Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: Addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment

Gail E. Henderson, Holly L. Peay, Eugene Kroon, Rosemary Jean Cadigan, Karen Meagher, Thidarat Jupimai, Adam Gilbertson, Jill Fisher, Nuchanart Q. Ormsby, Nitiya Chomchey, Nittaya Phanuphak, Jintanat Ananworanich, Stuart Rennie

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort. In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks. These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)270-276
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume44
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Ethics
moral philosophy
HIV
Research
Decision Making
decision making
Risk Reduction Behavior
Standard of Care
Odds Ratio
Research Personnel
AIDS/HIV
Interruption
Interviews
experience
Costs and Cost Analysis
inclusion
participation
costs
interview
community

Keywords

  • behavioural research
  • HIV Infection and AIDS
  • research ethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research : Addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment. / Henderson, Gail E.; Peay, Holly L.; Kroon, Eugene; Cadigan, Rosemary Jean; Meagher, Karen; Jupimai, Thidarat; Gilbertson, Adam; Fisher, Jill; Ormsby, Nuchanart Q.; Chomchey, Nitiya; Phanuphak, Nittaya; Ananworanich, Jintanat; Rennie, Stuart.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 44, No. 4, 01.04.2018, p. 270-276.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Henderson, GE, Peay, HL, Kroon, E, Cadigan, RJ, Meagher, K, Jupimai, T, Gilbertson, A, Fisher, J, Ormsby, NQ, Chomchey, N, Phanuphak, N, Ananworanich, J & Rennie, S 2018, 'Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: Addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment', Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 270-276. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104433
Henderson, Gail E. ; Peay, Holly L. ; Kroon, Eugene ; Cadigan, Rosemary Jean ; Meagher, Karen ; Jupimai, Thidarat ; Gilbertson, Adam ; Fisher, Jill ; Ormsby, Nuchanart Q. ; Chomchey, Nitiya ; Phanuphak, Nittaya ; Ananworanich, Jintanat ; Rennie, Stuart. / Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research : Addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment. In: Journal of Medical Ethics. 2018 ; Vol. 44, No. 4. pp. 270-276.
@article{6b3b140ce86a4d1dba15e18322d346ae,
title = "Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: Addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment",
abstract = "Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort. In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks. These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.",
keywords = "behavioural research, HIV Infection and AIDS, research ethics",
author = "Henderson, {Gail E.} and Peay, {Holly L.} and Eugene Kroon and Cadigan, {Rosemary Jean} and Karen Meagher and Thidarat Jupimai and Adam Gilbertson and Jill Fisher and Ormsby, {Nuchanart Q.} and Nitiya Chomchey and Nittaya Phanuphak and Jintanat Ananworanich and Stuart Rennie",
year = "2018",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/medethics-2017-104433",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "270--276",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research

T2 - Addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment

AU - Henderson, Gail E.

AU - Peay, Holly L.

AU - Kroon, Eugene

AU - Cadigan, Rosemary Jean

AU - Meagher, Karen

AU - Jupimai, Thidarat

AU - Gilbertson, Adam

AU - Fisher, Jill

AU - Ormsby, Nuchanart Q.

AU - Chomchey, Nitiya

AU - Phanuphak, Nittaya

AU - Ananworanich, Jintanat

AU - Rennie, Stuart

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort. In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks. These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

AB - Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort. In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks. These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

KW - behavioural research

KW - HIV Infection and AIDS

KW - research ethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044834092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044834092&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2017-104433

DO - 10.1136/medethics-2017-104433

M3 - Article

C2 - 29127137

AN - SCOPUS:85044834092

VL - 44

SP - 270

EP - 276

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 4

ER -