-
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
-
About Dovepress
Open access peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals.
-
Open Access
Dove Medical Press is now a member of the Open Access Initiative
-
An Author's Guide
A guide to help authors get their paper published.
-
Advocacy
Support Open Access and Dove Press
-
Reprints
Promotional Article Monitoring - further details
-
Favored Author Program
Real benefits for authors, including fast-track processing of papers.
Clinical development of new prophylactic antimalarial drugs after the 5th Amendment to the Declaration of Helsinki
Review
(1877) Views (429) Full article downloads
Authors: Geoffrey S Dow, Alan J Magill, Colin Ohrt
Published Date September 2008
Volume 2008:4(4) Pages 803 - 819
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S1025
Geoffrey S Dow, Alan J Magill, Colin Ohrt
Division of Experimental Therapeutics, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Abstract: Malaria is of continuing concern in nonimmune traveling populations. Traditionally, antimalarial drugs have been developed as agents for dual indications (treatment and prophylaxis). However, since 2000, when the 5th Amendment to the Declaration of Helsinki (DH2000) was adopted, development of new malaria prophylaxis drugs in this manner has ceased. As a consequence, there may not be any new drugs licensed for this indication in the foreseeable future. Major pharmaceutical companies have interpreted DH2000 to mean that the traditional development paradigm may be considered unethical because of doubt over the likelihood of benefit to endemic populations participating in clinical studies, the use of placebo, and the sustainability of post-trial access to study medications. In this article, we explore the basis of these concerns and suggest that the traditional development paradigm remains ethical under certain circumstances. We also consider alternative approaches that may be more attractive to sponsors as they either do not use placebo, or utilize populations in endemic countries who may unambiguously benefit. These approaches represent the way forward in the future, but are at present unproven in clinical practice, and face numerous regulatory, logistical and technical challenges. Consequently, in the short term, we argue that the traditional clinical development paradigm remains the most feasible approach and is ethical and consistent with the spirit of DH2000 under the appropriate circumstances.
Keywords: malaria, prophylaxis, treatment, Declaration of Helsinki, DH2000, ethics
- Have an opinion about one of our articles?
We encourage you to write a Letter to the Editor
- American Acne and Rosacea Society
The American Acne and Rosacea Society (AARS), is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization dedicated to elevating the understanding and treatment of acne and rosacea.
- Tenofovir-associated bone density loss
- The benefits and risks of testosterone replacement therapy: a review
- Drug design with Cdc7 kinase: a potential novel cancer therapy target
- Development of mucosal adjuvants for intranasal vaccine for H5N1 influenza viruses




