Ensuring quality of services in HIV prevention research settings: findings from a multi-center quality improvement pilot in East Africa.

Quality improvement (QI) has been widely implemented in health services but has not been widely applied in HIV prevention research. Most prevention research centers have commonly employed traditional approaches (e.g., checklists) to quality control that document what has been done but not the quality of what has been done. Unlike other health settings, prevention research settings have unique characteristics and ethical requirements that require the development or adaptation of specific quality indicators. A QI model for health services was adapted for use in prevention research settings and was piloted between August 2006 and July 2007 at three research centers in East Africa. Four hundred and twenty-six volunteers exit interviews were administered in two cycles. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed using Excel worksheets. QI meeting reports and QI plans were used to complement data from exit interviews. On average, 52% of total enrolled volunteers participated in the exit interview. The designed QI plans successfully helped reduce volunteers' reported waiting time to see counselors (p<0.001) and pharmacists (p<0.001). It also increased the percentage of interviewed volunteers who reported being counseled on family planning at clinical trials (from 66 to 93%; p=0.02) at follow-up visits, and who were refreshed on informed consent at follow-up visits (from 90 to 96%; p=0.009). The percentage of interviewed volunteers that expressed satisfaction with services received from counselors increased (from 87 to 94%; p=0.009) while the percentage of volunteer satisfied with services from trial physicians remained constant (93%). The majority of volunteers interviewed reported satisfaction with other major components of research such as confidentiality, understanding of trial objectives, benefits and risks of participation, and risk reduction counseling. However, satisfaction with services from community outreach workers and other staff at research centers dropped over the course of the study (from 88% in Cycle 1 to 74% in Cycle 3; p= < 0.001). Increased commitment to QI is crucial in ensuring quality of services and ethical conduct of HIV prevention research centers.

Reasons for ineligibility in phase 1 and 2A HIV vaccine clinical trials at Kenya AIDS vaccine initiative (KAVI), Kenya.

BACKGROUND: With the persistent challenges towards controlling the HIV epidemic, there is an ongoing need for research into HIV vaccines and drugs. Sub-Saharan African countries--worst affected by the HIV pandemic--have participated in the conduct of clinical trials for HIV vaccines. In Kenya, the Kenya AIDS Vaccine Initiative (KAVI) at the University of Nairobi has conducted HIV vaccine clinical trials since 2001. METHODOLOGY: Participants were recruited after an extensive informed consent process followed by screening to determine eligibility. Screening included an assessment of risk behavior, medical history and physical examination, and if clinically healthy, laboratory testing. In the absence of locally derived laboratory reference ranges, the ranges used in these trials were derived from populations in the West. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Two hundred eighty-one participants were screened between 2003 and 2006 for two clinical trials. Of these, 167 (59.4%) met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Overall, laboratory abnormalities based on the non-indigenous laboratory references used were the most frequent reasons (61.4%) for ineligibility. Medical abnormalities contributed 30.7% of the total reasons for ineligibility. Based on the laboratory reference intervals now developed from East and Southern Africa, those ineligible due to laboratory abnormalities would have been 46.3%. Of the eligible participants, 18.6% declined enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: Participant recruitment for HIV vaccine clinical trials is a rigorous and time-consuming exercise. Over 61% of the screening exclusions in clinically healthy people were due to laboratory abnormalities. It is essential that laboratory reference ranges generated from local populations for laboratory values be used in the conduct of clinical trials to avoid unnecessary exclusion of willing participants and to avoid over-reporting of adverse events for enrolled participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol IAVI VRC V001 [1]. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00124007 Protocol IAVI 010 [2](registration with ClincalTrials.gov is in progress) Protocols IAVI 002 and IAVI 004 are Phase 1 trials only mentioned in introductory paragraphs; details will not be reported. Registration was not required when they were conducted.

Safety and immunogenicity of recombinant low-dosage HIV-1 A vaccine candidates vectored by plasmid pTHr DNA or modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) in humans in East Africa.

The safety and immunogenicity of plasmid pTHr DNA, modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA) human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) vaccine candidates were evaluated in four Phase I clinical trials in Kenya and Uganda. Both vaccines, expressing HIV-1 subtype A gag p24/p17 and a string of CD8 T-cell epitopes (HIVA), were generally safe and well-tolerated. At the dosage levels and intervals tested, the percentage of vaccine recipients with HIV-1-specific cell-mediated immune responses, assessed by a validated ex vivo interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) ELISPOT assay and Cytokine Flow Cytometry (CFC), did not significantly differ from placebo recipients. These trials demonstrated the feasibility of conducting high-quality Phase 1 trials in Africa.