title: A Systematic Review of Ebola Treatment Trials to Assess the Extent to Which They Adhere to Ethical Guidelines.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Objective: To determine to what extent each trial met criteria specified in three research frameworks for ethical trial conduct. Design: Systematic review and narrative analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Data sources: MEDBASE and EMBASE databases were searched using a specific search strategy. The Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the PROSPERO database and trial registries were examined. A grey literature search and citation search were also carried out. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Studies were included where the intervention was being used to treat Ebola in human subjects regardless of study design, comparator or outcome measured. Studies were eligible if they had taken place after the 21st March 2014. Unpublished as well as published studies were included. Included studies: Sixteen studies were included in the data synthesis. Data was extracted on study characteristics as well as any information relating to ten ethical areas of interest specified in the three research frameworks for ethical trial conduct and an additional criterion of whether the study received ethics approval from a research ethics committee. Synthesis of results: Eight studies were judged to fully comply with all eleven criteria. The other eight studies all had at least one criteria where there was not enough information available to draw any conclusions. In two studies there were ethical concerns regarding the information provided in relation to at least one ethical criteria. Description of the effect: One study did not receive ethical approval as the authors argued that treating approximately one hundred patients consecutively for compassionate reasons did not constitute a clinical trial. Furthermore, after the patients were treated, physicians in Sierra Leone did not release reports of treatment results and so study conclusions had to be made based on unpublished observations. In another study the risk-benefit ratio of the trial drug does not appear to be favourable and the pre-trial evidence base for its effectiveness against Ebola is speculative.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Some limited and appropriate deviation from standard research expectations in disaster situations is increasingly accepted. However, this is not an excuse for poor ethics oversight and international regulations are in place which should not be ignored. New guidelines are needed that better define the boundaries between using medicines for compassionate use and conducting a clinical trial. Greater support should be offered for local research ethics committees in affected areas so that they can provide robust ethical review. Further systematic reviews should be carried out in epidemics of any novel infectious diseases to assess if comparable findings arise.
authors.affiliation: College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Thomas
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5428-8204
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Richardson
authors.affiliation: Academic Department of Military Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Andrew McDonald
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0220-0589
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Johnston
authors.affiliation: Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
authors.forename: Heather
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Draper
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic / Q000941:ethics* / Q000379:methods*; D017408:Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D019142:Hemorrhagic Fever, Ebola / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D036302:Therapeutic Human Experimentation / Q000941:ethics*