Article Text

other Versions

Undue inducement: a case study in CAPRISA 008
  1. Kathryn T Mngadi1,2,
  2. Jerome A Singh1,3,
  3. Leila E Mansoor1,
  4. Douglas R Wassenaar4
  1. 1Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
  2. 2School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
  3. 3Department of Clinical Public Health, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  4. 4School of Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kathryn T Mngadi, Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA), 2nd Floor, Doris Duke Medical Research Institute, Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X7, Congella 4013, South Africa; kathy.mngadi{at}


Participant safety and data integrity, critical in trials of new investigational drugs, are achieved through honest participant report and precision in the conduct of procedures. HIV prevention post-trial access studies in middle-income countries potentially offer participants many benefits including access to proven efficacious but unlicensed technologies, ancillary care that often exceeds local standards-of-care, financial reimbursement for participation and possibly unintended benefits if participants choose to share or sell investigational drugs. This case study examines the possibility that this combination of benefits may constitute an undue inducement for some participants in middle-income countries, where economic challenges are prevalent. A case study is presented of a single participant in a cohort of 382 participants who used concealment, fabrication and deception to ensure eligibility for a post-trial access study of an unlicensed HIV prevention technology at potential risk to her health and that of her fetus. A root cause analysis revealed her desire to access HIV prevention during an unplanned pregnancy with a partner whose faithfulness was in question. Researchers should consider implementation of systems to efficiently identify similar cases without inconveniencing the majority of participants

Trial registration number NCT01691768.

  • Autonomy
  • Clinical Ethics
  • HIV Infection and AIDS
  • Research Ethics

Statistics from


  • Contributors KTM is the primary author of the paper and worked as the Project Director at the urban site for Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) 008 and was the overall Safety Officer. JAS has reviewed and provided input to this paper and is the CAPRISA Bioethics Head who reviewed the case and give direction on continued study participation by the participant. LEM is the Principal Investigator of CAPRISA 008, and provided review and input to this paper. DRW has reviewed and made major contributions to this paper based on his expertise in medical ethics.

  • Funding United States Agency for International Development through CONRAD (grant no. PPA-12-143). MACAIDS Fund through the Tides Foundation (TFR11-01545).

  • Competing interests One of the coauthors of this paper (DRW) chaired the Research Ethics Committee that reviewed the Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa 008.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement The primary outcome paper is in the process of finalisation for submission for publication and is being authored by LEM.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.