Acceptability of an open-label wait-listed trial design: Experiences from the PROUD PrEP study

Background PROUD participants were randomly assigned to receive pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) immediately or after a deferred period of one-year. We report on the acceptability of this open-label wait-listed trial design. Methods Participants completed an acceptability questionnaire, which included categorical study acceptability data and free-text data on most and least liked aspects of the study. We also conducted in-depth interviews (IDI) with a purposely selected sub-sample of participants. Results Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 76% (415/544) of participants. After controlling for age, immediate-group participants were almost twice as likely as deferred-group participants to complete the questionnaire (AOR:1.86;95%CI:1.24,2.81). In quantitative data, the majority of participants in both groups found the wait-listed design acceptable when measured by satisfaction of joining the study, intention to remain in the study, and interest in joining a subsequent study. However, three-quarters thought that the chance of being in the deferred-group might put other volunteers off joining the study. In free-text responses, data collection tools were the most frequently reported least liked aspect of the study. A fifth of deferred participants reported ‘being deferred’ as the thing they least liked about the study. However, more deferred participants disliked the data collection tools than the fact that they had to wait a year to access PrEP. Participants in the IDIs had a good understanding of the rationale for the open-label wait-listed study design. Most accepted the design but acknowledged they were, or would have been, disappointed to be randomised to the deferred group. Five of the 25 participants interviewed reported some objection to the wait-listed design. Conclusion The quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that in an environment where PrEP was not available, the rationale for the wait-listed trial design was well understood and generally acceptable to most participants in this study

What participants least liked about the study.

<p>What participants least liked about the study.</p

What participants most liked about the study.

<p>What participants most liked about the study.</p

Acceptability of the study data collection.

<p>Acceptability of the study data collection.</p

Acceptability of the study visits.

<p>Acceptability of the study visits.</p

Comparison of participants who complete an acceptability questionnaire to those who didn't.

<p>Comparison of participants who complete an acceptability questionnaire to those who didn't.</p

Acceptability of the study design.

<p>Acceptability of the study design.</p

Antiretroviral therapy alone versus antiretroviral therapy with a kick and kill approach, on measures of the HIV reservoir in participants with recent HIV infection (the RIVER trial): a phase 2, randomised trial

Background: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) cannot cure HIV infection because of a persistent reservoir of latently infected cells. Approaches that force HIV transcription from these cells, making them susceptible to killing—termed kick and kill regimens—have been explored as a strategy towards an HIV cure. RIVER is the first randomised trial to determine the effect of ART-only versus ART plus kick and kill on markers of the HIV reservoir. Methods: This phase 2, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial was undertaken at six clinical sites in the UK. Patients aged 18–60 years who were confirmed as HIV-positive within a maximum of the past 6 months and started ART within 1 month from confirmed diagnosis were randomly assigned by a computer generated randomisation list to receive ART-only (control) or ART plus the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat (the kick) and replication-deficient viral vector T-cell inducing vaccines encoding conserved HIV sequences ChAdV63. HIVconsv-prime and MVA.HIVconsv-boost (the kill; ART + V + V; intervention). The primary endpoint was total HIV DNA isolated from peripheral blood CD4+ T-cells at weeks 16 and 18 after randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02336074. Findings: Between June 14, 2015 and Jul 11, 2017, 60 men with HIV were randomly assigned to receive either an ART-only (n=30) or an ART + V + V (n=30) regimen; all 60 participants completed the study, with no loss-to-follow-up. Mean total HIV DNA at weeks 16 and 18 after randomisation was 3·02 log10 copies HIV DNA per 106 CD4+ T-cells in the ART-only group versus 3·06 log10 copies HIV DNA per 106 CD4+ T-cells in ART + V + V group, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (mean difference of 0·04 log10 copies HIV DNA per 106 CD4+ T-cells [95% CI −0·03 to 0·11; p=0·26]). There were no intervention-related serious adverse events. Interpretation: This kick and kill approach conferred no significant benefit compared with ART alone on measures of the HIV reservoir. Although this does not disprove the efficacy kick and kill strategy, for future trials enhancement of both kick and kill agents will be required. Funding: Medical Research Council (MR/L00528X/1)