An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials
- PMID: 33530721
- PMCID: PMC8009845
- DOI: 10.1177/1740774520988669
An ethics framework for consolidating and prioritizing COVID-19 clinical trials
Abstract
Given the dearth of established safe and effective interventions to respond to COVID-19, there is an urgent ethical imperative to conduct meaningful clinical research. The good news is that interventions to be tested are not in short supply. Unfortunately, the human and material resources needed to conduct these trials are finite. It is essential that trials be robust and meet enrollment targets and that lower-quality studies not be permitted to displace higher-quality studies, delaying answers to critical questions. Yet, with few exceptions, existing research review bodies and processes are not designed to ensure these conditions are satisfied. To meet this challenge, we offer guidance for research institutions about how to ethically consolidate and prioritize COVID-19 clinical trials, while recognizing that consolidation and prioritization should also take place upstream (among manufacturers and funders) and at a higher level (e.g. nationally). In our proposed three-stage process, trials must first meet threshold criteria. Those that do are evaluated in a second stage to determine whether the institution has sufficient capacity to support all proposed trials. If it does not, the third stage entails evaluating studies against two additional sets of comparative prioritization criteria: those specific to the study and those that aim to advance diversification of an institution's research portfolio. To implement these criteria fairly, we propose that research institutions form COVID-19 research prioritization committees. We briefly discuss some important attributes of these committees, drawing on the authors' experiences at our respective institutions. Although we focus on clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics, our guidance should prove useful for other kinds of COVID-19 research, as well as non-pandemic research, which can raise similar challenges due to the scarcity of research resources.
Keywords: COVID-19; clinical trials; coronavirus; prioritization; research ethics; triage.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: S.J. reports grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J.S. reports personal fees and non-financial support from Merck KGaA (Bioethics Advisory Panel and Stem Cell Research Oversight Committee), personal fees and non-financial support from IQVIA (Ethics Advisory Panel), personal fees and other from Aspen Neurosciences Inc (Scientific Advisory Board), personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc., outside the submitted work.
Figures
Comment in
-
Commentary on Meyers et al: Ethically prioritizing trials in the COVID-19 era - practical considerations.Clin Trials. 2021 Apr;18(2):234-236. doi: 10.1177/1740774520988663. Epub 2021 Feb 2. Clin Trials. 2021. PMID: 33530735 No abstract available.
References
-
- Bauchner H and Fontanarosa PB. Randomized clinical trials and COVID-19: Managing expectations. JAMA 2020; 323(22): 2262–2263. - PubMed
-
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. COVID-19: developing drugs and biological products for treatment or prevention: guidance for industry. May 2020. https://www.fda.gov/media/137926/download (2020, accessed 20 November 2020).
-
- Dunn A There are already 72 drugs in human trials for coronavirus in the US. With hundreds more on the way, a top drug regulator warns we could run out of researchers to test them all. Business Insider, 24 April 2020, https://www.businessinsider.in/science/news/there-are-already-72-drugs-i... (2020, accessed 20 November 2020).
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
