Article Text
Abstract
Clinical trials emerged in rapid succession as the COVID-19 pandemic created an unprecedented need for life-saving therapies. Fair and equitable subject selection in clinical trials offering investigational therapies ought to be an urgent moral concern. Subject selection determines the distribution of risks and benefits, and impacts the applicability of the study results for the larger population. While Research Ethics Committees monitor fair subject selection within each trial, no standard oversight exists for subject selection across multiple trials for the same disease. Drawing on the experience of multiple clinical trials at a single academic medical centre in the USA, we posit that concurrent COVID-19 trials are liable to unfair and inequitable subject selection on account of scientific uncertainty, lack of transparency, scarcity and, lastly, structural barriers to equity compounded by implicit bias. To address the critical gap in the current literature and international regulation, we propose new ethical guidelines for research design and conduct that bolsters fair and equitable subject selection. Although the proposed guidelines are tailored to the research design and protocol of concurrent trials in the COVID-19 pandemic, they may have broader relevance to single COVID-19 trials.
- research ethics
- clinical trials
- policy guidelines/inst. review boards/review cttes
This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.
https://bmj.com/coronavirus/usageStatistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors MOJ wrote the initial draft of the paper. TLZ conducted literature review and drafted the article. PA provided critical review of drafts. MLLM, JSD and SJS provided critical review of drafts and initially proposed the concept for the article.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement There are no data in this work.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Diversity and inclusion for rodents: how animal ethics committees can help improve translation
- Donor-funded research: permissible, not perfect
- More than consent for ethical open-label placebo research
- Equity assessment of childhood immunisation at national and subnational levels in Myanmar: a benefit incidence analysis
- Ethical considerations in international clinical trial site selection
- Fair subject selection in clinical research: formal equality of opportunity
- Sharing the benefits of research fairly: two approaches
- Acceptability of donor funding for clinical trials in the UK: a qualitative empirical ethics study using focus groups to elicit the views of research patient public involvement group members, research ethics committee chairs and clinical researchers
- A Plutocratic Proposal: an ethical way for rich patients to pay for a place on a clinical trial
- Financing for universal health coverage in small island states: evidence from the Fiji Islands