"First was to sit down and bring our minds together". A qualitative study on safer conception decision-making among HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe.

Decision-making on childbearing and safer conception use in HIV sero-different couples involves an intricate balance of individual desires and perceived HIV acquisition risk. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding HIV sero-different couples' considerations and the relationship and power dynamics involved when deciding to use a safer conception method. Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples, who exited the SAFER study - a pilot study assessing the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a safer conception programme for HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe. All couples in SAFER were provided with a choice of safer conception methods and were followed for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts and 3 months following pregnancy. While couples generally perceived their safer conception discussions to be easy and consensus-driven, the decision-making process also involved complex gender dynamics and trade-offs in relationship power, which resulted in differing interpretations of what constituted a joint or shared couple decision. Participants regarded effective couple communication as an essential component of and precursor to good safer conception conversations and requested additional training in couple communication. Couples relied on information from healthcare providers to kickstart their safer conception discussions. Safer conception programmes should address relationship power imbalances, promote effective couple communication and offer healthcare provider support to enable HIV sero-different couples to make informed choices about conception in a manner that upholds their safety and reproductive autonomy.

Our study explored how HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe made decisions on the use of safer conception methods. We interviewed 14 men and 17 women who participated in the SAFER study ­ a pilot study looking at how feasible, acceptable and cost-effective a safer conception programme for HIV sero-different couples is in Zimbabwe. We sought to understand the relationship dynamics, considerations and power trade-offs involved in choosing a safer conception method. Couples reported that their conversations about safer conception were easy and agreeable. At the same time, we found that both gender norms and HIV status shaped the couples' decision-making process, with male gender and partners with an HIV-negative status often having more influence in the final decision of which method to use. Effective couple communication was deemed crucial to support safer conception conversations, with participants requesting additional training in this area. The findings emphasise the importance of providing safer conception methods in a context that addresses power disparities, fosters good communication and includes healthcare providers' support to uphold HIV sero-different couples' reproductive rights and help them achieve their reproductive goals.

"We chose PrEP because I wanted to be sure that this child my wife was going to conceive was indeed mine." Factors influencing the choice of safer conception methods and experiences with its use: a qualitative study among HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe.

BACKGROUND: Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-discordant couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when they are offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding factors that influence the choice of safer conception methods, couples' actual experiences using safer conception methods, and why some couples switch safer conception methods. METHODS: Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples who exited the SAFER study-a pilot safer conception study for HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe that offered couples a choice of ART with monthly viral load monitoring (ART/VL), oral PrEP, vaginal insemination, and semen washing. All couples in SAFER had used at least two safer conception methods. RESULTS: We found that safer conception method choice often centered around a desire for intimacy, condomless sex, and certainty in the conception process, particularly for men. Method-related attributes such as familiarity, perceived ease of use, side effects, and perceived level of effectiveness in preventing HIV and achieving pregnancy influenced method choice, switching, and satisfaction. Concerns were expressed about each safer conception method and couples were willing to try different methods until they found method(s) that worked for them. The majority of participants reported having positive experiences using safer conception, especially those using ART/VL + PrEP, citing that they were able to attempt pregnancy for the first time with peace of mind and experienced joy and satisfaction from being able to achieve pregnancy safely. CONCLUSIONS: The differences in method preferences and experiences voiced by participants in this study and in other studies from the region point to the importance of having a variety of safer conception options in the service delivery package and addressing concerns about paternity, intimacy, and method-related attributes to enable HIV sero-discordant couples to safely achieve their reproductive goals.

Assessing the acceptability of, adherence to and preference for a dual prevention pill (DPP) for HIV and pregnancy prevention compared to oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and oral contraception taken separately: protocols for two randomised, controlled, cross-over studies in South Africa and Zimbabwe.

INTRODUCTION: Oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective HIV prevention method; however, uptake and persistence have been low among southern African women. A dual prevention pill (DPP) that combines PrEP with oral contraception (OC) may increase PrEP use and better meet women's sexual and reproductive health needs. We will gauge the DPP's acceptability in two cross-over clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PC952 (Zimbabwe) and PC953 (South Africa) will compare acceptability, adherence and preference for an over-encapsulated DPP versus PrEP and OCs taken separately. HIV-negative, non-pregnant cisgender females in Johannesburg, South Africa (n=96, 16-40 years) and Harare, Zimbabwe (n=30, 16-24 years) will be randomised 1:1 to the order of regimens-DPP or two separate tablets-each used for three 28-day cycles, followed by a 6-month choice period in South Africa. Monthly clinic visits include HIV and pregnancy testing; safety assessments and risk reduction and adherence counselling. We will assess adherence (monthly) based on tenofovir diphosphate drug levels in dried blood spots and by self-report. We will evaluate acceptability (monthly) and preference (end of cross-over) via computer-assisted self-interviewing and in-depth interviews with a subset of participants. Data collection started in September 2022 and ended in January 2024. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PC952 was approved by the Ministry of Health and Child Care, Medical Research Council, Research Council and Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe; the Chitungwiza City Health Ethics Committee; and the Joint Research Ethics Committee for the University of Zimbabwe Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and Parirenyatwa Group of Hospitals. PC953 was approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and the University of the Witwatersrand's Human Research Ethics Committee. The Population Council IRB approved both studies. We will disseminate results in open-access journals, clinical trials registries, and at local and international meetings and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04778514, NCT04778527.

Efficient regulatory approval of two novel HIV prevention interventions in a resource-limited setting: experiences from Zimbabwe.

The global burden of HIV remains unacceptably high despite significant progress made in HIV treatment and prevention. There is an urgent need to scale up the comprehensive HIV prevention strategies that include pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Oral PrEP is highly effective in preventing HIV acquisition when taken regularly, but this remains a challenge for some at-risk individuals. Therefore, there is a need for other HIV prevention options. The dapivirine vaginal ring (DVR) and long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) are novel biomedical interventions that are safe and efficacious for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis, as demonstrated in recently completed clinical trials. Timely roll-out and scalability of efficacious interventions depend on the registration process with the national medicine regulatory authorities (NMRAs). The Medicines Control Authority of Zimbabwe (MCAZ) was the first NMRA globally to approve the DVR in July 2021 and the first in Africa to approve CAB-LA for HIV prevention in July 2022. The regulatory review process for DVR and CAB-LA by MCAZ took 4.5 and 5.5 months, respectively. This efficient review process of the two interventions by MCAZ, a regulatory body in a resource-limited setting, provides important lessons to shorten timelines between the completion of the clinical development process and the registration of essential medicines.

Preventing HIV and achieving pregnancy among HIV sero-different couples: Pilot study of a safer conception intervention in Zimbabwe.

Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-different couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability and effectiveness. We piloted a comprehensive safer conception program (Clintrials.gov identifier: NCT03049176) for HIV sero-different couples planning pregnancy in Zimbabwe to measure feasibility, method uptake, acceptability, pregnancy outcome, and HIV transmission. This study was not designed to compare rates of HIV transmission by safer conception method choice but rather to understand choices couples make when seeking to minimize risk of HIV transmission and maximize likelihood of pregnancy. Couples in this prospective, non-randomized study were given a choice of one or more currently available safer conception methods: antiretroviral therapy (ART) with monthly viral load (VL) monitoring for the HIV-positive partner (ART/VL), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the HIV-negative partner, vaginal insemination (VI) for couples with an HIV-positive woman, and semen washing (SW) for couples with an HIV-positive man. Couples were followed monthly for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts, quarterly during pregnancy, and 12 weeks post-partum. At each visit, data on method use, urine for pregnancy testing, and blood for HIV antibody testing, or viral load if HIV-positive, were obtained. Infants born to HIV-positive women were tested for HIV at 6 and 12 weeks. Between March 2017 and June 2019, 46 individuals from 23 HIV sero-different partnerships were enrolled and followed. At enrollment, all couples chose ART/VL, and all couples chose at least one additional method; 74% chose PrEP, 36% chose SW, and 25% chose VI. During pre-pregnancy follow-up visits, three couples discontinued SW, and one couple discontinued VI; all four of these couples opted for ART/VL plus PrEP. Satisfaction with safer conception methods was high among those who chose ART/VL and PrEP. Twelve couples achieved pregnancy. There were no cases of HIV transmission to partners, and no infants tested positive for HIV. This safer conception program is feasible and acceptable, allowing sero-different couples to safely achieve pregnancy. Sero-different couples in Zimbabwe seek a combination of HIV prevention methods, particularly ART/VL plus PrEP. Trial Registration: Clintrials.gov, NCT03049176.

Estimated costs for the delivery of safer conception strategies for HIV-discordant couples in Zimbabwe: a cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, safer conception strategies have been developed to help HIV-serodiscordant couples conceive a child without transmitting HIV to the seronegative partner. The SAFER clinical trial assessed implementation of these strategies in Zimbabwe. METHODS: As a part of the SAFER study, we estimated the costs (in 2017 $US) associated with individual and combination strategies, in the trial setting and real-world practice, from a healthcare system perspective. Safer conception strategies included: 1) ART with frequent viral load testing until achieving undetectable viral load (ART-VL); 2) daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); 3) semen-washing with intrauterine insemination; and 4) manual self-insemination at home. For costs in the trial, we used a micro-costing approach, including a time and motion study to quantify personnel effort, and estimated the cost per couple for individual and combination strategies for a mean of 6 months of safer services. For real-world practice, we modeled costs for three implementation scenarios, representing differences from the trial in input prices (paid by the Ministry of Health and Child Care [MOHCC]), intervention intensity, and increments to current HIV prevention and treatment practices and guidelines. We used one-way sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of uncertainty in input variables. RESULTS: Individual strategy costs were $769-$1615 per couple in the trial; $185-$563 if using MOHCC prices. Under the target intervention intensity and using MOHCC prices, individual strategy costs were $73-$360 per couple over and above the cost of current HIV clinical practices. The cost of delivering the most commonly selected combination, ART-VL plus PrEP, ranged from $166-$517 per couple under the three real-world scenarios. Highest costs were for personnel, lab tests, and strategy-specific consumables, in variable proportions by clinical strategy and analysis scenario. Total costs were most affected by uncertainty in the price of PrEP, number of semen-washing attempts, and scale-up of semen-washing capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Safer conception methods have costs that may be affordable in many low-resource settings. These cost data will help implementers and policymakers add safer conception services. Cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to assess value for money for safer conception services overall and for safer strategy combinations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry Name: Clinicaltrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03049176 . Registration date: February 9, 2017.