RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.06.12.23291231
DO 10.1101/2023.06.12.23291231
A1 Bowes, Devin A.
A1 Darling, Amanda
A1 Driver, Erin M.
A1 Kaya, Devrim
A1 Maal-Bared, Rasha
A1 Lee, Lisa M.
A1 Goodman, Kenneth
A1 Adhikari, Sangeet
A1 Aggarwal, Srijan
A1 Bivins, Aaron
A1 Bohrerova, Zuzana
A1 Cohen, Alasdair
A1 Duvallet, Claire
A1 Elnimeiry, Rasha A.
A1 Hutchison, Justin M.
A1 Kapoor, Vikram
A1 Keenum, Ishi
A1 Ling, Fangqiong
A1 Sills, Deborah
A1 Tiwari, Ananda
A1 Vikesland, Peter
A1 Ziels, Ryan
A1 Mansfeldt, Cresten
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/14/2023.06.12.23291231.abstract
AB Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of the field blurred the boundary between measuring biomarkers for research activities and for pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process (or associated data management safeguards), introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary group developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11-questions derived from primarily public health guidance because of the common exemption of wastewater samples to human subject research considerations. This study retrospectively applied the set of questions to peer- reviewed published reports on SARS-CoV-2 monitoring campaigns covering the emergent phase of the pandemic from March 2020 to February 2022 (n=53). Overall, 43% of the responses to the questions were unable to be assessed because of lack of reported information. It is therefore hypothesized that a systematic framework would at a minimum improve the communication of key ethical considerations for the application of WBT. Consistent application of a standardized ethical review will also assist in developing an engaged practice of critically applying and updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and being monitored by WBT supported campaigns.Synopsis Development of a structured ethical review facilitates retrospective analysis of published studies and drafted scenarios in the context of wastewater-based testing.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported in part by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) under award numbers P20GM113117 for the participation of Justin Hutchison and by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under award number NSF 2047470 for the participation of Fangqiong Ling.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.