Ethical considerations related to the provision of care and treatment in vaccine trials.

Ethical principles of beneficence and justice combined with international human rights norms and standards create certain obligations on researchers, sponsors and public health authorities. These include treatment provision for participants enrolled in clinical trials of vaccines, drugs and other new preventive and curative technologies and methods. However, these obligations are poorly defined in practical terms, inconsistently understood or inadequately applied. Vaccine clinical trial designs normally define standards of prevention applicable to the population where the trial is to take place. The present document addresses specifically the setting of standards applicable to care and treatment in vaccine trials. The lack of clear guidance on how to achieve the optimal synergy between the development of new health technologies, on the one hand, and the promotion and protection of ethical and human rights principles, on the other, is a barrier to the progress of health research and therefore to the advancement of public health. The World Health Organization and UNAIDS have engaged in a series of consultations in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe to reflect on how this aim could best be achieved. This document highlights the outcome of these consultations. It proposes a structured approach to consensual decision making in the context of the clinical trial of vaccines against such public health challenges as HIV and newly emerging or threatening epidemics. A structured approach involving investigators and sponsors in a consultative process with trial communities and other stakeholders in research will ensure that the needs and legitimate expectations of trial participants are appropriately met, obligations towards them are delivered and, as a result, ethical research is facilitated in the interest of public health.

Challenges in the provision of ICU services to HIV infected children in resource poor settings: a South African case study.

The HIV/AIDS epidemic has placed increasing demands on limited paediatric intensive care services in developing countries. The decision to admit HIV infected children with Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) into the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) has to be made on the best available evidence of outcome and the ethical principles guiding appropriate use of scarce resources. The difficulty in confirming the diagnosis of HIV infection and PCP in infancy, issues around HIV counselling, and the variance in the outcome of HIV infected children with PCP admitted to the PICU in African studies compound this process. Pragmatic decision making will require evaluation of at least three ethical questions: are there clinical and moral reasons for admitting HIV positive children with PCP to the PICU, should more resources be committed to caring for HIV children who require the PICU, and how can we morally choose candidates for the PICU? Those working in the PICU in HIV endemic regions need to make difficult personal decisions on effective triage of admissions of HIV infected children with PCP based on individual case presentation, availability of resources, and applicable ethical principles.

Provision of HIV treatment in HIV preventive vaccine trials: a developing country perspective.

HIV treatment for participants who become infected during HIV vaccine trials has been the focus of ethical controversy. The obligations of sponsors to ensure that participants have access to antiretrovirals have been a particular focus of this debate. This paper presents three arguments that have been made in this regard, and some of their limitations, in anticipation of HIV vaccine trials in South Africa. The first argument is that HIV risk behaviour increases in such trials, and HIV infection can be viewed as a research-related injury, justifying sponsor provision of treatment on grounds of compensation for harm. We conclude that risk-behaviour studies to date do not show general increases in risk behaviour that could constitute the basis for a general obligation. Participation may well adversely impact on risk behaviour for some individuals, and conceivably this could be demonstrated. This argument may, therefore, have merit at the individual level; however, it seems a weak platform from which to argue that sponsors should treat all HIV infections acquired during trials. The second argument is that treatment should be provided based on distributive justice. We conclude that traditional concepts of "distributive justice" in research appear limited in justifying obligations of sponsors to ensure access to antiretrovirals. Further, using research initiatives to reduce global health care inequities is controversial, and even proponents may disagree about the fairest use of finite resources. The third argument is that sponsors should ensure antiretroviral access on grounds of beneficence; namely, the maxim that if one can do something beneficial without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, it ought to be done. Thus, sponsors should provide more interventions than those minimally required to conduct the research. However, beneficence may demand levels of altruism that exceeds what is reasonable. While the latter arguments may provide stronger justifications than the first, it is difficult to use these arguments to establish that sponsor provision of antiretrovirals to infected individuals is obligatory.