Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Department of General Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep;46(9):601-609. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-106001. Epub 2020 May 7.
Human infection challenge studies (HCS) involve intentionally infecting research participants with pathogens (or other micro-organisms). There have been recent calls for more HCS to be conducted in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where many relevant diseases are endemic. HCS in general, and HCS in LMICs in particular, raise numerous ethical issues. This paper summarises the findings of a project that explored ethical and regulatory issues related to LMIC HCS via (i) a review of relevant literature and (ii) 45 qualitative interviews with scientists and ethicists. Among other areas of consensus, we found that there was widespread agreement that LMIC HCS can be ethically acceptable, provided that they have a sound scientific rationale, are accepted by local communities and meet usual research ethics requirements. Unresolved issues include those related to (i) acceptable approaches to trade-offs between the scientific aim to produce generalisable results and the protection of participants, (iii) the sharing of benefits with LMIC populations, (iii) the acceptable limits to risks and burdens for participants, (iv) the potential for third-party risk and whether the degree of acceptable third-party risk is different in endemic settings, (v) the conditions under which (if any) it would be appropriate to recruit children for disease-causing HCS, (v) appropriate levels of payment to participants and (vi) appropriate governance of (LMIC) HCS. This paper provides preliminary analyses of these ethical considerations in order to (i) inform scientists and policymakers involved in the planning, conduct and/or governance of LMIC HCS and (ii) highlight areas warranting future research. Insofar as this article focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided is relevant to HCS (in HICs or LMICs) involving pandemic diseases including COVID19.
人体感染挑战研究(HCS)涉及故意将病原体(或其他微生物)感染给研究参与者。最近有人呼吁在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)进行更多的 HCS,因为这些国家存在许多相关疾病。一般来说,HCS,特别是在 LMIC 进行的 HCS,引发了许多伦理问题。本文通过(i)审查相关文献和(ii)对科学家和伦理学家进行 45 次定性访谈,总结了一个项目的研究结果,该项目探讨了与 LMIC HCS 相关的伦理和监管问题。在其他达成共识的领域中,我们发现,人们普遍认为,只要 LMIC HCS 具有合理的科学依据,得到当地社区的认可,并符合通常的研究伦理要求,就可以在伦理上被接受。未解决的问题包括:(i)在追求产生可推广结果的科学目标与保护参与者之间的权衡时,可接受的方法;(iii)与 LMIC 人群分享利益;(iii)参与者可承受风险和负担的可接受限度;(iv)第三方风险的可能性以及在地方性环境中第三方风险的可接受程度是否不同;(v)在何种情况下(如果有)适合招募儿童进行致病 HCS;(v)参与者的适当报酬水平;以及(vi)(LMIC)HCS 的适当治理。本文对这些伦理考虑因素进行了初步分析,以便(i)为参与 LMIC HCS 的规划、进行和/或治理的科学家和政策制定者提供信息,以及(ii)突出需要进一步研究的领域。由于本文主要关注存在和/或广泛存在疾病的(地方性)环境中的 HCS,因此提供的大部分分析都与涉及大流行病(包括 COVID19)的 HCS(在高收入国家或 LMIC 中)相关。