Article Text
Abstract
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.
- research ethics
- research on special populations
- Communicable disease
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Twitter @ID_ethics
Contributors EJ and MJS conceived of the study together, EJ wrote the first draft of the manuscript and both authors made revisions and approved the final version.
Funding This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust (210551/Z/18/Z).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Obtained.
Ethics approval This research was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- Payment in challenge studies: ethics, attitudes and a new payment for risk model
- Principles for increasing equity in WASH research: understanding barriers faced by LMIC WASH researchers
- Emergency care research ethics in low-income and middle-income countries
- Clinical emergency care research in low-income and middle-income countries: opportunities and challenges
- Payment of research participants: current practice and policies of Irish research ethics committees
- Should practice and policy be revised to allow for risk-proportional payment to human challenge study participants?
- Emergency care research as a global health priority: key scientific opportunities and challenges
- Analysis of the status of informed consent in medical research involving human subjects in public hospitals in Shanghai
- Justice: a key consideration in health policy and systems research ethics
- Ethical navigation of biobanking establishment in Ukraine: learning from the experience of developing countries