Recruitment of HIV/AIDS treatment-naïve patients to clinical trials in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era: influence of gender, sexual orientation and race

Design, analysis, and reporting of pilot studies in HIV: a systematic review and methodological study

Background

Pilot studies are essential in determining if a larger study is feasible. This is especially true when targeting populations that experience stigma and may be difficult to include in research, such as people with HIV. We sought to describe how pilot studies have been used to inform HIV clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted a methodological study of pilot studies of interventions in people living with HIV published until November 25, 2020, using Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL). We extracted data on their nomenclature, primary objective, use of progression criteria, sample size, use of qualitative methods, and other contextual information (region, income, level, type of intervention, study design).

Results

Our search retrieved 10,597 studies, of which 248 were eligible. The number of pilot studies increased steadily over time. We found that 179 studies (72.2%) used the terms “pilot” or “feasibility” in their title, 65.3% tested feasibility as a primary objective, only 2% used progression criteria, 23.9% provided a sample size estimation and only 30.2% used qualitative methods.

Conclusions

Pilot studies are increasingly being used to inform HIV research. However, the titles and objectives are not always consistent with piloting. The design and reporting of pilot studies in HIV could be improved.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00934-9.

Influence of Sex/Gender and Race on Responses to Raltegravir Combined With Tenofovir-Emtricitabine in Treatment-Naive Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infected Patients: Pooled Analyses of the STARTMRK and QDMRK Studies

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women and blacks merits particular scrutiny because these groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials.

METHODS

To document the effects of raltegravir across sex and racial lines, we conducted a pooled subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of raltegravir 400 mg BID plus tenofovir-emtricitabine by sex (women vs men) and self-identified race (black vs non-black) using phase 3 studies in treatment-naive patients.

RESULTS

Study participants included 42 black women, 102 non-black women, 48 black men, and 477 non-black men. Clade B infections were less common in women (43.8%) than men (84.6%) and in blacks (45.6%) than non-blacks (80.5%). Baseline CD4 counts were ≤200 cells/µL in 52.2% of blacks and 31.6% of non-blacks. Black men had the largest proportion of patients with baseline CD4 counts <50 cells/µL and the highest nontreatment-related discontinuation rate among the 4 sex-by-race subgroups. Human immunodeficiency virus-ribonucleic acid levels <50 copies/mL were achieved at week 48 in 92.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.1-98.5) of black women, 93.6% (95% CI, 86.6-97.6) of non-black women, 82.9% (95% CI, 67.9-92.8) of black men, and 91.4% (95% CI, 88.4-93.8) of non-black men. Serious clinical adverse events were reported in 9.0% of women versus 8.8% of men and in 11.1% of blacks versus 8.5% of non-blacks.

CONCLUSIONS

In this post hoc analysis of patients with previously untreated HIV-1 infection receiving raltegravir plus tenofovir-emtricitabine, generally comparable results were achieved across sex and racial subgroups. However, black men had a lower response rate than either black women or non-black men, partially attributable to lower baseline CD4 counts and higher discontinuation rates.

Eliminating Racial/Ethnic Disparities in AIDS Clinical Trials in the United States: A Qualitative Exploration of an Efficacious Social/Behavioral Intervention

BACKGROUND

African American/Black and Hispanic persons living with HIV (AABH-PLWH) are under-represented in AIDS clinical trials (ACTs) in the United States. Barriers AABH-PLWH experience to ACTs are multi-faceted, including distrust of medical research, low levels of knowledge, unsupportive social norms, lack of referral, and challenges navigating ACT systems. In past research we found a multi-component peer-driven intervention was efficacious in boosting rates of screening for/enrollment into ACTs. The present qualitative study seeks to understand AABH-PLWH's perspectives on which specific intervention features or components had utility. Interventions features explored included structural elements (e.g., small group sessions, individual sessions on the ACT research unit); approaches (e.g., Motivational Interviewing); and specific components (e.g., small-group discussion of historical and cultural factors reducing participation among AABH-PLWH).

METHODS

A total of 37 AABH-PLWH (mean age 50.6 years, SD=7.5 years; 48.6% female; 62.2% African American/Black, 27.0% Hispanic) were purposively selected from a larger study for in-depth interviews, which were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using systematic content analysis.

RESULTS

We found the intervention improved knowledge and positive attitudes toward ACTs, and triggered social-level facilitators such as altruism and more positive social norms. Discussions of cultural/historical barriers to ACTs associated with race/ethnicity had utility. Holding a session on the ACT research unit reduced fear and increased motivation. Results highlighted the value of Motivational Interviewing, and several components were perceived as less useful (e.g., involving social network members in ACT decisions).

CONCLUSION

Findings can inform future intervention designs to address racial/ethnic disparities in ACTs and have implications for trials of other conditions where racial/ethnic disparities persist.

Factors affecting patient participation in clinical trials in Ireland: A narrative review

Objective

Clinical trials have long been considered the ‘gold standard’ of research generated evidence in health care. Patient recruitment is an important determinant in the success of the trials, yet little focus is placed on the decision making process of patients towards recruitment. Our objective was to identify the key factors pertaining to patient participation in clinical trials, to better understand the identified low participation rate of patients in one clinical research facility within Ireland.

Design

Narrative literature review of studies focussing on factors which may act to facilitate or deter patient participation in clinical trials. Studies were identified from Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library and CINAHL.

Results

Sixty-one studies were included in the narrative review: Forty-eight of these papers focused specifically on the patient's perspective of participating in clinical trials. The remaining thirteen related to carers, family and health care professional perspectives of participation. The primary factor influencing participation in clinical trials amongst patients was related to personal factors and these were collectively associated with obtaining a form of personal gain through participation. Cancer was identified as the leading disease entity included in clinical trials followed by HIV and cardiovascular disease.

Conclusion

The vast majority of literature relating to participation in clinical trials emanates predominantly from high income countries, with 63% originating from the USA. No studies for inclusion in this review were identified from low income or developing countries and therefore limits the generalizability of the influencing factors.

Using perceptual mapping methods to understand gender differences in perceived barriers and benefits of clinical research participation in urban minority HIV+ patients

Minority participation in HIV clinical trials research is critical to understanding the impact of medications or behavioral interventions, but little is known about gender differences in perceptions of participation. We surveyed 50 minority HIV+ patients from an urban clinic to assess perceived risks/benefits of clinical trial research participation and used innovative marketing methods to analyze results. Perceptual mapping and vector message-modeling, a method that creates 3-D models representing how groups conceptualize elements, were used to assess how male and female participants could be motivated to participate. Results showed men farther away from participation and more concerned with HIV disclosure and experimentation than women. Men expressed distrust of the medical system, doubted HIV's origin, and knew less about research implementation. Women were closer to participation in both behavior and medical trials and perceived medication issues as more significant, including fear of losing medication stability, medications not working, being in the placebo group, and experiencing side effects. Vector modeling shows that messages would need to focus on different aspects of clinical research for men and women and that interventions aimed at minority HIV+ patients to encourage clinical trial participation would need to be targeted to their unique perceptions. Understanding gender perceptions of HIV clinical research has significant implications for targeting messages to increase minority participation.

ACT2 peer-driven intervention increases enrollment into HIV/AIDS medical studies among African Americans/Blacks and Hispanics: A cluster randomized controlled trial

African American/Black and Hispanic persons living with HIV/AIDS ("AABH-PLHA") are under-represented in HIV/AIDS medical studies (HAMS). This paper evaluates the efficacy of a social/behavioral intervention to increase rates of screening for and enrollment into HAMS in these populations. Participants (N = 540) were enrolled into a cluster randomized controlled trial of an intervention designed to overcome multi-level barriers to HAMS. Primary endpoints were rates of screening for and enrollment into therapeutic/treatment-oriented and observational studies. Intervention arm participants were 30 times more likely to be screened than controls (49.3 % vs. 3.7 %; p < .001). Half (55.5 %) of those screened were eligible for HAMS, primarily observational studies. Nine out of ten found eligible enrolled (91.7 %), almost all into observational studies (95.2 %), compared to no enrollments among controls. Achieving appropriate representation of AABH-PLHA in HAMS necessitates modification of study inclusion criteria to increase the proportion found eligible for therapeutic HAMS, in addition to social/behavioral interventions.

Minorities remain underrepresented in HIV/AIDS research despite access to clinical trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The reasons for minority underrepresentation in HIV/AIDS clinical trials remain unclear. We aimed to evaluate the knowledge, experience, and factors that influence minority participation in HIV/AIDS studies in the United States.

METHODS

An anonymous, bilingual, self-administered survey on study participation was given to HIV-infected adults attending AIDS Clinical Trials Group-affiliated clinics in the United States and Puerto Rico. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate differences by race, first language, and level of education. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for factors associated with being talked to about participation in a study.

RESULTS

We analyzed 2,175 complete surveys (221 in Spanish). Among respondents, 31% were White, 40% were Black/African American (AA), and 21% were Hispanic. The overall rate of previous participation in any HIV/AIDS study was 48%. Hispanics were less likely to know about studies compared to Whites and AAs (67% vs 74% and 76%, respectively; P < .001). Compared to Whites, AAs and Hispanics were less likely to have been talked to about participating in a study (76% vs 67% and 67%, respectively; P < .001). The OR for being talked to about participating in a study was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.52-0.81) for AAs and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.85) for Hispanics, compared to Whites. AAs and Hispanics were more likely to state that studies were not friendly to their race (17% and 10% vs 4%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Minorities continue to face barriers for HIV/AIDS trial participation, even when clinical research is available. Enrollment strategies should better target minorities to improve recruitment in HIV/AIDS research.

Description of an efficacious behavioral peer-driven intervention to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in AIDS clinical trials

AIDS clinical trials (ACTs) are critical to the development of new treatments for HIV infection. However, people of color living with HIV/AIDS are involved in ACTs at disproportionally low rates, with African-Americans experiencing the greatest under-representation. In this article, we describe the core elements and key characteristics of a highly efficacious multi-component peer-driven intervention (PDI) designed to increase rates of screening for and enrollment into ACTs among African-American and Latino/Hispanic individuals, by addressing the main complex, multi-level barriers they experience to ACTs. We discuss the process of developing the intervention, the theoretical models guiding its delivery format and content, and provide an overview of the intervention's components. We then use brief case studies to illustrate a number of key issues that may arise during intervention implementation. Finally, we describe lessons learned and provide recommendations for the PDI's uptake in clinical and clinical trials settings.

Predictors of screening for AIDS clinical trials among African-Americans and Latino/Hispanics enrolled in an efficacious peer-driven intervention: uncovering socio-demographic, health, and substance use-related factors that promote or impede screening

African-American and Latino/Hispanic persons living with HIV/AIDS are underrepresented in AIDS clinical trials (ACTs). The aim of this paper was to uncover factors, either unmodifiable or not directly targeted for change, that predicted screening for ACTs during an efficacious peer-driven intervention (N = 540 total; N = 351 in an intervention arm, N = 189 control). This paper focused on participants assigned to an intervention arm, 56 % of whom were screened for ACTs. We found a decreased odds of screening was associated with closer proximity to the screening site, gay/lesbian orientation, lower mental health symptoms, current injection drug use, more recent HIV diagnosis, lack of prior screening experience, and failure to attend all intervention sessions, but there were no gender or racial/ethnic differences. Efforts to reduce racial/ethnic disparities in ACTs can be enhanced by attending to these specific factors, which may interfere with programmatic efforts to increase African-American and Latino/Hispanic representation in ACTs.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs).

METHODS

We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725.

FINDINGS

From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1.

FUNDING

Tibotec.