Search

Advances in science have ushered in a wave of new potential curative and control strategies for HIV that could eliminate the current requirement for life-long antiretroviral therapy (ART) for people living with HIV (PLWH). In this article, we argue that it is critical to consider social contexts in the development of HIV cure trial protocols. The biological and behavioral risk factors for HIV acquisition by study participants are inseparable from the social context in which these participants live. The article discusses an example of a cohort established to further HIV cure research that included social context, called the FRESH Acute HIV study, which combines a sociostructural intervention while conducting HIV prevention, treatment and cure-related research in Durban, South Africa. We make an urgent call to action to include sociobehavioral components as instrumental in future HIV cure trials in global context.

Introduction: The question of what motivates people to participate in research is particularly salient in the HIV field. While participation in HIV research was driven by survival in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, access to novel therapies became the primary motivator with the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in the late 1990s. In the HIV cure-related research context, the concept of altruism has remained insufficiently studied. Methods: We conducted a scoping review to better contextualize and understand how altruism is or could be operationalized in HIV cure-related research. We drew from the fields of altruism in general, clinical research, cancer, and HIV clinical research–including the HIV prevention, treatment, and cure-related research fields. Discussion: Altruism as a key motivating factor for participation in clinical research has often been intertwined with the desire for personal benefit. The cancer field informs us that reasons for participation usually are multi-faceted and complex. The HIV prevention field offers ways to organize altruism–either by the types of benefits achieved (e.g., societal versus personal), or the origin of the values that motivate research participation. The HIV treatment literature reveals the critical role of clinical interactions in fostering altruism. There remains a dearth of in-depth knowledge regarding reasons surrounding research participation and the types of altruism displayed in HIV cure-related clinical research. Conclusion: Lessons learned from various research fields can guide questions which will inform the assessment of altruism in future HIV cure-related research.

For over a decade, the binary concepts of ‘sterilizing’ versus ‘functional’ cure have provided an organizing framework for the field of HIV cure-related research. In this article, we examine how the expression ‘functional cure’ is employed within the field, published literature, and community understanding of HIV cure research. In our synthesis of the different meanings attributed to ‘functional cure’ within contemporary biomedical discourse, we argue that employing the ‘functional cure’ terminology poses a series of problems. The expression itself is contradictory and inconsistently used across a wide array of HIV cure research initiatives. Further, the meaning and acceptability of ‘functional cure’ within communities of people living with and affected by HIV is highly variable. After drawing lessons from other fields, such as cancer and infectious hepatitis cure research, we summarize our considerations and propose alternative language that may more aptly describe the scientific objectives in question. We call for closer attention to language used to describe HIV cure-related research, and for continued, significant, and strategic engagement to ensure acceptable and more precise terminology.