Alirol Emilie, Kuesel Annette C, Guraiib Maria Magdalena, de la Fuente-Núñez Vânia, Saxena Abha, Gomes Melba F
Global Antibiotics Research and Development Partnership (GARDP), Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), 15 chemin Louis Dunant, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organization, UNICEF/UNDP/World Bank/WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211, 27, Geneva, Switzerland.
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Jun 26;18(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0201-1.
Between 2013 and 2016, West Africa experienced the largest ever outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease. In the absence of registered treatments or vaccines to control this lethal disease, the World Health Organization coordinated and supported research to expedite identification of interventions that could control the outbreak and improve future control efforts. Consequently, the World Health Organization Research Ethics Review Committee (WHO-ERC) was heavily involved in reviews and ethics discussions. It reviewed 24 new and 22 amended protocols for research studies including interventional (drug, vaccine) and observational studies.
WHO-ERC REVIEWS: WHO-ERC provided the reviews within on average 6 working days. The WHO-ERC often could not provide immediate approval of protocols for reasons which were not Ebola Virus Disease specific but related to protocol inconsistencies, missing information and complex informed consents. WHO-ERC considerations on Ebola Virus Disease specific issues (benefit-risk assessment, study design, exclusion of pregnant women and children from interventional studies, data and sample sharing, collaborative partnerships including international and local researchers and communities, community engagement and participant information) are presented.
To accelerate study approval in future public health emergencies, we recommend: (1) internally consistent and complete submissions with information documents in language participants are likely to understand, (2) close collaboration between local and international researchers from research inception, (3) generation of template agreements for data and sample sharing and use during the ongoing global consultations on bio-banks, (4) formation of Joint Scientific Advisory and Data Safety Review Committees for all studies linked to a particular intervention or group of interventions, (5) formation of a Joint Ethics Review Committee with representatives of the Ethics Committees of all institutions and countries involved to strengthen reviews through the different perspectives provided without the 'opportunity costs' for time to final approval of multiple, independent reviews, (6) direct information exchange between the chairs of advisory, safety review and ethics committees, (7) more Ethics Committee support for investigators than is standard and (8) a global consultation on criteria for inclusion of pregnant women and children in interventional studies for conditions which put them at particularly high risk of mortality or other irreversible adverse outcomes under standard-of-care.
2013年至2016年期间,西非经历了有史以来最大规模的埃博拉病毒病疫情。由于缺乏用于控制这种致命疾病的注册治疗方法或疫苗,世界卫生组织协调并支持开展研究,以加快确定能够控制疫情并改进未来防控工作的干预措施。因此,世界卫生组织研究伦理审查委员会(WHO-ERC)深度参与了审查和伦理讨论。该委员会审查了24项新的和22项修订后的研究方案,包括干预性(药物、疫苗)研究和观察性研究。
WHO-ERC审查:WHO-ERC平均在6个工作日内完成审查。由于并非埃博拉病毒病特有的原因,而是与方案不一致、信息缺失和复杂的知情同意书有关,WHO-ERC常常无法立即批准方案。文中介绍了WHO-ERC对埃博拉病毒病特定问题(获益-风险评估、研究设计、将孕妇和儿童排除在干预性研究之外、数据和样本共享、包括国际和当地研究人员及社区在内的合作关系、社区参与和参与者信息)的考量。
为在未来公共卫生紧急事件中加快研究批准速度,我们建议:(1)提交内容在内部保持一致且完整,并附上以参与者可能理解的语言撰写的信息文件;(2)从研究启动之初,当地和国际研究人员就密切合作;(3)在正在进行的关于生物样本库的全球磋商期间,制定数据和样本共享及使用的模板协议;(4)为所有与特定干预措施或一组干预措施相关的研究组建联合科学咨询和数据安全审查委员会;(5)与所有参与机构和国家的伦理委员会代表共同组建联合伦理审查委员会,通过提供不同视角来加强审查,而无需承担多次独立审查最终批准所需时间的“机会成本”;(6)咨询、安全审查和伦理委员会主席之间直接进行信息交流;(7)伦理委员会为研究人员提供比标准情况更多的支持;(8)就将孕妇和儿童纳入干预性研究的标准进行全球磋商,这些干预措施针对的是在标准治疗下使他们面临特别高的死亡风险或其他不可逆不良后果的情况。