Commentary: Determining Economic Factors That Matter to People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Their Caregivers: A Process Framework.

BACKGROUND: The 2020-2029 strategic plan for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund calls for addressing data infrastructure gaps that are critical for studying issues around intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). Specifically, the plan calls for data collection on economic factors that affect person-centered approaches to health care decision-making. Among people with I/DD and their caregivers, such economic factors may include financial costs of care, decreased opportunities for leisure and recreation, income losses associated with caregiving, and foregone opportunities for skill acquisition or other human capital investments. OBJECTIVE: This commentary supports responsiveness to the Patient-Centered OutcomesResearch Trust Fund (PCORTF) calls by conceptualizing and operationalizing a framework for identifying preferences on economic factors that are relevant to people with I/DD and their caregivers. MAIN ARGUMENTS: The framework outlined in this commentary addresses barriers to data collection that hinder measure development in the study of I/DD. This work is significant and timely given the continued movement to integrate and maintain people with I/DD within communities and recent methodological advances for eliciting preferences among people with I/DD. RELEVANCE TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE: Readers will be introduced to a framework for building data capacity in the study of economic outcomes among a population that is a high research priority for federal funding agencies. This commentary aims to be useful to researchers in planning, developing, and initiating projects in this area.

Increased HIV-1 vaccine efficacy against viruses with genetic signatures in Env V2.

The RV144 trial demonstrated 31% vaccine efficacy at preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infection. Antibodies against the HIV-1 envelope variable loops 1 and 2 (Env V1 and V2) correlated inversely with infection risk. We proposed that vaccine-induced immune responses against V1/V2 would have a selective effect against, or sieve, HIV-1 breakthrough viruses. A total of 936 HIV-1 genome sequences from 44 vaccine and 66 placebo recipients were examined. We show that vaccine-induced immune responses were associated with two signatures in V2 at amino acid positions 169 and 181. Vaccine efficacy against viruses matching the vaccine at position 169 was 48% (confidence interval 18% to 66%; P = 0.0036), whereas vaccine efficacy against viruses mismatching the vaccine at position 181 was 78% (confidence interval 35% to 93%; P = 0.0028). Residue 169 is in a cationic glycosylated region recognized by broadly neutralizing and RV144-derived antibodies. The predicted distance between the two signature sites (21 ± 7 Å) and their match/mismatch dichotomy indicate that multiple factors may be involved in the protection observed in RV144. Genetic signatures of RV144 vaccination in V2 complement the finding of an association between high V1/V2-binding antibodies and reduced risk of HIV-1 acquisition, and provide evidence that vaccine-induced V2 responses plausibly had a role in the partial protection conferred by the RV144 regimen.

Analysis of HLA A*02 association with vaccine efficacy in the RV144 HIV-1 vaccine trial.

UNLABELLED: The RV144 HIV-1 vaccine trial demonstrated partial efficacy of 31% against HIV-1 infection. Studies into possible correlates of protection found that antibodies specific to the V1 and V2 (V1/V2) region of envelope correlated inversely with infection risk and that viruses isolated from trial participants contained genetic signatures of vaccine-induced pressure in the V1/V2 region. We explored the hypothesis that the genetic signatures in V1 and V2 could be partly attributed to selection by vaccine-primed T cells. We performed a T-cell-based sieve analysis of breakthrough viruses in the RV144 trial and found evidence of predicted HLA binding escape that was greater in vaccine versus placebo recipients. The predicted escape depended on class I HLA A*02- and A*11-restricted epitopes in the MN strain rgp120 vaccine immunogen. Though we hypothesized that this was indicative of postacquisition selection pressure, we also found that vaccine efficacy (VE) was greater in A*02-positive (A*02(+)) participants than in A*02(-) participants (VE = 54% versus 3%, P = 0.05). Vaccine efficacy against viruses with a lysine residue at site 169, important to antibody binding and implicated in vaccine-induced immune pressure, was also greater in A*02(+) participants (VE = 74% versus 15%, P = 0.02). Additionally, a reanalysis of vaccine-induced immune responses that focused on those that were shown to correlate with infection risk suggested that the humoral responses may have differed in A*02(+) participants. These exploratory and hypothesis-generating analyses indicate there may be an association between a class I HLA allele and vaccine efficacy, highlighting the importance of considering HLA alleles and host immune genetics in HIV vaccine trials. IMPORTANCE: The RV144 trial was the first to show efficacy against HIV-1 infection. Subsequently, much effort has been directed toward understanding the mechanisms of protection. Here, we conducted a T-cell-based sieve analysis, which compared the genetic sequences of viruses isolated from infected vaccine and placebo recipients. Though we hypothesized that the observed sieve effect indicated postacquisition T-cell selection, we also found that vaccine efficacy was greater for participants who expressed HLA A*02, an allele implicated in the sieve analysis. Though HLA alleles have been associated with disease progression and viral load in HIV-1 infection, these data are the first to suggest the association of a class I HLA allele and vaccine efficacy. While these statistical analyses do not provide mechanistic evidence of protection in RV144, they generate testable hypotheses for the HIV vaccine community and they highlight the importance of assessing the impact of host immune genetics in vaccine-induced immunity and protection. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00223080.).

Multi-method process maps: An interdisciplinary approach to investigate ad hoc modifications in protocol-driven interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation scientists increasingly recognize that the process of implementation is dynamic, leading to ad hoc modifications that may challenge fidelity in protocol-driven interventions. However, limited attention to ad hoc modifications impairs investigators' ability to develop evidence-based hypotheses about how such modifications may impact intervention effectiveness and cost. We propose a multi-method process map methodology to facilitate the systematic data collection necessary to characterize ad hoc modifications that may impact primary intervention outcomes. METHODS: We employ process maps (drawn from systems science), as well as focus groups and semi-structured interviews (drawn from social sciences) to investigate ad hoc modifications. Focus groups are conducted with the protocol's developers and/or planners (the implementation team) to characterize the protocol "as envisioned," while interviews conducted with frontline administrators characterize the process "as realized in practice." Process maps with both samples are used to identify when modifications occurred across a protocol-driven intervention. A case study investigating a multistage screening protocol for autism spectrum disorders (ASD) is presented to illustrate application and utility of the multi-method process maps. RESULTS: In this case study, frontline administrators reported ad hoc modifications that potentially influenced the primary study outcome (e.g., time to ASD diagnosis). Ad hoc modifications occurred to accommodate (1) whether providers and/or parents were concerned about ASD, (2) perceptions of parental readiness to discuss ASD, and (3) perceptions of family service delivery needs and priorities. CONCLUSION: Investigation of ad hoc modifications on primary outcomes offers new opportunities to develop empirically based adaptive interventions. Routine reporting standards are critical to provide full transparency when studying ad hoc modifications.