The Social Value Misconception in Clinical Research.

Clinical researchers should help respect the autonomy and promote the well-being of prospective study participants by helping them make voluntary, informed decisions about enrollment. However, participants often exhibit poor understanding of important information about clinical research. Bioethicists have given special attention to "misconceptions" about clinical research that can compromise participants' decision-making, most notably the "therapeutic misconception." These misconceptions typically involve false beliefs about a study's purpose, or risks or potential benefits for participants. In this article, we describe a misconception involving false beliefs about a study's potential benefits for non-participants, or its expected social value. This social value misconception can compromise altruistically motivated participants' decision-making, potentially threatening their autonomy and well-being. We show how the social value misconception raises ethical concerns for inherently low-value research, hyped research, and even ordinary research, and advocate for empirical and normative work to help understand and counteract this misconception's potential negative impacts on participants.

Addressing Ethical Challenges in US-Based HIV Phylogenetic Research.

In recent years, phylogenetic analysis of HIV sequence data has been used in research studies to investigate transmission patterns between individuals and groups, including analysis of data from HIV prevention clinical trials, in molecular epidemiology, and in public health surveillance programs. Phylogenetic analysis can provide valuable information to inform HIV prevention efforts, but it also has risks, including stigma and marginalization of groups, or potential identification of HIV transmission between individuals. In response to these concerns, an interdisciplinary working group was assembled to address ethical challenges in US-based HIV phylogenetic research. The working group developed recommendations regarding (1) study design; (2) data security, access, and sharing; (3) legal issues; (4) community engagement; and (5) communication and dissemination. The working group also identified areas for future research and scholarship to promote ethical conduct of HIV phylogenetic research.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission Risk in Analytical Treatment Interruption Studies: Relational Factors and Moral Responsibility.

Analytical treatment interruption (ATI) is becoming common in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) cure-related research, but its use is controversial. ATI raises concerns about risks of HIV transmission to sexual partners of study participants. Researchers may have difficulty addressing these risks, given that study participants' private behavior is implicated, the partners are not enrolled in the research, and behavioral HIV risk mitigation strategies usually fall outside the study objectives. This analysis argues that researchers should assume some responsibility for partners' risks, based on the importance of partner relationships for the study participants themselves, and out of concern for the partners' welfare. Adding this responsibility is reasonable since the risk is created in part by research procedures, and since concern for third parties is often part of professional standards for healthcare providers. Study participants and their partners also bear some responsibility. Specific recommendations for measures to address risk are discussed.

Recommendations for analytical antiretroviral treatment interruptions in HIV research trials-report of a consensus meeting.

Analytical antiretroviral treatment interruption (ATI) is an important feature of HIV research, seeking to achieve sustained viral suppression in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) when the goal is to measure effects of novel therapeutic interventions on time to viral load rebound or altered viral setpoint. Trials with ATIs also intend to determine host, virological, and immunological markers that are predictive of sustained viral control off ART. Although ATI is increasingly incorporated into proof-of-concept trials, no consensus has been reached on strategies to maximise its utility and minimise its risks. In addition, differences in ATI trial designs hinder the ability to compare efficacy and safety of interventions across trials. Therefore, we held a meeting of stakeholders from many interest groups, including scientists, clinicians, ethicists, social scientists, regulators, people living with HIV, and advocacy groups, to discuss the main challenges concerning ATI studies and to formulate recommendations with an emphasis on strategies for risk mitigation and monitoring, ART resumption criteria, and ethical considerations. In this Review, we present the major points of discussion and consensus views achieved with the goal of informing the conduct of ATIs to maximise the knowledge gained and minimise the risk to participants in clinical HIV research.

Ethical considerations in global HIV phylogenetic research.

Phylogenetic analysis of pathogens is an increasingly powerful way to reduce the spread of epidemics, including HIV. As a result, phylogenetic approaches are becoming embedded in public health and research programmes, as well as outbreak responses, presenting unique ethical, legal, and social issues that are not adequately addressed by existing bioethics literature. We formed a multidisciplinary working group to explore the ethical issues arising from the design of, conduct in, and use of results from HIV phylogenetic studies, and to propose recommendations to minimise the associated risks to both individuals and groups. We identified eight key ethical domains, within which we highlighted factors that make HIV phylogenetic research unique. In this Review, we endeavoured to provide a framework to assist researchers, public health practitioners, and funding institutions to ensure that HIV phylogenetic studies are designed, done, and disseminated in an ethical manner. Our conclusions also have broader relevance for pathogen phylogenetics.

Addressing ethical challenges in HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs.

Despite recent advances in HIV prevention and treatment, high HIV incidence persists among people who inject drugs (PWID). Difficult legal and political environments and lack of services for PWID likely contribute to high HIV incidence. Some advocates question whether any HIV prevention research is ethically justified in settings where healthcare system fails to provide basic services to PWID and where implementation of research findings is fraught with political barriers. Ethical challenges in research with PWID include concern about whether research evidence will be translated into practice; concerns that research might exacerbate background risks; and ethical challenges regarding the standard of HIV prevention in research. While these questions arise in other research settings, for research with PWID, these questions are especially controversial. This paper analyses four ethical questions in determining whether research could be ethically acceptable: (1) Can researchers ensure that research does not add to the burden of social harms and poor health experienced by PWID? (2) Should research be conducted in settings where it is uncertain whether research findings will be translated into practice? (3) When best practices in prevention and care are not locally available, what standard of care and prevention is ethically appropriate? (4) Does the conduct of research in settings with oppressive policies constitute complicity? We outline specific criteria to address these four ethical challenges. We also urge researchers to join the call to action for policy change to provide proven safe and effective HIV prevention and harm reduction interventions for PWID around the world.

Interrupting antiretroviral treatment in HIV cure research: scientific and ethical considerations.

Over the past several years there has been intense activity directed at the possibility of achieving remission or eradication of HIV infection. Current assays for the measurement of latent HIV are insufficient to demonstrate complete clearance of replication-competent HIV. Therefore, the ultimate test for assessing whether investigational interventions have resulted in HIV remission or eradication is to interrupt standard antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a carefully controlled clinical trial setting. These procedures, known as analytic treatment interruptions (ATIs), raise important scientific and ethical questions. The lack of definitive assays for measuring viral reservoirs not only makes research on HIV remission or cure challenging, it also affects the ability to assess risks from ATIs themselves. In spite of these challenges, basic ethical criteria can be met with careful study design and close monitoring. In this brief report we outline ethical standards for HIV cure research involving ATIs. These criteria should be revisited as the science evolves.

Highlights from the Third Biennial Strategies for an HIV Cure Meeting: 14-16 November 2016, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Since the first Strategies for an HIV Cure Meeting organised by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) in 2012, one of the primary purposes of the meeting has been to facilitate communication and foster collaboration across the NIAID-funded Martin Delaney Collaboratories for HIV cure research (MDC), the broader HIV cure-related research field, and industry and community stakeholders. This year's meeting agenda reflected NIAID's increasing investment over the last 5 years in research to identify strategies for eradicating or achieving long-term remission of HIV infection. Overviews and research highlights were presented from each of the Martin Delaney Collaboratories, as well as projects funded through the Beyond HAART programme, the Consortia for Innovative AIDS Research in Nonhuman Primates (CIAR) programme, the ACTG and IMPAACT clinical trial networks, and the NIAID Vaccine Research Center in hopes of stimulating cross-talk and synergy among these and other programmes focused on HIV cure research. Aside from the oral presentations described here, the meeting also included 75 poster presentations. Finally, community engagement activities and community participation in the MDC was highlighted throughout the first day and in a special session on Day 2. This reflects NIAID's commitment to engage community partners in the earliest stages of research towards curative interventions through the MDC programme. The entire meeting is available for viewing via the NIH VideoCast website at: https://videocast.nih.gov/PastEvents.asp.

The interaction between equipoise and logistics in clinical trials: A case study.

INTRODUCTION: Equipoise is usually discussed as an ethical issue in clinical trials. However, it also has practical implications. BACKGROUND: Clinical equipoise is usually construed to mean uncertainty or disagreement among the expert clinician community. However, an individual physician's sense of equipoise may vary by location, based on the local standard of care or availability of specific treatment options, and these differences can affect providers' willingness to enroll participants into clinical trials. There are also logistical barriers to enrollment in international trials due to prolonged timelines for approvals by government agencies and ethical review boards. CASE STUDY: A multinational clinical trial of bridging strategies for treatment of non-adherent HIV-infected youth, experienced differing perceptions of equipoise due to disparities in availability of treatment options by country. Unfortunately, the countries with most demand for the trial were those where the approval process was most delayed, and the study was closed early due to slow accrual. DISCUSSION: When planning multicenter clinical trials, it is important to take into account heterogeneity among research sites and try to anticipate differences in equipoise and logistical factors between sites, in order to plan to address these issues at the design stage.

Toward Earlier Inclusion of Pregnant and Postpartum Women in Tuberculosis Drug Trials: Consensus Statements From an International Expert Panel.

Tuberculosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in women of childbearing age (15-44 years). Despite increased tuberculosis risk during pregnancy, optimal clinical treatment remains unclear: safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data for many tuberculosis drugs are lacking, and trials of promising new tuberculosis drugs exclude pregnant women. To advance inclusion of pregnant and postpartum women in tuberculosis drug trials, the US National Institutes of Health convened an international expert panel. Discussions generated consensus statements (>75% agreement among panelists) identifying high-priority research areas during pregnancy, including: (1) preventing progression of latent tuberculosis infection, especially in women coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus; (2) evaluating new agents/regimens for treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis; and (3) evaluating safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of tuberculosis drugs already in use during pregnancy and postpartum. Incorporating pregnant women into clinical trials would extend evidence-based tuberculosis prevention and treatment standards to this special population.

Testing the waters: Ethical considerations for including PrEP in a phase IIb HIV vaccine efficacy trial.

BACKGROUND: The field of HIV prevention research has recently experienced some mixed results in efficacy trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis, vaginal microbicides, and HIV vaccines. While there have been positive trial results in some studies, in the near term, no single method will be sufficient to quell the epidemic. Improved HIV prevention methods, choices among methods, and coverage for all at-risk populations will be needed. The emergence of partially effective prevention methods that are not uniformly available raises complex ethical and scientific questions regarding the design of ongoing prevention trials. METHODS: We present here an ethical analysis regarding inclusion of pre-exposure prophylaxis in an ongoing phase IIb vaccine efficacy trial, HVTN 505. This is the first large vaccine efficacy trial to address the issue of pre-exposure prophylaxis, and the decisions made by the protocol team were informed by extensive stakeholder consultations. The key ethical concerns are analyzed here, and the process of stakeholder engagement and decision-making described. DISCUSSION: This discussion and analysis will be useful as current and future research teams grapple with ethical and scientific study design questions emerging with the rapidly expanding evidence base for HIV prevention.