Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment.

Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort.In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks.These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

HIV remission trial investigators' attitudes towards risk and risk mitigation in trials that include treatment interruption.

Early-phase HIV remission ("cure") trials aim to test interventions developed to eradicate HIV or to sustainably control HIV without antiretroviral treatment (ART). Many remission trials include analytic treatment interruption (ATI) to evaluate interventions, which increases the risk to participants and their sexual partners. We conducted an online questionnaire of international HIV remission trial investigators and other study team members to assess their expectations regarding the time to achieve long-term control of HIV replication without treatment (functional cure) or complete eradication of replication-competent HIV virus (sterilizing cure); attitudes toward HIV remission research and the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of six HIV transmission risk mitigation strategies during trials with ATI of fixed duration. Nearly half of respondents (47%) reported expecting a functional cure for HIV to be achieved in 5-10 years, and one-third (35%) reported 10-20 years for a sterilizing cure to be achieved. On a scale of -3 to 3, mean scores indicated greater respondent concern about the risk of HIV transmission to partners during ATI (Time to rebound Mean: 0.4 and Fixed duration Mean: 11), compared to participant health risks from ATI (Time to Rebound Mean: -.9 and Fixed duration Mean: 0.0). With regard to feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy respectively, mitigation efforts rated positively included: requiring counseling for potential participants (Means: 2.3; 2.1; and 1.1), providing partner referrals for PrEP (Means: 1.3; 1.3; 1.5), providing pre-exposure proxylaxis directly to partners (Means: 1.0; 1.5; 1.6), and monitoring participants for new sexually transmitted disease acquisition (Means: 1.9; 1.4; 1.0). Respondents were less positive about requiring that participants' sexual partner(s) participate in risk counseling or limiting participation to those who commit to abstaining from sex during the entire ATI period. Our study demonstrates that HIV remission trial investigators and study team members are concerned about the risk of transmission to sexual partners during ATI. Separating the assessment of risk mitigation strategies for transmission risk into feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy allows the discovery of strategies that may best achieve all three outcomes. Additional research is needed to compare these more fine-grained assessments with views held by other investigators, people living with HIV, and trial participants.

Corrigendum to "HIV remission trial investigators' attitudes towards risk and risk mitigation in trials that include treatment interruption" [J Virus Erad 9 (2) (June 2023) 100331].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.jve.2023.100331.].

Recommendations from Thai stakeholders about protecting HIV remission ('cure') trial participants: report from a participatory workshop.

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.

Going off antiretroviral treatment in a closely monitored HIV "cure" trial: longitudinal assessments of acutely diagnosed trial participants and decliners.

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.