Public Release: 

HIV answers raise new ethical questions

Experts address the ethical issues raised by the FDA's approval of Truvada for HIV prevention

Johns Hopkins Medicine

The Food and Drug Administration's approval last year of the drug Truvada for prevention of HIV infection was a milestone in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but experts are cautioning that it is only the beginning of new ethical concerns for health care professionals, policy makers, researchers and those taking Truvada to prevent HIV infection.

"For the first time, we will have a large number of individuals who are not infected with HIV taking medication for HIV, which introduces ethical concerns of well-being and justice," says Jeremy Sugarman, Deputy Director for Medicine at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. He and Kenneth Mayer, the director of HIV prevention research at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, advocate for ethical issues to be considered along with medical data in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.

Sugarman and Mayer argue it is ethically critical to ensure that use of an antiretroviral drug like Truvada for "pre-exposure prophylaxis"(PrEP) does not have the ironic consequence of making individuals and communities less safe and healthy. Inconsistent, rather than daily, use of PrEP could result in HIV transmission and the evolution of drug-resistant strain of HIV, the authors warn. Likewise, misunderstanding of PrEP's prevention capacity could lead to the spread of other sexually transmitted infections.

"Communication and careful monitoring by health care professionals is essential for PrEP to be successful," says Sugarman. "Reinforcing the importance of daily dosing, incorporating safer sex counseling and frequent HIV testing will help meet the moral imperative that HIV be prevented and not exacerbated by PrEP," he says. He and Mayer recommend training programs for health care professionals that include explicit consideration of PrEP's ethical issues and their management.

Additionally, Sugarman and Mayer highlight what they say are 'critical, unanswered questions' of access and allocation. When limited antiretroviral drugs are available, should prevention be prioritized over treatment for those already infected with HIV, or vice-versa? Is a clinic environment the best setting to provide necessary counseling as part of PrEP? These questions, as well as how much PrEP should cost and who should pay for it, need to be answered as PrEP continues to be used and evaluated, the authors say.

"The fundamental moral claim for using PrEP, or any other HIV prevention strategy, is decreasing the burden of new HIV infections," Sugarman says. "For PrEP's full promise and medicine's moral obligations to be fulfilled, these complex ethical issues must be monitored along with the performance of PrEP."

###

More information:

Sugarman and Mayer opinion in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes: http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/2013/07012/Ethics_and_Pre_exposure_Prophylaxis_for_HIV.5.aspx

Jeremy Sugarman:

http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org/people/jeremy-sugarman-4

About the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics:

One of the largest bioethics centers in the world, the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics is the home for collaborative scholarship and teaching on the ethics of clinical practice, public health and biomedical science at Johns Hopkins University. Since 1995, the Institute has worked with governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations and private sector organizations to address and resolve ethical issues. Institute faculty members represent such disciplines as medicine, nursing, law, philosophy, public health and the social sciences. More information is available at http://www.bioethicsinstitute.org.

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.