Beneath the Sword of Damocles: Moral Obligations of Physicians in a Post-Dobbs Landscape.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs vs.

Exclusion of Women from Phase I Trials: Perspectives from Investigators and Research Oversight Officials.

Over the past 30 years, progress has been made in increasing women's representation in clinical research. However, women continue to be underrepresented in phase I clinical trials-those trials that test the safety and tolerability of investigational drugs, often on healthy individuals. As sex-based differences in adverse drug reactions are often linked to drug dose, pivotal safety information in phase I trials is often insufficiently-and inequitably-captured for females.

Teratology research in the shadow of the Dobbs decision.

Following the 2022 US Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, numerous states have passed laws banning or severely restricting abortion. The consequences of the decision stretch beyond abortion contexts, including progress on developing a more robust evidence base for care in pregnancy.

'Experimental pregnancy' revisited.

In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled "Experimental Pregnancy." It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES).

Clinical trials in pregnancy and the "shadows of thalidomide": Revisiting the legacy of Frances Kelsey.

Despite great need for improved understanding of the use of drugs and biological products in pregnancy, clinical trials in pregnancy are rare, therapeutics in pregnancy are woefully understudied, and pregnant individuals are routinely excluded as trial participants. Recently, however, the U.S.

Where are the pregnant and breastfeeding women in new pre-exposure prophylaxis trials? The imperative to overcome the evidence gap.

Pregnant and breastfeeding populations are at substantial risk of acquiring HIV in some settings, yet are underrepresented in clinical trials of new pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) agents. Several PrEP formulations are in development (eg, vaginal rings, long-acting injectables, and other modalities). Pregnant and breastfeeding populations are typically excluded from initial clinical trials.

Ending the evidence gap for pregnancy, HIV and co-infections: ethics guidance from the PHASES project.

Introduction: While pregnant people have been an important focus for HIV research, critical evidence gaps remain regarding prevention, co-infection, and safety and efficacy of new antiretroviral therapies in pregnancy. Such gaps can result in harm: without safety data, drugs used may carry unacceptable risks to the foetus or pregnant person; without pregnancy-specific dosing data, pregnant people face risks of both toxicity and undertreatment; and delays in gathering evidence can limit access to beneficial next-generation drugs. Despite recognition of the need, numerous barriers and ethical complexities have limited progress.

IRB Decision-Making about Minimal Risk Research with Pregnant Participants.

Pregnant individuals are often excluded from research without clear justification, even when the research poses minimal risk of harm to the fetus. Little is known about institutional review board (IRB) decision-making practices when reviewing such research. We conducted a survey of current and former IRB personnel in the United States to elicit their interpretations of "minimal risk"-a formal regulatory category-and to identify factors that may influence IRB decisions to approve or disapprove research involving pregnant participants.

Advancing research in pregnancy during COVID-19: Missed opportunities and momentum in the US.

Pregnant people's exclusion from COVID-19 vaccine research highlights both the harms of excluding pregnant people from clinical trials and the growing public support for their equitable inclusion. Protectionary tendencies must be challenged for the sake of progress. The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to translate recognition of an unjust paradigm into action.

The Costs of Contradictory Messages About Live Vaccines in Pregnancy.

The increased risk of harm from COVID-19 infection in pregnancy highlights the importance of including pregnant people in COVID-19 vaccine development and deployment. Promising vaccines being developed include replication-competent platforms, which are typically contraindicated during pregnancy because of theoretical risk. However, replicating vaccines are administered in and around pregnancy, either inadvertently because of unknown pregnancy status or when recommended.

Evaluating the National Institutes of Health's Sex as a Biological Variable Policy: Conflicting Accounts from the Front Lines of Animal Research.

Since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Revitalization Act of 1993, focus on the equitable inclusion of women in clinical research has been ongoing. NIH's 2015 sex as a biological variable (SABV) policy aims to transform research design, analysis, and reporting in the preclinical sphere by including male and female organisms in vertebrate animal research as well as human studies. However, questions remain regarding how researchers and members of research oversight committees perceive the value and need of the SABV policy.

Pregnant women's perceptions of risks and benefits when considering participation in vaccine trials.

Introduction: Despite historical exclusion, there has been recent recognition of the need to address the health of pregnant women in research on vaccines against emerging pathogens. However, pregnant women's views and decision-making processes about vaccine research participation during infectious disease outbreaks remain underexplored. This study aims to examine women's decision-making processes around vaccine research participation during infectious disease outbreaks.

Views among Malawian women about joining HIV prevention clinical trials when pregnant.

Background: The pressing need to expand the biomedical HIV prevention evidence base during pregnancy is now increasingly recognized. Women's views regarding participation in such trials and initiating PrEP while pregnant are critical to inform evolving policy and best practices aimed at responsibly expanding evidence-based access for this population.

Methods: We conducted 35 semi-structured interviews with reproductive-aged women in Malawi in the local language, Chichewa.

Women's views about contraception requirements for biomedical research participation.

The scientific and ethical importance of including women of reproductive age in biomedical research is widely acknowledged. Concerns about preventing fetal exposure to research interventions have motivated requirements for contraception among reproductive aged women in biomedical studies-often irrespective of risks and benefits or a woman's actual potential for pregnancy, raising important questions about when such requirements are appropriate. The perspectives of women themselves on these issues are largely unexplored.

Hormonal contraception, breastfeeding and bedside advocacy: the case for patient-centered care.

Postpartum contraceptive decision making is complex, and recommendations may be influenced by breastfeeding intentions. While biologically plausible, concerns about the adverse impact of hormonal contraception on breast milk production have not been supported by the clinical evidence to date. However, the data have limitations, which can lead providers with different priorities around contraception and breastfeeding to interpret the data in a way that advances their personal priorities.