Review of Current Tuberculosis Human Infection Studies for Use in Accelerating Tuberculosis Vaccine Development: A Meeting Report.

Tools to evaluate and accelerate tuberculosis (TB) vaccine development are needed to advance global TB control strategies. Validated human infection studies for TB have the potential to facilitate breakthroughs in understanding disease pathogenesis, identify correlates of protection, develop diagnostic tools, and accelerate and de-risk vaccine and drug development. However, key challenges remain for realizing the clinical utility of these models, which require further discussion and alignment among key stakeholders. In March 2023, the Wellcome Trust and the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative convened international experts involved in developing both TB and bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) human infection studies (including mucosal and intradermal challenge routes) to discuss the status of each of the models and the key enablers to move the field forward. This report provides a summary of the presentations and discussion from the meeting. Discussions identified key issues, including demonstrating model validity, to provide confidence for vaccine developers, which may be addressed through demonstration of known vaccine effects (eg, BCG vaccination in specific populations), and by comparing results from field efficacy and human infection studies. The workshop underscored the importance of establishing safe and acceptable studies in high-burden settings, and the need to validate >1 model to allow for different scientific questions to be addressed as well as to provide confidence to vaccine developers and regulators around use of human infection study data in vaccine development and licensure pathways.

Ethical approval for controlled human infectious model clinical trial protocols - A workshop report.

Controlled Human Infectious Model studies (CHIM) involve deliberately exposing volunteers to pathogens. To discuss ethical issues related to CHIM, the European Vaccine Initiative and the International Alliance for Biological Standardization organised the workshop "Ethical Approval for CHIM Clinical Trial Protocols", which took place on May 30-31, 2023, in Brussels, Belgium. The event allowed CHIM researchers, regulators, ethics committee (EC) members, and ethicists to examine the ethical criteria for CHIM and the role(s) of CHIM in pharmaceutical development. The discussions led to several recommendations, including continued assurance that routine ethical requirements are met, assurance that participants are well-informed, and that preparation of study documents must be both ethically and scientifically sound from an early stage. Study applications must clearly state the rationale for the challenge compared to alternative study designs. ECs need to have clear guidance and procedures for evaluating social value and assessing third-party risks. Among other things, public trust in research requires minimisation of harm to healthy volunteers and third-party risk. Other important considerations include appropriate stakeholder engagement, public education, and access to health care for participants after the study.

Human challenge trials in vaccine development.

The increasing recent interest in human challenge studies or controlled human infection model studies for accelerating vaccine development has been driven by the recognition of the unique ability of these studies to contribute to the understanding of response to infection and the performance of vaccines. With streamlining of ethical processes, conduct and supervision and the availability of new investigative tools from immunophenotyping to glycobiology, the potential to derive valuable data to inform vaccine testing and development has never been greater. However, issues of availability and standardization of challenge strains, conduct of studies in disease endemic locations and the iteration between clinical and laboratory studies still need to be addressed to gain maximal value for vaccine development.

Human Challenge Studies to Accelerate Coronavirus Vaccine Licensure.

Controlled human challenge trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates could accelerate the testing and potential rollout of efficacious vaccines. By replacing conventional phase 3 testing of vaccine candidates, such trials may subtract many months from the licensure process, making efficacious vaccines available more quickly. Obviously, challenging volunteers with this live virus risks inducing severe disease and possibly even death. However, we argue that such studies, by accelerating vaccine evaluation, could reduce the global burden of coronavirus-related mortality and morbidity. Volunteers in such studies could autonomously authorize the risks to themselves, and their net risk could be acceptable if participants comprise healthy young adults, who are at relatively low risk of serious disease following natural infection, if they have a high baseline risk of natural infection, and if during the trial they receive frequent monitoring and, following any infection, the best available care.

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.

Ethical issues surrounding controlled human infection challenge studies in endemic low-and middle-income countries.

Controlled human infection challenge studies (CHIs) involve intentionally exposing research participants to, and/or thereby infecting them with, micro-organisms. There have been increased calls for more CHIs to be conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where many relevant diseases are endemic. This article is based on a research project that identified and analyzed ethical and regulatory issues related to endemic LMIC CHIs via (a) a review of relevant literature and (b) qualitative interviews involving 45 scientists and ethicists with relevant expertise. In this article we argue that though there is an especially strong case for conducting CHIs in endemic (LMIC) settings, certain ethical issues related to the design and conduct of such studies (in such settings) nonetheless warrant particularly careful attention. We focus on ethical implications of endemic LMIC CHIs regarding (a) potential direct benefits for participants, (b) risks to participants, (c) third-party risks, (d) informed consent, (e) payment of participants, and (f) community engagement. We conclude that there is a strong ethical rationale to conduct (well-designed) CHIs in endemic LMICs, that certain ethical issues warrant particularly careful consideration, and that ethical analyses of endemic LMIC CHIs can inform current debates in research ethics more broadly.

Is it ethical to isolate study participants to prevent HIV transmission during trials with an analytical treatment interruption?

This commentary considers an extreme idea for protecting against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission to sex partners of individuals participating in HIV remission studies with an analytical treatment interruption (ATI). Other human challenge studies, such as studies of influenza, commonly isolate participants during the trial, to protect their contacts and the community against infection. Why should HIV studies with a treatment interruption be any different, one might wonder? This article concludes that isolation should not be used in HIV remission studies with an ATI but also shows that the matter is complex.

Should Children Be Included in Human Challenge Studies?

Human challenge studies, in which human research subjects are intentionally exposed to pathogens to contribute to scientific knowledge, raise many ethical complexities. One controversial question is whether it is ethically permissible to include children as participants. Commentary of the past decades endorses the exclusion of children, while new guidance suggests that pediatric human challenge studies can be ethically permissible. This paper argues that neither children's exclusion nor their inclusion are well justified. I examine and reject three arguments for exclusion, but suggest that these arguments establish pediatric human challenge studies as a complex ethical category of research that requires caution. I then argue for a strong presumption against children's inclusion, by drawing on an analogy to children's inclusion in phase I trials, emphasizing a requirement of necessity, and suggesting that accommodating children's vulnerability promotes an age de-escalation approach for pediatric human challenge studies research. In the final section, I suggest a procedure for ethics review.

Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration.

Introduction: Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies provide a unique platform for studying the pathophysiology of infectious diseases and accelerated testing of vaccines and drugs in controlled settings. However, ethical issues shroud them as the disease-causing pathogen is intentionally inoculated into healthy consenting volunteers, and effective treatment may or may not be available. We explored the perceptions of the members of institutional ethics committees (IECs) in India about CHIM studies. Methods: This qualitative exploratory study, conducted across seven sites in India, included 11 focused group discussions (FGD) and 31 in-depth interviews (IDI). A flexible approach was used with the aid of a topic guide. The data were thematically analyzed using grounded theory and an inductive approach. Emerging themes and sub-themes were analyzed, and major emergent themes were elucidated. Results: Seventy-two IEC members participated in the study including 21 basic medical scientists, 29 clinicians, 9 lay people, 6 legal experts and 7 social scientists. Three major themes emerged from this analysis-apprehensions about conduct of CHIM studies in India, a perceived need for CHIM studies in India and risk mitigation measures needed to protect research participants and minimize the associated risks. Conclusion: Development of a specific regulatory and ethical framework, training of research staff and ethics committee members, and ensuring specialized research infrastructure along with adequate community sensitization were considered essential before initiation of CHIM studies in India.

Risk, benefit, and social value in Covid-19 human challenge studies: pandemic decision making in historical context.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, ethicists and researchers proposed human challenge studies as a way to speed development of a vaccine that could prevent disease and end the global public health crisis. The risks to healthy volunteers of being deliberately infected with a deadly and novel pathogen were not low, but the benefits could have been immense. This essay is a history of the three major efforts to set up a challenge model and run challenge studies in 2020 and 2021. The pharmaceutical company Johnson and Johnson, the National Institutes of Health in the United States, and a private-public partnership of industry, university, and government partners in Britain all undertook preparations. The United Kingdom's consortium began their Human Challenge Programme in March of 2021.Beyond documenting each effort, the essay puts these scientific and ethical debates in dialogue with the social, epidemiological, and institutional conditions of the pandemic as well as the commercial, intellectual, and political systems in which medical research and Covid-19 challenge studies operated. It shows how different institutions understood risk, benefit, and social value depending on their specific contexts. Ultimately the example of Covid-19 challenge studies highlights the constructedness of such assessments and reveals the utility of deconstructing them retrospectively so as to better understand the interplay of medical research and research ethics with larger social systems and historical contexts.

Innovative vaccine approaches-a Keystone Symposia report.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines was the result of decades of research to establish flexible vaccine platforms and understand pathogens with pandemic potential, as well as several novel changes to the vaccine discovery and development processes that partnered industry and governments. And while vaccines offer the potential to drastically improve global health, low-and-middle-income countries around the world often experience reduced access to vaccines and reduced vaccine efficacy. Addressing these issues will require novel vaccine approaches and platforms, deeper insight how vaccines mediate protection, and innovative trial designs and models. On June 28-30, 2021, experts in vaccine research, development, manufacturing, and deployment met virtually for the Keystone eSymposium "Innovative Vaccine Approaches" to discuss advances in vaccine research and development.

Ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies: A joint HRA/WHO workshop.

This report of a joint World Health Organization (WHO) and United Kingdom (UK) Health Research Authority (HRA) workshop discusses the ethics review of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies, undertaken in the midst of the pandemic. It reviews the early efforts of international and national institutions to define the ethical standards required for COVID-19 human challenge studies and create the frameworks to ensure rigorous and timely review of these studies. This report evaluates the utility of the WHO's international guidance document Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies (WHO Key Criteria) as a practical resource for the ethics review of COVID-19 human challenge studies. It also assesses the UK HRA's approach to these complex ethics reviews, including the formation of a Specialist Ad-Hoc Research Ethics Committee (REC) for COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies to review all current and future COVID-19 human challenge studies. In addition, the report outlines the reflections of REC members and researchers regarding the ethics review process of the first COVID-19 human challenge studies. Finally, it considers the potential ongoing scientific justification for COVID-19 human challenge studies, particularly in relation to next-generation vaccines and optimisation of vaccination schedules. Overall, there was broad agreement that the WHO Key Criteria represented an international consensus document that played a powerful role in setting norms and delineating the necessary conditions for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies. Workshop members suggested that the WHO Key Criteria could be practically implemented to support researchers and ethics reviewers, including in the training of ethics committee members. In future, a wider audience may be engaged by the original document and potential additional materials, informed by the experiences of those involved in the first COVID-19 human challenge studies outlined in this document.

Prioritizing second-generation SARS-CoV-2 vaccines through low-dosage challenge studies.

The design of human challenge studies balances scientific validity, efficiency and study safety. This Perspective explores some advantages and disadvantages of 'low-dosage' challenge studies, in the setting of testing second-generation vaccines against COVID-19. Compared with a conventional vaccine challenge, a low-dosage vaccine challenge would be more likely to start, and start earlier. A low-dosage challenge would also be less likely to rule out a vaccine candidate that would have potentially been effective, particularly in certain target uses. A key ethical advantage of a low-dosage challenge over a conventional challenge is that both it and its dose escalation process are safer for each participant. Low-dosage studies would require larger numbers of participants than conventional challenges, but this and other potential disadvantages are less serious than they may initially appear. Overall, low-dosage challenges should be considered for certain roles such as prioritizing between second-generation vaccines against COVID-19.

Testing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy through deliberate natural viral exposure.

BACKGROUND: A vaccine trial with a conventional challenge design can be very fast once it starts, but it requires a long prior process, in part to grow and standardize challenge virus in the laboratory. This detracts somewhat from its overall promise for accelerated efficacy testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine candidates, and from the ability of developing countries and small companies to conduct it. AIMS: We set out to identify a challenge design that avoids this part of the long prior process. SOURCES: Literature in trial design (including a proof of concept flu challenge trial by B. Killingley et al.), vaccinology, medical ethics, and various aspects of COVID response. CONTENT: A challenge design with deliberate natural viral exposure avoids the need to grow culture. This new design is described and compared both to a conventional challenge design and to a conventional phase III field trial. In comparison, the proposed design has ethical, scientific, and feasibility strengths. IMPLICATIONS: The proposed new design should be considered for future vaccine trials.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

Why Challenge Trials of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines Could Be Ethical Despite Risk of Severe Adverse Events.

Human challenge trials to test the efficacy of vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus behind Covid-19, could save considerable time and many lives. But they may initially seem unethical because they expose healthy volunteers to a live virus that is killing many people and for which no cure exists. This article argues that this is not the correct test of their ethics. The correct test is comparative. And in the special circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, human challenge trials meet the correct test better than standard efficacy testing would.

COVID-19 vaccines: ethical framework concerning human challenge studies.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic associated with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus continues to spread worldwide. The most favorable epidemic control scenario, which provides long-term protection against COVID-19 outbreak, is the development and distribution of an effective and safe vaccine. The need to develop a new COVID-19 vaccine is pressing; however, it is likely to take a long time, possibly several years. This is due to the time required to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the proposed vaccine. and the time required to manufacture and distribute millions of doses. OBJECTIVES: To accelerate this development and associated safety testing, the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers has been suggested. The purpose of this short communication is to describe the ethical aspects of this type of testing, RESULTS: Deliberate infection of volunteers with a dangerous virus such as SARS-CoV-2 was initially considered unethical by researchers; but the current pandemic is so different from previous ones that these studies are considered ethical if certain criteria are met. Participants in human challenge studies must be relatively young, in good health and must receive the highest quality medical care, with frequent monitoring. Tests should also be performed with great caution and specialized medical supervision. Besides, the fact that obtaining vaccines faster through deliberate infection studies of healthy people has greater benefits than risks, has been demonstrated by obtaining other vaccines in other historical pandemics such as: smallpox, influenza, malaria, typhoid fever, Dengue fever and Zika. CONCLUSIONS: One possibility to shorten the time required for the development of COVID-19 vaccines is to reduce clinical phases II and III by using human challenge studies through eliberate infection of healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 after administration of the candidate vaccine. Accelerating the development of a COVID-19 vaccine even for a few weeks or months would have a great beneficial impact on public health by saving many lives.

Coronavirus Human Infection Challenge Studies: Assessing Potential Benefits and Risks.

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.

Expert voices and equal partnerships: establishing Controlled Human Infection Models (CHIMs) in Vietnam.

The number of controlled human infection models (CHIMs) conducted worldwide has increased considerably in recent years, although few have been conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where infectious diseases have the greatest burden. Recently Oxford University Clinical Research Unit (OUCRU) in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) started developing CHIM research proposals motivated by the need to develop a clearer and more grounded understanding of the issues surrounding the conduct of CHIMs in LMICs. To explore initial perceptions and barriers to conducting CHIMs in Vietnam, OUCRU researchers conducted a set of key stakeholder interviews early in 2018 and held a CHIM workshop in HCMC in March 2018. This paper summarizes the discussions from the workshop and outlines a way forward for conducting CHIMs in Vietnam.