key: cord-0918110-bfjzu3cl
authors: Avelino-Silva, Vivian Iida; de Barros, Mario Thadeu Leme
title: Assessment of novel technologies in healthcare - off-label use of drugs and the ethics of implementation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines
date: 2021-12-20
journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo)
DOI: 10.31744/einstein_journal/2021ed6840
sha: e2f94356eba6d0a9d75ac834c2d1ee14c6bc2f44
doc_id: 918110
cord_uid: bfjzu3cl

nan

-Organizational: evaluation of the feasibility for widespread use, capacity-building of professionals, optimized allocation of resources, monitoring of results, and sustainability of the new health technology.

The HTA process is employed in several countries with similar principles, but adapted to the local context, as a tool to support decisions made by health managers. In Brazil, the National Committee for Health Technology Incorporation in the SUS (CONITEC -Comissão Nacional de Incorporação de Tecnologias), a technical agency of health policy, uses the HTA as a strategy to help the Ministry of Health in evaluating the implementation of novel technologies at SUS. (3, 4) The participation of the civil society in the HTA process is anticipated and encouraged, aiming to add pieces of information about the impacts of the disease, limitations imposed to quality of life, and expectations concerning the benefits associated with new technologies as compared to available interventions. Information gathered from patients and caregivers improve the overall understanding and implementation of novel technologies, considering the health-related preferences of the target population. It is particularly important to have the civil society participating in the discussion about HTA. There are four main mechanisms for including public participation in discussions concerning the incorporation of new health technologies, as follows: public consultations; court hearings; surveys; and participation in plenary sessions. It is also worth mentioning that the engagement of the civil society can also occur by the mere access to information, research, analyses, and recommendations published by CONITEC and available for the general public. (2)

Some medications are used for purposes that are not described in the package insert; therefore, they are not analyzed in controlled studies, neither submitted to evaluation by regulatory processes, such as HTA, or official agencies, such as CONITEC, the National Health Agency (ANS -Agência Nacional de Saúde) and Anvisa. This practice is generally known as off-label use. (5) The off-label use of medications or other medical technologies must be differentiated from repurposed or repositioned use, in which medications that are already approved are submitted to a rigorous and systematic process of analysis, aiming to identify compounds that might be applied to other conditions, such as emerging or rare diseases, for which no specific treatment is available. (6) Drug repurposing has advantages relatively to the traditional development of new medicines, since repurposed drugs have often undergone safety studies, and can be implemented faster, with lower financial investments. The initial identification of candidate compounds for repurposing can be conducted by experimental or computational methods, which identify molecules more likely to act in targets of interest. Another option is to select candidate compounds that have phenotypical or functional characteristics similar to the drugs already used for that specific purpose. (6) While repurposing of drugs implies the demonstration of efficacy in clinical trials, off-label use can be indicated by a physician, who simply believes the patient will benefit from that medication. In the case of medicines sold over the counter, off-label use can be decided by the patients themselves, not requiring medical prescriptions. Off-label use of medications may imply risks not only for patients but also for physicians, due to the lack of clinical studies or approval of the new purpose of the drug by Anvisa, leaving them with no legal support. Moreover, off-label prescription exempts the pharmaceutical industry from legal and judicial responsibilities if adverse reactions occur, since this use is not described in the package insert. (7) The search for therapeutic interventions for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been nonstop since the beginning of the pandemic. Several medications have been used off-label for treatment and prevention of COVID-19, based on reports of effect against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in in vitro studies, or human studies with major methodological limitations. (8) (9) (10) (11) A few months after the pandemic began, controlled clinical trials were published, (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) subsidizing the publication of guidelines that contraindicated the use of a large number of these medications. (19) (20) (21) However, many of these drugs are still being prescribed, despite the evidence of futility from several studies. (22) The widespread use of such medications has several harmful consequences, including the occurrence of adverse events; (23) a disproportionate consumption leading to supply shortage; (24, 25) higher prices in the market; (26) and development of antimicrobial resistance, in the case of extensive use of antibiotics for such purpose. (27) Moreover, the benefits of HTA, including technical, economic, and operational deliberations, and the participation of the civil society, are not applied for off-label use of medications. Finally, persisting on the off-label prescription of medications for treatment and prevention of COVID-19, even after the demonstration of their inefficacy, no longer stands as an exercise of medical autonomy, but could be legally characterized as medical error. (7)

Among the new health technologies developed for COVID-19, vaccines are arguably the most important strategy to control the pandemic, and have been implemented in Brazil based on a HTA process. (28) Despite the current robust evidence on safety, (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) efficacy, (31, 32, 35, 37, 38) effectiveness (30, 33, 39, 40) and cost-effectiveness (41, 42) of COVID-19 vaccines, some operational and ethical aspects related to the incorporation of these new health technologies, such as distribution strategies and priority groups, should be considered with caution. (43) Although COVID-19 vaccines have been rapidly developed by different manufacturers, the number of doses is still much beyond the required volume to immunize the world population. It has been necessary to allocate resources giving priority to certain places and population groups. (43) Furthermore, compliance to vaccine recommendations has not been uniform in the population. Hence, implementing COVID-19 vaccines has raised important ethical discussions. (44) Access to COVID-19 vaccines has been effective and quick in high-income countries when compared to more deprived regions. (43) The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, and Israel, were the first countries to reserve large batches of vaccines, taking advantage of their higher purchasing and negotiation capacity. (43, 45) According to this market-based system, low-income countries have had access to a reduced number of COVID-19 vaccine batches. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), ten countries concentrate approximately 75% of all COVID-19 vaccines worldwide. (46) Tedros Adhanom, general director of WHO, declared "the world is on the brink of a catastrophic moral failure -and the price of this failure will be paid with lives and livelihoods in the world's poorest countries". (47) This inequity in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has relevant practical implications. While there is no international mobilization for the distribution of doses to more deprived countries, with more cases of the disease and excessive number of avoidable deaths, one could anticipate the persistence of the pandemic, due to the emergence and spread of new variants of the virus. (48) In addition, countries with delayed implementation of the vaccine will also suffer from greater impact to the health system and increased need of non-pharmacological measures, such as physical distancing, trade restrictions, and closing of schools, with repercussions that amplify the social and economic abyss in relation to richer countries. (43) Another ethical aspect of implementing COVID-19 vaccines has been the priority given to certain population groups in the vaccination strategy. Ethical considerations include the principles of Utility (allocation of resources aiming to maximize benefits and reduce drawbacks); Justice (prioritizing individuals and communities who are underprivileged or at higher risk of negative outcomes); as well as giving priority to workers directly involved in patient care. (44, 49) In Brazil, the priority groups, as outlined in the National Operationalization Plan for COVID-19 Vaccination, (50) included healthcare workers, indigenous and quilombolas, older persons (in descending age order) and, more recently, people with underlying medical conditions associated to poorer outcomes in COVID-19. Although apparently suitable, we believe the vaccination strategy should not aggravate the social inequalities in our society, and highlight several ethical issues related to priority groups for COVID-19 vaccines in Brazil.

Healthcare workers included those with technical training or university degree; however, unskilled and less qualified workers or those with no formal employment, such as maintenance and security workers, were not uniformly included in the priority group for vaccination, despite delivering direct care to patients. This fact underlined and aggravated inequalities, since it is a benefit that once again excluded the victims of precarious work conditions.

Although indigenous and quilombolas have been included as priority groups for vaccination, marginalized and socially excluded populations may distrust the government actions, due to the historic lack of support by the State, or even the exploitation experience; (51, 52) the estimated vaccine coverage with two doses among indigenous peoples in Brazil varied between 42% and 93%. (53) Furthermore, the paucity of actions informing about the safety and importance of vaccination for these populations may have had a significant impact in the low vaccine coverage in these groups. (54) Setting priority to older adults based on a descending age order places a paramount importance on age. In fact, this criteria could be better characterized by other factors, such as frailty. (55) Moreover, in Brazil and other countries, ageing is a privilege of white individuals of more favored social brackets. (56) Several studies have demonstrated that black and pardo people are at a greater risk of death following COVID-19, (57) (58) (59) but the vaccination plan did not give priority to individuals according to race/skin color. Additionally, individuals with worse housing and sanitation conditions, and less likely to comply with the recommendations of physical distancing, were not prioritized in the vaccination strategy.

Finally, in view of the growing movement of vaccine hesitancy, (43) the implementation of mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 has been discussed in some contexts. (60) (61) (62) (63) Ethical considerations concerning this debate include the principles of autonomy and individual freedom, as opposed to solidarity and collective well-being. However, one of the most important characteristics of fundamental rights is that no single right is absolute. In other words, refusing a vaccine is an individual right, but this action may cause losses to society by hindering or delaying collective benefits, such as herd immunity and reductions of overloads in health facilities, or by posing risks to susceptible persons. In a pandemic, it must be understood that the individual and collective interests are mixed, since the individual will be protected only when the collectivity is safe. The general understanding of rights and duties as an exercise of civility must be reconsidered to effectively support the social interest as an extent of the individual interest. Solidarity is relevant and must receive cooperative consideration. No one is safe in an epidemic while being alone. Protection or prevention actions must have a collective nature. We must promote a balance between freedom and social solidarity.

Policies of compulsory vaccination often accept exemptions (for instance, medical contraindications or religious restrictions) and do not involve direct punishment or criminal implications against individuals; however, these policies may enforce restrictions in activities, such as attending schools, carrying out certain professional activities (64) or traveling. Before implementing compulsory vaccines, it is essential to employ all possible strategies of information and persuasion; to guarantee enough supplies for vaccination; and to address if the compulsory use will be proportionally corroborated by the expected benefit (that is, the number of individuals vaccinated with this strategy justifies the achieved collective good). It is paramount to consider that policies of compulsory use can trigger negative reactions, hindering the trust of the population in government actions, and even the compliance with other public health measures. (60) The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on the importance of assessing new health technologies as a strategy to implement medications and vaccines in clinical practice and at SUS. In a pandemic characterized by a high burden of cases and deaths, as well as intense social impact, the ethical perspective is crucial and must guide the evaluation of clinical, economic, organizational, and social aspects of HTA. Any political measure is doomed to failure if scientific and health processes are not respected and understood, and this fact emphasizes the importance of assessing new health technologies. Solidarity must be understood as a shared practice that allows each individual to assume costs and tasks, facing challenges that are relevant to the whole society . It is worth mentioning that individual health depends on the cooperation in collective health, based on transparency and trust. We must give room to the rebirth of a society guided by "us" rather than "me". 

Treating COVID-19-off-label drug use, compassionate use, and randomized clinical trials during pandemics

Off-label therapies for covid-19-are we all in this together?

Off label, compassionate and irrational use of medicines in Covid-19 pandemic, health consequences and ethical issues

Treating COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine (TEACH): a multicenter, doubleblind randomized controlled trial in hospitalized patients

Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial

A Trial of lopinavirritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe Covid-19

Lopinavir-ritonavir in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Association of treatment with hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 in New York State

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment guidelines. Geneva: WHO; 2021

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on the Treatment and Management of Patients with COVID-19

COVID-19 clinical management: living guidance 25

Off-label use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment in Africa Against WHO recommendation

Global safety database summary of COVID-19-related drug utilization-safety surveillance: a sponsor's perspective

Falta de cloroquina causa internação de pacientes com lúpus

Susam afirma que cloroquina está em falta para pacientes que fazem uso contínuo do medicamento

Com alta na procura, preço dispara e cloroquina some das farmácias

Bhattacharyya M; MetaSUB Consortium. COVID-19 drug practices risk antimicrobial resistance evolution

Tecnologias para tratamento da COVID-19 são pauta de reunião extraodinária da CONITEC. São Paulo: CONITEC

Review the safety of Covid-19 mRNA vaccines: a review

Vaccine sideeffects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the UK: a prospective observational study

Gruber WC; C4591001 Clinical Trial Group. Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Safety and efficacy of single-dose Ad26.COV2. S vaccine against Covid-19

Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18-59 years: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial

Immunogenicity and safety of a recombinant adenovirus type-5-vectored COVID-19 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18 years or older: a randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled, phase 2 trial

Safety and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, BBV152: a double-blind, randomised, phase 1 trial

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials

Gam-COVID-Vac Vaccine Trial Group. Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: an interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia

Effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Vaccines Against COVID-19 among hospitalized adults aged ≥65 years -United States

Interim findings from first-dose mass COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and COVID-19 hospital admissions in Scotland: a national prospective cohort study

The potential public health and economic value of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine in the United States: use of cost-effectiveness modeling to inform vaccination prioritization

Costeffectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in low-and middle-income countries. medRxiv

Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment

Vaccine ethics: an ethical framework for global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines

A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations

Dez países concentram 75% das vacinas aplicadas no mundo, indica OMS. São Paulo: Época Negócios

Vacinas contra covid: a advertência da OMS sobre "fracasso moral catastrófico" da distribuição de imunizantes. São Paulo: BBC News Brasil

Accelerated vaccine rollout is imperative to mitigate highly transmissible COVID-19 variants

Ethics and COVID-19: resource allocation and priority-setting. Geneva: WHO; 2020

Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Departamento de Imunização e Doenças Transmissíveis. Coordenação-Geral do Programa Nacional de Imunizações. Plano Nacional de Operacionalização da Vacinação Contra a COVID-19

Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy among ethnic minority groups

Rethinking vaccine hesitancy among minority groups

Imunização Indígena | COVID-19

População indígena: como as fake news atrapalham a vacinação?

COVID-19 is not over and age is not enough: Using frailty for prognostication in hospitalized patients

The Ethics of Prioritizing COVID-19 Vaccination

Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Higher risk of death from COVID-19 in low-income and non-White populations of São Paulo, Brazil

COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS in a cohort study in Sao Paulo, Brazil: outcomes and disparities by race and schooling

COVID-19 and mandatory vaccination: ethical considerations and caveats. Geneva: WHO; 2021

Attitudes on voluntary and mandatory vaccination against COVID-19: evidence from Germany

Covid-19: Is the UK heading towards mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers?

Should a coronavirus vaccine be mandatory? In Brazil's most populous state, it will be. London: The Washington Post

No jab, no job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel