Cover Image
close this bookUNAIDS-Sponsored Regional Workshops to Discuss Ethical Issues in Preventive HIV Vaccine Trials (UNAIDS, 2000, 52 p.)
close this folderWORKSHOP REPORTS
close this folderBANGKOK, THAILAND, 20-22 APRIL, 1998
View the document1. Collaboration in Phase I, II and III Trials
View the document2. Community
View the document3. Ethical and Scientific Review
View the document4. Intellectual Property
View the document5. Control Arm in Trials
View the document6. Informed Consent
View the document7. Gender, Pregnancy and Breast-Feeding
View the document8. Children
View the document9. Protection from Discrimination
View the document10. Vaccine-Induced HIV-Seropositivity
View the document11. Counselling
View the document12. Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP)
View the document13. Treatment and Care
View the document14. Compensation
View the document15. Availability of Vaccine

13. Treatment and Care

Consensus:

For those who contract HIV infection during the course of the trial, but not as a result of the trial, treatment should be provided at a level consistent with that available in the host country. There is no imperative to provide a level of care consistent with that in the sponsoring country, or with the highest available in the world.

Discussion:

It may also be inadequate to provide exactly the same care as that in the host country. As an example, it was considered inappropriate not to use sterile needles for administering the trial vaccines, although sterile equipment may not be generally available in the host country.

It was agreed also that there is some obligation for the sponsor to provide treatment in proportion to its resources. Where treatment is provided to participants, it should be provided to all participants. In the case of discordant couples, it should be provided to the HIV-positive partner. There was significant concern about the risk of disproportionate treatment resulting in undue incentive/inducement for people to participate.

There was concern that a sponsor providing excessively high levels of treatment could exonerate a government from its responsibility to provide treatment for its population.

It was acknowledged that providing treatment at a level consistent with standard practice in the host would make the conduct of trials in developing countries financially attractive to potential sponsors. However, this was viewed by some participants as an acceptable way to attract research activity to a developing country.