Acceptability of a long-acting injectable HIV prevention product among US and African women: findings from a phase 2 clinical Trial (HPTN 076)

Elizabeth E Tolley, Sue Li, Sahar Z Zangeneh, Millicent Atujuna, Petina Musara, Jessica Justman, Subash Pathak, Linda-Gail Bekker, Shobha Swaminathan, Jill Stanton, Jennifer Farrior, Nirupama Sista, Elizabeth E Tolley, Sue Li, Sahar Z Zangeneh, Millicent Atujuna, Petina Musara, Jessica Justman, Subash Pathak, Linda-Gail Bekker, Shobha Swaminathan, Jill Stanton, Jennifer Farrior, Nirupama Sista

Abstract

Introduction: High HIV incidence and low adherence to daily oral PrEP among women underscore the need for more acceptable and easier to use HIV prevention products. Global demand for injectable contraception suggests that new, long-acting, injectable formulations could meet this need. We examine acceptability of a long-acting injectable PrEP among HIV-uninfected women in Zimbabwe, South Africa and two United States phase 2 trial sites.

Methods: Quantitative surveys were administered at the first, fourth and sixth injection visits. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted after the sixth injection visit. We compared the acceptability of injectable product attributes, prevention preferences and future interest in injectable PrEP by site and arm and ran longitudinal ordinal logistic regression models to identify determinants of future interest in injectable PrEP.

Results: Between April 2015 and February 2017, the trial enrolled 136 (100 African, 36 US) women with a median age of 31 years. Most participants (>75%) rated injectable attributes as very acceptable. While few reported rash or other side effects, 56% to 67% reported injection pain, with nonsignificant differences over time and between arms. During FGDs, participants described initial fear of the injectable and variable experiences with pain. Most US and African participants preferred injectable PrEP to daily oral pills (56% to 96% vs. 4% to 25%). Future interest in using injectable PrEP was associated with acceptability of product attributes and was higher in African than US sites. In FGDs, participants described multiple reasons for trial participation, including a combination of monetary, health-related and altruistic motivations. While associated with future interest in use in univariate models, neither altruistic nor personal motivations remained significant in the multivariate model.

Conclusions: This study found that long-acting injectable PrEP is acceptable among African and US women experiencing product use. Acceptability of product attributes better predicted future interest in injectable use than experience of pain. This is reassuring as a single-dose regimen of a different product has advanced to phase 3 trials. Finally, the study suggests that future demand for an injectable PrEP by women may be greater in African than US settings, where the risk of HIV is highest.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02165202.

Keywords: HIV prevention; PrEP; acceptability; clinical trial; injectable; women.

© 2019 FHI 360. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International AIDS Society.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Acceptability of injectable attributes. *Among those who experienced any pain (n = 73 at Week 4, 68 at Week 28 and 66 at Week 44).

References

    1. UN Women . Facts and figures: HIV and AIDS. New York, NY: UN Women; 2018.
    1. Garfinkel DB, Alexander KA, McDonald‐Mosley R, Willie TC, Decker MR. Predictors of HIV‐related risk perception and PrEP acceptability among young adult female family planning patients. AIDS Care. 2017;29(6):751–8.
    1. Aaron E, Blum C, Seidman D, Hoyt MJ, Simone J, Sullivan M, et al. Optimizing delivery of HIV preexposure prophylaxis for women in the United States. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2018;32(1):16–23.
    1. Flash CA, Dale SK, Krakower DS. Pre‐exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in women: current perspectives. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:391–401.
    1. Corneli A, Wang M, Agot K, Ahmed K, Lombaard J, Van Damme L, et al. Perception of HIV risk and adherence to a daily, investigational pill for HIV prevention in FEM‐PrEP. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;67(5):555–63.
    1. Greene E, Batona G, Hallad J, Johnson S, Neema S, Tolley EE. Acceptability and adherence of a candidate microbicide gel among high‐risk women in Africa and India. Cult Health Sex. 2010;12(7):739–54.
    1. Fonner VA, Dalglish SL, Kennedy CE, Baggaley R, O'Reilly KR, Koechlin FM, et al. Effectiveness and safety of oral HIV preexposure prophylaxis for all populations. AIDS. 2016;30(12):1973–83.
    1. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):399–410.
    1. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.
    1. Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):423–34.
    1. McCormack S, Dunn DT, Desai M, Dolling DI, Gafos M, Gilson R, et al. Pre‐exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV‐1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open‐label randomised trial. Lancet. 2016;387(10013):53–60.
    1. Molina JM, Capitant C, Spire B, Pialoux G, Cotte L, Charreau I, et al. On‐Demand preexposure prophylaxis in men at high risk for HIV‐1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2237–46.
    1. Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, Agot K, Lombaard J, Kapiga S, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):411–22.
    1. Corneli AL, Deese J, Wang M, Taylor D, Ahmed K, Agot K, et al. FEM‐PrEP: adherence patterns and factors associated with adherence to a daily oral study product for pre‐exposure prophylaxis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(3):324–31.
    1. Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, Gomez K, Mgodi N, Nair G, et al. Tenofovir‐based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(6):509–18.
    1. Baeten JM, Palanee‐Phillips T, Brown ER, Schwartz K, Soto‐Torres LE, Govender V, et al. Use of a vaginal ring containing dapivirine for HIV‐1 prevention in women. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(22):2121–32.
    1. Nel A, Bekker LG, Bukusi E, Hellstrm E, Kotze P, Louw C, et al. Safety, acceptability and adherence of dapivirine vaginal ring in a microbicide clinical trial conducted in multiple countries in Sub‐Saharan Africa. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0147743.
    1. Amico KR, Marcus JL, McMahan V, Liu A, Koester KA, Goicochea P, et al. Study product adherence measurement in the iPrEx placebo‐controlled trial: concordance with drug detection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;66(5):530–7.
    1. Tolley E, Friedland B, Gafos M, Amico K, Van Damme L, Woodsong C, et al.Socio‐economic and behavioral factors influencing choice, adherence and success of microbicide formulations In: das Neve D, Sarmento B, editors. Drug delivery and development of anti‐HIV microbicides. Singapore: Pan Stanford Publishing, 2014. p. 569–628.
    1. van der Straten A, Stadler J, Montgomery E, Hartmann M, Magazi B, Mathebula F, et al. Women's experiences with oral and vaginal pre‐exposure prophylaxis: the VOICE‐C qualitative study in Johannesburg, South Africa. PLoS One. 2014;9:e89118.
    1. Amico KR, Wallace M, Bekker LG, Roux S, Atujuna M, Sebastian E, et al. Experiences with HPTN 067/ADAPT study‐provided open‐label PrEP among women in Cape Town: facilitators and barriers within a mutuality framework. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(5):1361–75.
    1. Bekker LG, Roux S, Sebastien E, Yola N, Amico KR, Hughes JP, et al. Daily and non‐daily pre‐exposure prophylaxis in African women (HPTN 067/ADAPT Cape Town Trial): a randomised, open‐label, phase 2 trial. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(2):e68–78.
    1. United Nations DoEaSA, Population Division . Trends in Contraceptive Use Worldwide 2015. New York, NY; 2015. Contract No.: ST/ESA/SER.A/349.
    1. Jacobstein R, Polis CB. Progestin‐only contraception: injectables and implants. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(6):795–806.
    1. Sullivan Pepe M, Anderson GL. A cautionary note on inference for marginal regression models with longitudinal data and general correlated response data. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 1994;23(4):939–51.
    1. Tolley EE, Ulin PR, Mack N, Robinson ET, Succop SM. Qualitative Methods in Public Health, 2nd ed San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass; 2016.
    1. Mugo NR, Ngure K, Kiragu M, Irungu E, Kilonzo N. PrEP for Africa: What we have learnt and what is needed to move to program implementation. Current Opinions in HIV and AIDS. 2016;11(1):80–6.
    1. Mack N, Evens EM, Tolley EE, Brelsford K, Mackenzie C, Milford C, et al. The importance of choice in the rollout of ARV‐based prevention to user groups in Kenya and South Africa: a qualitative study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17 3 Suppl 2:19157.
    1. Van der Straten A, Agot K, Ahmen K, Weinrib R, Browne EN, Manenzhe KN, et al. The Tablets, Ring, Injections as Options (TRIO) study: what young African women chose and used for future HIV and pregnancy prevention. J Int AIDS Soc. 2018;21:1–9.
    1. Tolley EE, Zangeneh SZ, Chau G, Eron J, Grinsztejn B, Dawood H, et al.Acceptability of Long‐Acting Injectable Cabotegravir (CAB LA) In HIV‐Uninfected Individuals: HPTN 077 (OA05.01). HIV R4P; Tuesday, October 23, 2018; Madrid, Spain 2018.
    1. Kerrigan D, Mantsios A, Grant R, Markowitz M, Defechereux P, La Mar M, et al. Expanding the menu of HIV prevention options: a qualitative study of experiences with long‐acting injectable cabotegravir as PrEP in the context of a Phase II trial in the United States. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(11):3540–9.
    1. . What are long‐acting HIV prevention tools? 2019. [cited 2019 Jul 20]. Available from:
    1. Hodder SL, Justman J, Haley DF, Adimora AA, Fogel CI, Golin CE, et al. Challenges of a hidden epidemic: HIV prevention among women in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55 Suppl 2:S69–73.
    1. Rubtsova A, Wingood GM, Dunkle K, Camp C, DiClemente RJ. Young adult women and correlates of potential adoption of pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP): results of a national survey. Curr HIV Res. 2013;11(7):543–8.
    1. Wingood GM, Dunkle K, Camp C, Patel S, Painter JE, Rubtsova A, et al. Racial differences and correlates of potential adoption of preexposure prophylaxis: results of a national survey. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63 Suppl 1:S95–101.
    1. Auerbach JD, Kinsky S, Brown G, Charles V. Knowledge, attitudes, and likelihood of pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among US women at risk of acquiring HIV. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2015;29(2):102–10.
    1. Goparaju L, Experton LS, Praschan NC, Warren‐Jeanpiere L, Young MA, Kassaye S. Women want pre‐exposure prophylaxis but are advised against it by their HIV‐positive counterparts. J AIDS Clin Res. 2015;6(11):1–10.
    1. Ross J, Hardee K. Access to contraceptive methods and prevalence of use. J Biosoc Sci. 2013;45(6):761–78.
    1. Tolley EE, McKenna K, Mackenzie C, Ngabo F, Munyambanza E, Arcara J, et al. Preferences for a potential longer‐acting injectable contraceptive: perspectives from women, providers, and policy makers in Kenya and Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014;2(2):182–94.
    1. Chin‐Quee D, Bratt J, Malkin M, Nduna MM, Otterness C, Jumbe L, et al. Building on safety, feasibility, and acceptability: the impact and cost of community health worker provision of injectable contraception. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2013;1(3):316–27.
    1. McKenna K, Arcara J, Rademacher KH, Mackenzie C, Ngabo F, Munyambanza E, et al. Policy and programmatic considerations for introducing a longer‐acting injectable contraceptive: perspectives of stakeholders from Kenya and Rwanda. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2014;2(4):459–71.
    1. Siedner MJ, Hettema A, Hughey A, Oldenburg CE, Kohler S, Barnighausen K, et al. Preference for injectable over oral HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis in public‐sector primary‐care clinics in Swaziland. AIDS. 2018;32(11):1541–2.
    1. Weinrib R, Minnis A, Agot K, Ahmed K, Owino F, Manenzhe K, et al. End‐users' product preference across three multipurpose prevention technology delivery forms: baseline results from young women in Kenya and South Africa. AIDS Behav. 2018;22(1):133–45.
    1. Amico KR, Stirratt MJ. Adherence to preexposure prophylaxis: current, emerging, and anticipated bases of evidence. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59 Suppl 1:S55–60.
    1. Colfax G, Buchbinder S, Vamshidar G, Celum C, McKirnan D, Neidig J, et al. Motivations for participating in an HIV vaccine efficacy trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;39(3):359–64.
    1. Chin LJ, Berenson JA, Klitzman RL. Typologies of Altruistic and Financial Motivations for Research Participation. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11(4):299–310.
    1. Macphail C, Delany‐Moretlwe S, Mayaud P. 'It's not about money, it's about my health': determinants of participation and adherence among women in an HIV‐HSV2 prevention trial in Johannesburg, South Africa. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:579–88.
    1. Cowan FM, Delany‐Moretlwe S, Sanders EJ, Mugo NR, Guedou FA, Alary M, et al. PrEP implementation research in Africa: what is new? J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19 7 Suppl 6:21101.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться