Given current constraints on universal treatment campaigns, recent advances in public health prevention initiatives have revitalized efforts to stem the tide of HIV transmission. Yet, despite a growing imperative for prevention—supported by the promise of behavioral, structural and biomedical approaches to lower the incidence of HIV—human rights frameworks remain limited in addressing collective prevention policy through global health governance. Assessing the evolution of rights-based approaches to global HIV/AIDS policy, this review finds that human rights have shifted from collective public health (...) to individual treatment access. While the advent of the HIV/AIDS pandemic gave meaning to rights in framing global health policy, the application of rights in treatment access litigation came at the expense of public health prevention efforts. Where the human rights framework remains limited to individual rights enforced against a state duty bearer, such rights have faced constrained application in framing population-level policy to realize the public good of HIV prevention. Concluding that human rights frameworks must be developed to reflect the complementarity of individual treatment and collective prevention, this article conceptualizes collective rights to public health, structuring collective combination prevention to alleviate limitations on individual rights frameworks and frame rights-based global HIV/AIDS policy to assure research expansion, prevention access and health system integration. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 6, Page 31-32, June 2012.

In July 2012, based on evidence from two major trials, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved the use of combined oral tenofovir/emtricitabine as pre-exposure prophylaxis for people at high risk of HIV acquisition. PrEP effectiveness is marred by poor adherence, however, even in trial populations, thus it is not a magic bullet for HIV prevention. It is, however, the most effective biomedical HIV prevention intervention available for people at high risk of HIV, particularly those who have receptive sex (...) and lack the power to negotiate condom use. Accordingly, there are compelling reasons to compare future experimental HIV prevention interventions against PrEP. The interests both of trial participants and of science are served by using PrEP as comparator: Not only would HIV incidence be reduced, but also the question of whether new interventions were superior to best proven interventions, in a given setting, would be answered comprehensively. (shrink)

The successful demonstration that antiretroviral (ARV) drugs can be used in diverse ways to reduce HIV acquisition or transmission risks – either taken as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) by those who are uninfected or as early treatment for prevention (T4P) by those living with HIV – expands the armamentarium of existing HIV prevention tools. These findings have implications for the design of future HIV prevention research trials. With the advent of multiple effective HIV prevention tools, discussions about the ethics and the (...) feasibility of future HIV prevention trial designs have intensified. This article outlines arguments concerning the inclusion of newly established ARV-based HIV prevention interventions as standard of prevention in HIV prevention trials from multiple perspectives. Ultimately, there is a clear need to incorporate stakeholders in a robust discussion to determine the appropriate trial design for each study population. (shrink)

Published data show that new HIV prevention strategies including treatment-as-prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using oral antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) are highly, but not completely, effective if regimens are taken as directed. Consequently, their implementation may challenge norms around HIV prevention. Specific concerns include the potential for ARV-based prevention to reframe responsibility, erode beneficial sexual norms and waste resources. This paper explores what rights claims uninfected people can make for access to ARVs for prevention, and whether moral claims justify the provision (...) of ARV therapy to those who do not yet clinically require treatment as a way of reducing HIV transmission risk. An ethical analysis was conducted of the two strategies, PrEP and treatment-as-prevention, using a public health stewardship model developed by the Nuffield Bioethics Council to consider and compare the application of PrEP and treatment-as-prevention strategies. We found that treating the person with HIV rather than the uninfected person offers advantages in settings where there are limited opportunities to access care. A treatment-as-prevention strategy that places all the emphasis upon the positive person's adherence however carries a disproportionate burden of responsibility. PrEP remains an important option for receptive partners who face increased biological vulnerability. We conclude that the use of ARV for prevention is ethically justified, despite imperfect global to drugs for those in clinical need. The determination of which ARV-based HIV prevention strategy is ethically preferable is complex and must take into account both public health and interpersonal considerations. (shrink)

Researchers and sponsors are required to assist HIV prevention trial participants to remain HIV-uninfected by ensuring access to prevention services. Ethics guidelines require that these HIV risk-reduction services be state of the art. This and related ethics recommendations have been intensely debated. This descriptive study aimed to identify actual HIV prevention practices for two HIV vaccine trials at five South African sites, to explore whether actual practices meet guideline recommendations and to discuss implications for practices and ethics guidelines. Practices were (...) examined through a review of site documents and interviews with site staff and network representatives, as well as community advisory board and research ethics committee representatives. A thematic analysis of HIV prevention practices, perspectives and perceived challenges was undertaken. Findings indicated that there was a high degree of correspondence between actual practices in South African HIV vaccine trials and guideline recommendations. Key challenges for implementing prevention services were identified as partnerships, provider-promotion of services and participant uptake of services. Practices deviated most from guidelines with regard to the description of prevention plans in informed consent forms. Recommendations are made for both practices and ethics guidelines. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 6, Page 35-37, June 2012.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 6, Page 33-34, June 2012.

Published data show that new HIV prevention strategies including treatment‐as‐prevention and pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) using oral antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) are highly, but not completely, effective if regimens are taken as directed. Consequently, their implementation may challenge norms around HIV prevention. Specific concerns include the potential for ARV‐based prevention to reframe responsibility, erode beneficial sexual norms and waste resources. This paper explores what rights claims uninfected people can make for access to ARVs for prevention, and whether moral claims justify the provision (...) of ARV therapy to those who do not yet clinically require treatment as a way of reducing HIV transmission risk. An ethical analysis was conducted of the two strategies, PrEP and treatment‐as‐prevention, using a public health stewardship model developed by the Nuffield Bioethics Council to consider and compare the application of PrEP and treatment‐as‐prevention strategies. We found that treating the person with HIV rather than the uninfected person offers advantages in settings where there are limited opportunities to access care. A treatment‐as‐prevention strategy that places all the emphasis upon the positive person's adherence however carries a disproportionate burden of responsibility. PrEP remains an important option for receptive partners who face increased biological vulnerability. We conclude that the use of ARV for prevention is ethically justified, despite imperfect global to drugs for those in clinical need. The determination of which ARV‐based HIV prevention strategy is ethically preferable is complex and must take into account both public health and interpersonal considerations. (shrink)