Sujet(s)
Sclérose latérale amyotrophique , Essais cliniques de phase III comme sujet , Développement de médicament , Durée du traitement , Oligonucléotides/pharmacologie , Sclérose latérale amyotrophique/traitement médicamenteux , Sclérose latérale amyotrophique/génétique , Essais cliniques de phase III comme sujet/méthodes , Essais cliniques de phase III comme sujet/normes , Agrément de médicaments , Développement de médicament/éthique , Développement de médicament/méthodes , Développement de médicament/organisation et administration , Développement de médicament/normes , Humains , Mutation , Oligonucléotides antisens/pharmacologie , , Sécurité des patients , Superoxide dismutase-1/biosynthèse , Superoxide dismutase-1/génétique , Délai jusqu'au traitement , Échec thérapeutiqueSujet(s)
Essais cliniques de phase III comme sujet/éthique , Myélome multiple/traitement médicamenteux , Récidive tumorale locale/traitement médicamenteux , Sélection de patients/éthique , Incertitude thérapeutique absolue , Protocoles de polychimiothérapie antinéoplasique , Développement de médicament/éthique , HumainsRÉSUMÉ
Obstetrical complications, often referred to as the "great obstetrical syndromes," are among the most common global causes of mortality and morbidity in young women and their infants. However, treatments for these syndromes are underdeveloped compared with other fields of medicine and are urgently needed. This current paucity of treatments for obstetrical complications is a reflection of the challenges of drug development in pregnancy. The appetite of pharmaceutical companies to invest in research for obstetrical syndromes is generally reduced by concerns for maternal, fetal, and infant safety, poor definition, and high-risk regulatory paths toward product approval. Notably, drug candidates require large investments for development with an unguaranteed return on investment. Furthermore, the discovery of promising drug candidates is hampered by a poor understanding of the pathophysiology of obstetrical syndromes and their uniqueness to human pregnancies. This limits translational extrapolation and de-risking strategies in preclinical studies, as available for other medical areas, compounded with limited fetal safety monitoring to capture early prenatal adverse reactions. In addition, the ethical review committees are reluctant to approve the inclusion of pregnant women in trials, and in the absence of regulatory guidance in obstetrics, clinical development programs are subject to unpredictable regulatory paths. To develop effective and safe drugs for pregnancy complications, substantial commitment, and investment in research for innovative therapies are needed in parallel with the creation of an enabling ethical, legislative, and guidance framework. Solutions are proposed to enable stakeholders to work with a common set of expectations to facilitate progress in this medical discipline. Addressing this significant unmet need to advance maternal and possibly perinatal health requires the involvement of all stakeholders and specifically patients, couples, and clinicians facing pregnancy complications in the dearth of appropriate therapies. This paper focused on the key pharmaceutical research and development challenges to achieve effective and safe treatments for obstetrical syndromes.
Sujet(s)
Développement de médicament , Mortalité infantile , Mortalité maternelle , Obstétrique/méthodes , Complications de la grossesse/traitement médicamenteux , Animaux , Développement de médicament/éthique , Développement de médicament/législation et jurisprudence , Développement de médicament/statistiques et données numériques , Femelle , Foetus/effets des médicaments et des substances chimiques , Humains , Nourrisson , Nouveau-né , Échange foetomaternel , Recherche pharmaceutique/éthique , Recherche pharmaceutique/législation et jurisprudence , Recherche pharmaceutique/statistiques et données numériques , GrossesseSujet(s)
Vaccins contre la COVID-19/usage thérapeutique , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Développement de médicament , Expérimentation humaine , SARS-CoV-2/immunologie , COVID-19/immunologie , COVID-19/virologie , Vaccins contre la COVID-19/effets indésirables , Vaccins contre la COVID-19/ressources et distribution , Développement de médicament/éthique , Interactions hôte-pathogène , Expérimentation humaine/éthique , Humains , Immunogénicité des vaccins , Sécurité des patients , Appréciation des risques , Résultat thérapeutiqueRÉSUMÉ
Early-phase cancer clinical trials are becoming increasingly accessible for patients with advanced cancer who have exhausted standard treatment options and later phase trial options. Many of these trials mandate research tissue biopsies. Research biopsies have been perceived as ethically fraught due to the perception of potential coercion of vulnerable human subjects. We performed an audit of two years of practice to assess the safety of ultrasound (US)-guided research biopsies, and to look at the yield of a simultaneous tumour next-generation sequencing (NGS) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) molecular characterisation programme. We show that in our institution, US-guided research biopsies were safe, produced adequate tumour content and in a selected subset who underwent in-house NGS sequencing, showed a high rate of actionable mutations with 30% having a Tier 1 variant. Nevertheless, these research biopsies may only provide direct benefit for a minority of patients and we conclude with a reflection on the importance of obtaining truly informed consent.
Sujet(s)
Surveillance des médicaments/effets indésirables , Tumeurs/diagnostic , Adulte , Sujet âgé , Essais cliniques comme sujet/éthique , Développement de médicament/éthique , Développement de médicament/méthodes , Surveillance des médicaments/éthique , Surveillance des médicaments/méthodes , Femelle , Séquençage nucléotidique à haut débit , Humains , Biopsie guidée par l'image/effets indésirables , Biopsie guidée par l'image/éthique , Biopsie guidée par l'image/méthodes , Immunohistochimie , Consentement libre et éclairé , Mâle , Adulte d'âge moyen , Tumeurs/traitement médicamenteux , Tumeurs/anatomopathologie , Études rétrospectives , Échographie interventionnelleSujet(s)
Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Développement de médicament/éthique , Australie/épidémiologie , COVID-19/économie , COVID-19/épidémiologie , Vaccins contre la COVID-19/économie , Développement de médicament/économie , Humains , Incidence , Pandémies/prévention et contrôle , SARS-CoV-2RÉSUMÉ
The world awaits a SARS-CoV-2 virus (i.e., COVID-19 disease) vaccine to keep the populace healthy, fully reopen their economies, and return their social and healthcare systems to "normal." Vaccine safety and efficacy requires meticulous testing and oversight; this paper describes how despite grandiose public statements, the current vaccine development, testing, and production methods may prove to be ethically dubious, medically dangerous, and socially volatile. The basic moral concern is the potential danger to the health of human test subjects and, eventually, many vaccine recipients. This is further complicated by economic and political pressures to reduce government oversight on rushed vaccine testing and production, nationalistic distribution goals, and failure to plan for the widespread immunization needed to produce global herd immunity. As this paper asserts, the public must be better informed to assess promises about the novel vaccines being produced and to tolerate delays and uncertainty.
Sujet(s)
Recherche biomédicale , Vaccins contre la COVID-19/ressources et distribution , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Développement de médicament/éthique , SARS-CoV-2/immunologie , Essais cliniques comme sujet/éthique , Humains , Programmes de vaccinationRÉSUMÉ
The results obtained with basic research showing significant therapeutic promise are often not translated into clinical applications. The purpose of translational research is to favour the transition of basic research to application at the patient's bedside, and from here to routine clinical practice (without excluding the opposite pathway, in which the evidence generated by clinical practice helps to guide research). Although translational research can provide patients with valuable therapeutic resources, it is not risk-free. The most significant ethical issues in translational research on medicinal products derive from the risk of the intention to shorten the timeframes for the application of the results of the research making the scientific methods adopted and the regulatory requisites to be satisfied along the long path from the bench to the patient's bedside less rigorous. This is also relevant during pandemics when shortening the timeline from basic research to bedside is even more crucial. It is therefore necessary to establish defined and agreed requisites in order to guarantee the ethicality of translational research, by promoting the good of individuals and minimising the risks.
Sujet(s)
Questions bioéthiques , Développement de médicament/éthique , Découverte de médicament/éthique , /éthique , HumainsSujet(s)
Vaccins contre la COVID-19/administration et posologie , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Études cliniques comme sujet/éthique , Expérimentation humaine/éthique , Vaccins contre la COVID-19/effets indésirables , Vaccins contre la COVID-19/usage thérapeutique , Développement de médicament/éthique , Humains , Appréciation des risquesSujet(s)
Betacoronavirus , Essais cliniques comme sujet/éthique , Essais cliniques comme sujet/méthodes , Infections à coronavirus/prévention et contrôle , Développement de médicament/éthique , Développement de médicament/méthodes , Pandémies/prévention et contrôle , Pneumopathie virale/prévention et contrôle , Afrique , COVID-19 , Pays en voie de développement , Humains , SARS-CoV-2RÉSUMÉ
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.
Sujet(s)
Betacoronavirus/immunologie , Recherche biomédicale/éthique , Infections à coronavirus/prévention et contrôle , Développement de médicament/éthique , Pandémies/prévention et contrôle , Pneumopathie virale/prévention et contrôle , COVID-19 , Humains , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/éthique , Vaccins antiviraux/immunologieRÉSUMÉ
This second International Alliance for Biological Standardization COVID-19 webinar brought together a broad range of international stakeholders, including academia, regulators, funders and industry, with a considerable participation from low- and middle-income countries, to discuss the use of controlled human infection models to accelerate development and market authorization assessment of a vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
Sujet(s)
Betacoronavirus , Infections à coronavirus/prévention et contrôle , Développement de médicament/éthique , Expérimentation humaine/éthique , Pandémies/prévention et contrôle , Pneumopathie virale/prévention et contrôle , Vaccins antiviraux/usage thérapeutique , COVID-19 , Vaccins contre la COVID-19 , Développement de médicament/législation et jurisprudence , Expérimentation humaine/législation et jurisprudence , Humains , Contrôle de qualité , Normes de référence , SARS-CoV-2RÉSUMÉ
Human infection challenge studies (HCS) have been proposed as a means to accelerate SARS-CoV2 vaccine development and thereby help to mitigate a prolonged global public health crisis. A key criterion for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV2 HCS is that potential benefits outweigh risks. Although the assessment of risks and benefits is meant to be a standard part of research ethics review, systematic comparisons are particularly important in the context of SARS-CoV2 HCS in light of the significant potential benefits and harms at stake as well as the need to preserve public trust in research and vaccines. In this paper we explore several considerations that should inform systematic assessment of SARS-CoV-2 HCS. First, we detail key potential benefits of SARS-CoV-2 HCS including, but not limited to, those related to the acceleration of vaccine development. Second, we identify where modelling is needed to inform risk-benefit (and thus ethical) assessments. Modelling will be particularly useful in (i) comparing potential benefits and risks of HCS with those of vaccine field trials under different epidemiological conditions and (ii) estimating marginal risks to HCS participants in light of the background probabilities of infection in their local community. We highlight interactions between public health policy and research priorities, including situations in which research ethics assessments may need to strike a balance between competing considerations.
Sujet(s)
COVID-19 , Développement de médicament/éthique , Développement de médicament/méthodes , Vaccins antiviraux , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Humains , Pandémies , Santé publique , Plan de recherche , Appréciation des risques , SARS-CoV-2/effets des médicaments et des substances chimiquesRÉSUMÉ
The intense competition for resources to combat COVID-19 has greatly reduced access to health care for patients with other diseases. After the disastrous overrun of hospitals through COVID-19 patients in some jurisdictions, availability of resources for 'elective' medical procedures, including care for the chronically ill, has been greatly reduced in many places as a pre-emptive measure before or during the blooming of infection clusters. Pharmaceutical companies have either stopped recruitment or even cancelled ongoing clinical trials in chronic diseases. Pre-emptive triage and its impact on medical ethics is discussed in the framework of care for inflammatory bowel disease.
Sujet(s)
Anti-inflammatoires/usage thérapeutique , COVID-19/prévention et contrôle , Essais cliniques comme sujet/éthique , Développement de médicament/éthique , Rationnement des services de santé/éthique , Accessibilité des services de santé/éthique , Maladies inflammatoires intestinales/traitement médicamenteux , COVID-19/épidémiologie , Maladie chronique , Santé mondiale , Humains , Pandémies/prévention et contrôle , Triage/éthique , Triage/méthodesRÉSUMÉ
COVID-19 poses an extraordinary threat to global public health and an effective vaccine could provide a key means of overcoming this crisis. Human challenge studies involve the intentional infection of research participants and can accelerate or improve vaccine development by rapidly providing estimates of vaccine safety and efficacy. Human challenge studies of low virulence coronaviruses have been done in the past and human challenge studies with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been proposed. These studies of coronaviruses could provide considerable benefits to public health; for instance, by improving and accelerating vaccine development. However, human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in particular might be controversial, in part, for ethical reasons. The ethical issues raised by such studies thus warrant early consideration involving, for example, broad consultation with the community. This Personal View provides preliminary analyses of relevant ethical considerations regarding human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, including the potential benefits to public health and to participants, the risks and uncertainty for participants, and the third-party risks (ie, to research staff and the wider community). We argue that these human challenge studies can reasonably be considered ethically acceptable insofar as such studies are accepted internationally and by the communities in which they are done, can realistically be expected to accelerate or improve vaccine development, have considerable potential to directly benefit participants, are designed to limit and minimise risks to participants, and are done with strict infection control measures to limit and reduce third-party risks.