Is preexposure prophylaxis ready for prime time use in HIV prevention research?

Oral Preexposure Prophylaxis Uptake and Discontinuation in the HIV Vaccine Trials Network 704/HIV Prevention Trials Network 085 Study: Implications for Biomedical Human Immunodeficiency Virus Prevention Trials

Background

HIV Vaccine Trials Network (HVTN) 704/085, a placebo-controlled clinical trial assessing the efficacy of VRC01 broadly neutralizing antibody infusion for HIV prevention, offered oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as the standard of prevention at no cost to participants.

Methods

We characterized features of- identified factors associated with- PrEP initiation and discontinuation, and the effects of PrEP initiation on HIV incidence.

Results

Of 2221 participants, 31.8% initiated oral PrEP during study follow-up, with the highest proportion of PrEP initiations in Brazil (83.2%) and the United States (US) (54.2%). Prior PrEP use was associated with PrEP initiation (hazard ratio [HR], 2.22 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.25-3.95]). Participants from Switzerland (HR, 0.5 [95% CI, .3-1.0]) and Peru (HR, 0.08 [95% CI, .06-.1]) had lower likelihood of PrEP initiation compared to the US, while participants from Brazil had higher likelihood (HR, 2.6 [95% CI, 2.0-3.3]). In the US, PrEP initiation was lower in areas with higher unmet need for PrEP (HR, 0.9 per 5 units [95% CI, 0.8-1.0]). PrEP initiators had 58% less risk of acquiring HIV than PrEP noninitiators. Among PrEP initiators, 34.4% discontinued PrEP during study follow-up. Brazil had 63% less likelihood of PrEP discontinuation than the US (HR, 0.37 [95% CI, .22-.60]).

Conclusions

When included as standard of prevention in HVTN 704/085, oral PrEP utilization patterns mirrored those observed in real-life settings. Variable effects of oral PrEP on HIV outcomes in clinical trials may be expected based on regional differences in oral PrEP use.

Taking stock of the present and looking ahead: envisioning challenges in the design of future HIV prevention efficacy trials

Despite the recent success of antiretrovirals for HIV prevention, additional, more effective, or more acceptable biomedical interventions will ultimately be needed to end the HIV epidemic. Designing clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of new products that reduce HIV infection risk is challenging because of the existence of highly effective interventions to prevent HIV. However, the implementation of these interventions is uneven, and the fact that multiple HIV prevention efficacy trials are currently evaluating new products means the field confronts uncertainty in the emerging standard of prevention. In this Viewpoint, we take stock of the current state of HIV prevention, and subsequently discuss the key challenges in designing future trials to evaluate the next generation of HIV prevention products. We also highlight gaps in the knowledge base that need to be addressed to advance the design of research. Future trials are tenable, even in the context of existing and effective interventions, and should involve careful statistical approaches and multidisciplinary collaborative design.

South African Research Ethics Committee Review of Standards of Prevention in HIV Vaccine Trial Protocols

HIV prevention trials provide a prevention package to participants to help prevent HIV acquisition. As new prevention methods are proven effective, this raises ethical and scientific design complexities regarding the prevention package or standard of prevention. Given its high HIV incidence and prevalence, South Africa has become a hub for HIV prevention research. For this reason, it is critical to study the implementation of relevant ethical-legal frameworks for such research in South Africa. This qualitative study used in-depth interviews to explore the practices and perspectives of eight members of South African research ethics committees (RECs) who have reviewed protocols for HIV vaccine trials. Their practices and perspectives are compared with ethics guideline requirements for standards of prevention.

Ethical considerations regarding oral preexposure prophylaxis in HIV prevention trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although substantial evidence supports oral preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (OPTF) for the primary prevention of HIV infection in certain settings, assessing whether other promising HIV prevention interventions are safe and effective as well as determining optimal prevention strategies necessitates research. However, given the established safety and efficacy of OPTF, it is necessary to determine when and how is it ethically acceptable to conduct this research, which is the focus of this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although they are somewhat intertwined, questions regarding OPTF in research can be considered in two broad categories: use in a comparison arm and as a standard of prevention. Major statements addressing these issues are described and recent literature directed at the particular issue of OPTF in research is reviewed and critiqued.

SUMMARY

There is now arguably a rebuttable presumption for the use of OPTF as a comparator or as part of the standard of prevention in much future HIV prevention research. However, making such determinations necessitates taking into account scientific considerations, the modality being evaluated, acceptability, adherence, and the local context. Doing so should be optimized by robust stakeholder engagement.

When the science fails and the ethics works: 'Fail-safe' ethics in the FEM-PrEP study

This paper will explore the concept of 'fail safe' ethics in the FEM PrEP trial, and the practice of research and ethics on the ground. FEM-PrEP examined the efficacy of PrEP in African women after promising outcomes in research conducted with MSM. This was a hugely optimistic time and FEM-PrEP was mobilised using rights-based ethical arguments that women should have access to PrEP. This paper will present data collected during an ethnographic study of frontline research workers involved in FEM-PrEP. During our discussions, 'fail-safe' ethics emerged as concept that encapsulated their confidence that their ethics could not fail. However, in 2011, FEM-PrEP was halted and deemed a failure. The women involved in the study were held responsible because contrary to researcher's expectations they were not taking the oral PrEP being researched. This examination of FEM-PrEP will show that ethical arguments are increasingly deployed to mobilise, maintain and in some cases stop trials in ways which, at times, are superseded or co-opted by other interests. While promoting the interests of women, rights-based approaches are argued to indirectly justify the continuation of individualised, biomedical interventions which have been problematic in other women-centred trials. In this examination of FEM-PrEP, the rights-based approach obscured: ethical concerns beyond access to PrEP; the complexities of power relationships between donor and host countries; the operations of the HIV industry in research-saturated areas and the cumulative effect of unfilled expectations in HIV research and how this has shaped ideas of research and ethics.