International scope of biomedical research ethics review.

Many countries consider long-term implications for society.

How the EU AI Act Seeks to Establish an Epistemic Environment of Trust.

With focus on the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the digital health context, we consider the following questions: How does the European Union (EU) seek to facilitate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI systems through the AI Act? What does trustworthiness and trust mean in the AI Act, and how are they linked to some of the ongoing discussions of these terms in bioethics, law, and philosophy? What are the normative components of trustworthiness? And how do the requirements of the AI Act relate to these components? We first explain how the EU seeks to create an epistemic environment of trust through the AI Act to facilitate the development and uptake of trustworthy AI systems. The legislation establishes a governance regime that operates as a socio-epistemological infrastructure of trust which enables a performative framing of trust and trustworthiness. The degree of success that performative acts of trust and trustworthiness have achieved in realising the legislative goals may then be assessed in terms of statutorily defined proxies of trustworthiness. We show that to be trustworthy, these performative acts should be consistent with the ethical principles endorsed by the legislation; these principles are also manifested in at least four key features of the governance regime. However, specified proxies of trustworthiness are not expected to be adequate for applications of AI systems within a regulatory sandbox or in real-world testing. We explain why different proxies of trustworthiness for these applications may be regarded as 'special' trust domains and why the nature of trust should be understood as participatory.

Eosinophil Depletion with Benralizumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

Treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with benralizumab: results from the HILLIER study, a plain language summary.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic (long-lasting) skin disease that leads to dry, itchy, and swollen red spots, which can also be painful and flare up at any time. Some people with AD have a high number of eosinophils, a type of white blood cell, which are associated with worse disease. Medicated creams and lotions, prescribed by health care providers, are meant to reduce the symptoms of AD. For some people, these creams and lotions do not work. Benralizumab injection is a medication that reduces and removes eosinophils. A clinical trial called HILLER tested benralizumab to see if there was a difference in symptoms of AD after reducing or removing eosinophils. This article explains how benralizumab reduced eosinophils and the effect it had on AD symptoms in the HILLIER study. WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: Benralizumab reduced blood eosinophil numbers. However, benralizumab showed no evidence of treatment benefit on signs, symptoms, or severity of AD, as measured by three skin assessments compared with placebo. Benralizumab was well tolerated and had a safety profile that was consistent with previous studies. The five most commonly reported side effects were COVID-19 infection, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, swelling of the lymph nodes, and pink eye (conjunctivitis) in patients who received either benralizumab or placebo. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: Benralizumab lowered the number of blood eosinophils without improving AD symptoms and was well tolerated.

Benralizumab does not elicit therapeutic effect in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria: results from the phase IIb multinational randomized double-blind placebo-controlled ARROYO trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a relatively common skin disease associated with hives and angio-oedema. Eosinophils play a role in CSU pathogenesis. Benralizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 receptor-α monoclonal antibody, has been shown to induce nearly complete depletion of eosinophils. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with CSU who were symptomatic despite H1 antihistamine treatment. METHODS: The 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIb portion of the ARROYO trial enrolled adult patients with CSU who were currently on H1 antihistamine treatment. Patients were randomized to one of five treatment groups according to benralizumab dose and regimen for a 24-week treatment period. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in Itch Severity Score (ISS)7 at week 12. The key secondary endpoint was change from baseline in Urticaria Activity Score (UAS)7 at week 12. Additional secondary endpoints included other metrics to assess CSU at week 24, blood eosinophil levels, and pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity assessments. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to explore responses according to demographics, clinical features and biomarkers. Safety was assessed in all treatment groups. RESULTS: Of 155 patients, 59 were randomized to benralizumab 30 mg, 56 to benralizumab 60 mg and 40 to placebo. Baseline and disease characteristics were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. There were no significant differences in change from baseline in ISS7 score at week 12 between benralizumab and placebo [benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 1.26; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, least-squares mean difference -1.79, 95% CI -4.09 to 0.50] nor in change from baseline in UAS7 score at week 12 between benralizumab and placebo (benralizumab 30 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.407; benralizumab 60 mg vs. placebo, P = 0.082). Depletion of blood eosinophil levels was observed at week 24 in patients treated with benralizumab. All other secondary endpoints and exploratory/subgroup analyses indicated no significant differences between benralizumab and placebo. Safety results were consistent with the known profile of benralizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Although benralizumab resulted in near-complete depletion of blood eosinophils, there was no clinical benefit over placebo.

Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common disease characterized by hives, itching and inflammation (swelling) of the skin. CSU is mainly driven by what we call 'mast cells'. 'Eosinophils' are a type of white blood cell that protect the body from infections and allergens. These cells are abundant in skin biopsy samples of people with CSU, especially in the hives that contribute to swelling. Therefore, we thought that reducing eosinophils would be beneficial for treating CSU. Benralizumab is a drug that has been shown to reduce eosinophils in other diseases. This study, called 'ARROYO', was a 24-week clinical trial that compared benralizumab treatment with a placebo (inactive medicine) in adults with CSU who were taking antihistamines. We aimed to determine whether benralizumab would improve symptoms of CSU over time. Several assessments were used to measure changes in CSU symptoms, including hives, severity of itchiness, swelling of the skin, and other aspects related to overall psychological and physical wellbeing. The characteristics of the 155 people who took part in this study were consistent with what was expected for patients with CSU. We found that while benralizumab reduced eosinophil levels in people with CSU, there were no differences in symptoms in people receiving benralizumab compared with those receiving placebo. There were no new safety concerns related to benralizumab and no deaths. Overall, although benralizumab is effective at reducing the number of eosinophils, it is not effective at treating the symptoms of CSU. More studies are needed to uncover potential treatment targets in CSU.

Implementing the human right to science in the regulatory governance of artificial intelligence in healthcare.

Artificial intelligence (AI) enables a medical device to optimize its performance through machine learning (ML), including the ability to learn from past experiences. In healthcare, ML is currently applied within controlled settings in devices to diagnose conditions like diabetic retinopathy without clinician input, for instance. In order to allow AI-based medical devices (AIMDs) to adapt actively to its data environment through ML, the current risk-based regulatory approaches are inadequate in facilitating this technological progression. Recent and innovative regulatory changes introduced to regulate AIMDs as a software, or 'software as a medical device' (SaMD), and the adoption of a total device/product-specific lifecycle approach (rather than one that is point-in-time) reflect a shift away from the strictly risk-based approach to one that is more collaborative and participatory in nature, and anticipatory in character. These features are better explained by a rights-based approach and consistent with the human right to science (HRS). With reference to the recent explication of the normative content of HRS by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations, this paper explains why a rights-based approach that is centred on HRS could be a more effective response to the regulatory challenges posed by AIMDs. The paper also considers how such a rights-based approach could be implemented in the form of a regulatory network that draws on a 'common fund of knowledges' to formulate anticipatory responses to adaptive AIMDs. In essence, the HRS provides both the mandate and the obligation for states to ensure that regulatory governance of high connectivity AIMDs become increasingly collaborative and participatory in approach and pluralistic in substance.

120-GBaud 16-QAM silicon photonics IQ modulator for data center interconnection.

We demonstrated all-silicon IQ modulators (IQMs) operating at 120-GBaud 16-QAM with suitable bandwidth, and output power. We required optical signal-to-noise-ratio (rOSNR) that have promising potential to be used in 800-Gbps small-form-factor pluggable transceivers for data center interconnection. First, we tested an IQM chip using discrete drivers and achieved a per-polarization TX output power of -18.74 dBm and an rOSNR of 23.51 dB over a 100-km standard SMF. Notably, a low BER of 1.4e-3 was obtained using our SiP IQM chip without employing nonlinear compensation, optical equalization, or an ultra-wide-bandwidth, high-ENOB OMA. Furthermore, we investigated the performance of a 3D packaged transmitter by emulating its frequency response using an IQM chip, discrete drivers, and a programmable optical filter. With a laser power of 17 dBm, we achieved a per-polarization output power of -15.64 dBm and an rOSNR of 23.35 dB.

Concordance of International Regulation of Pediatric Health Research.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the comparability of international ethics principles and practices used in regulating pediatric research as a first step in determining whether reciprocal deference for international ethics review is feasible. Prior studies by the authors focused on other aspects of international health research, such as biobanks and direct-to-participant genomic research. The unique nature of pediatric research and its distinctive regulation by many countries warranted a separate study. STUDY DESIGN: A representative sample of 21 countries was selected, with geographical, ethnic, cultural, political, and economic diversity. A leading expert on pediatric research ethics and law was selected to summarize the ethics review of pediatric research in each country. To ensure the comparability of the responses, a 5-part summary of pediatric research ethics principles in the US was developed by the investigators and distributed to all country representatives. The international experts were asked to assess and describe whether principles in their country and the US were congruent. Results were obtained and compiled in the spring and summer of 2022. RESULTS: Some of the countries varied in their conceptualization or description of one or more ethical principles for pediatric research, but overall, the countries in the study demonstrated a fundamental concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Similar regulation of pediatric research in 21 countries suggests that international reciprocity is a viable strategy.

Operationalizing "One Health" as "One Digital Health" Through a Global Framework That Emphasizes Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits From the Use of Artificial Intelligence and Related Digital Technologies.

The operationalization of One Health (OH) through digitalization is a means to deploy digital technologies (including Artificial Intelligence (AI), big data and related digital technologies) to better capacitate us to deal with growing climate exigency and related threats to human, animal and plant health. With reference to the concept of One Digital Health (ODH), this paper considers how digital capabilities can help to overcome 'operational brakes' in OH through new and deeper insights, better predictions, and more targeted or precise preventive strategies and public health countermeasures. However, the data landscape is fragmented and access to certain types of data is increasingly restrictive as individuals, communities and countries seek to assert greater control over data taken from them. This paper proposes for a dedicated global ODH framework-centered on fairness and equity-to be established to promote data-sharing across all the key knowledge domains of OH and to devise data-driven solutions to challenges in the human-animal-ecosystems interface. It first considers the data landscape in relation to: (1) Human and population health; (2) Pathogens; (3) Animal and plant health; and (4) Ecosystems and biodiversity. The complexification from the application of advance genetic sequencing technology is then considered, with focus on current debates over whether certain types of data like digital (genetic) sequencing information (DSI) should remain openly and freely accessible. The proposed ODH framework must augment the existing access and benefit sharing (ABS) framework currently prescribed under the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in at least three different ways. First, the ODH framework should apply to all genetic resources and data, including DSI, whether from humans or non-humans. Second, the FAIRER principles should be implemented, with focus on fair and equitable benefit-sharing. Third, the ODH framework should adopt multilateral approaches to data sharing (such as through federated data systems) and to ABS. By operationalizing OH as ODH, we are more likely to be able to protect and restore natural habitats, secure the health and well-being of all living things, and thereby realize the goals set out in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework under the CBD.

WHO guidance on COVID-19 vaccine trial designs in the context of authorized COVID-19 vaccines and expanding global access: Ethical considerations.

While the degree of COVID-19 vaccine accessibility and uptake varies at both national and global levels, increasing vaccination coverage raises questions regarding the standard of prevention that ought to apply to different settings where COVID-19 vaccine trials are hosted. A WHO Expert Group has developed guidance on the ethical implications of conducting placebo-controlled trials in the context of expanding global COVID-19 vaccine coverage. The guidance also considers alternative trial designs to placebo controlled trials in the context of prototype vaccines, modified vaccines, and next generation vaccines.

Streamlining ethics review for international health research.

Single-site review means protection and efficiency.

Respecting values and perspectives in biobanking and genetic research governance: Outcomes of a qualitative study in Bengaluru, India.

Background: The promise of biobanking and genetic research (BGR) in the context of translational research towards improving public health and personalised medicine has been recognised in India. Worldwide experience has shown that incorporating stakeholders' expectations and values into the governance of BGR is essential to address ethical aspects of BGR.  This paper draws on engagement with various stakeholders in the South Indian city of Bengaluru to understand how incorporating people's values and beliefs can inform policy making decisions and strengthen BGR governance within India. Methods: We adopted a qualitative research approach and conducted six focus group discussions with civil society members and seven in-depth interviews with key informants in BGR, identified through a targeted web search and snowballing methods, until data saturation was reached. Data were thematically analysed to identify emergent patterns. Results: Specific themes relating to the ethics and governance of BGR emerged. Fears and uncertainty about future sample and data use, possibilities of discrimination and exploitation in the use of findings and the lack of comprehensive data protection policies in India along with expectations of enhanced contributor agency, control in future use of samples and data, benefit sharing, enhanced utility of samples, sustained BGR and public good, reflected tensions between different stakeholders' values and beliefs. Fair governance processes through an independent governance committee for biobanks and a system of ongoing engagement with stakeholders emerged as best practice towards building trust and respecting diversity of views and values. Conclusions: Ensuring public trust in BGR requires listening to stakeholders' voices, being open to counter narratives, and a commitment to long term engagement embedded in principles of participatory democracy. This is central to a 'people-centred governance framework' involving a negotiated middle ground and an equilibrium of governance which promotes social justice by being inclusive, transparent, equitable, and trustworthy.

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.

Open science, data sharing and solidarity: who benefits?

Research, innovation, and progress in the life sciences are increasingly contingent on access to large quantities of data. This is one of the key premises behind the "open science" movement and the global calls for fostering the sharing of personal data, datasets, and research results. This paper reports on the outcomes of discussions by the panel "Open science, data sharing and solidarity: who benefits?" held at the 2021 Biennial conference of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology (ISHPSSB), and hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL).

Development and content validation of a symptom assessment for eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis in adults and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: A patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument with evidence of validity and reliability for assessing symptoms of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is needed to measure treatment benefit in clinical trials. The aim of this research is to develop an EG/EGE symptom PRO instrument for patients aged 12 and above. METHODS: The Symptom Assessment for Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases (SAGED) was developed through a literature review, discussions with expert clinicians, and concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Patients (n = 28) were recruited based on confirmed diagnosis and self-reported symptoms. The final instrument was translated and linguistically validated with additional cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 105). RESULTS: SAGED is a 24-h recall questionnaire consisting of eight items evaluating the core symptoms of EG and EGE (abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, early satiety, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea). Seven of the eight items are evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 'none' to 'worst imaginable'. Cognitive debriefing interviews showed that adults and adolescents understand the content and are able to select a response that reflects their experience. The linguistic validation process produced 21 translations that are understandable to patients and conceptually equivalent to the source version. CONCLUSIONS: SAGED is suitable for measuring symptom improvement in adult and adolescent patients with EG and/or EGE. The content validity of SAGED has been established through best practices in qualitative research for PRO instrument development. The psychometric properties of SAGED will be evaluated in a future study.