Suppr超能文献

严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2)挑战研究:伦理与风险最小化

SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies: ethics and risk minimisation.

作者信息

Bull Susan, Jamrozik Euzebiusz, Binik Ariella, Parker Michael J

机构信息

The Ethox Centre & Wellcome Centre for Ethics and the Humanities, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK

Monash Bioethics Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep 25;47(12):e79. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106504.

Abstract

COVID-19 poses an exceptional threat to global public health and well-being. Recognition of the need to develop effective vaccines at unprecedented speed has led to calls to accelerate research pathways ethically, including by conducting challenge studies (also known as controlled human infection studies (CHIs)) with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus which causes COVID-19). Such research is controversial, with concerns being raised about the social, legal, ethical and clinical implications of infecting healthy volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 for research purposes. Systematic risk evaluations are critical to inform assessments of the ethics of any proposed SARS-CoV-2 CHIs. Such evaluations will necessarily take place within a rapidly changing and at times contested epidemiological landscape, in which differing criteria for the ethical acceptability of research risks have been proposed. This paper critically reviews two such criteria and evaluates whether the use of effective treatment should be a necessary condition for the ethical acceptability of SARS-CoV-2 CHIs, and whether the choice of study sites should be influenced by COVID-19 incidence levels. The paper concludes that ethical evaluations of proposed SARS-CoV-2 CHIs should be informed by rigorous, consultative and holistic approaches to systematic risk assessment.

摘要

新冠疫情对全球公众健康与福祉构成了巨大威胁。认识到必须以前所未有的速度研发有效疫苗,促使人们呼吁从伦理角度加速研究进程,包括通过开展针对严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2(SARS-CoV-2,即引发新冠疫情的病毒)的挑战研究(也称为人体感染对照研究)。此类研究颇具争议,有人对出于研究目的让健康志愿者感染SARS-CoV-2的社会、法律、伦理和临床影响表示担忧。系统的风险评估对于评估任何拟议的SARS-CoV-2人体感染对照研究的伦理问题至关重要。此类评估必然会在迅速变化且有时存在争议的流行病学背景下进行,在这种背景下,人们提出了不同的研究风险伦理可接受性标准。本文批判性地审视了其中两条此类标准,并评估有效治疗的使用是否应成为SARS-CoV-2人体感染对照研究伦理可接受性的必要条件,以及研究地点的选择是否应受新冠发病率水平的影响。本文的结论是,对拟议的SARS-CoV-2人体感染对照研究进行伦理评估时,应以严谨、协商一致且全面的系统风险评估方法为依据。

相似文献

1
SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies: ethics and risk minimisation.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep 25;47(12):e79. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106504.
2
Virtue ethics and the unsettled ethical questions in controlled human infection studies.
Bioethics. 2024 Oct;38(8):692-701. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13326. Epub 2024 Jun 17.
3
Coronavirus Human Infection Challenge Studies: Assessing Potential Benefits and Risks.
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):709-715. doi: 10.1007/s11673-020-10030-x. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
4
Ethical issues surrounding controlled human infection challenge studies in endemic low-and middle-income countries.
Bioethics. 2020 Oct;34(8):797-808. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12802. Epub 2020 Aug 30.
5
So much at stake: Ethical tradeoffs in accelerating SARSCoV-2 vaccine development.
Vaccine. 2020 Sep 22;38(41):6381-6387. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.08.017. Epub 2020 Aug 11.
6
Controlled human infection with SARS-CoV-2 to study COVID-19 vaccines and treatments: bioethics in Utopia.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Sep;46(9):569-573. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106476. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
8
Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.
Vaccine. 2021 Jan 22;39(4):633-640. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.075. Epub 2020 Oct 28.
9
Ethical guidelines for deliberately infecting volunteers with COVID-19.
J Med Ethics. 2020 Aug;46(8):502-504. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106322. Epub 2020 May 27.
10
Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 17;11(11):CD013652. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013652.pub2.

引用本文的文献

1
Early SARS-CoV-2 dynamics and immune responses in unvaccinated participants of an intensely sampled longitudinal surveillance study.
Commun Med (Lond). 2022 Oct 11;2:129. doi: 10.1038/s43856-022-00195-4. eCollection 2022.
3
Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265252. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265252. eCollection 2022.
4
The Development and Distribution of the COVID-19 Vaccine.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 May 1;205(9):1112. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202101-0018RR.
6
Clinical Research Redirection and Optimization During a Pandemic.
Anesthesiol Clin. 2021 Jun;39(2):379-388. doi: 10.1016/j.anclin.2021.03.004.
7
Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?
J Med Ethics. 2020 Dec;46(12):835-836. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106900. Epub 2020 Nov 5.

本文引用的文献

1
Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.
Vaccine. 2021 Jan 22;39(4):633-640. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.10.075. Epub 2020 Oct 28.
2
Coronavirus Human Infection Challenge Studies: Assessing Potential Benefits and Risks.
J Bioeth Inq. 2020 Dec;17(4):709-715. doi: 10.1007/s11673-020-10030-x. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
3
The first casualty of an epidemic is evidence.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Oct;26(5):1344-1346. doi: 10.1111/jep.13443. Epub 2020 Jul 22.
4
COVID-19 vaccine development: Time to consider SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies?
Vaccine. 2020 Jul 14;38(33):5085-5088. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.06.007. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
5
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Human Challenge Trials: Too Risky, Too Soon.
J Infect Dis. 2020 Jul 6;222(3):514-516. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiaa314.
6
COVID-19 human challenge studies: ethical issues.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;20(8):e198-e203. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30438-2. Epub 2020 May 29.
7
Estimating the burden of SARS-CoV-2 in France.
Science. 2020 Jul 10;369(6500):208-211. doi: 10.1126/science.abc3517. Epub 2020 May 13.
8
Ethics of controlled human infection to address COVID-19.
Science. 2020 May 22;368(6493):832-834. doi: 10.1126/science.abc1076. Epub 2020 May 7.
9
Extraordinary diseases require extraordinary solutions.
Vaccine. 2020 May 19;38(24):3987-3988. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.04.039. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
10
Against pandemic research exceptionalism.
Science. 2020 May 1;368(6490):476-477. doi: 10.1126/science.abc1731. Epub 2020 Apr 23.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验