Copyright and Use of This Thesis This Thesis Must Be Used in Accordance with the Provisions of the Copyright Act 1968
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COPYRIGHT AND USE OF THIS THESIS This thesis must be used in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction of material protected by copyright may be an infringement of copyright and copyright owners may be entitled to take legal action against persons who infringe their copyright. Section 51 (2) of the Copyright Act permits an authorized officer of a university library or archives to provide a copy (by communication or otherwise) of an unpublished thesis kept in the library or archives, to a person who satisfies the authorized officer that he or she requires the reproduction for the purposes of research or study. The Copyright Act grants the creator of a work a number of moral rights, specifically the right of attribution, the right against false attribution and the right of integrity. You may infringe the author’s moral rights if you: - fail to acknowledge the author of this thesis if you quote sections from the work - attribute this thesis to another author - subject this thesis to derogatory treatment which may prejudice the author’s reputation For further information contact the University’s Director of Copyright Services sydney.edu.au/copyright Good, better or best: A study of standards of prevention and care in HIV prevention trials Bridget Haire A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY at the University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2013 Supervisor’s Certification I, Dr Christopher Jordens, certify that the PhD thesis entitled ‘Good, better or best: A study of standards of prevention and care in HIV prevention trials’ by Bridget Haire is in a suitable form for examination. ……………………. Christopher Jordens ……………………. Date ii Candidate’s Declaration I, Bridget Haire, hereby declare that the work described in this thesis is my own. I am the principal researcher of all work contained in this thesis, including work conducted in association with my PhD supervisors and other co-authors. This thesis does not contain written or published materials prepared by others except where acknowledged within the text and has not been submitted to any other university or institution as a part or whole requirement for any higher degree. I, Bridget Haire, understand that if I am awarded a higher degree for my thesis entitled ‘Good, better or best: Standards of prevention and care in HIV prevention research’, being lodged for examination, the thesis will be lodged in the University Library and be available immediately for use. I agree that the University Librarian (or in the case of a department, the Head of Department) may supply a photocopy or microform of the thesis to an individual for research or study or to a library. ……………………. Bridget Haire Date: 27/03/2013 iii Abstract Introduction This is a study of the negotiation of benefits in HIV biomedical prevention trials. It took place at a very dynamic period in HIV prevention research, 2009-2012, during which there were positive efficacy results from six large, randomised controlled trials of HIV prevention interventions. This study presents evidence on how benefits to participants are negotiated in efficacy trials of biomedical HIV prevention technologies. It re-considers debates about obligations to trial participants in the light of the positive trial results and asks how partially effective HIV prevention modalities impact on these debates. Methods Empirical The empirical components of the study comprise: • a survey of principal investigators who conducted HIV prevention trials • 14 in-depth interviews with principal investigators; and • additional data collection from document analysis and personal communications. Descriptive statistics were calculated for survey responses, and interview data were analysed thematically from a symbolic interactionist perspective. iv Normative The normative component focuses on four big-picture issues: Whether there is ethical justification for antiretroviral (ARV)-based prevention in HIV endemic areas; How the positive HIV prevention trial results – which demonstrate partial efficacy – affect (or should affect) future HIV prevention research; The implications of incorporating newly validated technologies into the standard of prevention; and Whether PrEP should become the comparator arm in HIV prevention trials from now on. Results Procedural norms have developed regarding some aspects of standard of prevention. There are differences however regarding whether standards of prevention should be basic or optimal, and whether or when new interventions should be added. Access to ARV for seroconverters, usually through partnerships, has also become a norm, and some principal investigators also reported a strong obligation towards those ‘screened out’ of trials – volunteers with pre-existing HIV infection. The importance of various forms of ancillary care provision was recognised and negotiation of this care helped establish the research project as part of a healthcare continuum. Post-trial access provisions were in place for all the interventions that had successful efficacy results. There were significant differences in both the duration and the timeliness of actual post-trial provision, however. v Conclusion Partially effective interventions pose problems for enduring post-trial access as by definition, they raise questions about ‘how good is good enough’ for implementation within particular epidemic settings. A similar dilemma is faced with regard to standard of prevention. The key question facing HIV prevention research is how to test new experimental interventions in the context of partially effective interventions. Ongoing research into new intervention is crucial, but reducing HIV incidence in trial populations is a legitimate goal. Hence, it is time to include a proven biologically effective intervention as an active comparator in HIV prevention trials. The goals of HIV prevention research must be to find the most effective ways of using existing tools and to establish the effectiveness of new tools. An active comparator balances the need to protect participants with the need to develop new interventions. vi For Marion and Lucy, whose manifold perfections inspire me ever to strive. vii Acknowledgements Thank you to all the participants who donated their time to this research. Without you, this thesis could not have happened. The completion of this research and thesis owes much to the generous support of many others too. I would like to thank my primary supervisor, Dr Chris Jordens, who has been a great champion of this project from its inception – by turns an enthusiastic supporter or stern critic as required. Thank you for all your work, and for your faith. My associate supervisors have also provided invaluable advice and support. A/Professor Ian Kerridge gave thoughtful feedback on many of the articles published herein and, as importantly, has made the Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine (VELiM) a rich and harmonious environment for working and learning. Thanks too to A/Professor Bebe Loff for her advice on the survey questions, ethics submission and for posing challenging questions. Professor John Kaldor had no formal supervisory role in this research, but his gregarious collegiality led to him playing a significant role in many aspects. John persuaded several elusive principal investigators to talk to me. He also (rightly) insisted on my principal investigator survey being redesigned, provided a sounding board for many of the key ideas in this thesis, and acted as a co-author on two articles. I am immensely grateful for his input. I thank the students and staff at VELiM who have provided great camaraderie and taught me innumerable lessons. Particular thanks is due to Aric, Bronwyn, Camilla, viii Chris, David, Denise, Estelle, Henry, Jacqueline, Jane, Jenn, Julie, Lindy, Lucie, Peter, Pippa, Rowena, Sascha, Scott, Stacy, Vincy, Wendy and Emeritus Professor Miles Little. Dr Jeanne Ellard and Dean Murphy have enabled me to work by looking after my daughter, and also enriched my frames of reference through invigorating conversations and the sharing of papers and research plans. It has been great to have family around who speak AIDS. I also thank Chris Murphy for taking care of my family so well for all those weekends. Finally, thank you to Marion and Lucy and your patience and understanding, your cheerful reading of drafts, incisive commentary, and enthusiastic use of tracked changes. Next week it will be proper meals and folded laundry all the way. ix List of publications and presentations Peer reviewed articles included in this thesis Haire B., and C. Jordens. 2013. Standard of prevention in the real world: A qualitative study of principal investigators in HIV biomedical prevention trials. AJOB Primary Research. Accepted Feb 26, 2013 Haire B., and J. Kaldor. 2013. Ethics of ARV-based prevention: PrEP and treatment- as-prevention. Developing World Bioethics. Accepted Jan 10, 2013. Haire, B., M. Folayan, C. Hankins, J. Sugarman, S. McCormack, G. Ramjee and M. Warren. 2013. Ethical considerations in determining standard of prevention packages for HIV prevention trials: Examining PrEP. Developing World Bioethics. Accepted Jan 10, 2013. Haire, B. 2013. Ethics of medical care and clinical research. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2013;39:231-235. Published Online First: 22 November 2012 doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100936 Haire, B. J. Kaldor, C.F.C. Jordens. 2012. How good is ‘good enough’: When should new HIV technologies should become standard of care? American Journal of Bioethics 2012, 12(6):21-30. x Haire, B. 2011. Because we can: Clashes of perspective over obligation in the failed PrEP trials. Developing World Bioethics, 11 (2):63-74.| DOI: 10.1111/j.1471- 8847.2010.00292.x Relevant peer-reviewed articles not included in this thesis (available in Appendix C) McGregor, S., G. Tachedjian, B.G. Haire, J.M. Kaldor. 2013.The Seventh and last international microbicides conference: From discovery to delivery. Sexual Health. Accepted January 16, 2013. Haire, B. 2011.Treatment-as-prevention needs to be considered in the just allocation of HIV drugs. American Journal of Bioethics 11(12):48-50 Haire, B.