History of Rectal Product Use and Country of Residence Influence Preference for Rectal Microbicide Dosage Forms Among Young Sexual and Gender Minorities: A Multi-country Trial Comparing Placebo Douche, Suppository, and Insert Products.

The DESIRE Study (MTN-035) explored product preference among three placebo rectal microbicide (RM) formulations, a rectal douche (RD), a suppository, and an insert, among 210 sexually active transgender people and men who have sex with men in five counties: the United States, Peru, Thailand, South Africa, and Malawi. Participants used each product prior to receptive anal sex (RAS) for 1 month, following a randomly assigned sequence, then selected their preferred product via computer assisted self-interview. In-depth interviews examined reasons for preference. We compared product preference and prior product use by country to explore whether geographic location and experience with the similar products impacted preference. A majority in the United States (56%) and Peru (58%) and nearly half in South Africa (48%) preferred the douche. Most in Malawi (59%) preferred the suppository, while half in Thailand (50%) and nearly half in South Africa (47%) preferred the insert. Participants who preferred the douche described it as quick and easy, already routinized, and serving a dual purpose of cleansing and protecting. Those who preferred the insert found it small, portable, discreet, with quick dissolution. Those who preferred the suppository found the size and shape acceptable and liked the added lubrication it provided. Experience with product use varied by country. Participants with RD experience were significantly more likely to prefer the douche (p = 0.03). Diversifying availability of multiple RM dosage forms can increase uptake and improve HIV prevention efforts globally.

RESUMEN: El estudio DESIRE (MTN-035) exploró la preferencia de producto entre tres formulaciones de microbicida rectal (MR) de placebo, una ducha rectal, un supositorio y un inserto, entre 210 personas transgénero y hombres que tienen sexo con hombres en cinco países: los Estados Unidos, Perú., Tailandia, Sudáfrica y Malawi. Los participantes utilizaron cada producto antes del sexo anal receptive (SAR) durante un mes, siguiendo una secuencia asignada al azar, luego seleccionaron su producto preferido mediante una autoentrevista asistida por computadora. Las entrevistas en profundidad examinaron los motivos de preferencia. Comparamos la preferencia de producto y el uso previo del producto por país para explorar si la ubicación geográfica y la experiencia con la forma farmacéutica impactaron la preferencia. Una mayoría en los Estados Unidos (56%) y Perú (58%) y casi la mitad en Sudáfrica (48%) prefirieron la ducha rectal. La mayoría en Malawi (59%) prefirió el supositorio, mientras que la mitad en Tailandia (50%) y casi la mitad en Sudáfrica (47%) prefirió el inserto. Los participantes que prefirieron la ducha rectal la describieron como rápida y fácil, ya parte de su rutina y que tenía el doble propósito de limpiar y proteger. Los que prefirieron el inserto lo consideraron pequeño, portátil, discreto y de rápida disolución. Los que prefirieron el supositorio encontraron que tenía un tamaño y forma aceptables y proveía lubricación adicional. La experiencia con el uso del producto varió según el país. Los participantes con experiencia con duchas rectales tenían significativamente más probabilidades de preferir la ducha rectal (p = 0,03). Diversificar la disponibilidad de múltiples formas farmacéuticas de MR puede aumentar la aceptación y mejorar los esfuerzos de prevención del VIH a nivel mundial.

A conjoint experiment of three placebo rectal products used with receptive anal sex: results from MTN-035.

INTRODUCTION: End-user perspectives are vital to the design of new biomedical HIV prevention products. Conjoint analysis can support the integration of end-user perspectives by examining their preferences of potential pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) products. The Microbicides Trial Network (MTN) 035 protocol examined three placebo rectal dosage forms (insert, enema and suppository) that could deliver PrEP prior to receptive anal sex (RAS). METHODS: Between April 2019 and July 2020, we enrolled 217 HIV-negative, cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM; n = 172; 79.3%) and transgender people (n = 47; 20.7%) ages 18-35 into a randomized cross-over trial across Malawi, Peru, South Africa, Thailand and the United States. Participants used each product prior to RAS over 4-week periods. Participants completed a conjoint experiment where they selected between random profiles using seven features (dosage form, timing of use before sex, side effects, duration of protection, effectiveness, frequency of use and need for a prescription). RESULTS: Effectiveness was the strongest determinant of choice (30.4%), followed by modality (18.0%), potential side effects (17.2%), frequency of use (10.8%), duration of protection (10.4%), timing of use before sex (7.4%) and need for a prescription (5.9%). Relative utility scores indicated that the most desirable combination of attributes was a product with 95% efficacy, used 30 minutes before sex, offering a 3- to 5-day protection window, used weekly, having no side effects, in the form of an enema and available over-the-counter. CONCLUSIONS: Choice in next-generation PrEP products is highly desired by MSM and transgender people, as no one-size-fits-all approach satisfies all the preferences. MTN-035 participants weighed product features differently, recognizing the need for diverse, behaviourally congruent biomedical options that fit the needs of intended end-users.

A randomized trial of safety, acceptability and adherence of three rectal microbicide placebo formulations among young sexual and gender minorities who engage in receptive anal intercourse (MTN-035).

Efforts to develop a range of HIV prevention products that can serve as behaviorally congruent viable alternatives to consistent condom use and oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remain crucial. MTN-035 was a randomized crossover trial seeking to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and adherence to three placebo modalities (insert, suppository, enema) prior to receptive anal intercourse (RAI). If participants had no RAI in a week, they were asked to use their assigned product without sex. We hypothesized that the modalities would be acceptable and safe for use prior to RAI, and that participants would report high adherence given their behavioral congruence with cleansing practices (e.g., douches and/or enemas) and their existing use to deliver medications (e.g., suppositories; fast-dissolving inserts) via the rectum. Participants (N = 217) were sexual and gender minorities enrolled in five different countries (Malawi, Peru, South Africa, Thailand, and the United States of America). Mean age was 24.9 years (range 18-35 years). 204 adverse events were reported by 98 participants (45.2%); 37 (18.1%) were deemed related to the study products. The proportion of participants reporting "high acceptability" was 72% (95%CI: 65% - 78%) for inserts, 66% (95%CI: 59% - 73%) for suppositories, and 73% (95%CI: 66% - 79%) for enemas. The proportion of participants reporting fully adherent per protocol (i.e., at least one use per week) was 75% (95%CI: 69% - 81%) for inserts, 74% (95%CI: 68% - 80%) for suppositories, and 83% (95%CI: 77% - 88%) for enemas. Participants fully adherent per RAI-act was similar among the three products: insert (n = 99; 58.9%), suppository (n = 101; 58.0%) and enema (n = 107; 58.8%). The efficacy and effectiveness of emerging HIV prevention drug depends on safe and acceptable delivery modalities that are easy to use consistently. Our findings demonstrate the safety and acceptability of, and adherence to, enemas, inserts, and suppositories as potential modalities through which to deliver a rectal microbicide.

Rapid decline in vaccine-boosted neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant.

The Omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibits reduced susceptibility to vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies, requiring a boost to generate protective immunity. We assess the magnitude and short-term durability of neutralizing antibodies after homologous and heterologous boosting with mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccines. All prime-boost combinations substantially increase the neutralization titers to Omicron, although the boosted titers decline rapidly within 2 months from the peak response compared with boosted titers against the prototypic D614G variant. Boosted Omicron neutralization titers are substantially higher for homologous mRNA vaccine boosting, and for heterologous mRNA and Ad26.COV2.S vaccine boosting, compared with homologous Ad26.COV2.S boosting. Homologous mRNA vaccine boosting generates nearly equivalent neutralizing activity against Omicron sublineages BA.1, BA.2, and BA.3 but modestly reduced neutralizing activity against BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5 compared with BA.1. These results have implications for boosting requirements to protect against Omicron and future variants of SARS-CoV-2. This trial was conducted under ClincalTrials.gov: NCT04889209.

Homologous and Heterologous Covid-19 Booster Vaccinations.

BACKGROUND: Although the three vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) that have received emergency use authorization in the United States are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Data are needed on the serial use of homologous boosters (same as the primary vaccine) and heterologous boosters (different from the primary vaccine) in fully vaccinated recipients. METHODS: In this phase 1-2, open-label clinical trial conducted at 10 sites in the United States, adults who had completed a Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier and had no reported history of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines: mRNA-1273 (Moderna) at a dose of 100 µg, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson-Janssen) at a dose of 5×1010 virus particles, or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) at a dose of 30 µg. The primary end points were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on trial days 15 and 29. RESULTS: Of the 458 participants who were enrolled in the trial, 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.COV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 as booster vaccines; 1 participant did not receive the assigned vaccine. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. More than half the recipients reported having injection-site pain, malaise, headache, or myalgia. For all combinations, antibody neutralizing titers against a SARS-CoV-2 D614G pseudovirus increased by a factor of 4 to 73, and binding titers increased by a factor of 5 to 55. Homologous boosters increased neutralizing antibody titers by a factor of 4 to 20, whereas heterologous boosters increased titers by a factor of 6 to 73. Spike-specific T-cell responses increased in all but the homologous Ad26.COV2.S-boosted subgroup. CD8+ T-cell levels were more durable in the Ad26.COV2.S-primed recipients, and heterologous boosting with the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine substantially increased spike-specific CD8+ T cells in the mRNA vaccine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccines had an acceptable safety profile and were immunogenic in adults who had completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; DMID 21-0012 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04889209.).

Heterologous SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccinations - Preliminary Report.

Background: While Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccines are highly effective, breakthrough infections are occurring. Booster vaccinations have recently received emergency use authorization (EUA) for certain populations but are restricted to homologous mRNA vaccines. We evaluated homologous and heterologous booster vaccination in persons who had received an EUA Covid-19 vaccine regimen. Methods: In this phase 1/2 open-label clinical trial conducted at ten U.S. sites, adults who received one of three EUA Covid-19 vaccines at least 12 weeks prior to enrollment and had no reported history of SARS-CoV-2 infection received a booster injection with one of three vaccines (Moderna mRNA-1273 100-µg, Janssen Ad26.COV2.S 5×1010 virus particles, or Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 30-µg; nine combinations). The primary outcomes were safety, reactogenicity, and humoral immunogenicity on study days 15 and 29. Results: 458 individuals were enrolled: 154 received mRNA-1273, 150 received Ad26.CoV2.S, and 153 received BNT162b2 booster vaccines. Reactogenicity was similar to that reported for the primary series. Injection site pain, malaise, headache, and myalgia occurred in more than half the participants. Booster vaccines increased the neutralizing activity against a D614G pseudovirus (4.2-76-fold) and binding antibody titers (4.6-56-fold) for all combinations; homologous boost increased neutralizing antibody titers 4.2-20-fold whereas heterologous boost increased titers 6.2-76-fold. Day 15 neutralizing and binding antibody titers varied by 28.7-fold and 20.9-fold, respectively, across the nine prime-boost combinations. Conclusion: Homologous and heterologous booster vaccinations were well-tolerated and immunogenic in adults who completed a primary Covid-19 vaccine regimen at least 12 weeks earlier.