Perspectives of healthcare providers on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings from a Hybrid III Implementation-effectiveness study (CUSTOMIZE).

INTRODUCTION: CUSTOMIZE evaluated the implementation of long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine, a novel healthcare provider-administered injectable antiretroviral therapy regimen, in diverse US healthcare settings. Findings from staff-study participants (SSPs) through 12 months of implementation are reported. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month, single-arm, hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight US clinics of five clinic types: private practice (n = 2), federally qualified health centre (n = 2), university (n = 2), AIDS Healthcare Foundation (n = 2) and health maintenance organization (n = 1). Eligible patient participants received monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. At baseline, month 4 and month 12, SSPs (n = 3 each per clinic), including physicians, nurses or injectors, and administrators, completed quantitative surveys and semi-structured interviews to assess implementation outcomes (acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of intervention measures), programme sustainability and SSP perceptions of, attitudes towards, and expectations for cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA. Month 12 data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In surveys, SSPs reported high mean total scores for acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA implementation at baseline (4.43, 4.52 and 4.38 of 5, respectively) and month 12 (4.45, 4.61 and 4.46 of 5, respectively), regardless of clinic type. At month 12, SSPs were positive about the implementation sustainability (mean Program Sustainability Assessment Tool score, 5.83 out of 7). At baseline, SSPs' top concern was patients' ability to maintain monthly appointments (81%); at month 12, 39% had this concern. The proportion of SSPs reporting patient injection pain or soreness as a barrier was consistent at month 12 versus baseline (48% vs. 46%). Most (78%) SSPs reported optimal implementation of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA in their clinics was achieved in 1-3 months. In interviews, SSP-reported strategies for successful implementation included teamwork, using a web-based treatment planner and having a designated person to track appointment scheduling. In month 12 interviews, SSP-reported structural changes needed for implementation included changing clinic hours and purchasing refrigerators. CONCLUSIONS: In CUSTOMIZE, cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was successfully implemented across a range of US healthcare settings. Barriers were mitigated with minor process adjustments.

Perspectives of people living with HIV-1 on implementation of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in US healthcare settings: results from the CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study.

INTRODUCTION: The CUSTOMIZE hybrid III implementation-effectiveness study evaluated implementation of once-monthly long-acting (LA) cabotegravir + rilpivirine in diverse US healthcare settings. Here, we report patient participant perspectives after 12 months in CUSTOMIZE. METHODS: CUSTOMIZE was a phase IIIb, 12-month study conducted from July 2019 to October 2020 at eight diverse US HIV clinics that enrolled virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 (PLHIV) on a stable oral regimen to receive monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA injections after a 1-month oral lead-in. Participants were administered quantitative surveys before injections at months 1 (baseline), 4 and 12. A randomly selected subset of participants was interviewed at baseline and month 12. Data collection at month 12 was completed by October 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). RESULTS: At baseline, 109 and 34 participants completed surveys and interviews, respectively; 87% were male; 35% were Black or African American. All participants who remained in the study at month 12 (n = 102) maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml; two participants withdrew due to injection-related reasons. Mean total scores measuring acceptability and appropriateness of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA were high at baseline (4.5-4.6 out of 5) and month 12 (4.7-4.9). At month 12, 74% of participants reported nothing interfered with receiving LA injections; injection pain or soreness was the most common concern (15%). Time spent in the clinic and coming to the clinic for monthly injections was very or extremely acceptable after 12 months for most participants (93% and 87%, respectively), with 64% reporting having spent ≤30 minutes in the clinic for injection visits. At month 12, 92% of participants preferred LA injections to daily oral tablets (3%); 97% plan to continue LA treatment going forward. In month 12 interviews, 24 (77%) of 31 participants reported the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact their ability to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Once-monthly cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA was highly acceptable among PLHIV who were virologically suppressed on a stable antiretroviral regimen and interested in trying LA therapy, with few participants reporting challenges receiving LA injections. Implementation data from CUSTOMIZE suggest that monthly LA injections provide a convenient and appealing treatment option for PLHIV.

Capsid Inhibition with Lenacapavir in Multidrug-Resistant HIV-1 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection have limited treatment options. Lenacapavir is a first-in-class capsid inhibitor that showed substantial antiviral activity in a phase 1b study. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection in two cohorts, according to the change in the plasma HIV-1 RNA level between the screening and cohort-selection visits. In cohort 1, patients were first randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral lenacapavir or placebo in addition to their failing therapy for 14 days; during the maintenance period, starting on day 15, patients in the lenacapavir group received subcutaneous lenacapavir once every 6 months, and those in the placebo group received oral lenacapavir, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir; both groups also received optimized background therapy. In cohort 2, all the patients received open-label oral lenacapavir with optimized background therapy on days 1 through 14; subcutaneous lenacapavir was then administered once every 6 months starting on day 15. The primary end point was the percentage of patients in cohort 1 who had a decrease of at least 0.5 log10 copies per milliliter in the viral load by day 15; a key secondary end point was a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 26. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients were enrolled, with 36 in each cohort. In cohort 1, a decrease of at least 0.5 log10 copies per milliliter in the viral load by day 15 was observed in 21 of 24 patients (88%) in the lenacapavir group and in 2 of 12 patients (17%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 71 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 35 to 90). At week 26, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was reported in 81% of the patients in cohort 1 and in 83% in cohort 2, with a least-squares mean increase in the CD4+ count of 75 and 104 cells per cubic millimeter, respectively. No serious adverse events related to lenacapavir were identified. In both cohorts, lenacapavir-related capsid substitutions that were associated with decreased susceptibility developed in 8 patients during the maintenance period (6 with M66I substitutions). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection, those who received lenacapavir had a greater reduction from baseline in viral load than those who received placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; CAPELLA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04150068.).