Search

Standards of care provided to volunteers in HIV prevention research in developing countries are evolving. Inconsistency in standards, particularly within a research network highlights the need to balance volunteers' health and wellness with the efficient conduct of research. Ten research centers (RC's) in East and Southern Africa affiliated with the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) were studied using a mixed methods approach to understand variations, similarities and gaps in services provided, recipients of services, referral systems, and barriers to referral uptake. These data were then used to develop expected standards across the 10 RCs. Findings indicated that RCs consistently provided HIV risk reduction and family planning (FP) counseling, male condoms, management of sexually transmitted infections, CD-4 counts, and general medical care to volunteers and non-research volunteers. Services that were less consistently provided on-site included: female condoms, adult male circumcision (AMC), antiretroviral therapy (ART) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) in case of rape. The FP options provided on-site varied, with few providing implants, intrauterine devices, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. Most RCs had established referral systems for ART, AMC, PEP, and FP, but few had referral points for psychosocial services. Few RCs had comprehensive guidelines on referrals other than those related to adverse events. Findings indicate that the greatest challenges for referral uptake were transportation and health care costs, poor quality and inconsistency of services at some referral points. Few RCs covered the cost of referrals for non-study related adverse events. A collaborative process between IAVI and the RCs was undertaken to reach consensus on expected standards of care. A set of required and recommended services to be provided on-site or by referral was developed. In developing such standards, we tried to balance scientific priorities, equity, contextual realities, community expectations, and cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An understanding of the health of potential volunteers in Africa is essential for the safe and efficient conduct of clinical trials, particularly for trials of preventive technologies such as vaccines that enroll healthy individuals. Clinical safety laboratory values used for screening, enrolment and follow-up of African clinical trial volunteers have largely been based on values derived from industrialized countries in Europe and North America. This report describes baseline morbidity during recruitment for a multi-center, African laboratory reference intervals study. Methods: Asymptomatic persons, aged 18-60 years, were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study at seven sites (Kigali, Rwanda; Masaka and Entebbe, Uganda; Kangemi, Kenyatta National Hospital and Kilifi, Kenya; and Lusaka, Zambia). Gender equivalency was by design. Individuals who were acutely ill, pregnant, menstruating, or had significant clinical findings were not enrolled. Each volunteer provided blood for hematology, immunology, and biochemistry parameters and urine for urinalysis. Enrolled volunteers were excluded if found to be positive for HIV, syphilis or Hepatitis B and C. Laboratory assays were conducted under Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP). Results and Conclusions: Of the 2990 volunteers who were screened, 2387 (80%) were enrolled, and 2107 (71%) were included in the analysis (52% men, 48% women). Major reasons for screening out volunteers included abnormal findings on physical examination (228/603, 38%), significant medical history (76, 13%) and inability to complete the informed consent process (73, 13%). Once enrolled, principle reasons for exclusion from analysis included detection of Hepatitis B surface antigen (106/280, 38%) and antibodies against Hepatitis C (95, 34%). This is the first large scale, multi-site study conducted to the standards of GCLP to describe African laboratory reference intervals applicable to potential volunteers in clinical trials. Approximately one-third of all potential volunteers screened were not eligible for analysis; the majority were excluded for medical reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]