Pregnant Women, HIV, and Clinical Research to Prevent Perinatal Transmission in the 1990s

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY Casopis za Suvremenu Povijest Pub Date : 2022-06-26 DOI:10.1177/00220094221107493
Sarah B. Rodriguez
{"title":"Pregnant Women, HIV, and Clinical Research to Prevent Perinatal Transmission in the 1990s","authors":"Sarah B. Rodriguez","doi":"10.1177/00220094221107493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1994, American and French AIDS research showed that the drug AZT reduced the risk of HIV transmission from a pregnant HIV-positive woman to her fetus (perinatal transmission). Hailed as a breakthrough, the AIDS Clinical Trial Group protocol 076 (ACTG 076) soon became the standard of care in the US But ACTG 076 was too expensive for low-income countries where perinatal transmission rates were high; to find a more affordable prevention, the US principally funded studies in several low-income countries. Controversy over whether the short course of AZT studies was ethical, given their different standards of care and use of a placebo, erupted in 1997. These studies remain well known within the global health biomedical literature as illustrating differences between sending and receiving countries. But while rarely invoked within this literature, these two sets of studies have similarities that challenge this hierarchal division: both involved pregnant women as objects of clinical research instead of subjects of clinical care, reflective of the all-too-common focus in global health on disease containment rather than on health care, and both illustrate the ways the focus within global health has been on a solitary biomedical intervention rather than on discrimination, inequality, and poverty within and among countries.","PeriodicalId":53857,"journal":{"name":"Casopis za Suvremenu Povijest","volume":"57 1","pages":"878 - 894"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Casopis za Suvremenu Povijest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220094221107493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1994, American and French AIDS research showed that the drug AZT reduced the risk of HIV transmission from a pregnant HIV-positive woman to her fetus (perinatal transmission). Hailed as a breakthrough, the AIDS Clinical Trial Group protocol 076 (ACTG 076) soon became the standard of care in the US But ACTG 076 was too expensive for low-income countries where perinatal transmission rates were high; to find a more affordable prevention, the US principally funded studies in several low-income countries. Controversy over whether the short course of AZT studies was ethical, given their different standards of care and use of a placebo, erupted in 1997. These studies remain well known within the global health biomedical literature as illustrating differences between sending and receiving countries. But while rarely invoked within this literature, these two sets of studies have similarities that challenge this hierarchal division: both involved pregnant women as objects of clinical research instead of subjects of clinical care, reflective of the all-too-common focus in global health on disease containment rather than on health care, and both illustrate the ways the focus within global health has been on a solitary biomedical intervention rather than on discrimination, inequality, and poverty within and among countries.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
20世纪90年代孕妇、艾滋病毒和预防围产期传播的临床研究
1994年,美国和法国的艾滋病研究表明,药物AZT降低了HIV阳性孕妇将HIV传播给胎儿的风险(围产期传播)。艾滋病临床试验组方案076 (ACTG 076)被誉为一项突破,很快成为美国的护理标准。但对于围产期传播率高的低收入国家来说,ACTG 076过于昂贵;为了找到负担得起的预防方法,美国主要资助了几个低收入国家的研究。1997年爆发了关于短期AZT研究是否符合伦理的争论,因为它们的护理标准和安慰剂的使用不同。这些研究在全球卫生生物医学文献中仍然广为人知,说明了原籍国和接受国之间的差异。虽然这两组研究很少在文献中被引用,但它们有相似之处,挑战了这种等级划分:两者都将孕妇作为临床研究的对象,而不是临床护理的对象,反映了全球卫生对疾病控制而不是卫生保健的普遍关注,两者都说明了全球卫生的重点是单一的生物医学干预,而不是国家内部和国家之间的歧视、不平等和贫困。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
50.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Croatian Emigration in North America and Aid Shipments to the Population of the „Old Country” during 1944 and 1945 The Convergence of the Political Strategies of Slovene Catholic Populists and Liberals in World War I The Establishment of Trade Relations between the Socialist Republic of Montenegro and the Federal States of the Federal Republic of Germany Radna snaga iz Nezavisne Države Hrvatske za njemačku zrakoplovnu industriju “Cultural phenomena of two giants”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1