BACKGROUND: In the last decade, several large-scale, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of novel HIV prevention products have been completed, and eight are currently underway or about to be reported. Little attention has been given in the literature to the level of protection sufficient to warrant introduction, and there is concern that using the term "efficacy" to describe the effect of user-controlled methods such as microbicides may mislead policymakers. DESIGN: We review how the fields of family planning, vaccine science and mathematical modelling understand and use the terms efficacy and effectiveness, and explore with simple mathematical models how trial results of user-controlled products relate to common understandings of these terms. RESULTS: Each field brings different assumptions, a different evidence base and different expectations to interpretations of efficacy and effectiveness - a reality that could cloud informed assessment of emerging data. CONCLUSION: When making judgments on the utility of new health technologies, it is important to use standards that yield appropriate comparisons for the innovation and that take into account the local epidemic and available alternatives.
BACKGROUND: In the last decade, several large-scale, clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of novel HIV prevention products have been completed, and eight are currently underway or about to be reported. Little attention has been given in the literature to the level of protection sufficient to warrant introduction, and there is concern that using the term "efficacy" to describe the effect of user-controlled methods such as microbicides may mislead policymakers. DESIGN: We review how the fields of family planning, vaccine science and mathematical modelling understand and use the terms efficacy and effectiveness, and explore with simple mathematical models how trial results of user-controlled products relate to common understandings of these terms. RESULTS: Each field brings different assumptions, a different evidence base and different expectations to interpretations of efficacy and effectiveness - a reality that could cloud informed assessment of emerging data. CONCLUSION: When making judgments on the utility of new health technologies, it is important to use standards that yield appropriate comparisons for the innovation and that take into account the local epidemic and available alternatives.
Authors: Catherine M Montgomery; Mitzy Gafos; Shelley Lees; Neetha S Morar; Oliver Mweemba; Agnes Ssali; Jonathan Stadler; Robert Pool Journal: Cult Health Sex Date: 2010-08
Authors: Robert C Bailey; Stephen Moses; Corette B Parker; Kawango Agot; Ian Maclean; John N Krieger; Carolyn F M Williams; Richard T Campbell; Jeckoniah O Ndinya-Achola Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-02-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Todd J Johnson; Priya Srinivasan; Theodore H Albright; Karen Watson-Buckheit; Lorna Rabe; Amy Martin; Chou-Pong Pau; R Michael Hendry; Ron Otten; Janet McNicholl; Robert Buckheit; James Smith; Patrick F Kiser Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Fern Terris-Prestholt; Anna M Foss; Andrew P Cox; Lori Heise; Gesine Meyer-Rath; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Thomas Mertenskoetter; Helen Rees; Peter Vickerman; Charlotte H Watts Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2014-01-09 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: U M Abdel-Motal; C Harbison; T Han; J Pudney; D J Anderson; Q Zhu; S Westmoreland; W A Marasco Journal: Gene Ther Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 5.250