Facilitators and Barriers to Adherence to Anti-Retroviral Treatment Among Pregnant or Breastfeeding Women Living with HIV and Perinatally Infected Infants: A Scoping Review.

In 2022, 54% of 1.5 million children (age 0-14) living with HIV had access to anti-retroviral medication (ART). Adherence to ART for pregnant or breastfeeding HIV + women is critical for maintaining their personal health and to prevent mother-to-child-transmission (MTCT). For HIV + infants, adherence is essential to establish early viremic control and is contingent on caregiver administration. We conducted a scoping review to systematically identify and categorize the influences on ART adherence for pregnant or breastfeeding HIV + women and their HIV + infants. We searched databases in June 2023 and employed the Social-Ecological Model (SEM) to organize facilitators and barriers to adherence referenced in published articles. All articles published before 2016 were excluded due to updated guidelines from WHO on MTCT and ART. Our analysis included 52 articles. 50/52 took place in Africa and used cross-sectional and mixed-methods design. Barriers to adherence for pregnant or breastfeeding HIV + women included maternal education, self-efficacy, social support, and social/economic context. Barriers to infant adherence included development, nutrition, age of treatment initiation, disclosure, and ART side effects. Additional facilitators and barriers to adherence are presented at family, extra-familial, and socio-cultural SEM levels. Stigma was the most salient barrier referenced across the entire continuum of HIV care and all SEM levels. This review revealed a dearth of literature focusing on HIV + infants who are dependent on their caregivers for ART adherence and lack of a standard adherence measure. We identified multi-leveled influences on adherence impacting both the mother and infant and are amenable to public health intervention.

The public-private research ecosystem in the genome editing era.

Biomedical research in the US has long been conducted in a public-private (PP) "ecosystem." Today, especially with gene therapies and genome editing-based medicine, publicly funded researchers frequently hand off their research to the private sector for clinical development, often to small, venture capital-funded startups in which they have a financial interest. This trend raises ethical questions about conflicts of interest, effectiveness of regulatory oversight, and justice in therapy access, that we are addressing in a multi-year, multidisciplinary study of the evolving governance of genome editing. This paper draws on interviews with scientists working across the PP divide and their private sector business and financial partners. We find little concern about potential ethical dilemmas, with two exceptions expressed by public sector scientists: concerns about inequitable access to treatments due to disparities in wealth, ethnicity, and health insurance benefits; and about whether their private collaborators' profit motive may affect their research objectives.

Correction: Foss et al. The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 692.

There was an error in the original publication [...].

Why Climate Literacy Is Health Literacy.

Health problems of global warming are daunting in severity and magnitude and will only get worse. Yet literacy about these problems is poor and plans to alleviate them are too early in development to be responsive to current levels of global threat and individual need. Social and ecological determinants of health and illness are exacerbated by excessive heat and flooding; lack of food, safe water, and secure shelter; and loss of arable land for farming. This article considers the nature and scope of ethicists' roles in awakening clinicians and the public to this crisis and offers 4 recommendations to reduce morbidity and mortality from climate change.

Perceptions of Rapid Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation Among Participants of The Netherlands Cohort Study on Acute HIV Infection.

Starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) same-day, or as soon as possible after HIV diagnosis is advised in guidelines worldwide. Especially during acute HIV infection (AHI), rapid ART start may be more urgent because of a higher risk of transmission or symptoms of acute retroviral syndrome. During this phase, rapid ART start may have additional benefits for viral reservoir size and host immunity. We explored perceptions of rapid ART start among participants of The Netherlands Cohort Study on Acute HIV infection (NOVA study), who started ART rapidly after diagnosis of AHI. We conducted 20 in-depth qualitative interviews with NOVA study participants between October and December 2018. Data were analyzed thematically, using inductive and iterative coding techniques. Roughly half of the participants stated they felt well-informed about the importance of (rapid) ART. Starting ART rapidly was perceived positively by almost all participants, mostly because of the expected benefits on their health, and to prevent HIV transmission. Rapid ART start was seen as a way to cope with the diagnosis. However, a more negative perception was that rapid ART start confronted participants with their diagnosis, when they were still adjusting to a new situation. Our results show that among people diagnosed during AHI, rapid ART is well-accepted. These results should be encouraging to HIV care providers who encounter people with AHI in their clinical practice and to researchers who carry out cure-related studies, in which early ART is often included. The Clinical Trial Registration number is NCT05728996.

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.].

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.

The Essential Need for Trust When Transmission Risk Cannot Be Eliminated in HIV-Remission Trials.

Analytic treatment interruption (ATI) is scientifically necessary in HIV-remission ("cure") studies to test the effects of new interventions. However, stopping antiretroviral treatment poses risks to research participants and their sexual partners. Ethical debate about whether and how to conduct such studies has largely centered on designing risk-mitigation strategies and identifying the responsibilities of research stakeholders. In this paper, we argue that because the possibility of HIV transmission from research participants to partners during ATI cannot practicably be eliminated-that is, it is ineliminable-the successful conduct of such trials ultimately depends on relationships of trust and trustworthiness. We describe our experiences with conducting and studying HIV-remission trials with ATI in Thailand to examine the strengths, complexities, and limitations of the risk-mitigation and responsibility approaches and to explore ways in which the building of trust-and trustworthiness-may help enhance the scientific, practical, and ethical dimensions of these trials.

The Promise and Reality of Public Engagement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing Research.

This paper analyses the activities of five organizations shaping the debate over the global governance of genome editing in order to assess current approaches to public engagement (PE). We compare the recommendations of each group with its own practices. All recommend broad engagement with the general public, but their practices vary from expert-driven models dominated by scientists, experts, and civil society groups to citizen deliberation-driven models that feature bidirectional consultation with local citizens, as well as hybrid models that combine elements of both approaches. Only one group practices PE that seeks community perspectives to advance equity. In most cases, PE does little more than record already well-known views held by the most vocal groups, and thus is unlikely to produce more just or equitable processes or policy outcomes. Our exploration of the strengths, weaknesses, and possibilities of current forms of PE suggests a need to rethink both "public" and "engagement."

Reporting Individual-Level Research Results from Neurocognitive and Psychological Research in People Living with HIV: Lessons from Dementia Research.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There are growing expectations for the return of individual-level research results (RoR), which promotes autonomy and potential clinical and personal benefits. There are ethical and practical challenges, however, that may be exacerbated in research that assesses neurocognitive and psychological outcomes, including HIV-associated neurocognitive disorder (HAND). This paper reviews central concepts for RoR and recent empirical and conceptual articles from Alzheimer's disorder (AD) as a model for HIV. RECENT FINDINGS: Data from AD studies indicate high participant interest and low risk of harm from RoR, though additional research is needed. Investigators report a range of benefits, potential risks, and feasibility concerns. Standardized, evidence-based approaches are needed for RoR. For HIV research, we recommend a default position of offering RoR for cognitive and psychological outcomes. Investigators should justify decisions not to return results after assessing the potential value and feasibility of RoR. Longitudinal research is needed for feasible and evidence-based best practices.

Corrigendum to 'Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok,' [Contemporary Clinical Trials Communication (2023)101054].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.101054.].

Decision making for invasive and non-invasive optional procedures within an acute HIV research cohort in Bangkok.

Clinical research regularly includes required, nontherapeutic procedures to answer research questions. Optional procedures usually offer minimal or no personal benefit and may involve harms and burdens. Members from the Bangkok SEARCH010/RV254 HIV research cohort of individuals acutely HIV-infected are recruited to six optional procedures varying in invasiveness: leukapheresis, genital secretions collection, lumbar puncture, brain MRI/MRS/DTI, colon biopsy, and lymph node biopsy. We surveyed cohort members about their first recruitment for each procedure to examine factors associated with decision making and attitudes about compensation. 406 members (68%) completed the survey. Reported procedure participation ranged from 71% (MRI) to 27% (lymph node biopsy). Respondents underwent 0-6 procedure types (median 3). Ordinal regression indicated that lower perceived HIV impact and HIV remission trial participation were associated with more procedures completed. Reports of decision difficulty varied, and feeling pressured by research staff was low overall. Notably, those who declined procedures and those who underwent more invasive procedures reported greater decision difficulty and perceived pressure. Most respondents felt compensation amounts were appropriate, although opinions differed by procedure, and for some procedures, between people who agreed and declined. There is limited literature regarding consent to and attitudes about optional research procedures. Researchers must consider how to best support voluntary decisions for procedures with little personal benefit, particularly in lower-income or marginalized populations. In this longitudinal research cohort, perceived pressure to participate may be a concern, although our finding of variation in participation rates corresponding to invasiveness is reassuring. Data from different research contexts would provide important comparators.

What Bioethicists Need to Know About the Social Determinants of Health-and Why.

What more can be said about COVID-19 and the social determinants of health? This article describes neglected perspectives that derive from the history of social epidemiology, a field that identifies the social etiology of disease and variations in disease incidence among people differentially located in the social structure. The "discovery" of social determinants of diseases like COVID-19 is nothing new for epidemiology: debate over how to analyze structural determinants versus individual-level risk factors persisted throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. By the late 20th century, research had highlighted fundamental causes of health disparities, such as social conditions and structural racism; these are structural factors, embedded in the social fabric of life. Measurement of structured inequalities within systems faces complex and challenging problems, as research aims to better account for these lived realities at different levels of analysis and as multiple factors merge to influence outcomes (revealed in intersectionality theory). At each of these intersections, there are opportunities for bioethicists to consider their ethical implications. It is imperative to understand the social and ethical roots of our present conversations about health inequalities, in order to partner intelligently with researchers on the forefront of advocating for change.

Public Interest in Population Genetic Screening for Cancer Risk.

An emerging role for DNA sequencing is to identify people at risk for an inherited cancer syndrome in order to prevent or ameliorate the manifestation of symptoms. Two cancer syndromes, Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer and Lynch Syndrome meet the "Tier 1" evidence threshold established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for routine testing of patients with a personal or family history of cancer. Advancements in genomic medicine have accelerated public health pilot programs for these highly medically actionable conditions. In this brief report, we provide descriptive statistics from a survey of 746 US respondents from a Qualtrics panel about the public's awareness of genetic testing, interest in learning about their cancer risk, and likelihood of participating in a population genetic screening (PGS) test. Approximately of half the respondents were aware of genetic testing for inherited cancer risk (n = 377/745, 50.6%) and would choose to learn about their cancer risk (n-309/635, 48.7%). Characteristics of those interested in learning about their cancer risk differed by educational attainment, age, income, insurance status, having a primary care doctor, being aware of genetic testing, and likelihood of sharing information with family (p < 0.05). A sizeable majority of the respondents who were interested in about learning their cancer risk also said that they were likely to participate in a PGS test that involved a clinical appointment and blood draw, but no out-of-pocket cost (n = 255/309, 82.5%). Reasons for not wanting to participate included not finding test results interesting or important, concerns about costs, and feeling afraid to know the results. Overall, our results suggest that engaging and educating the general population about the benefits of learning about an inherited cancer predisposition may be an important strategy to address recruitment barriers to PGS.

Scientists' Views on Scientific Self-Governance for Human Genome Editing Research.

As research on human gene editing has grown, a variety of prominent international organizations are considering how best to govern such research. But what role do scientists engaged in genome editing think they should have in developing research governance? In this study, we present results from a survey of 212 U.S.-based scientists regarding views on human genome editing governance. Most did not believe that scientists should be allowed to self-govern human genome editing research. Open-ended responses revealed four main reasons: conflicts of interest, the inevitability of rare "bad apples," historical evidence to the contrary, and the limitations of scientific expertise. Analyses of open-ended responses also revealed scientists' views on how human gene editing research should be governed. These views emphasize interdisciplinary professional and public input. The study results illustrate a noteworthy shift in the scientific community's traditional vision of professional autonomy and can inform ongoing efforts to develop research governance approaches.

Perceptions of HIV cure and willingness to participate in HIV cure-related trials among people enrolled in the Netherlands cohort study on acute HIV infection.

Background: People who initiate antiretroviral therapy (ART) during acute HIV infection are potential candidates for HIV cure-related clinical trials, as early ART reduces the size of the HIV reservoir. These trials, which may include ART interruption (ATI), might involve potential risks. We explored knowledge and perception of HIV cure and willingness to participate in cure-related trials among participants of the Netherlands Cohort Study on Acute HIV infection (NOVA study), who started antiretroviral therapy immediately after diagnosis of acute HIV infection. Methods: We conducted 20 in-depth qualitative interviews with NOVA study participants between October-December 2018. Data were analyzed thematically, using inductive and iterative coding techniques. Findings: Most participants had limited knowledge of HIV cure and understood HIV cure as complete eradication of HIV from their bodies. HIV cure was considered important to most participants, mostly due to the stigma surrounding HIV. More than half would consider undergoing brief ATI during trial participation, but only one person considered extended ATI. Viral rebound and increased infectiousness during ATI were perceived as large concerns. Participants remained hopeful of being cured during trial participation, even though they were informed that no personal medical benefit was to be expected. Interpretation: Our results highlight the need for thorough informed consent procedures with assessment of comprehension and exploration of personal motives prior to enrollment in cure-related trials. Researchers might need to moderate their expectations about how many participants will enroll in a trial with extended ATI.

The Rise of Population Genomic Screening: Characteristics of Current Programs and the Need for Evidence Regarding Optimal Implementation.

PURPOSE: Advances in clinical genomic sequencing capabilities, including reduced costs and knowledge gains, have bolstered the consideration of genomic screening in healthy adult populations. Yet, little is known about the existing landscape of genomic screening programs in the United States. It can be difficult to find information on current implementation efforts and best practices, particularly in light of critical questions about equity, cost, and benefit. METHODS: In 2020, we searched publicly available information on the Internet and the scientific literature to identify programs and collect information, including: setting, program funding, targeted population, test offered, and patient cost. Program representatives were contacted throughout 2020 and 2021 to clarify, update, and supplement the publicly available information. RESULTS: Twelve programs were identified. Information was available on key program features, such as setting, genes tested, and target populations. Data on costs, outcomes, or long-term sustainability plans were not always available. Most programs offered testing at no or significantly reduced cost due to generous pilot funding, although the sustainability of these programs remains unknown. Gene testing lists were diverse, ranging from 11 genes (CDC tier 1 genes) to 59 genes (ACMG secondary findings list v.2) to broad exome and genome sequencing. This diversity presents challenges for harmonized data collection and assessment of program outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Early programs are exploring the logistics and utility of population genomic screening in various settings. Coordinated efforts are needed to take advantage of data collected about uptake, infrastructure, and intervention outcomes to inform future research, evaluation, and program development.

Attitudes About Analytic Treatment Interruption (ATI) in HIV Remission Trials with Different Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Resumption Criteria.

HIV remission trials often require temporary stopping of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-an approach called analytic treatment interruption (ATI). Trial designs resulting in viremia raise risks for participants and sexual partners. We conducted a survey on attitudes about remission trials, comparing ART resumption criteria (lower-risk "time to rebound" and higher-risk "sustained viremia") among participants from an acute HIV cohort in Thailand. Analyses included Wilcoxon-Ranks and multivariate logistic analysis. Most of 408 respondents supported ATI trials, with slightly higher approval of, and willingness to participate in, trials using time to rebound versus sustained viremia criteria. Less than half of respondents anticipated disclosing trial participation to partners and over half indicated uncertainty or unwillingness about whether partners would be willing to use PrEP. Willingness to participate was higher among those who rated higher trial approval, lower anticipated burden, and those expecting to make the decision independently. Our findings support acceptability of ATI trials among most respondents. Participant attitudes and anticipated behaviors, especially related to transmission risk, have implications for future trial design and informed consent.

The View from the Benches: Scientists' Perspectives on the Uses and Governance of Human Gene-Editing Research.

The advent of human gene editing has stimulated international interest in how best to govern this research. However, research on stakeholder views has neglected scientists themselves. We surveyed 212 scientists who use gene editing in their work. Questions captured views on oversight and use of somatic and germline human gene editing for treatment, prevention, and enhancement. More respondents were supportive of somatic than germline editing, and more supported gene editing for treatment compared to prevention. Few supported its use for enhancement. When presented with specific conditions, levels of support for somatic editing differed by type of condition. Almost all respondents said scientists and national government representatives should be involved in oversight, but only 28% said scientists are best positioned to oversee gene-editing research. These results can inform the development of sound approaches to research governance, demonstrating the importance of identifying specific gene-editing uses when considering oversight.