Project description:Obtaining the definitive data necessary to determine the safety and efficacy of using antiretroviral treatment (ART) to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV in heterosexual couples encountered an array of ethical challenges that threatened to compromise HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052, the multinational clinical trial addressing this issue that has profound public health implications.To describe and analyze the major ethical challenges faced in HPTN 052.The ethical issues and modifications of HPTN 052 in response to these issues were cataloged by the principal investigator, the lead coordinator, and the ethicist working on the trial. The major ethical issues that were unique to the trial were then described and analyzed in light of the published literature as well as guidances and policies. The ethical challenges that must be addressed in many clinical trials, such as those related to obtaining informed consent and making provisions for ancillary care, are not described.When HPTN 052 was being designed, ethical questions emerged related to the relevance of the research question itself given data from observational research and a range of beliefs about the appropriate means of preventing and treating HIV infection and AIDS. Furthermore, ethical challenges were faced regarding site selection since there was a scientific need to conduct the research in settings where HIV incidence was high, but alternatives to study participation should be available. As in most HIV-prevention research, ethical questions surrounded the determination of the appropriate prevention package for all of those enrolled. During the course of the trial, guidance documents and policies emerged that were of direct relevance to the research questions, calling for a balancing of concerns for the research subjects and trial integrity. When the study results were made public, there was a need to ensure access to the treatment shown to be effective that in some cases differed from the guidelines used at the sites where the research was being conducted. In addition, questions were raised about whether there was an obligation to notify subjects about 'unlinked' transmissions of HIV, that is, infections acquired from someone other than the designated sexual partner enrolled in the study.The ethical issues described are limited to those discerned by the authors and not those of other stakeholders who may have identified additional issues or had a different perspective in analyzing them.Understanding the ethical challenges faced in HPTN 052 promises to inform the design and conduct of future complex, long-term clinical trials aimed at addressing critical scientific and public health questions, where data and practice patterns emerge over the course of the trial.
Project description:IntroductionTo effectively address HIV/AIDS in Africa, evidence on preventing new infections and providing effective treatment is needed. Ideally, decisions on which interventions are effective should be based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Our previous research described African RCTs of HIV/AIDS reported between 1987 and 2003. This study updates that analysis with RCTs published between 2004 and 2008.ObjectivesTo describe RCTs of HIV/AIDS conducted in Africa and reported between 2004 and 2008.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialized Register in September 2009. Two researchers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and extracted data using standardized forms. Details included location of trials, interventions, methodological quality, location of principal investigators and funders.ResultsOur search identified 834 RCTs, with 68 conducted in Africa. Forty-three assessed prevention-interventions and 25 treatment-interventions. Fifteen of the 43 prevention RCTs focused on preventing mother-to-child HIV transmission. Thirteen of the 25 treatment trials focused on opportunistic infections. Trials were conducted in 16 countries with most in South Africa (20), Zambia (12) and Zimbabwe (9). The median sample size was 628 (range 33-9645). Methods used for the generation of the allocation sequence and allocation concealment were adequate in 38 and 32 trials, respectively, and 58 reports included a CONSORT recommended flow diagram. Twenty-nine principal investigators resided in the United States of America (USA) and 18 were from African countries. Trials were co-funded by different agencies with most of the funding obtained from USA governmental and non-governmental agencies. Nineteen pharmaceutical companies provided partial funding to 15 RCTs and African agencies co-funded 17 RCTs. Ethical approval was reported in 65 trials and informed consent in 61 trials.ConclusionPrevention trials dominate the trial landscape in Africa. Of note, few principal investigators and funders are from Africa. These findings mirror our previous work and continue to indicate a need for strengthening trial research capacity in Africa.
Project description:In 2004 and 2005, the first clinical trials were launched to investigate the use of tenofovir for HIV prevention in Cambodia,Cameroon, Nigeria and Thailand. Controversies erupted over the ethical integrity of the research protocol. We reflect on the events that ledto the controversies and identified that scientific and ethical concerns raised by members of local communities at each of these sites wereerased by trialists, causing crisis that led to premature shut down the early PrEP trials. In the aftermath of these trials, the World HealthOrganisation, UNAIDS, and AVAC developed ethics guidelines intended to recognize the concerns as authentic, and developed guidelines toimprove researchers' engagement of communities in biomedical HIV prevention trial design and implementation. Our findings suggest thatthe ethics guidelines are limited in its ability to address power inequalities that leads to voice erasures and non-recognition of localcompetencies. Rather the ethical documents enabled trialists to gain a new sense of authority through the interpretations of ethical researchconduct enabling trialists regain power that can further entrench inequality and voice erasures. To address concerns with what seems anintractable problem, we suggested models of engagement for off-shored research may be the option.
Project description:BackgroundLack of regulatory capacity limits the conduct of ethical and rigorous trials of herbal medicines in developing countries. Sharing ethical and regulatory experiences of successful herbal trials may accelerate the field while assuring human subjects protection. The methods and timelines for the ethical and regulatory review processes for the first drug regulatory authority approved herbal trial in Zimbabwe are described in this report.MethodsThe national drug regulatory authority and ethics committee were engaged for pre-submission discussions. Six applications were submitted. Application procedures and communications with the various regulatory and ethics review boards were reviewed. Key issues raised and timelines for communications were summarized.ResultsThere was no special framework for the approval of herbal trials. One local institutional review committee granted an exemption. Key issues raised for revision were around pre-clinical efficacy and safety data, standardization and quality assurance of the intervention as well as consenting procedures. Approval timelines ranged between eight and 72 weeks.ConclusionsIn the absence of a defined framework for review of herbal trials, approval processes can be delayed. Dialogue between researchers and regulators is important for successful and efficient protocol approval for herbal trials in developing countries.Trial registrationThe study was registered prospectively on August 3, 2011 with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01410058).
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the costs and health effects of a range of interventions for preventing the spread of HIV and for treating people with HIV/AIDS in the context of the millennium development goal for combating HIV/AIDS.DesignCost effectiveness analysis based on an epidemiological model.SettingAnalyses undertaken for two regions classified using the WHO epidemiological grouping-Afr-E, countries in sub-Saharan Africa with very high adult and high child mortality, and Sear-D, countries in South East Asia with high adult and high child mortality.Data sourcesBiological and behavioural parameters from clinical and observational studies and population based surveys. Intervention effects and resource inputs based on published reports, expert opinion, and the WHO-CHOICE database.Main outcome measuresCosts per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted in 2000 international dollars (Int dollars).ResultsIn both regions interventions focused on mass media, education and treatment of sexually transmitted infections for female sex workers, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections in the general population cost < Int150 dollars per DALY averted. Voluntary counselling and testing costs < Int350 dollars per DALY averted in both regions, while prevention of mother to child transmission costs < Int50 dollars per DALY averted in Afr-E but around Int850 dollars per DALY in Sear-D. School based education strategies and various antiretroviral treatment strategies cost between Int500 dollars and Int5000 dollars per DALY averted.ConclusionsReducing HIV transmission could be done most efficiently through mass media campaigns, interventions for sex workers and treatment of sexually transmitted infections where resources are most scarce. However, prevention of mother to child transmission, voluntary counselling and testing, and school based education would yield further health gains at higher budget levels and would be regarded as cost effective or highly cost effective based on standard international benchmarks. Antiretroviral therapy is at least as cost effective in improving population health as some of these interventions.
Project description:BackgroundSouth Africa is a major hub of HIV prevention trials, with plans for a licensure trial to start in 2015. The appropriate standards of care and of prevention in HIV vaccine trials are complex and debated issues and ethical guidelines offer some direction. However, there has been limited empirical exploration of South African stakeholders' perspectives on ethical guidance related to prevention and care in HIV vaccine trials.MethodsSite staff, Community Advisory Board members and Research Ethics Committee members involved with current HIV vaccine trials in South Africa were invited to participate in an exploration of their views. A questionnaire listed 10 care and 10 prevention recommendations drawn from two widely available sets of ethical guidelines for biomedical HIV prevention trials. Respondents (n = 98) rated each recommendation on five dimensions: "Familiarity with", "Ease of Understanding", "Ease of Implementing", "Perceived Protection", and "Agreement with" each ethical recommendation. The ratings were used to describe stakeholder perspectives on dimensions for each recommendation. Dimension ratings were averaged across the five dimensions and used as an indication of overall merit for each recommendation. Differences were explored across dimensions, between care-oriented and prevention-oriented recommendations, and between stakeholder groups.ResultsBoth care and prevention recommendations were rated highly overall, with median ratings well above the scale midpoint. In general, informed consent recommendations were most positively rated. Care-related recommendations were rated significantly more positively than prevention-related recommendations, with the five lowest-rated recommendations being prevention-related. The most problematic dimension across all recommendations was "Ease of Implementing," and the least problematic was "Agreement with," suggesting the most pressing stakeholder concerns are practical rather than theoretical; that is, respondents agree with but see barriers to the attainment of these recommendations.ConclusionsWe propose that prevention recommendations be prioritized for refinement, especially those assigned bottom-ranking scores for "Ease of Implementing", and/ or "Ease of Understanding" in order to assist vaccine stakeholders to better comprehend and implement these recommendations. Further qualitative research could also assist to better understand nuances in stakeholder reservations about implementing such recommendations.