Rapid Review of Therapy Protocols for Public Health Emergencies.

How research during a public health emergency is conducted is recognized as essential to the public health response to that emergency. Such research needs to undergo substantive and meaningful ethical review in a timely manner. Rapid ethical review may be accomplished through a number of mechanisms, including use of local rapid-response institutional review boards (IRBs). We describe use of such a model in the setting of the 2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic and the Rapid-Response IRB's subsequent transition to a multisite single IRB model during the current Covid-19 pandemic. The rapid-response review model is characterized by a small IRB with extensive use of alternate members with specific expertise and by close collaboration with the investigator in an iterative process.

Developing a Rapid Response Single IRB Model for Conducting Research During a Public Health Emergency.

Research is foundational for evidence-based management of patients. Clinical research, however, takes time to plan, conduct, and disseminate-a luxury that is rarely available during a public health emergency. The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) developed a single institutional review board (IRB), with a vision to establish a rapid review resource for a network focused on clinical research of emerging pathogens in the United States. A core aspect of successful initiation of research during a pandemic or epidemic is the ability to operationalize an approach for rapid ethical review of human subject research and conduct those reviews at multiple sites-without losing any of the substantive aspects of ethics review. This process must be cultivated in anticipation of a public health emergency. US guidance for operationalizing IRB review for multisite research in a public health emergency is not well studied and processes are not well established. UNMC sought to address operational gaps and identify the unique procedural needs of rapid response single IRB (RR-sIRB) review of multisite research by conducting a series of preparedness exercises to develop and test the RR-sIRB model. For decades, emergency responder, healthcare, and public health organizations have conducted emergency preparedness exercises to test requirements for emergency response. In this article, we describe 2 types of simulation exercises conducted by UNMC: workshops and tabletops. This effort represents a unique use of emergency preparedness exercises to develop, refine, and test rapid review functions for an sIRB and to validate readiness of regulatory research processes. Such processes are crucial for conducting rapid, ethical, and sound clinical research in public health emergencies.

Vulnerability in Research: Basic Ethical Concepts and General Approach to Review.

Background: The concept of vulnerability is a cornerstone of the theoretical basis and practical application of ethics in human subjects research. Risks to humans participating in research must be minimized; that is, subjects must be offered protection from risks. Vulnerable subjects require additional protections. Methods: This paper reviews the ethical and conceptual basis of vulnerability within the context of human subjects research and suggests a basic approach that institutional review boards (IRBs) can use when considering if the research includes adequate safeguards to protect the rights and welfare of subjects who are likely to be vulnerable. Results: Two distinct approaches to describing the features that make a person vulnerable are the categorical approach and the contextual approach. The categorical approach considers certain groups or populations as vulnerable. This approach is not optimal because it does not address persons with multiple vulnerabilities, does not account for variation in the degree of vulnerability within the group based on individual characteristics, and classifies certain persons as vulnerable rather than identifying situations in which individuals might be considered vulnerable. The alternate contextual approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the nature of the vulnerability than the categorical approach and therefore a more focused approach to safeguards. The IRB is charged with ensuring that additional safeguards to protect the rights and welfare of subjects who are likely to be vulnerable are included in the study under review. To make this determination, the IRB might be advised to consider two questions: (1) is inclusion necessary? and (2) if so, are safeguards adequate? Conclusion: Although vulnerability is often presented as a yes/no consequence related to some characteristic of a group, a more accurate approach is to consider vulnerability as occurring along a spectrum of seriousness and as a consequence of situations and context. With this idea in mind, investigators and IRBs are advised to take a stepwise approach to determining if the study meets the regulatory and ethical admonition to ensure that safeguards protect the rights and welfare of vulnerable subjects.

Advanced Preparation Makes Research in Emergencies and Isolation Care Possible: The Case of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).

The optimal time to initiate research on emergencies is before they occur. However, timely initiation of high-quality research may launch during an emergency under the right conditions. These include an appropriate context, clarity in scientific aims, preexisting resources, strong operational and research structures that are facile, and good governance. Here, Nebraskan rapid research efforts early during the 2020 coronavirus disease pandemic, while participating in the first use of U.S. federal quarantine in 50 years, are described from these aspects, as the global experience with this severe emerging infection grew apace. The experience has lessons in purpose, structure, function, and performance of research in any emergency, when facing any threat.

Physician approaches to drug shortages: Results of a national survey of pediatric hematologist/oncologists.

AIM: To evaluate personnel involved in scarce drug prioritization and distribution and the criteria used to inform drug distribution during times of shortage among pediatric hematologists/oncologists. METHODS: Using the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) membership list, a 20 question survey of pediatric hematologists/oncologists was conducted via email to evaluate personnel involved in scarce drug prioritization and distribution and criteria used to inform scarce drug distribution. RESULTS: Nearly 65% of the 191 study respondents had patients directly affected by drug shortages. Most physicians find out about shortages from the pharmacist (n = 179, 98%) or other doctors (n = 75, 41%). One third of respondents do not know if there is a program or policy for handling drug shortages at their institution. The pharmacist was the most commonly cited decision maker for shortage drug distribution (n = 128, 70%), followed by physicians (n = 109, 60%). One fourth of respondents did not know who makes decisions about shortage drug distribution at their institution. The highest priority criterion among respondents was use of the shortage drug for curative, rather than palliative intent and lowest priority criterion was order of arrival or first-come first-served. CONCLUSION: Despite pediatric hematology/oncology physicians and patients being heavily impacted by drug shortages, institutional processes for handling shortages are lacking. There is significant disparity between how decisions for distribution of shortage drugs are currently made and how study respondents felt those decisions should be made. An institution-based, and more importantly, a societal approach to drug shortages is necessary to reconcile these disparities.

An ethical framework for responding to drug shortages in pediatric oncology.

The frequency of drug shortages has increased considerably over the last decade. Important ethical issues arise whenever the supply of an effective drug is insufficient to meet demand. Using the ethical principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, institutions can guide prioritization of drug distribution before a shortage occurs to avoid unfair and unethical distribution of resources. This analysis will give a historical context for drug shortages, identify, and explore the central ethical concerns raised by drug shortages, and propose an ethical framework for addressing them in the context of pediatric oncology.

Cytosine arabinoside and mitoxantrone followed by second allogeneic transplant for the treatment of children with refractory juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia.

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) remains the only curative option for most patients with juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML). However, persistent disease and relapse rates after transplant range from 26% to 58%. We report the successful use of second HSCT after preparation with mitoxantrone and cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) for patients with refractory or recurrent disease. Between 1993 and 2006, 5 children who underwent HSCT at our institution as initial therapy for JMML had persistent disease or relapsed. Pre-HSCT conditioning varied and donors were either HLA-matched siblings (n=2) or matched unrelated donors (n=3). After initial HSCT, they subsequently received high-dose Ara-C (3 g/m IV) every 12 hours on days -8 through -3 and mitoxantrone (10 mg/m/d IV) on days -8, -7, -6 followed by second HSCT from their original donors. All 5 patients are alive at 88, 179, 199, 234, and 246 months with no evidence of JMML, no significant toxicity, and 100% donor chimera as determined by PCR short-tandem repeat analysis. Our experience supports second transplant utilizing high-dose Ara-C and mitoxantrone in children with JMML who do not respond or relapse after first transplant.

Women and contraception in research: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: There are no data on women's willingness to participate in clinical trials as a function of real or perceived reproductive risk. Further, it is unknown whether the requirement for contraception or the common practice of limiting women's contraceptive choices influences their willingness to participate in research. The uncertainty about women's preferences on these matters remains a barrier for recruiting women to and retaining women as subjects in clinical trials. METHODS: We developed a pilot study to determine women's willingness to participate in research with contraceptive requirements by looking at the three most common types of reversible contraceptives: hormonal contraception, barrier contraception, and intrauterine contraception. This study tested the hypotheses that restrictions on contraceptive choice impact women's willingness to participate in research and that the impact of contraceptive choice differs depending on women's perception of risk. RESULTS: Women's willingness to participate in the proposed study decreased overall as reproductive risk increased. In addition, requirements for specific contraceptive methods negatively impacted women's reported willingness to participate in the research studies in our survey. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that requirements for specific contraceptive methods negatively impacted women's reported willingness to participate in research. If confirmed in a larger sample, the negative effect of contraceptive limitations on women's willingness to participate in research would be of importance to clinical investigators and to institutional review boards (IRBs), as most adult biomedical research has as an explicit goal the equitable recruitment of women of childbearing potential.