The Use of Authorized Concealment to Minimize Nocebo Side Effects: A Survey of US Public Attitudes.

INTRODUCTION: To minimize nocebo effects, it may be possible to employ authorized concealment, in which clinicians tell patients about the nocebo phenomenon and ask if they would prefer not to be informed about mild treatment side effects. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to understand public evaluations of authorized concealment for reducing nocebo effects. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was completed by a demographically diverse US national community sample between June 2 and 6, 2023. Participants were 1,012 adults residing in 48 states, ages ranging from 18 to 94 (mean = 43.2), 65.4% regularly taking medication, and 66.6% reporting a chronic physical or mental health condition. After learning about nocebo effects, participants rated and estimated their likelihood of consenting to four potential methods for authorized concealment of mild side effects. The four methods were ranked for preference and ranked again with the options of (1) receiving all side-effect information and (2) having the opportunity to select among disclosure methods. RESULTS: A majority of participants (86.2%) positively endorsed at least one authorized concealment method and 88.2% estimated they would consent to at least one method. Authorized concealment in which individuals learned only the most common side effects or had side-effect information available online received more positive ratings and rankings. A final ranking yielded preferences for receiving all side-effect information (30.4%) and having the opportunity to select side-effect disclosure method (31.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that many in the public could be open to authorized concealment for mild side effects when it is explained in reference to nocebo effects.

Frequency of Adverse Events in the Placebo Arms of COVID-19 Vaccine Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Adverse events (AEs) after placebo treatment are common in randomized clinical drug trials. Systematic evidence regarding these nocebo responses in vaccine trials is important for COVID-19 vaccination worldwide especially because concern about AEs is reported to be a reason for vaccination hesitancy. Objective: To compare the frequencies of AEs reported in the placebo groups of COVID-19 vaccine trials with those reported in the vaccine groups. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched systematically using medical subheading terms and free-text keywords for trials of COVID-19 vaccines published up to July 14, 2021. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines that investigated adults aged 16 years or older were selected if they assessed solicited AEs within 7 days of injection, included an inert placebo arm, and provided AE reports for both the vaccine and placebo groups separately. Full texts were reviewed for eligibility by 2 independent reviewers. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 reviewers, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were based on random-effects models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportions of placebo recipients reporting overall, systemic, and local (injection-site) AEs as well as logarithmic odds ratios (ORs) to evaluate group differences. Outcomes were tested for significance using z tests with 95% CIs. Results: Twelve articles with AE reports for 45 380 participants (22 578 placebo recipients and 22 802 vaccine recipients) were analyzed. After the first dose, 35.2% (95% CI, 26.7%-43.7%) of placebo recipients experienced systemic AEs, with headache (19.3%; 95% CI, 13.6%-25.1%) and fatigue (16.7%; 95% CI, 9.8%-23.6%) being most common. After the second dose, 31.8% (95% CI, 28.7%-35.0%) of placebo recipients reported systemic AEs. The ratio between placebo and vaccine arms showed that nocebo responses accounted for 76.0% of systemic AEs after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose and for 51.8% after the second dose. Significantly more vaccine recipients reported AEs, but the group difference for systemic AEs was small after the first dose (OR, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.40; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.30 to -0.22) and large after the second dose (OR, -1.36; 95% CI, -1.86 to -0.86; P < .001; standardized mean difference, -0.75; 95% CI, -1.03 to -0.47). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, significantly more AEs were reported in vaccine groups compared with placebo groups, but the rates of reported AEs in the placebo arms were still substantial. Public vaccination programs should consider these high rates of AEs in placebo arms.

Current Practice Diagnosing Brain Death Is Not Consistent With Legal Statutes Requiring the Absence of All Brain Function.

The legal standard for the determination of death by neurologic criteria in the United States is laid out in the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), which requires the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain. Most other nations endorse a "whole-brain" standard as well. However, current practice in the determination of death by neurologic criteria is not consistent with this legal standard, because some patients who are diagnosed as brain-dead, in fact retain some brain function, or retain the capacity for the return of some brain function. In response, the American Academy of Neurology published updated guidelines, which assert that hypothalamic function is consistent with the neurological standard enshrined in the UDDA. Others have suggested that it is an open question whether the hypothalamus and pituitary are part of "the entire brain," as delineated in the UDDA. While we agree that determination of death practices are worthy of continued dialogue and refinement in practice that dialogue must adhere to reasonable standards of logic and scientific accuracy.

The Legality and Ethics of Mandating COVID-19 Vaccination.

In light of ongoing concerns in the US that COVID-19 vaccine uptake is stagnating and that cases remain high amongst the unvaccinated, there is growing interest in increasing uptake by mandating vaccination. COVID-19 vaccine mandates must be understood and assessed in terms of who is requiring vaccination and who is required to be vaccinated. This essay considers the legal and ethical implications of states mandating vaccination for children and adults, as well as of employers mandating vaccines for employees. We conclude that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are legally and ethically permissible.

It Is Time to Abandon the Dogma That Brain Death Is Biological Death.

Drawing on a recent case report of a pregnant, brain-dead woman who gave birth to a healthy child after over seven months of intensive care treatment, this essay rejects the established doctrine in medicine that brain death constitutes the biological death of the human being. The essay describes three policy options with respect to determination of death and vital organ transplantation in the case of patients who are irreversibly comatose but remain biologically alive.

Liberty and Protection of Society During a Pandemic: Revisiting John Stuart Mill.

John Stuart Mill's classic text, On Liberty, maps the scope and limits on individual freedom. His "harm principle"-that liberty can be legitimately restricted by government or society only to prevent harm to others-has had a great influence on contemporary public health ethics. This essay examines Mill's philosophy of liberty as it pertains to public health interventions in response to the coronavirus pandemic. Particular applications include examination of face masks, lockdowns, and mandatory vaccination.

Human Infection Challenge Experiments: Then and Now.

In the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists, researchers, and journalists have recommended studies that deliberately infect healthy volunteers with the coronavirus as a scientific means of expediting vaccine development. In this essay, we trace the history of infection challenge experiments and reflect on the Nuremberg Code of 1947, issued in response to brutal human experiments conducted by Nazi investigators in concentration camps. We argue that the Code continues to offer valuable guidance for assessing the ethics of this controversial form of research, with respect particularly to the acceptable limits to research risks and the social value of research necessary to justify exposing human participants to these risks.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Challenge Experiments in Nonhuman Primates: An Ethical Perspective.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has stimulated massive investment in biomedical research with the aims of understanding the disease and developing effective vaccine and therapeutic interventions. What role should animal research play in this scientific endeavor? Both the urgency to evaluate candidate interventions for human use and growing societal concern about ethical treatment of (nonhuman) animals put into question the justifiability of animal research as a precursor to clinical trials. Yet forgoing animal research in the rush to undertake human testing might expose human research participants to unacceptable risks. In this article, we apply a recently developed framework of principles for animal research ethics in exploring ethical questions raised by a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection challenge experiment involving rhesus macaques, which evaluated the protective efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine that was recently approved for emergency use. Our aim is to illuminate the ethical issues while introducing, and illustrating the use of, the framework.

Allocating a COVID-19 Vaccine: Balancing National and International Responsibilities.

Policy Points In this paper we propose a middle-ground policy for the distribution of an effective COVID-19 vaccine, between a cosmopolitan approach that rejects entirely nation-state priority and unbridled vaccine nationalism that disregards obligations to promote an equitable global allocation of an effective vaccine over time. Features of the COVAX partnership, a collaboration among the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI), the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and the World Health Organization (WHO) to develop and distribute COVID-19 vaccines make it an appropriate framework for a middle-ground policy.

The role of community engagement in addressing bystander risks in research: The case of a Zika virus controlled human infection study.

There is limited guidance on how to assess the ethical acceptability of research risks that extend beyond research participants to third parties (or "research bystanders"). Community or stakeholder engagement has been proposed as one way to address potential harms to community members, including bystanders. Despite widespread agreement on the importance of community engagement in biomedical research, this umbrella term includes many different goals and approaches, agreement on which is ethically required or recommended for a particular context. We analyse the case of a potential Zika virus human challenge trial to assess whether and how community engagement can help promote the ethical acceptability of research posing risks to bystanders. We conclude that, in addition to having intrinsic value, community engagement can improve the identification of bystander risks, effective approaches to minimizing them, and transparency about bystander risks for host communities.

So much at stake: Ethical tradeoffs in accelerating SARSCoV-2 vaccine development.

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.

Placebos in chronic pain: evidence, theory, ethics, and use in clinical practice.

Despite their ubiquitous presence, placebos and placebo effects retain an ambiguous and unsettling presence in biomedicine. Specifically focused on chronic pain, this review examines the effect of placebo treatment under three distinct frameworks: double blind, deception, and open label honestly prescribed. These specific conditions do not necessarily differentially modify placebo outcomes. Psychological, clinical, and neurological theories of placebo effects are scrutinized. In chronic pain, conscious expectation does not reliably predict placebo effects. A supportive patient-physician relationship may enhance placebo effects. This review highlights "predictive coding" and "bayesian brain" as emerging models derived from computational neurobiology that offer a unified framework to explain the heterogeneous evidence on placebos. These models invert the dogma of the brain as a stimulus driven organ to one in which perception relies heavily on learnt, top down, cortical predictions to infer the source of incoming sensory data. In predictive coding/bayesian brain, both chronic pain (significantly modulated by central sensitization) and its alleviation with placebo treatment are explicated as centrally encoded, mostly non-conscious, bayesian biases. The review then evaluates seven ways in which placebos are used in clinical practice and research and their bioethical implications. In this way, it shows that placebo effects are evidence based, clinically relevant, and potentially ethical tools for relieving chronic pain.