Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with malaria parasites: Perceptions and experiences of participants and other stakeholders in a Kenyan-based malaria infection study

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies involve the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with malaria parasites under controlled conditions to study immune responses and/or test drug or vaccine efficacy. An empirical ethics study was embedded in a CHMI study at a Kenyan research programme to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of deliberate infection and moral implications of these. Data for this qualitative study were collected through focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and non-participant observation. Sixty-nine participants were involved, including CHMI study volunteers, community representatives and research staff. Data were managed using QSR Nvivo 10 and analysed using an inductive-deductive approach, guided by ethics literature. CHMI volunteers had reasonable understanding of the study procedures. Decisions to join were influenced by study incentives, trust in the research institution, their assessment of associated burdens and motivation to support malaria vaccine development. However, deliberate malaria infection was a highly unusual research strategy for volunteers, community representatives and some study staff. Volunteers’ experiences of physical, emotional and social burdens or harms were often greater than anticipated initially, and fluctuated over time, related to specific procedures and events. Although unlikely to deter volunteers' participation in similar studies in furture, we argue that the dissonance between level of understanding of the burdens involved and actual experiences are morally relevant in relation to community engagement, informed consent processes, and ongoing support for volunteers and research staff. We further argue that ethics oversight of CHMI studies should take account of these issues in deciding whether consent, engagement and the balance of benefits and harms are reasonable in a given context.     

Clinical outcomes and outcome measurement tools reported in randomised controlled trials of treatment for snakebite envenoming: A systematic review

BackgroundSnakebite is a priority neglected tropical disease and causes a range of complications that vary depending on the snake species. Randomised clinical trials have used varied outcome measures that do not allow results to be compared or combined. In accordance with the Core Outcomes Measurements in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, this systematic review aims to support the development of a globally relevant core outcome set for snakebite.MethodsAll randomised controlled trials, secondary analyses of randomised controlled trials and study protocols investigating the efficacy of therapeutics for human snakebite envenoming were eligible for inclusion. Study screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. All primary and secondary outcome measures were extracted and compiled, as were adverse event outcome measures. Similar outcome measures were grouped into domains. The study was prospectively registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020196160.ResultsThis systematic review included 43 randomised controlled trials, two secondary analyses and 13 study protocols. A total of 382 outcome measures were extracted and, after duplicates were merged, there were 153 unique outcomes. The most frequently used outcome domain (‘venom antigenaemia’) was included in less than one third of the studies. The unique outcomes were classified into 60 outcome domains. Patient-centred outcomes were used in only three of the studies.DiscussionSignificant heterogeneity in outcome measures exists in snakebite clinical trials. Consensus is needed to select outcome measures that are valid, reliable, patient-centred and feasible. The results of this systematic review strongly support the development of a core outcome set for use in snakebite clinical trials.