Placebo trials are unethical for established, untested treatments
- E C O Edi-Osagie, Clinical research fellow, Department of Reproductive Medicine,
- N E Edi-Osagie, Specialist registrar, Neonatal Medical Unit
- St Mary's Hospital, Manchester M13 0JH
- Public Citizen, 1600 20th Street, Washington, DC 20009-1001, USA
- Centre Médical Evangelique, Nyankunde, Congo
- Medical Practitioners and Dentists Board, Nairobi, Kenya
- Clinical Pharmacology Section, Department of Medicine, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham B15 2TH
- Department of International Health, School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA
- Department of Medicine, University Teaching Hospital, PO Box 50110, Lusaka, Zambia
- Kara Counselling and Training Trust, Lusaka
- Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
EDITOR—In their editorial Halsey et al defended their placebo controlled trials of effective interventions to prevent maternal-fetal HIV transmission in developing countries.1 Their arguments in defence of these trials are weak. They cite the guidelines of the Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences, which “call for universal principles of ethical research, not universal standards of medical care.” 1 2 This does not, however, justify their exposing pregnant women with HIV infection to placebo treatment in a trial that also offers appropriate treatment. Although prevailing economic circumstances in developing countries may preclude such women from routinely receiving effective treatment, this is no justification to deny the control arm in the trial of Halsey et al effective treatment because it would act as an undue incentive. We also do not agree with Lurie and Wolfe's counterarguments that studies supported by the American government should provide all participants with the same level of care that is available to Americans.3 Although this suggestion is ethically sound and desirable, it is highly impracticable.
We believe that any intervention in a research trial that deliberately sets out not to prevent an anticipated deleterious health condition (maternal-fetal HIV transmission in this case) is unethical and goes against the guidelines of the Council for International Organisations of Medical Sciences.2 Examples abound in contemporary medicine of established but untested interventions whose effectiveness cannot now be tested because subjecting people to placebo controlled trials of their effectiveness is considered to be unethical and unacceptable. Lurie and Wolfe's suggestion of comparing the new short course zidovudine regimens against the established ACTG 076 regimen is ethical and statistically sound. Perhaps more appropriate would be a three arm trial, with the new regimens and ACTG 076 making up two arms and the local population of pregnant women infected with …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012