[ABCLAW]

Not really. When performing clinical trials, if you'd like to use the results of the studies in chinese/indian populations you'll need to prove bioequivalence in many cases, so you're going to need to collect a meaningful sample in the first place.

The reality is that most clinical trials aren't successes. If you can get a huge cohort of people for relatively cheap elsewhere, you can screen a lot of promising but doomed tests at a cheaper price point, then only re-create similar testing on the most promising candidates in your lucrative markets.

[lolc]

What the grandparent post was referring to as "obvious reasons" must be the high prevalence of HIV in the study countries[0]. Why wouldn't they test in countries with the highest infection risk?

There may be common reasons to trial there like it being cheaper or less regulated. But there is a good reason for this specific medication to be tested in those specific countries. Criticizing the study authors for being "cheap" is uncalled for in this case.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-population-infec...

[Wytwwww]

I'm not sure developed countries are the most lucrative market for HIV vaccines. How many people would even get them and why? This is a product almost entirely developed for Sub-Saharan Africa so it only makes sense that they focus on testing it there?

Hard to say, maybe it's not inconceivable that ~1% of potential patients in the US/EU/etc. might end up paying more than > 50%-90% of the people living Sub-Saharan Africa for whom getting the vaccine would make a lot of sense.