Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are studies in which the need for patients to physically access hospital-based trial sites is reduced or eliminated. The CoViD-19 pandemic has caused a significant increase in DCT: a survey shows that 76% of pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, and Contract Research Organizations adopted decentralized techniques during the early phase of the pandemic. The implementation of DCTs relies on the use of digital tools such as e-consent, apps, wearable devices, Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePRO), telemedicine, as well as on moving trial activities to the patient's home (e.g., drug delivery) or to local healthcare settings (i.e., community-based diagnosis and care facilities). DCTs adapt to patients' routines, allow patients to participate regardless of where they live by removing logistical barriers, offer better access to the study and the investigational product, and permit the inclusion of more diverse and more representative populations. The feasibility and quality of DCTs depends on several requirements including dedicated infrastructures and staff, an adequate regulatory framework, and partnerships between research sites, patients and sponsors. The evaluation of Ethics Committees (ECs) is crucial to the process of innovating and digitalizing clinical trials: adequate assessment tools and a suitable regulatory framework are needed for evaluation by ECs. DCTs also raise issues, many of which are of considerable ethical significance. These include the implications for the relationship between patients and healthcare staff, for the social dimension of the patient, for data integrity (at the source, during transmission, in the analysis phase), for personal data protection, and for the possible risks to health and safety. Despite their considerable growth, DCTs have only received little attention from bioethicists. This paper offers a review on some ethical implications and requirements of DCTs in order to encourage further ethical reflection on this rapidly emerging field.

The time required to reach a correct diagnosis is a key concern for rare disease (RD) patients. Diagnostic delay can be intolerably long, often described as an “odyssey” and, for some, a diagnosis may remain frustratingly elusive. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium proposed, as ultimate goal for 2017–2027, to enable all people with a suspected RD to be diagnosed within one year of presentation, if the disorder is known. Subsequently, unsolved cases would enter a globally coordinated diagnostic and research pipeline. In-depth analysis of the genotype through next generation sequencing, together with a standardized in-depth phenotype description and sophisticated high-throughput approaches, have been applied as diagnostic tools to increase the chance of a timely and accurate diagnosis. The success of this approach is evident in the Orphanet database. From 2010 to March 2017 over 600 new RDs and roughly 3600 linked genes have been described and identified. However, combination of -omics and phenotype data, as well as international sharing of this information, has raised ethical concerns. Values to be assessed include not only patient autonomy but also family implications, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, solidarity and reciprocity, which must be respected and promoted and, at the same time, balanced among each other. In this work we suggest that, to maximize patients’ involvement in the search for a diagnosis and identification of new causative genes, undiagnosed patients should have the possibility to: (1) actively participate in the description of their phenotype; (2) choose the level of visibility of their profile in matchmaking databases; (3) express their preferences regarding return of new findings, in particular which level of Variant of Unknown Significance (VUS) significance should be considered relevant to them. The quality of the relationship between individual patients and physicians, and between the patient community and the scientific community, is critically important for optimizing the use of available data and enabling international collaboration in order to provide a diagnosis, and the attached support, to unsolved cases. The contribution of patients to collecting and coding data comprehensively is critical for efficient use of data downstream of data collection.

The article is divided into three sections: (i) an overview of the main ethical models in public health (theoretical foundations); (ii) a summary of several published frameworks for public health ethics (practical frameworks); and (iii) a few general remarks. Rather than maintaining the superiority of one position over the others, the main aim of the article is to summarize the basic approaches proposed thus far concerning the development of public health ethics by describing and comparing the various ideas in the literature. With this in mind, an extensive list of references is provided.

Background: Although translational research for drug development can provide patients with valuable therapeutic resources it is not without risk, especially in the early-phase trials that present the highest degree of uncertainty. With the extraordinary evolution of biomedical technologies, a growing number of innovative products based on human cells and gene therapy are being tested and used as drugs. Their use on humans poses several challenges. Methods: In this work, we discuss some ethical issues related to gene and cell therapies translational research. We focus on early-phase studies analysing the regulatory approach of Europe and the United States. We report the current recommendations and guidelines of international scientific societies and European and American regulatory authorities. Results: The peculiarity of human cell- or tissue-based products and gene therapy has required the development of specific regulatory tools that must be continually updated in line with the progress of the research. The ethics of translational research for these products also requires further considerations, particularly with respect to the specificity of the associated risk profiles. Conclusions: An integrated ethical approach that aims for transparency and regulation of development processes, the support of independent judgment in clinical trials and the elimination of unregulated and uncontrolled grey areas of action are necessary to move gene and cell therapy forward.