been scaling up treatment since 2003 and is rapidly expanding its eligibility criteria. The HIV treatment programme has achieved significant results, and had 1.8 million people on treatment per 2011. Despite these achievements, it is now facing major concerns regarding (i) efficiency: alternative treatment policies may save more lives for the same budget; (ii) equity: there are large inequalities in who receives treatment; (iii) feasibility: still only 52% of the eligible population receives treatment.Hence, decisions on the design of the present HIV treatment programme in South Africa can be considered suboptimal. We argue there are two fundamental reasons to this. First, while there is a rapidly growing evidence-base to guide priority setting decisions on HIV treatment, its included studies typically consider only one criterion at a time and thus fail to capture the broad range of values that stakeholders have. Second, priority setting on HIV treatment is a highly political process but it seems no adequate participatory processes are in place to incorporate stakeholders' views and evidences of all sorts.We propose an alternative approach that provides a better evidence base and outlines a fair policy process to improve priority setting in HIV treatment. The approach integrates two increasingly important frameworks on health care priority setting: accountability for reasonableness (A4R) to foster procedural fairness, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to construct an evidence-base on the feasibility, efficiency, and equity of programme options including trade-offs. The approach provides programmatic guidance on the choice of treatment strategies at various decisions levels based on a sound conceptual framework, and holds large potential to improve HIV priority setting in South Africa.

Ethics, climate change and health - a landscape review.

Anthropogenic climate change is unequivocal, and many of its physical health impacts have been identified, although further research is required into the mental health and wellbeing effects of climate change. There is a lack of understanding of the importance of ethics in policy-responses to health and climate change which is also linked to the lack of specific action-guiding ethical resources for researchers and practitioners. There is a marked paucity of ethically-informed health input into economic policy-responses to climate change-an area of important future work. The interaction between health, climate change and ethics is technically and theoretically complex and work in this area is fragmentary, unfocussed, and underdeveloped. Research and reflection on climate and health is fragmented and plagued by disciplinary silos and exponentially increasing literature means that the field cannot be synthesised using conventional methods. Reviewing the literature in these fields is therefore methodologically challenging. Although many of the normative challenges in responding to climate change have been identified, available theoretical approaches are insufficiently robust, and this may be linked to the lack of action-guiding support for practitioners. There is a lack of ethical reflection on research into climate change responses. Low-HDI (Human Development Index) countries are under-represented in research and publication both in the health-impacts of climate change, and normative reflection on health and climate change policy. There is a noticeable lack of ethical commentary on a range of key topics in the environmental health literature including population, pollution, transport, energy, food, and water use. Serious work is required to synthesise the principles governing policy responses to health and climate change, particularly in relation to value conflicts between the human and non-human world and the challenges presented by questions of intergenerational justice.

Ethical research when abortion access is legally restricted.

Risks and benefits of some clinical research may be altered.

Why human health and health ethics must be central to climate change deliberations.

Jerome Singh argues that health ethics principles must be afforded equal status to economics principles in climate change deliberations, and that the health community must play more of a leadership role.

Ethical implications of economic compensation for voluntary medical male circumcision for HIV prevention and epidemic control.

Despite tremendous efforts in fighting HIV over the last decades, the estimated annual number of new infections is still a staggering 1.5 million. There is evidence that voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) provides protection against men's heterosexual acquisition of HIV-1 infection. Despite good progress, most countries implementing VMMC for HIV prevention programmes are challenged to reach VMMC coverage rates of 90%. Particularly for men older than 25 years, a low uptake has been reported. Consequently, there is a need to identify, study and implement interventions that could increase the uptake of VMMC. Loss of income and incurred transportation costs have been reported as major barriers to uptake of VMMC. In response, it has been suggested to use economic compensation in order to increase VMMC uptake. In this discussion paper, we present and review relevant arguments and concerns to inform decision-makers about the ethical implications of using economic compensation, and to provide a comprehensive basis for policy and project-related discussions and decisions.

Data sharing governance in sub-Saharan Africa during public health emergencies: Gaps and guidance.

While the COVID-19 pandemic has captured the attention of the global community since the end of 2019, deadly health pandemics are not new to Africa. Tuberculosis (TB), malaria and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) count amongst other serious diseases that have had a catastrophic impact on the African continent. Effective responses to such pandemics require high-quality, comprehensive data sets that can inform policymaking and enhance healthcare decision-making. While data is driving the information economy in the 21st century, the scarcity in Africa of carefully curated, large epidemiologic data sources and analytical capacity to rapidly identify and understand emerging infectious diseases poses a major challenge to mounting a time-sensitive response to unfolding pandemics. Data access, sharing and transfer between countries are crucial to effectively managing current and future health pandemics. Data access and sharing, however, raises questions about personal privacy, the adequacy of governance mechanisms to regulate cross-border data flows, and ethical issues relating to the collection and use of personal data in the interests of public health. Sub-Saharan Africa's most research-intensive countries are characterised by diverse data management and privacy governance frameworks. Such regional variance can impede time-sensitive data sharing and highlights the need for urgent governance reforms to facilitate effective decision-making in response to rapidly evolving public health threats.