Search

Analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs) are widely used to evaluate HIV cure-related research interventions. However, sex partners of cure-related trial participants might be at risk of acquiring HIV during ATIs. Addressing this risk is key to ensuring the continued success of trials involving ATIs and offer greater acceptability across multiple trials sites. In 2022, the Advancing Clinical Therapeutics Globally (ACTG) Network convened a Partner Protections Working Group (PPWG) to update the 2020 HIV transmission risk toolkit developed by Peluso and colleagues. In our review of the original toolkit, we identified new challenges and needs at the participant, partner and study levels, as well as new evidence on measures to address these needs and more advanced ethical thinking on partner protections in HIV cure-related trials with ATIs. Based on these findings, we developed an updated toolkit that will provide trial participants and their partners with better support to address new and unfamiliar situations and protect partners from undue harm. We present this toolkit, make it available as a resource for cure-related trials with ATIs and discuss possible future directions.

Functional cure, defined as durable loss of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA suppression off therapy, is an increasingly important goal in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Although novel treatments aimed at achieving functional cure are being developed and tested in clinical trials, it is important to assess the perspectives of people living with HBV towards these potential treatments and their participation in HBV functional cure research. We have performed a scoping review that revealed that there is limited knowledge regarding patient perspectives of HBV functional cure research and then identified gaps in knowledge for further investigation. Our work highlights the need for further studies in patient perspectives in HBV functional cure research.

The use of broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) as a cure-related research strategy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has gained attention from the scientific community. bNAbs are specialized antibodies that target HIV-1 by binding to proteins on the surface of the virus, preventing the infection of human cells. In HIV-1 clinical studies assessing the use of bNAbs, it has been common practice to prescreen potential participants for bNAb sensitivity. However, the use of pre-screening in HIV-1 bNAb clinical trials is a topic of ongoing debate, with regard to its potential benefits and limitations. In this paper, we examine the possible benefits and limitations of pre-screening for bNAb sensitivity in HIV-1 cure-related studies, and suggest alternative methods which may be more effective or efficient at saving costs and time. Ultimately, the decision to use pre-screening in HIV-1 bNAb clinical trials should be based on a careful assessment of the potential benefits and limitations of this approach, as well as the specific needs, goals, design, and population of the study in question.

Introduction: Although current antiretroviral therapy allows most people with HIV (PWH) to experience normal longevity with a good quality of life, an HIV cure remains elusive due to HIV reservoir formation within deep tissues. An HIV cure remains highly desirable to the community of PWH. This study reports on the perceived risks and benefits of participation in the Last Gift study, a study aimed at characterizing HIV reservoirs via post-mortem autopsy, among PWH at the end of life (EOL) and their next-of-kin (NOK)/loved ones. Methods: Last Gift participants (PWH with a terminal illness and/or near the end of life) and their NOK/loved ones were surveyed for perceptions of risks, benefits, and meaning for participation in the Last Gift study. Results: The average age of the 17 Last Gift participants was 66.6 years, 3 were females, 1 person identified as Hispanic, and 15 as Caucasian. The average age of the 17 NOK/loved ones was 56.7 years, and relationships to Last Gift participants included partner/spouse, sibling, friend, child, parent, grandparent, and nephew. The only perceived personal risk of the Last Gift among participants was the blood draws (3/17). NOK/loved ones perceived the following risks: blood draws (2/17), physical pain (3/17), worry that something bad will happen (2/17), and unpleasant side effects (1/17). Participants in Last Gift and NOK/loved ones indicated the study had various positive social effects. For both participants and NOK/loved ones, the most frequent perceived personal benefit of the Last Gift was the satisfaction of supporting HIV cure research. Discussion: Participants perceived minimal personal and societal risks and valued the altruistic benefits of participating in the Last Gift study. Last Gift participants and NOK/loved ones were cautious about possible personal risks of EOL HIV cure research but still viewed that the emotional, psychological and societal benefits of participation outweighed potential risks.

This viewpoint article critiques two recent articles examining ‘willingness to risk death’ to advance HIV cure-related research. The ‘willingness to risk death’ endpoint sends the wrong signal to the HIV cure-related research community about ongoing research in otherwise healthy volunteers living with HIV. Socio-behavioural scientists have examined the acceptability of a 99% risk of death scenario, which is unrealistic and would not be acceptable by current regulatory and ethical standards. We believe that the field needs robust and relevant socio-behavioural research reflecting ongoing biomedical HIV cure-related trials. These studies will need to withstand regulatory and ethical scrutiny if cure or remission regimens are to proceed to the licensing stage. The HIV cure-related research community must continue to protect the public trust in the HIV cure-related research field and sustain societal value generated by such research. We call for the utmost prudence in designing biomedical HIV cure trials as well as in setting up socio-behavioural research experiments related to these complex trials.

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.

Analytic treatment interruptions (ATIs) are currently the standard for assessing the impact of experimental interventions aimed at inducing sustained antiretroviral therapy (ART)-free remission in trials related to HIV cure. ATIs are associated with substantial risk to both study participants and their sexual partner(s). Two documented HIV transmissions occurring in the context of ATIs have been recently reported, but recommendations for mitigating the risk of such events during ATIs are limited. We outline a practical approach to risk mitigation during ATI studies and describe strategies we are utilising in an upcoming clinical trial that may be applicable to other centres.

Introduction: Involving affected communities and people living with HIV (PLHIV) in HIV cure-focused clinical trials has ethical and practical benefits. However, there can be barriers to meaningful involvement of ‘lay people’ in scientific research meaning community consultation is often limited or tokenistic. This paper reports on an Australian project, the INSPIRE project (Improve, Nurture and Strengthen education, collaboration, and communication between PLHIV and Researchers), which aimed to explore barriers and enablers to enactment of the principles of meaningful involvement of PLHIV (MIPA) and affected communities in HIV cure-focused research. Methods: The project involved a workshop attended by 40 stakeholders involved in HIV care, research or advocacy including PLHIV, community organizations, basic scientists, and clinicians. The workshop involved a facilitated discussion about community involvement in a hypothetical HIV cure-focused clinical trial. Data were collected through notetaking and video recordings. Qualitative, thematic analysis was undertaken to organize the data and identify core themes related to MIPA. Results: Workshop discussions revealed community stakeholders often feel their involvement in HIV clinical research is undervalued, evidenced by limited financial remuneration and minimal capacity to influence the research design or processes. Building long-term, formal and informal relationships between community organizations, PLHIV, researchers and research teams or laboratories was identified as a strategy to support MIPA at all stages of a clinical trial, from design to dissemination of findings. Conclusions: Enacting MIPA principles in HIV cure-focused research requires a better understanding of the potential to improve research outcomes and ensure quality in the research process.

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.

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.

The literature on HIV therapeutics research is rife with terminology associating ‘sterilisation’ with HIV cure. We find connotations of the word ‘sterilising’ problematic for the HIV cure research field. In this viewpoint, we review associations of sterilising with concepts of disinfection or cleansing, as well as coerced sterilisation. We discuss emerging findings from socio-behavioural research that show aversion from people living with HIV towards the ‘sterilising cure’ nomenclature. We call for more collaborations with people with HIV as partners to help define what would be a more acceptable terminology for describing an HIV cure.

Introduction: Participation in early-phase HIV cure studies includes clinical risks with little to no likelihood of clinical benefit. Examining the willingness of people living with HIV to participate is important to guide study design and informed consent. Our study examined the overall willingness of people living with HIV to participate in HIV cure research in the US, focusing on perceived risks and benefits of participation. Methods: We undertook an online survey of adults living with HIV in the US. Survey questions were developed based on previous research and a scoping review of the literature. We quantitatively assessed individuals’ perceived risks and benefits of HIV cure-related research and respondents’ willingness to participate in different modalities of HIV cure studies. Results: We recruited 409 study participants of whom 400 were eligible for the study and were included in the analysis (nine were not eligible due to self-declared HIV-negative status). We found >50% willingness to participate in 14 different types of HIV cure studies. Perceived clinical benefits and social benefits were important motivators, while personal clinical risks appeared to deter potential participation. Roughly two-thirds of survey respondents (68%) indicated that they were somewhat willing to stop treatment as part of HIV cure research. In the bivariate models, females, African Americans/blacks, Hispanics, individuals in the lowest income bracket, people living with HIV for longer periods of their lives, and people who were self-perceived ‘very healthy’ were less willing to participate in certain types of HIV cure studies than others. Multivariate results showed the perceived benefits (adjusted odds ratios >1) and perceived risks (adjusted odds ratios

Objective: To identify the main types of HIV cure-related strategies and examine possible risks (and benefits) associated with participating in HIV cure-related research studies. Methods: We undertook a scoping review to first map out the landscape of HIV cure-related research and then examined the risks and potential benefits associated with participating in HIV cure research. Given the early stage of many HIV cure-related studies, we used proxy literatures from non-cure HIV research and cancer research in order to anticipate possible motivators and deterrents of participation in HIV cure-related studies. Results: We discussed four main categories of HIV cure-related research: (1) early antiretroviral treatment (ART); (2) latency-reversing agents (LRAs); (3) therapeutic vaccinations and immune-based therapies (IBT); and (4) stem-cell transplantation and gene therapy. At this juncture, these categories of HIV cure-related research have substantial individual risks and negligible individual and clinical benefits. Non-cure HIV research (including HIV prevention and treatment) and cancer research have empirical similarities (and differences) to HIV cure research and may provide an opportunity to anticipate ethical and logistical challenges associated with HIV cure-related research participation and decision-making. Learning from the cancer field, a strong foundation of patient-participant and clinician-researcher trust will need to be established to facilitate recruitment of participants into HIV cure-related studies. Conclusion: Further empirical social science and ethics research will be necessary to inform clinical HIV cure-related research. The study of participation in HIV cure-related research can gain insights from proxy fields by incorporating study elements to clearly explain motivators and deterrents to participation and to inform the implementation of HIV cure-related studies. Study-specific contexts from the reviewed literature further demonstrate the importance of various types of research to assess factors affecting participation in HIV cure-related research, including adequate formative and ethics research.