A randomized evaluation of on-site monitoring nested in a multinational randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from prospectively designed studies to guide on-site monitoring practices for randomized trials is limited. A cluster randomized study, nested within the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, was conducted to evaluate on-site monitoring. METHODS: Sites were randomized to either annual on-site monitoring or no on-site monitoring. All sites were centrally monitored, and local monitoring was carried out twice each year. Randomization was stratified by country and projected enrollment in START. The primary outcome was a participant-level composite outcome including components for eligibility errors, consent violations, use of antiretroviral treatment not recommended by protocol, late reporting of START primary and secondary clinical endpoints (defined as the event being reported more than 6 months from occurrence), and data alteration and fraud. Logistic regression fixed effect hierarchical models were used to compare on-site versus no on-site monitoring for the primary composite outcome and its components. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals comparing on-site monitoring versus no on-site monitoring are cited. RESULTS: In total, 99 sites (2107 participants) were randomized to receive annual on-site monitoring and 97 sites (2264 participants) were randomized to be monitored only centrally and locally. The two monitoring groups were well balanced at entry. In the on-site monitoring group, 469 annual on-site monitoring visits were conducted, and 134 participants (6.4%) in 56 of 99 sites (57%) had a primary monitoring outcome. In the no on-site monitoring group, 85 participants (3.8%) in 34 of 97 sites (35%) had a primary monitoring outcome (odds ratio = 1.7; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-2.7; p = 0.03). Informed consent violations accounted for most outcomes in each group (56 vs 41 participants). The largest odds ratio was for eligibility violations (odds ratio = 12.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.8-85.2; p = 0.01). The number of participants with a late START primary endpoint was similar for each monitoring group (23 vs 16 participants). Late START grade 4 and unscheduled hospitalization events were found for 34 participants in the on-site monitoring group and 19 participants in the no on-site monitoring group (odds ratio = 2.0; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-3.7; p = 0.02). There were no cases of data alteration or fraud. Based on the travel budget for on-site monitoring and the hours spent conducting on-site monitoring, the estimated cost of on-site monitoring was over US$2 million. CONCLUSION: On-site monitoring led to the identification of more eligibility and consent violations and START clinical events being reported more than 6 months from occurrence as compared to no on-site monitoring. Considering the nature of the excess monitoring outcomes identified at sites receiving on-site monitoring, as well as the cost of on-site monitoring, the value to the START study was limited.

Long-Term Benefits from Early Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in HIV Infection.

BACKGROUND: For people with HIV and CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, early initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces serious AIDS and serious non-AIDS (SNA) risk compared with deferral of treatment until CD4+ counts are <350 cells/mm3. Whether excess risk of AIDS and SNA persists once ART is initiated for those who defer treatment is uncertain. METHODS: The Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, as previously reported, randomly assigned 4684 ART-naive HIV-positive adults with CD4+ counts .500 cells/mm3 to immediate treatment initiation after random assignment (n = 2325) or deferred treatment (n= 2359). In 2015, a 57% lower risk of the primary end point (AIDS, SNA, or death) for the immediate group was reported, and the deferred group was offered ART. This article reports the follow-up that continued to December 31, 2021. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to compare hazard ratios for the primary end point from randomization through December 31, 2015, versus January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021. RESULTS: Through December 31, 2015, approximately 7 months after the cutoff date from the previous report, the median CD4+ count was 648 and 460 cells/mm3 in the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, at treatment initiation. The percentage of follow-up time spent taking ART was 95% and 36% for the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, and the time-averaged CD4+ difference was 199 cells/mm3. After January 1, 2016, the percentage of follow-up time on treatment was 97.2% and 94.1% for the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, and the CD4+ count difference was 155 cells/mm3. After January 1, 2016, a total of 89 immediate and 113 deferred group participants experienced a primary end point (hazard ratio of 0.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.04] versus hazard ratio of 0.47 [95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.65; P<0.001]) before 2016 (P=0.02 for hazard ratio difference). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, excess risk of AIDS and SNA associated with delaying treatment initiation was diminished after ART initiation, but persistent excess risk remained. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.).

Regulatory impediments jeopardizing the conduct of clinical trials in Europe funded by the National Institutes of Health.

BACKGROUND: A number of reports have highlighted problems of conducting publicly funded trials in Europe as a consequence of the European Union (EU) Clinical Trials Directive. The impact of the EU Directive on multi-national trials, which include sites in Europe that are funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not been described. METHODS: Four problems in the conduct of two international HIV treatment trials funded by NIH in the EU are described: (1) conflicting regulations on the continuing review of protocols by Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees; (2) US regulations requiring Federalwide Assurances for sites which are only partially funded by NIH; (3) EU guidance on the designation of studies as a trial of an investigational medicinal product; and (4) EU guidance on trial sponsorship and the requirements for insurance and indemnification. Following the description of the problems, recommendations for improving global collaborations are made to the US Office of Human Research Protections, to NIH, and to the EU and its Member States. RESULTS: A lack of harmonization of regulations at multiple levels caused enrollment in one study to be interrupted for several months and delayed for one year the initiation of another study aimed at obtaining definitive evidence to guide the timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy for individuals infected with HIV. The delays and the purchase of insurance resulted in substantial increases in trial costs and caused substantial disruption at clinical sites among staff and study participants. LIMITATIONS: The problems cited and recommendations made pertain to trials funded by NIH and conducted by sites in the EU. There are many other challenges in the conduct of international research, public and private, that global harmonization would alleviate. CONCLUSIONS: Disharmony, at multiple levels, in international regulations and guidelines is stifling publicly funded global research. International scientific organizations and government groups should make the documentation and solution of these problems a priority.

Improved quality of life with immediate versus deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy in early asymptomatic HIV infection.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if immediate compared to deferred initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in healthy persons living with HIV had a more favorable impact on health-related quality of life (QOL), or self-assessed physical, mental, and overall health status. DESIGN: QOL was measured in the Strategic Timing of Antiretroviral Therapy study, which randomized healthy ART-naive persons living with HIV with CD4 cell counts above 500 cells/µl from 35 countries to immediate versus deferred ART. METHODS: At baseline, months 4 and 12, then annually, participants completed a visual analog scale (VAS) for 'perceived current health' and the Short-Form 12-Item Health Survey version 2 from which the following were computed: general health perception; physical component summary (PCS); and mental component summary (MCS); the VAS and general health were rated from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest). RESULTS: QOL at study entry was high (mean scores: VAS = 80.9, general health = 72.5, PCS = 53.7, MCS = 48.2). Over a mean follow-up of 3 years, changes in all QOL measures favored the immediate group (P < 0.001); estimated differences were as follows: VAS = 1.9, general health = 3.6, PCS = 0.8, MCS = 0.9. When QOL changes were assessed across various demographic and clinical subgroups, treatment differences continued to favor the immediate group. QOL was poorer in those experiencing primary outcomes; however, when excluding those with primary events, results remained favorable for immediate ART recipients. CONCLUSION: In an international randomized trial in ART-naive participants with above 500 CD4 cells/µl, there were modest but significant improvements in self-assessed QOL among those initiating ART immediately compared to deferring treatment, supporting patient-perceived health benefits of initiating ART as soon as possible after an HIV diagnosis.

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial.

BACKGROUND: Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). RESULTS: 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p>0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. CONCLUSIONS: An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Informed consent substudy was registered as part of START study in clinicaltrials.gov #NCT00867048, and EudraCT # 2008-006439-12.

Effect of immediate initiation of antiretroviral therapy on risk of severe bacterial infections in HIV-positive people with CD4 cell counts of more than 500 cells per µL: secondary outcome results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effects of antiretroviral therapy on risk of severe bacterial infections in people with high CD4 cell counts have not been well described. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effects of immediate versus deferred ART on the risk of severe bacterial infection in people with high CD4 cell counts in a preplanned analysis of the START trial. METHODS: The START trial was a randomised controlled trial in ART-naive HIV-positive patients with CD4 cell count of more than 500 cells per µL assigned to immediate ART or deferral until their CD4 cell counts were lower than 350 cells per µL. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to model time to severe bacterial infection, which was defined as a composite endpoint of bacterial pneumonia (confirmed by the endpoint review committee), pulmonary or extrapulmonary tuberculosis, or any bacterial infectious disorder of grade 4 severity, that required unscheduled hospital admissions, or caused death. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00867048. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited from April 15, 2009, to Dec 23, 2013. The data cutoff for follow-up was May 26, 2015. Of 4685 HIV-positive people enrolled, 120 had severe bacterial infections (immediate-initiation group n=34, deferred-initiation group n=86; median 2·8 years of follow-up). Immediate ART was associated with a reduced risk of severe bacterial infection compared with deferred ART (hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·26-0·57, p<0·0001). In the immediate-initiation group, average neutrophil count over follow-up was 321 cells per µL higher, and average CD4 cell count 194 cells per µL higher than the deferred-initiation group (p<0·0001). In univariable analysis, higher time-updated CD4 cell count (0·78, 0·71-0·85, p=0·0001) was associated with reduced risk of severe bacterial infection. Time-updated neutrophil count was not associated with severe bacterial infection. After adjustment for time-updated factors in multivariable analysis, particularly the CD4 cell count, the HR for immediate-initiation group moved closer to 1 (HR 0·84, 0·50-1·41, p=0·52). These results were consistent when subgroups of the severe bacterial infection composite were analysed separately. INTERPRETATION: Immediate ART reduces the risk of several severe bacterial infections in HIV-positive people with high CD4 cell count. This is partly explained by ART-induced increases in CD4 cell count, but not by increases in neutrophil count. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institutes of Health, Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA et les Hépatites Virales, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, European AIDS Treatment Network, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council, Danish National Research Foundation.

INVESTIGATING THE EFFICACY OF CLINICAL TRIAL MONITORING STRATEGIES: Design and Implementation of the Cluster Randomized START Monitoring Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Trial monitoring protects participant safety and study integrity. While monitors commonly go on-site to verify source data, there is little evidence that this practice is efficient or effective. An ongoing international HIV treatment trial (START) provides an opportunity to explore the usefulness of different monitoring approaches. METHODS: All START sites are centrally monitored and required to follow a local monitoring plan requiring specific quality assurance activities. Additionally, sites were randomized (1:1) to receive, or not receive, annual on-site monitoring. The study will determine if on-site monitoring increases the identification of major protocol deviations (eligibility or consent violations, improper study drug use, primary or serious event underreporting, data alteration or fraud). RESULTS: The START study completed enrollment in December 2013, with planned follow-up through December 2016. The monitoring study is ongoing at 196 sites in 34 countries. Results are expected when the START study concludes in December 2016.

Randomized, open-label study of the impact of two doses of subcutaneous recombinant interleukin-2 on viral burden in patients with HIV-1 infection and CD4+ cell counts of > or = 300/mm3: CPCRA 059.

The effect of intermittent courses of recombinant interleukin-2 (rIL-2) on HIV-1 load in patients receiving combination antiretroviral therapy remains uncertain. CPCRA 059 was an open-label, randomized, multicenter trial in which 511 patients with HIV-1 infection and CD4+ cell counts of > or = 300/mm3 who were receiving antiretroviral therapy were assigned to receive no rIL-2 (255 patients [controls]) or subcutaneous rIL-2 in dosages of 4.5 MIU (130) or 7.5 MIU (126) twice daily for 5-day courses every 8 weeks to maintain CD4+ cell counts that were twice the baseline value or > or = 1,000/mm3. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of the two doses of rIL-2 and no rIL-2 on viral load and CD4+ cell counts over 12 months. There was no difference in the following viral load measurements between the rIL-2 treatment groups and the control treatment group: percentage of patients with viral loads of <50 copies/mL at 12 months (p =.55), time to viral load of > or = 50 copies/mL for patients who had baseline viral loads of <50 copies/mL (p =.35), and change in viral load from baseline for patients who had viral loads of > or = 50 copies/mL at baseline (p =.63). At each follow-up visit, the change in CD4+ cell count from baseline was significantly greater in the rIL-2 treatment groups than in the control treatment group, with a mean difference of 251/mm3 at month 12 (95% confidence interval, 207-295; p <.0001). No unanticipated adverse experiences were seen in this trial, to our knowledge the largest randomized evaluation of rIL-2 treatment conducted to date.