Fair inclusion of research subjects is necessary to ensure that post-acute sequelae COVID-19 (PASC) research results benefit all members of society. Scientists should conduct research on a broad sample of individuals who represent clinically relevant factors influencing a disease. Without demographic diversity and sociological and environmental variability, research outputs are less likely to apply to different populations and would thus increase health disparities. The goal of this narrative literature review and ethical analysis is to apply fair selection criteria to PASC research studies. We briefly highlight the importance of fair subject selection in translational research and then identify features of PASC, as well as PASC research, that hinder fair inclusion of research participants. We will demonstrate that determining an adequate and representative sample is not simply a matter of ensuring greater diversity; rather, fairness requires a broader evaluation of risks, burdens, and benefits specific to underrepresented populations. We provide recommendations to ensure fair subject selection in PASC research and promote translation toward positive health outcomes for all individuals, including the most vulnerable.

暂无摘要。

Although the principle of fair subject selection is a widely recognized requirement of ethical clinical research, it often yields conflicting imperatives, thus raising major ethical dilemmas regarding participant selection. In this paper, we diagnose the source of this problem, arguing that the principle of fair subject selection is best understood as a bundle of four distinct sub-principles, each with normative force and each yielding distinct imperatives: (1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of third-party risks. We first map out these distinct sub-principles, and then identify the ways in which they yield conflicting imperatives for the design of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the recruitment of participants. We then offer guidance for how decision makers should navigate these conflicting imperatives to ensure that participants are selected fairly.

Scanty evidence exists about the safety and effectiveness of drugs-and of their efficacious dosing-that women may need to treat acute and chronic health issues during their pregnancies. This lack of evidence puts pregnant women and their fetuses at risk of harm from the use or avoidance of drugs during pregnancy. In light of the protectionist approach in regulations governing research with pregnant women and fetuses, trial sponsors, researchers, clinicians, and institutional review boards (IRBs) have been reluctant to include pregnant women in clinical drug trials, applying ethical reasoning for exclusions that reflects a default exclusionary approach. Yet in recent years, many clinicians, researchers, bioethicists, and professional societies have called for a reexamination of the routine practice of excluding pregnant women from clinical research. This paper proposes a practical approach to an ethical framework for IRBs that supports fair inclusion, rather than routine exclusion, of pregnant women in clinical research. This guidance will aid IRBs in ethically including and appropriately protecting pregnant women in research.

There is longstanding consensus on the need to include pregnant women in research. The goal of clinical research is to find highly regulated, carefully controlled, morally responsible ways to generate evidence about how to effectively and safely prevent illness or treat sick people. This manuscripts present a conceptual analysis of the ethicality of clinical trials in 3 scenarios: where the pregnant is involved in clinical trials as a participant during pregnancy for data that addresses pregnancy complications, where the pregnant woman consents to clinical trial participation for an unborn baby that has complications, to generate data on complications at this stage of life, and where the mother may consent for participation of their newborn child in clinical trials.
Conceptual analysis.
Investigators often choose to exclude pregnant women and newborns from research, even where there is possibility for them to benefit from the study intervention. Objections include vulnerability of pregnant women, altered pharmacokinetics and risk of adverse effects, with a need to balance potential maternal and fetal risks and benefits of research participation. While the objections may be valid, not performing research magnifies what should be a carefully controlled risk during research, pushing this risk into the clinical setting, and subsequently posing a challenge to clinicians who are faced with making treatment decisions for pregnant patients with limited evidence of efficacy and safety. The potential benefits of fair inclusion in clinical trials outweigh the potential risks.
Research involving pregnant women is necessary to provide women with effective treatment during pregnancy, to promote fetal safety (such as by avoiding the clinical use of drugs that may be harmful to the developing fetus), and to reduce avoidable harm from suboptimal care (such as from underdosing) and to provide pregnant women, their fetuses and newborns (with access to potential benefits of research participation).

BACKGROUND: Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling \"scientific reasons\" for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion.
METHODS: Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion.
RESULTS: Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women.
CONCLUSIONS: Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women.

Kerala, the southernmost Indian state, is known as the diabetes capital of the country. A community-based lifestyle modification program was implemented in the rural areas of Kerala, India, to assess effectiveness in reducing the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among individuals at high risk. High-risk individuals for T2DM were identified through home screening and enrolled into the program after an oral glucose tolerance test to rule out T2DM. Pregnant women were excluded from participation in the trial without justification. An analysis is offered to show that exclusion in this case compromised the ethical requirements of fairness and favorable risk-benefit ratio: specifically, pregnant women were deprived of the benefits of screening for high-risk status and subsequent potential involvement in the lifestyle modification intervention, an effective preventive strategy. Exclusion of pregnant women from translational and implementation research with known benefits over risk violates several ethical principles and further limits the exploration and advancement of research for future disease prevention in the population at large. Clearer guidelines on minimal risk and benefit need to be established in order to facilitate research that is beneficial to pregnant women and the developing fetus.

The anticipation of ethical issues that may arise with the clinical use of genomic technologies is crucial to envision their future implementation in a manner sensitive to local contexts. Yet, populations in low- and middle-income countries are underrepresented in studies that aim to explore stakeholders\' perspectives on the use of such technologies. Within the framework of a research project entitled \"Personalized medicine in the treatment of epilepsy\", we sought to increase inclusiveness by widening the reach of our survey, inviting neurologists from around the world to share their views and practices regarding the use of whole-genome sequencing in clinical neurology and its associated ethics. We discuss herein the compelling scientific and ethical reasons that led us to attempt to recruit neurologists worldwide, despite the lack, in many low- or middle-income countries, of access to genomic technologies. Recruitment procedures and their results are presented and discussed, as well as the barriers we faced. We conclude that inclusive recruitment remains a challenging, albeit necessary and legitimate, endeavour.