Article Text
Abstract
The patient empowerment movement, spurred by AIDS activism in the 1980s, quickly evolved to encompass how study participants are considered and treated in clinical research. Initially, people fearing death of AIDS sought early access to experimental medications that had not undergone rigorous testing in hopes of extending their lives. Thirty years on, scientists are asking a different set of ethical questions about clinical research, this time in the pursuit of either a sterilising cure or long-term remission for HIV. Instead of hastening access to experimental drugs for the sickest, researchers are now testing interventions for eradicating or controlling the virus in typically very healthy HIV-positive individuals who have the most to lose from such interventions if something goes wrong. While clinical researchers and ethicists debate the merits and limits of this type of research they should avoid discounting altruistic motivations as a powerful factor in a prospective study participant's decisions to assume risks. My conversations with four men who participated in HIV cure studies confirmed the capacity of these people to make carefully considered decisions about risks and the sometimes substantial influence/sway of non-clinical benefits that may come from participation in cure-oriented research. Studies must undergo ethical and clinical review before proceeding, and not all participants of such studies will be able to weigh or understand risks and benefits as those profiled here. But respecting the self-agency of people living with HIV should be a goal in the design and conduct of cure research.
- Clinical trials
- Decision-making
- HIV Infection and AIDS
- Patient perspective
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Other content recommended for you
- For love and money: the need to rethink benefits in HIV cure studies
- Cure research and consent: the Mississippi Baby, Barney Clark, Baby Fae and Martin Delaney
- Why cure, why now?
- Are therapeutic motivation and having one's own doctor as researcher sources of therapeutic misconception?
- How to keep high-risk studies ethical: classifying candidate solutions
- Reconceptualising risk–benefit analyses: the case of HIV cure research
- Vedolizumab treatment across antiretroviral treatment interruption in chronic HIV infection: the HAVARTI protocol for a pilot dose-ranging clinical trial to assess safety, tolerance, immunological and virological activity
- Factors associated with attitudes towards HIV cure research among transgender women and travestis: a cross-sectional survey in São Paulo, Brazil
- Informed consent to HIV cure research
- Improving on effective antiretroviral therapy: how good will a cure have to be?