Search

HIV remission trials often require temporary stopping of antiretroviral therapy (ART)—an approach called analytic treatment interruption (ATI). Trial designs resulting in viremia raise risks for participants and sexual partners. We conducted a survey on attitudes about remission trials, comparing ART resumption criteria (lower-risk "time to rebound" and higher-risk "sustained viremia") among participants from an acute HIV cohort in Thailand. Analyses included Wilcoxon-Ranks and multivariate logistic analysis. Most of 408 respondents supported ATI trials, with slightly higher approval of, and willingness to participate in, trials using time to rebound versus sustained viremia criteria. Less than half of respondents anticipated disclosing trial participation to partners and over half indicated uncertainty or unwillingness about whether partners would be willing to use PrEP. Willingness to participate was higher among those who rated higher trial approval, lower anticipated burden, and those expecting to make the decision independently. Our findings support acceptability of ATI trials among most respondents. Participant attitudes and anticipated behaviors, especially related to transmission risk, have implications for future trial design and informed consent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The social/behavioral HIV Decision-Making Study (DMS) assesses informed consent and trial experiences of individuals in HIV remission trials in Thailand. We convened a 1-d multi-stakeholder participatory workshop in Bangkok. We provide a meeting summary and reactions from DMS investigators. Methods Workshop members viewed de-identified interview excerpts from DMS participants. They deliberated on the findings and made recommendations regarding informed choice for remission trials. Notes and recordings were used to create a summary report, which was reviewed by members and refined. Results Workshop members' recommendations included HIV education and psychosocial support to establish the basis for informed choice, key trial information to be provided in everyday language, supportive decision-making processes and psychosocial care during and after the trial. Concerns included participant willingness to restart antiretrovirals after trial-mandated treatment interruption, unintended influence of the research team on decision-making and seemingly altruistic motivations for trial participation that may signal attempts to atone for stigmatized behavior. Conclusions The workshop highlighted community perspectives and resulted in recommendations for supporting informed choice and psychosocial and physical health. These are the first such recommendations arising from a deliberative process. Although some elements are rooted in the Thai context, most are applicable across remission trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The South East Asia Research Collaboration in HIV (SEARCH) RV411 clinical trial in Thailand was a systematic investigation of analytic treatment interruption (ATI) in individuals diagnosed and treated since Fiebig stage I acute HIV infection. Here, we explore decision‐making processes and perceptions of trial participation in a phase I trial that raised important ethical considerations, to identify potential areas of improvement in this relatively new field of HIV research. Similar considerations apply to other HIV phase I trials, especially those involving ATI, making this trial a model to identify challenges and opportunities in promoting informed choice. Methods: Using longitudinal semi‐structured interviews and a validated questionnaire, we examined how decisions to join or decline the trial were made, whether there was evidence of decisional conflict, and reactions to the trial outcomes. We also explored contrasting views and experiences in this small trial cohort. We report analyses of data from these questionnaires and interviews, conducted from February through December of 2016 with the 14 SEARCH cohort participants who either joined (n = 8) or declined (n = 6) participation in RV411. Results: The eight participants and six decliners had low overall decisional conflict, which remained low over time. Decision making was more difficult for decliners than participants, at least initially. While all interviewees described being satisfied with their decisions, our study identified important negative consequences for a few individuals, including seroconversion, negative experiences with optional procedures and disappointment due to rapid viral rebound. Conclusions: Although our results reflect the experiences of a small group invited to join this trial, our overall finding of low decisional conflict even while some individuals reported negative experiences provides lessons for clinical trial investigators. We developed points‐to‐consider in helping participants make informed choices, to support participants during the trial and to support decliners in their decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]