7 ms·
Close, but it's actually run with two large groups: one that gets the real shot, and one that gets a fake shot. You then compare the two groups, rather than com
by pitaj 2y ago
Close, but it's actually run with two large groups: one that gets the real shot, and one that gets a fake shot. You then compare the two groups, rather than comparing with the population.
- spencerchubb 2y agoThat would be extremely unethical, exposing the control group to needless risk. There is already another drug that helps prevent hiv, it's called truvada. They tested this new one against truvada, and basically learned it's a lot more effective.
- Dylan16807 2y agoRidiculous. As long as most people are taking no preventatives, it is not "extremely unethical" to have the control group also take no preventatives.
- kjhcvkek77 2y agoWho would sign up for your study? The diligent person already on truvada - would they risk getting placebo? No. Or the person too careless to take truvada? Would they go to the trouble of participating in a study for a 50% chance of protection? No.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThat's an entirely different question from ethics. But paying people to be studied tends to be effective.
- kjhcvkek77 2y agoI don't think so. Managing the relationships with the public and study participants is an important part of the ethics.
- Dylan16807 2y agoEthics and managing relationships with the public overlap. But I don't think the particular aspect of "making sure you have enough participants" interacts very much with ethics. Especially when the failure state in question is an honest failure to attract them.
- landryraccoon 2y agoI think it would unethical if the participants in the study were asked not to take any other antivirals. In that case, someone at high risk for HIV infection could be prevented from getting treatment because of the study protocol. The ethical solution, which the authors of the study chose, was to provide the highest standard of care as the placebo - in this case it was Truvada. Since the treatment was actually even more effective than the existing standard of care, it was a home run success. Their conclusion is even stronger than it would be if they used a non pharmaceutical placebo, so in retrospect their decision was clearly correct.
- stevekemp 2y agoIn general, yes. In this case the study cites that as being unethical due to the high prevalence of HIV in the target population. So the actual trial gave some people the shot, and some other people the known-working daily pills as a control.