Academic global health programs are growing rapidly in scale and number. Students of many disciplines increasingly desire global health content in their curricula. Global health curricula often include field experiences that involve crossing international and socio-cultural borders. Although global health training experiences offer potential benefits to trainees and to sending institutions, these experiences are sometimes problematic and raise ethical challenges. The Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training (WEIGHT) developed a set of guidelines for institutions, trainees, and sponsors of field-based global health training on ethics and best practices in this setting. Because only limited data have been collected within the context of existing global health training, the guidelines were informed by the published literature and the experience of WEIGHT members. The Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training encourages efforts to develop and implement a means of assessing the potential benefits and harms of global health training programs.

No abstract

Background Given the high mortality rate for those with end-stage kidney d sease on dialysis and the efficacy and safety of current hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments, currently-discarded kidneys from HCV-infected (HCV+) donors may be a neglected public health resource. Objective To determine the tolerability and feasibility of kidney transplantation (KT) from HCV+ donors to HCV-uninfected recipients (HCV D+/R−) in combination with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) as pre- and post-transplant prophylaxis. Design Open-label, non-randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781649) Setting Single-center. Participants 10 HCV-uninfected KT candidates over the age of 50 years with no available living donors. Intervention KT from deceased donors ages 13–50 years with a positive HCV RNA and HCV antibody test. All recipients received a dose of grazoprevir 100 mg/elbasvir 50 mg (GZR/EBR) immediately prior to transplant. For genotype 1 donors, recipients continued GZR/EBR for 12 weeks post-transplant; for genotype 2 or 3 donors, sofosbuvir 400 mg was added to GZR/EBR for 12 weeks of triple-therapy. Measurements The primary safety outcome was the incidence of adverse events related to GZR-EBR. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion recipients with HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification 12 weeks after prophylaxis. Results Among 10 HCV D+/R− there were no treatment-related adverse events and HCV RNA was not detected in any recipient 12 weeks after treatment. Limitations Nonrandomized study design and small number of patients. Conclusions Pre- and post-transplant HCV treatment was safe and prevented chronic hepatitis C in HCV D+/R− KT. If confirmed in larger studies, this strategy should markedly expand organ options and reduce mortality for HCV− KT candidates.

Vulnerability is one of the least examined concepts in research ethics. Vulnerability was linked in the Belmont Report to questions of justice in the selection of subjects. Regulations and policy documents regarding the ethical conduct of research have focused on vulnerability in terms of limitations of the capacity to provide informed consent. Other interpretations of vulnerability have emphasized unequal power relationships between politically and economically disadvantaged groups and investigators or sponsors. So many groups are now considered to be vulnerable in the context of research, particularly international research, that the concept has lost force. In addition, classifying groups as vulnerable not only stereotypes them, but also may not reliably protect many individuals from harm. Certain individuals require ongoing protections of the kind already established in law and regulation, but attention must also be focused on characteristics of the research protocol and environment that present ethical challenges.

In response to the traditional emphasis on the rights, interests, and well-being of individual research subjects, there has been growing attention focused on the importance of involving communities in research development and approval. Community consultation is a particularly common method of involving communities. However, the fundamental ethical goals of community consultation have not been delineated, which makes it difficult for investigators, sponsors, and institutional review boards to design and evaluate consultation efforts. Community consultation must be tailored to the communities in which it is conducted, but the purposes of consultation-the ethical goals it is designed to achieve-should be universal. We propose 4 ethical goals that give investigators, sponsors, institutional review boards, and communities a framework for evaluating community consultation processes.

Interest in whole-genome research has grown substantially over the past few months. This article explores the challenging ethics issues associated with this work.

Services, or the United States government. The investigators have adhered to the policies for protection of human subjects as prescribed in AR-70-25.

for the CONSERVE Group IMPORTANCE Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete.OBJECTIVE As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. EVIDENCE A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders.FINDINGS The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.