Transparency of participant incentives in HIV research

Recall and Appraisal of the Risks, Benefits, and Objectives of Interrupting HIV Treatment in an HIV Cure-Related Study

The goal of HIV cure research is to either eliminate HIV from the body or durably suppress it in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART). This research often requires participants to interrupt ART. However, there are numerous risks associated with ART interruptions and therefore it is critical to understand how people with HIV (PWH) who participate recall the elements of consent, to safeguard their rights and welfare. Participants were recruited from the SCOPE Analytic Treatment Interruption (SCOPE-ATI: NCT04359186) study at the University of California San Francisco. We interviewed 12 SCOPE-ATI participants to assess their recall of informed consent elements and therapeutic misconception, using the Brief Informed Consent Evaluation Protocol (BICEP). Interviewees were primarily older adults, male, White, and non-Hispanic/Latinx. Their responses indicated that they understood the primary purpose of the SCOPE-ATI study to be scientific research. Nearly all participants demonstrated high recall of key elements of consent and no therapeutic misconception. We also found that the role of study staff was a major factor in participants' appraisal of risks and that associated psychosocial risks of pausing ART were of minimal concern (e.g., anxiety off ART, possible forward HIV transmission to sex partners). As HIV cure research expands, it is important to reiterate the duty of the investigative team to clearly communicate with participants about the associated risks and to assess their understanding throughout these studies.

Willingness of Racially Diverse Young Adults Living with HIV to Participate in HIV Cure Research: A Cross-Sectional Survey in the United States

Nearly half of new HIV cases in the United States are among youth. Little is known about the willingness of young adults living with HIV (YLWH) to participate in HIV cure-related research. In 2021, we recruited 271 YLWH aged 18-29 for an online survey. We asked questions about willingness to participate in HIV cure research, perceived risks and benefits, acceptable trade-offs, and perceptions on analytical treatment interruptions. We conducted descriptive analyses to summarize data and bivariate analyses to explore correlations by demographics. Most respondents (mean age = 26) identified as men (86%) and Black Americans (69%). YLWH expressed high willingness to consider participating in cell- and gene-based approaches (75%) and immune-based approaches (71%). Approximately 45% would be willing to let their viral load become detectable for a period of time during an HIV cure study, 27% would not be willing, and 28% did not know. The social risk most likely to deter participation was the possibility of transmitting HIV to sex partners while off HIV medications (65% of respondents would be deterred a great deal or a lot). Compared to the 25-29 age group (n = 192), the 18-24 age group (n = 79) was more likely to indicate that having to disclose HIV status would matter a great deal in considering participation in HIV cure research (38% vs. 21%, p = .003). Inclusion and engagement of YLWH are critical for advancing novel HIV curative agents. Our article concludes with possible considerations for engaging YLWH in HIV cure research. Physical, clinical, and social risks will need to be kept to a minimum, and research teams will need to proactively mitigate the possibility of transmitting HIV to sex partners while off HIV medications.

"The research assistants kept coming to follow me up; I counted myself as a lucky person": Social support arising from a longitudinal HIV cohort study in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Participation in longitudinal research studies in resource-limited settings often involves frequent interactions with study staff and other participants, as well as receipt of incentives and transportation reimbursements. Social support-receipt of material and emotional resources from one's social network-has been linked to antiretroviral adherence in sub-Saharan Africa. The extent to which social support arises from study participation, its range and depth, and its implications for observational study conduct, have not been extensively described.

METHODS

We conducted individual open-ended and semi-structured interviews with participants in a longitudinal, observational antiretroviral therapy adherence monitoring study in Mbarara, Uganda. Participants were asked about their experiences in the longitudinal study and their interactions with research staff. We also interviewed study research assistants (RAs). Deductive and inductive coding were used to identify content related to the experience of study participation. Codes were organized into themes, and relationships between themes were used to develop overarching categories.

RESULTS

Sixty longitudinal study participants and 6 RAs were interviewed. Instrumental and emotional social support emerged as pervasive and valued aspects of longitudinal study participation. Instrumental support that participants received consisted of enhanced linkage to medical care, health education, and direct and indirect material benefits. Emotional support consisted of perceptions of feeling "cared for" and social interactions that permitted escape from HIV-related stigma. Both instrumental and emotional support often arose through the close relationships participants formed with research staff and with each other. Study-derived social support motivated some participants to adhere to antiretroviral therapy-an unanticipated effect potentially influencing the longitudinal study's primary observational outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Longitudinal study participation resulted in instrumental and emotional social support for participants. The depth of support participants experienced has implications for observational study design in resource-limited settings, including need to assess potential effects on study outcomes; consideration of social support during risk/benefit assessment in study ethics review and consent; and vigilance for consequences of social support loss when studies end.

Attitudes Toward Payment for Research Participation: Results from a U.S. Survey of People Living with HIV

Little is known about how payment affects individuals' decisions to participate in HIV research. Using data from a U.S. survey of people living with HIV (N = 292), we examined potential research participants' attitudes toward payment, perceived study risk based on payment amount, and preferred payment forms, and how these factors vary by sociodemographic characteristics. Most respondents agreed people should be paid for HIV research participation (96%) and said payment would shape their research participation decisions (80%). Men, less formally educated individuals, and members of some minoritized racial-ethnic groups were less likely to be willing to participate in research without payment. Higher payment was associated with higher perceived study risks, while preferences for form of payment varied by age, gender, education, race-ethnicity, and census region of residence. Findings suggest payment may influence prospective research participants' risk-benefit calculus and participation, and that a one-size-fits-all approach to payment could differentially influence participation among distinct sociodemographic groups.

Evaluating the Impact of Incentives on Clinical Trial Participation: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Community-Engaged Study

BACKGROUND

Monetary incentives in research are frequently used to support participant recruitment and retention. However, there are scant empirical data regarding how researchers decide upon the type and amount of incentives offered. Likewise, there is little guidance to assist study investigators and institutional review boards (IRBs) in their decision-making on incentives. Monetary incentives, in addition to other factors such as the risk of harm or other intangible benefits, guide individuals' decisions to enroll in research studies. These factors emphasize the need for evidence-informed guidance for study investigators and IRBs when determining the type and amount of incentives to provide to research participants.

OBJECTIVE

The specific aims of our research project are to (1) characterize key stakeholders' views on and assessments of incentives in biomedical HIV research; (2) reach consensus among stakeholders on the factors that are considered when choosing research incentives, including consensus on the relative importance of such factors; and (3) pilot-test the use of the guidance developed via aims 1 and 2 by presenting stakeholders with vignettes of hypothetical research studies for which they will choose corresponding incentive types.

METHODS

Our 2-year study will involve monthly, active engagement with a stakeholder advisory board of people living with HIV, researchers, and IRB members. For aim 1, we will conduct a nationwide survey (N=300) among people living with HIV to understand their views regarding the incentives used in HIV research. For aim 2, we will collect qualitative data by conducting focus groups with people living with HIV (n=60) and key informant interviews with stakeholders involved in HIV research (people living with HIV, IRB members, and biomedical HIV researchers: n=36) to extend and deepen our understanding of how incentives in HIV research are perceived. These participants will also complete a conjoint analysis experiment to gain an understanding of the relative importance of key HIV research study attributes and the impact that these attributes have on study participation. The data from the nationwide survey (aim 1) will be triangulated with the qualitative and conjoint analysis data (aim 2) to create 25 vignettes that describe hypothetical HIV research studies. Finally, individuals from each stakeholder group will select the most appropriate incentive that they feel should be used in each of the 25 vignettes (aim 3).

RESULTS

The stakeholder advisory board began monthly meetings in March 2021. All study aims are expected to be completed by December 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

By studying the role of incentives in HIV clinical trial participation, we will establish a decision-making paradigm to guide the choice of incentives for HIV research and, eventually, other types of similar research and facilitate the ethical recruitment of clinical research participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04809636; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04809636.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/33608.

Ethics of HIV cure research: an unfinished agenda

BACKGROUND

The pursuit of a cure for HIV is a high priority for researchers, funding agencies, governments and people living with HIV (PLWH). To date, over 250 biomedical studies worldwide are or have been related to discovering a safe, effective, and scalable HIV cure, most of which are early translational research and experimental medicine. As HIV cure research increases, it is critical to identify and address the ethical challenges posed by this research.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the growing HIV cure research ethics literature, focusing on articles published in English peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. We extracted and summarized key developments in the ethics of HIV cure research. Twelve community advocates actively engaged in HIV cure research provided input on this summary and suggested areas warranting further ethical inquiry and foresight via email exchange and video conferencing.

DISCUSSION

Despite substantial scholarship related to the ethics of HIV cure research, additional attention should focus on emerging issues in six categories of ethical issues: (1) social value (ongoing and emerging biomedical research and scalability considerations); (2) scientific validity (study design issues, such as the use of analytical treatment interruptions and placebos); (3) fair selection of participants (equity and justice considerations); (4) favorable benefit/risk balance (early phase research, benefit-risk balance, risk perception, psychological risks, and pediatric research); (5) informed consent (attention to language, decision-making, informed consent processes and scientific uncertainty); and (6) respect for enrolled participants and community (perspectives of people living with HIV and affected communities and representation).

CONCLUSION

HIV cure research ethics has an unfinished agenda. Scientific research and bioethics should work in tandem to advance ethical HIV cure research. Because the science of HIV cure research will continue to rapidly advance, ethical considerations of the major themes we identified will need to be revisited and refined over time.

Participant Perspectives and Experiences Entering an Intensively Monitored Antiretroviral Pause: Results from the AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5345 Biomarker Study

The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5345 study included an intensively monitored antiretroviral pause (IMAP), during which a cohort of participants temporarily stopped antiretroviral treatment during chronic HIV infection. We surveyed participant perceptions and understanding of A5345 using a cross-sectional sociobehavioral questionnaire. Participants completed the baseline questionnaire either before or after initiating the study's IMAP. Questionnaire responses were linked to existing demographic data. Quantitative responses were analyzed overall and stratified by IMAP status. Open-ended responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Thirty-two participants completed the baseline sociobehavioral questionnaire. Half (n = 16) completed it before (i.e., pre-IMAP initiation group) and half (n = 16) after IMAP initiation (i.e., post-IMAP initiation group). Eight pre-IMAP initiation respondents (50%) and 11 post-IMAP respondents (69%) responded "yes" when asked if they perceived any direct benefits from participating in A5345. Perceived societal-level benefits included furthering HIV cure-related research and helping the HIV community. Perceived personal-level benefits included the opportunity to learn about the body's response to IMAP and financial compensation. The majority of respondents-13 from each group (81% of each)-reported risks from participation, for example, viral load becoming detectable. A5345 participants perceived both societal- and personal-level benefits of study participation. While the majority of survey respondents perceived participatory risks, nearly one in five did not. Key messages pertaining to study-related risks and benefits may need to be clarified or reiterated periodically throughout follow-up in HIV cure-related studies with IMAPs. Clinical Trail Registration Number: NCT03001128.

"Money Helps": People who inject drugs and their perceptions of financial compensation and its ethical implications

This study documents how people who inject drugs (PWID) in rural Puerto Rico perceive payments for participating in HIV epidemiological studies. In-depth interviews were conducted among a subset (n = 40) of active PWID older than 18 years of age who had been previously enrolled in a much larger study (N = 360). Findings suggest that financial compensation was the main motivation for initially enrolling in the parent study. Then, as trust in the researchers developed, participants came to perceive compensation as part of a reciprocal exchange in which they assisted researchers by providing a trustful account of their experiences and researchers reciprocated with financial support.

Research on HIV cure: Mapping the ethics landscape

In an essay, Karine Dubé and coauthors discuss the ethics of preclinical and clinical studies relevant to achieving an HIV cure.

Paying Research Participants: Regulatory Uncertainty, Conceptual Confusion, and a Path Forward

The practice of offering payment to individuals in exchange for their participation in clinical research is widespread and longstanding. Nevertheless, such payment remains the source of substantial debate, in particular about whether or the extent to which offers of payment coerce and/or unduly induce individuals to participate. Yet, the various laws, regulations, and ethical guidelines that govern the conduct of human subjects research offer relatively little in the way of specific guidance regarding what makes a payment offer ethically acceptable-or not. Moreover, there is a lack of definitional agreement regarding what the terms coercion and undue inducement mean in the human subjects research context. It is, therefore, unsurprising that investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) experience confusion about how to evaluate offers of payment, and lean toward conservative approaches. These trends are exemplified by our pilot data regarding the ways in which some IRB members and investigators (mis)understand the concepts of coercion and undue inducement, as well as the ways in which certain research institutions oversee offers of payment at a local level. This article systematically examines the legal and ethical dimensions of offering payment to research participants. It argues that many concerns about offers of payment to research participants can be attributed to the misguided view that such offers ought to be treated differently than offers of payment in other contexts, a form of "research exceptionalism." We show that rejection of research exceptionalism with respect to payment helps settle open debates about both how best to define coercion and undue influence, and how to understand the relation between these concepts and offers of payment. We argue for adoption of our preferred definitions, ideally by regulatory authorities, and against the conventional conservatism toward payment of research participants. Instead, we draw attention to the rarely asked, even radical, question: are research participants paid enough? We conclude by arguing that we ought to change the default to favor, rather than encourage suspicion of, offers of payment to research participants.