Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Nipah virus causes sporadic outbreaks characterized by high mortality, with transmission concentrated within households and healthcare settings. Clinical trials of vaccines for high-mortality pathogens during outbreaks face significant methodological and ethical challenges, including due to short epidemic durations and variable community acceptance of standard individual randomized controlled trials (iRCTs). This paper examines key ethical issues in Nipah vaccine outbreak trial design. First, outbreak trials must recruit individuals at high risk of infection to reach efficacy endpoints before epidemics end, yet placebo controls may be controversial due to risks of infection among participants. Failure to accrue sufficient infections during outbreaks risks prolonged delays to vaccine licensure. Second, alternatives to classical iRCTs involve ethical and methodological trade-offs: cluster randomization may delay efficacy endpoints, especially when high transmission occurs in only a minority of clusters; trials involving delayed vaccination may involve similar risks (for control participants who are infected during the delay to vaccination) as for those in standard placebo iRCTs; and single arm trials risk failure to clarify vaccine efficacy due to their lack of controls. Third, although high pre-trial probability of experimental vaccine efficacy (>50% for recent Phase III vaccines) challenges traditional concepts of clinical equipoise, rigorous vaccine trials remain ethically acceptable. Fourth, policies for post-trial access to efficacious vaccines should be revised to provide accelerated access to control arm participants. Finally, ethical trial design depends on appropriate community engagement, which should begin early in outbreaks and ideally continue in inter-epidemic periods.

More information Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.vaccine.2026.128858

Type

Journal article

Publication Date

2026-07-18T00:00:00+00:00

Volume

89

Keywords

Bundibugyo, Community engagement, Ebola, Equipoise, Nipah, Randomized controlled trials, Research ethics, Ring vaccination, Vaccine trials