Jeremy Sugarman1. 1. aBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University bDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University cBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although substantial evidence supports oral preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (OPTF) for the primary prevention of HIV infection in certain settings, assessing whether other promising HIV prevention interventions are safe and effective as well as determining optimal prevention strategies necessitates research. However, given the established safety and efficacy of OPTF, it is necessary to determine when and how is it ethically acceptable to conduct this research, which is the focus of this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Although they are somewhat intertwined, questions regarding OPTF in research can be considered in two broad categories: use in a comparison arm and as a standard of prevention. Major statements addressing these issues are described and recent literature directed at the particular issue of OPTF in research is reviewed and critiqued. SUMMARY: There is now arguably a rebuttable presumption for the use of OPTF as a comparator or as part of the standard of prevention in much future HIV prevention research. However, making such determinations necessitates taking into account scientific considerations, the modality being evaluated, acceptability, adherence, and the local context. Doing so should be optimized by robust stakeholder engagement.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Although substantial evidence supports oral preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (OPTF) for the primary prevention of HIV infection in certain settings, assessing whether other promising HIV prevention interventions are safe and effective as well as determining optimal prevention strategies necessitates research. However, given the established safety and efficacy of OPTF, it is necessary to determine when and how is it ethically acceptable to conduct this research, which is the focus of this review. RECENT FINDINGS: Although they are somewhat intertwined, questions regarding OPTF in research can be considered in two broad categories: use in a comparison arm and as a standard of prevention. Major statements addressing these issues are described and recent literature directed at the particular issue of OPTF in research is reviewed and critiqued. SUMMARY: There is now arguably a rebuttable presumption for the use of OPTF as a comparator or as part of the standard of prevention in much future HIV prevention research. However, making such determinations necessitates taking into account scientific considerations, the modality being evaluated, acceptability, adherence, and the local context. Doing so should be optimized by robust stakeholder engagement.
Authors: E M Connor; R S Sperling; R Gelber; P Kiselev; G Scott; M J O'Sullivan; R VanDyke; M Bey; W Shearer; R L Jacobson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-11-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karine Dubé; John Kanazawa; Lynda Dee; Jeff Taylor; Danielle M Campbell; Brandon Brown; Mallory O Johnson; Parya Saberi; John A Sauceda; Jeremy Sugarman; Michael J Peluso Journal: HIV Res Clin Pract Date: 2021-03-24
Authors: Karine Dubé; John Kanazawa; Jeff Taylor; Lynda Dee; Nora Jones; Christopher Roebuck; Laurie Sylla; Michael Louella; Jan Kosmyna; David Kelly; Orbit Clanton; David Palm; Danielle M Campbell; Morénike Giwa Onaiwu; Hursch Patel; Samuel Ndukwe; Laney Henley; Mallory O Johnson; Parya Saberi; Brandon Brown; John A Sauceda; Jeremy Sugarman Journal: BMC Med Ethics Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.834
Authors: Robertino Mera; Susan Scheer; Christoph Carter; Moupali Das; Julius Asubonteng; Scott McCallister; Jared Baeten Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Michael J Peluso; Lynda Dee; Danielle Campbell; Jeff Taylor; Rebecca Hoh; Rachel L Rutishauser; John Sauceda; Steven G Deeks; Karine Dubé Journal: J Virus Erad Date: 2020-02-20