Person:

Eyal, Nir

During the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, many opposed the use of individually randomised controlled trials to test candidate Ebola vaccines. For a raging fatal disease, they explained, it is unethical to relegate some study participants to control arms. In Zika and future emerging infections, similar opposition may hinder urgent vaccine research, so it is best to address these questions now. This article lays out the ethical case for individually randomised control in testing vaccines against many emerging infections, including lethal infections in low-income countries, even when at no point in the trial do the controls receive the countermeasures being tested. When individual randomisation is feasible-and it often will be-it tends to save more lives than alternative designs would. And for emerging infections, individual randomisation also tends as such to improve care, access to the experimental vaccine and prospects for all participants relative to their opportunities absent the trial, and no less than alternative designs would. That obtains even under placebo control and without equipoise-requiring which would undermine individual randomisation and the alternative designs that opponents proffered. Our arguments expound four often-neglected factors: benefits to non-participants, benefits to participants once a trial is over including post-trial access to the study intervention, participants' prospects before randomisation to arms and the near-inevitable disparity between arms in any randomised controlled trial.

A vaccine trial with a standard challenge design can be faster than standard phase III once it starts, but it requires a long prior process, in part, to grow and standardize challenge virus in the laboratory. This detracts somewhat from its overall promise for accelerated efficacy testing of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates, and from the ability of developing countries and small companies to conduct it. We describe a challenge design that avoids this part of the long prior process. The new design has additional ethical, scientific, and feasibility strengths, compared to standard challenge designs and to standard phase III designs, and should be considered for future vaccine trials.

Controlled human challenge trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidates could accelerate the testing and potential rollout of efficacious vaccines. By replacing conventional Phase 3 testing of vaccine candidates, such trials may subtract many months from the licensure process, making efficacious vaccines available more quickly. Obviously, challenging volunteers with this live virus risks inducing severe disease and possibly even death. However, we argue that such studies, by accelerating vaccine evaluation, could reduce the global burden of coronavirus-related mortality and morbidity. Volunteers in such studies could autonomously authorize the risks to themselves, and their net risk could be acceptable if participants comprise healthy young adults, who are at relatively low risk of serious disease following natural infection, they have a high baseline risk of natural infection, and during the trial they receive frequent monitoring and, following any infection, the best available care.