Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24127238›Full record

ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2014

Ethical issues in HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs.

Jeremy Sugarman, Scott M Rose, David Metzger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Ethical Principles and Practices in HIV Acquisition Research in Humanitarian Crises: A Cross-Sectional Study.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jeremy SugarmanaBerman Institute of Bioethics and Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Scott M Rose
David Metzger
Family Health International 360 · USJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

HIV Prevention trials Network (HPTN) Coordinating and Operations CenterU01AI068619 · NIAID · FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL · PI VERMUND, STEN H. · 2006 to 2010
$72.7M
Penn Mental Health AIDS Research CenterP30MH097488 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Knashawn Hodge Morales · 2013 to 2026
$23.5M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI068619NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH097488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInjection drug use continues to significantly contribute to new infections with HIV. Moreover, conducting HIV prevention research with people who inject drugs (PWIDs) can be complicated for an array of practical, social, legal, and ethical reasons. It is critical that these research efforts are sensitive to the particular vulnerabilities associated with injection drug use as well as those related to being at risk of acquiring HIV so as to minimize harm to participants in research. PURPOSE: To describe how we addressed some of these ethical challenges during the course of a large-scale multinational randomized HIV prevention trial involving PWIDs, which was successfully completed.

methodsThe ethical issues encountered during the life cycle of the trial were cataloged by the principal investigator, study coordinator, and ethicist working on the trial. Relevant study documents were then reviewed to provide pertinent details. The ethical issues unique to the trial were then described.

resultsBefore implementation, the trial faced particularly complex challenges related to the vulnerability of PWIDs, where HIV seroincidence rates in the population were high and legal policies and stigma regarding injection drug use was severe. Accordingly, a rapid policy assessment was commissioned, and a series of community engagement activities were conducted. During the trial, in addition to using careful standard operating procedures regarding all aspects of trial conduct and extensive staff training, the trial standardized informed consent procedures and assessed them. Furthermore, social harms were monitored along with physical harms and adverse events. Following the decision to close the study, it was critical to develop an orderly and safe process for closing it. The issue of post-trial access to the study medication and a complex intervention also surfaced for consideration. LIMITATIONS: The issues described in this article are necessarily limited to how they manifested themselves within the context of a particular trial that was conducted in two countries. In addition, other stakeholders may have divergent views on the ethical issues described and may also have identified additional ethical issues that would warrant examination.

conclusionsAdopting similar approaches to addressing ethical issues in future research promises to facilitate this work so that needed strategies to prevent HIV infection among PWIDs can be safely and appropriately tested. Future trials enrolling PWIDs who are at risk of detainment should identify ways of mapping closely their experiences and perceptions in order to better apprehend some of the ethical issues at stake. In addition, scholarly and policy work needs to address the ethical issues related to post-trial access to multi-modal interventions that may be desired by participants, but are not shown to be effective in achieving the primary outcomes of the study.

Indexed as

Vulnerable PopulationsChinaClinical Trials, Phase III as TopicHIV InfectionsHumansInformed ConsentMulticenter Studies as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk Reduction BehaviorSubstance Abuse, IntravenousThailand

Identifiers

PMID24127238
PMCPMC3972281
OpenAlexW2125670161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.