Measurement of Vaginal Microbicide Adherence Using Visual Inspection as Compared to Ultra Violet Light Assessment of Returned Empty Gel Applicators.

Accurate and objective measurement of adherence is critical in microbicide trials. We compared two applicator tests: visual inspection of returned empty tenofovir gel applicators (VIREA) and ultraviolet light (UVL) assessment in terms of sensitivity and specificity, and for concordance. Sensitivity and specificity analysis of 24 control applicators (12 known-inserted and 12 sham-inserted) at 4-months after receipt was 75.0 and 66.7 % for VIREA and 83.3 and 91.7 % for UVL, respectively. After an additional 3 months of storage sensitivity and specificity was 100 and 58.3 % for VIREA and 100 and 66.7 % for UVL, respectively. In January 2015, 1316 empty applicators were returned as used by 115 participants enrolled at one site in a randomized controlled trial. Assessment outcomes showed 78.8 % agreement between the techniques. Methods concurred that 22.0 % of the returned empty applicators appeared unused. By UVL assessment, 40.0 % of returned empty applicators had no evidence of vaginal insertion, translating to a potential 28.0 % less product used as compared to that returned as used by women. UVL assessment may be considered a more accurate and less subjective measure of adherence as compared to VIREA.

Challenges with participant reimbursement: experiences from a post-trial access study.

Reimbursement of trial participants remains a frequently debated issue, with specific guidance lacking. Trials combining post-trial access and implementation science may necessitate new strategies and models. CAPRISA 008, a post-trial access study testing the feasibility of using family planning services to rollout a prelicensure HIV prevention intervention, tried to balance the real-life scenario of no reimbursement for attendance at public sector clinics with that of a trial including some visits that focused on research procedures and others that focused on standard of care procedures. A reduced reimbursement was offered for 'standard of care' visits, meant primarily to cover transport costs to and from the clinic only. This impacted negatively on accrual, retention and participant morale, primarily due to the protracted delay in regulatory approval, during which time, the costs of living, including travel costs had increased. Relevant guidelines were reviewed and institutional policy was updated to incorporate the South African National Health Research Ethics Committee guidelines on reimbursement (taking into account participant time, travel and inconvenience). The reimbursement amount for 'standard of care' visits was increased accordingly. The question remains whether a trial that combines post-trial access with implementation science, with clear benefits for the participants and the provision of above standard medical care, should have reimbursement rates that approach those of a proof-of-concept trial, for 'standard of care' visits.