1 / 19

Ethics in a new era

Ethics in a new era. Microbicides 2012 Preconference Bridget Haire. Ethical issues in research. Balance of risks of benefits Fairness Consent Voluntary Sufficient understanding No coercion Promote justice, avoid exploitation

cerise
Download Presentation

Ethics in a new era

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ethics in a new era Microbicides 2012 Preconference Bridget Haire

  2. Ethical issues in research • Balance of risks of benefits • Fairness • Consent • Voluntary • Sufficient understanding • No coercion • Promote justice, avoid exploitation • Reasonable likelihood that the trial community will eventually derive benefit • Risks not disproportionate or unreasonable

  3. Community role in ethical research process Make the research better Get the best deal possible for participants* and the local community (risk/benefit balance, fairness, consent, no exploitation) Communicate effectively with research team about issues that affect the research process, outcomes and participants Communicate with and listen to the wider community about the research

  4. What’s the new era? • Positive trial results: can we still use placebos? • Adherence as critical: supporting it, measuring it, communicating honestly about it • ‘Futility’ results (FemPrEP, Voice) • Stopping rules: when should a trial be stopped for futility? • Are IIB trials still useful?

  5. New biomedical intervention strategies Effect size (CI) Study Prime-boost HIV Vaccine (Thai RV144) 31% (1, 51) 1% tenofovir gel (Caprisa 004, Karim et al.) 39% (6, 60) 1% tenofovir gel (Caprisa 004, Karim et al.) TDF/FTC oral-PrEP inMSM (iPrEx, Grant et al 2010) 44% (15, 63) Medical male circumcision (MMC) (Orange Farm, Rakai, Kisumu) 57% (42, 68) TDF/FTC oral-PrEP in heterosexuals (TDF2, CDC) 63% (22, 83)* 62% (34, 78)* TDF oral-PrEP in serodiscordant Partner (Partners PrEP) 73% (49, 85)* TDF/FTC oral-PrEP in serodiscordant Partner (Partners PrEP) 96% (82, 99)* Immediate ART for positive Partners (HPTN052) 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100% Efficacy Slide: Robin Shattock IAS Plenary Rome 2011

  6. When should new interventions be added to prevention package? • If the method been recommended by international bodies or adopted nationally • But also if: • the evidence is strong AND • the intervention has shown efficacy in the relevant population; AND • if provision is feasible.

  7. If the evidence is strong… Statistically significant (P = <0.05) Effect size is substantial (lowest end of the confidence interval needs to big enough to have an impact) More than one trial, or one trial with a very strong result Not entirely black and white, and subject to arguments about specific situations

  8. Relevant populations Route of exposure (vagina/penis, rectum, intravenous) Might extrapolation be reasonable in some instances?

  9. Is provision feasible? What are the barriers – regulatory, cost-associated, manufacturing issues? Cost associated issues might be resolvable through drug donations Regulatory issues may be resolvable through advocacy (or maybe not) Manufacturing issues may be impossible to solve short-term

  10. When should a new intervention not be added? When there are safety issues regarding drug-drug interactions When the addition of a new intervention would compromise the ability of the trial to answer the relevant question (Is the trial addressing a relevant question?)

  11. Grey areas • Ipergay- French trial of PrEP in gay men comparing intermittent PrEP with placebo • Issues • Continuous PrEP shown modestly effective in iPrEX (44%, but higher in good adherers) • Proof-of-concept in Partners PrEP and TNF2 (Botswana), though with penile exposure • BUT not approved for prevention (yet) anywhere

  12. ASPIRE – more grey Vaginal ring that delivers the ARV dapivrine Ph III trial of 3476 randomised to active ring or ring with placebo Positive trial results that should be considered HPTN052 (early treatment of positive partner), CAPRISA 004 (tenofovir gel) Partners PrEP, TNF 2 (PrEP) Negative results FemPrEP, VOICE

  13. Vaginal rings

  14. Issue in ASPIRE PrEP could not be added to both arms, due to potential drug/drug interactions Head-to-head against PrEP or tenofovir gel? Early treatment offer for HIV positive partners of participants (applying HPTN052 lessons)?

  15. IIB Trials/Stopping rules Both FemPrEP and VOICE were designed so that if a product was ineffective at certain time points, that arm of the trial was stopped Is this useful? Smaller trials have less power to give an answer Should trials be stopped for futility?

  16. Ethics sessions at M2012 • Standard of Prevention – Monday 11am • Social and ethical issue in HIV Prevention – Monday 2 pm • Beyond the Trial: ethical and operational challenges for post-trial access– Wednesday 11am

More Related