An ethics of anthropology-informed community engagement with COVID-19 clinical trials in Africa.

The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the critical role of ethics and community engagement in designing and conducting clinical research during infectious disease outbreaks where no vaccine or treatment already exists. In reviewing current practices across Africa, we distinguish between three distinct roles for community engagement in clinical research that are often conflated: 1) the importance of community engagement for identifying and honouring cultural sensitivities; 2) the importance of recognising the socio-political context in which the research is proposed; and 3) the importance of understanding what is in the interest of communities recruited to research according to their own views and values. By making these distinctions, we show that current practice of clinical research could draw on anthropology in ways which are sometimes unnecessary to solicit local cultural values, overlook the importance of socio-political contexts and wider societal structures within which it works, potentially serving to reinforce unjust political or social regimes, and threaten to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the research. We argue that more discerning anthropological engagement as well as wider collaboration with other social scientists and those working in the humanities is urgently needed to improve the ethics of current biomedical and pharmaceutical research practice in Africa.

Recognising values and engaging communities across cultures: towards developing a cultural protocol for researchers.

Efforts to build research capacity and capability in low and middle income countries (LMIC) has progressed over the last three decades, yet it confronts many challenges including issues with communicating or even negotiating across different cultures. Implementing global research requires a broader understanding of community engagement and participatory research approaches. There is a considerable amount of guidance available on community engagement in clinical trials, especially for studies for HIV/AIDS, even culturally specific codes for recruiting vulnerable populations such as the San or Maori people. However, the same cannot be said for implementing research in global health. In an effort to build on this work, the Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning and University College London in the UK sought to better understand differences in beliefs, values and norms of local communities in Pakistan. In particular, they have sought to help researchers from high income countries (HIC) understand how their values are perceived and understood by the local indigenous researchers in Pakistan. To achieve this end, a group discussion was organised with indigenous researchers at Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning. The discussion will ultimately help inform the development of a cultural protocol for researchers from HIC engaging with communities in LMIC. This discussion revealed five common themes; (1) religious principles and rules, (2) differing concepts of and moral emphasis on autonomy and privacy, (3) importance of respect and trust; (4) cultural differences (etiquette); (5) custom and tradition (gift giving and hospitality). Based on the above themes, we present a preliminary cultural analysis to raise awareness and to prepare researchers from HIC conducting cross cultural research in Pakistan. This is likely to be particularly relevant in collectivistic cultures where social interconnectedness, family and community is valued above individual autonomy and the self is not considered central to moral thinking. In certain cultures, HIC ideas of individual autonomy, the notion of informed consent may be regarded as a collective family decision. In addition, there may still be acceptance of traditional professional roles such as 'doctor knows best', while respect and privacy may have very different meanings.

A Radical Approach to Ebola: Saving Humans and Other Animals.

As the usual regulatory framework did not fit well during the last Ebola outbreak, innovative thinking still needed. In the absence of an outbreak, randomised controlled trials of clinical efficacy in humans cannot be done, while during an outbreak such trials will continue to face significant practical, philosophical, and ethical challenges. This article argues that researchers should also test the safety and effectiveness of novel vaccines in wild apes by employing a pluralistic approach to evidence. There are three reasons to test vaccines in wild populations of apes: i) protect apes; ii) reduce Ebola transmission from wild animals to humans; and iii) accelerate vaccine development and licensing for humans. Data obtained from studies of vaccines among wild apes and chimpanzees may even be considered sufficient for licensing new vaccines for humans. This strategy will serve to benefit both wild apes and humans.

Ethics of clinical science in a public health emergency: drug discovery at the bedside.

Clinical research under the usual regulatory constraints may be difficult or even impossible in a public health emergency. Regulators must seek to strike a good balance in granting as wide therapeutic access to new drugs as possible at the same time as gathering sound evidence of safety and effectiveness. To inform current policy, I reexamine the philosophical rationale for restricting new medicines to clinical trials, at any stage and for any population of patients (which resides in the precautionary principle), to show that its objective to protect public health, now or in the future, could soon be defeated in a pandemic. Providing wider therapeutic access and coordinating observations and natural experiments, including service delivery by cluster (wedged cluster trials), may provide such a balance. However, there are important questions of fairness to resolve before any such research can proceed.

Perceived coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice arising from global lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review.

This aim of this scoping review is to map what is known about perceived coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice within the context of the general population's experience of 'lockdowns' imposed by governments worldwide in response to the increased transmission of COVID-19. Arksey & O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews was chosen. A sensitive search strategy was devised and conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following search terms: (adherence OR acceptance OR agreement OR trust OR distrust OR compliance OR willing*) OR (perceived coerc* OR percept* coerc* OR pressure OR force OR influence OR control OR threat OR justice) AND (lockdown) AND (COVID OR SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19). The database search initially produced 41,628 articles to screen. A total of 40 articles were included in this review and the following five themes were identified from the studies: perceived acceptability and willingness to adhere to lockdown; perceived control during lockdown; perceived pressures arising from lockdown; perceived threat of sanction from others and the procedural (in)justice of lockdown. Our synthesis suggests that i) individuals experienced an initial willingness and tolerance of lockdown that lessened over time as perceptions of personal control decreased; ii) that social influences may pressure individuals to follow or break lockdown rules; and iii) that justifiability and proportionality together with individuals' perceptions of harm from COVID-19 may impact the extent to which individuals adhere to lockdown. Furthermore, the review found an absence of information regarding specific individual characteristics and circumstances that increase the likelihood of experiencing perceived coercion and its related constructs and highlights a need for a better understanding of the cultural and socioeconomic factors affecting perceptions of, and adherence to, lockdown.

Is equipoise a useful concept to justify randomised controlled trials in the cultural context of Pakistan? A survey of clinicians in relation to a trial of talking therapy for young people who self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Clinical equipoise, also defined as the uncertainty principle, is considered essential when recruiting subjects to a clinical trial. However, equipoise is threatened when clinicians are influenced by their own preferences. Little research has investigated equipoise in the context of trial recruitment. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey sought clinicians' views (operationalised as 11 statements relating to treatments offered in a trial of a psychological intervention for young people) about equipoise and individual treatment preferences in the context of moral justification for recruiting young people at risk of self-harm or suicide to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Youth Culturally Adapted Manual Assisted Psychological Intervention (Y-CMAP) in Pakistan. We compared the views of clinicians involved in Y-CMAP RCT recruitment to those of a sample of clinicians not involved in trial recruitment but treating similar patients, comparing their sociodemographic characteristics and the proportions of those in each group agreeing with each statement. RESULTS: There was a response rate of 96% (75/78). Findings showed that, during trial recruitment and before the RCT results were known, the majority of all responding clinicians (73.3%) considered Y-CMAP to be an effective treatment for young people at risk of self-harm or suicide. Although there was an acknowledgement of individual preferences for the intervention, there was near consensus (90%) on the need to conduct an RCT for reaching an evidence-based decision. However, there were no significant differences in the proportion of recruiting clinicians reporting a treatment preference for Y-CMAP than non-recruiting clinicians (31 (88.6%) versus 36 (90%), p = 0.566). A significantly higher proportion of non-recruiting clinicians (87.5%) as compared to (48.5%) in the trial (p = 0.000) stated that there may be other treatments that may be equally good for the patients, seemingly undermining a preference for the intervention. Those reporting a treatment preference also acknowledged that there was nothing on which this preference was based, however confident they felt about them, thus accepting clinical equipoise as ethical justification for conducting the RCT. There was a significant group difference in views that treatment overall is better as a result of young patients' participation in the Y-CMAP trial (p = 0.015) (i.e. more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed with this statement). Similarly, more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed on the perceived availability of other treatment options that were good for young people at risk of self-harm (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The paper highlights that clinicians in Pakistan accept the notion of clinical equipoise as an ethical justification for patient participation in RCTs. The need for conducting RCTs to generate evidence base and to reduce bias was considered important by the clinical community.

Hard paternalism, fairness and clinical research: why not?

Jansen and Wall suggest a new way of defending hard paternalism in clinical research. They argue that non-therapeutic research exposing people to more than minimal risk should be banned on egalitarian grounds: in preventing poor decision-makers from making bad decisions, we will promote equality of welfare. We argue that their proposal is flawed for four reasons. First, the idea of poor decision-makers is much more problematic than Jansen and Wall allow. Second, pace Jansen and Wall, it may be practicable for regulators to uncover the values that a potential research participant holds when agreeing to enter a research project, so their claim that we must ban such research projects for all if we are to ban them for poor decision-makers looks to be unmotivated. Third, there seem to be cases where the liberty to enter the sort of research project Jansen and Wall discuss is morally weighty, and arguably should outweigh concerns of egalitarian distribution. Fourth, banning certain types of research, which seem on the face of it to offer an unfavourable risk-benefit ratio, would have unwelcome consequences for all clinical research, which Jansen and Wall do not recognize.

A qualitative investigation of selecting surrogate decision-makers.

BACKGROUND: Empirical studies of surrogate decision-making tend to assume that surrogates should make only a 'substituted judgement'--that is, judge what the patient would want if they were mentally competent. OBJECTIVES: To explore what people want in a surrogate decision-maker whom they themselves select and to test the assumption that people want their chosen surrogate to make only a substituted judgement. METHODS: 30 undergraduate students were recruited. They were presented with a hypothetical scenario about their expected loss of mental capacity in the future and asked to answer some questions about their choice of surrogate. These data were analysed qualitatively using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Most respondents talked about choosing someone who was caring and competent in certain ways, giving interesting evidence for their judgements. Surprisingly few highlighted how well they thought their chosen surrogate knew their preferences and would be able to make a substituted judgement. Moreover, few specified that their chosen surrogate had similar attitudes and values to their own and so would make a similar decision to theirs in the circumstances presented. Some respondents also referred to the social role of their chosen surrogate or the social dynamics of their situation which influenced their choices, as well as to ideas of reciprocity and characteristics of honesty and loyalty. CONCLUSION: In the event that they lose mental capacity, many people will not select a surrogate to decide about medical treatments on their behalf solely on the basis that they expect their surrogate to make a substituted judgement.

Assessing the remedy: the case for contracts in clinical trials.

Current orthodoxy in research ethics assumes that subjects of clinical trials reserve rights to withdraw at any time and without giving any reason. This view sees the right to withdraw as a simple extension of the right to refuse to participate all together. In this paper, however, I suggest that subjects should assume some responsibilities for the internal validity of the trial at consent and that these responsibilities should be captured by contract. This would allow the researcher to impose a penalty on the subject if he were to withdraw without good reason and on a whim. This proposal still leaves open the possibility of withdrawing without penalty when it is in the subject's best interests to do so. Giving researchers recourse to legal remedy may now be necessary to protect the science, as existing methods used to increase retention are inadequate for one reason or another.

Non-inferiority versus superiority trial design for new antibiotics in an era of high antimicrobial resistance: the case for post-marketing, adaptive randomised controlled trials.

Antimicrobial resistance is one of the most important threats to global health security. A range of Gram-negative bacteria associated with high morbidity and mortality are now resistant to almost all available antibiotics. In this context of urgency to develop novel drugs, new antibiotics for multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (namely, ceftazidime-avibactam, plazomicin, and meropenem-vaborbactam) have been approved by regulatory authorities based on non-inferiority trials that provided no direct evidence of their efficacy against multidrug-resistant bacteria such as Enterobacteriaceae spp, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Burkholderia cepacia, and Acinetobacter baumannii. The use of non-inferiority and superiority trials, and selection of appropriate and optimal study designs, remains a major challenge in the development, registration, and post-marketing implementation of new antibiotics. Using an example of the development process of ceftazidime-avibactam, we propose a strategy for a new research framework based on adaptive randomised clinical trials. The operational research strategy has the aim of assessing the efficacy of new antibiotics in special groups of patients, such as those infected with multidrug-resistant bacteria, who were not included in earlier phase studies, and for whom it is important to establish an appropriate standard of care.

Reconstructing communities in cluster trials?

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the ethics of cluster trials, but no literature on the uncertainties in defining communities in relation to the scientific notion of the cluster in collaborative biomedical research. METHODS: The views of participants in a community-based cluster randomised trial (CRT) in Mumbai, India, were solicited regarding their understanding and views on community. We conducted two focus group discussions with local residents and 20 semi-structured interviews with different respondent groups. On average, ten participants took part in each focus group, most of them women aged 18-55. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten residents (nine women and one man) lasting approximately an hour each and seven individuals (five men and two women) identified by residents as local leaders or decision-makers. In addition, we interviewed two Municipal Corporators (locally elected government officials involved in urban planning and development) and one representative of a political party located in a slum community. RESULTS: Residents' sense of community largely matched the scientific notion of the cluster, defined by the investigators as a geographic area, but their perceived needs were not entirely met by the trial. CONCLUSION: We examined whether the possibility of a conceptual mismatch between 'clusters' and 'communities' is likely to have methodological implications for a study or to lead to potential social disharmony because of the research interventions, arguing that it is important to take social factors into account as well as statistical efficiency when choosing the size and type of clusters and designing a trial. One method of informing such a design would be to use existing forums for community engagement to explore individuals' primary sense of community or social group and, where possible, to fit clusters around them. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register: ISRCTN56183183 Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2012/09/003004 .

How informed is declared altruism in clinical trials? A qualitative interview study of patient decision-making about the QUEST trials (Quality of Life after Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction).

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) often fail to recruit sufficient participants, despite altruism being cited as their motivation. Previous investigations of factors influencing participation decisions have been methodologically limited. This study evaluated how women weigh up different motivations after initially expressing altruism, and explored their understanding of a trial and its alternatives. The trial was the 'Quality of Life after Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction' (QUEST) trial. METHODS: Thirty-nine women participated in qualitative interviews 1 month post-surgery. Twenty-seven women (10 trial decliners and 17 acceptors) who spontaneously mentioned 'altruism' were selected for thematic analysis. Verbatim transcripts were coded independently by two researchers. Participants' motivations to accept or decline randomisation were cross-referenced with their understanding of the QUEST trials and the process of randomisation. RESULTS: The seven emerging themes were: (1) altruism expressed by acceptors and decliners; (2) overriding personal needs in decliners; (3) pure altruism in acceptors; (4) 'hypothetical altruism' amongst acceptors; (5) weak altruism amongst acceptors; (6) conditional altruism amongst acceptors; and (7) sense of duty to participate. Poor understanding of the trial rationale and its implications was also evident. CONCLUSIONS: Altruism was a motivating factor for participation in the QUEST randomised controlled trials where the main outcomes comprised quality of life and allocated treatments comprised established surgical procedures. Women's decisions were influenced by their understanding of the trial. Both acceptors and decliners of the trial expressed 'altruism', but most acceptors lacked an obvious treatment preference, hoped for personal benefits regarding a treatment allocation, or did not articulate complete understanding of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: QUEST A, ISRCTN38846532 ; Date assigned 6 January 2010. QUEST B, ISRCTN92581226 ; Date assigned 6 January 2010.

The impact of describing clinical trial treatments as new or standard.

Concern has been expressed over a possible widespread belief amongst patients in trials, that a new treatment is better than the standard, despite the lack of evidence of such superiority. A sample of the general public (N = 130) read a leaflet describing a hypothetical trial comparing two similar treatments for either arthritis or back-pain. Half read that both treatments were standard and generally available; half that one was new and available only within the trial. Participants rated any preference for one or the other treatment, gave written reasons, and indicated their willingness to enter the randomized trial. Fifteen participants subsequently talked through their answers. Most participants expressed no preference for either treatment when both were described as standard. When one was new more people with the arthritis (but not the back-pain) scenario expressed a preference (chi2 = 5.44, P = 0.031). Importantly, this was not more likely to be for the new treatment. Rationally, those who preferred a freely available treatment were less likely to participate in the trial (chi2 = 23.3, P < 0.001). The mere description of a trial treatment as new was insufficient to engender a preference for it over a standard treatment, although it may contribute to preference under certain additional circumstances.