The benefit/risk ratio challenge in clinical research, and the case of HIV cure: an introduction

"They Have to Make an Effort Too": What Decliners Can Teach Us About HIV Cure/Remission-Related Clinical Trials? Results from a French Qualitative Study

Only one study to date has focused on people living with HIV (PLWH) who refused to participate in a HIV cure/remission-related clinical trial (HCCT)-"decliners" hereafter-that included analytical treatment interruption (ATI). Exploring why these persons refuse may provide valuable information to ensure more ethical recruitment and support in HCCTs within the bigger picture of improving HIV cure research. The qualitative component of the AMEP-EHVA-T02/ANRS-95052 study, called AMEP-Decliners, documented the experiences of French PLWH who refused to participate in EHVA-T02/ANRS-VRI07, a phase II randomized, placebo-controlled HCCT with ATI. AMEP-Decliners comprised semi-structured individual interviews with six decliners in two HIV care sites in France between September 2022 and March 2023. The interviews documented their expectations regarding HCCTs, reasons for refusal, and perceived factors that might have led them to participate. Audio files were transcribed, and an inductive thematic analysis was performed. Surprisingly, the main reason for refusal was not ATI but the trial monitoring. Besides the frequency of appointments, respondents emphasized the incompatibility with their active life. One underlying reason for refusal was that participating would have meant "break[ing] the carefree attitude about the disease," reflecting the substantial psychological burden associated with participation. Finally, respondents perceived that the trial's clinical team did not sufficiently recognize their "normal life" and the level of commitment required to participate, leading them to call for greater involvement by the team: "they have to make an effort too." Results from decliners' discourses highlighted that two levels of commitment to participation must be considered when developing HCCTs: psychological burden and logistical constraints. We suggest allowing home examinations and flexible appointment times, prioritizing face-to-face invitations in order to address the psychological burden associated with HCCT participation, and explaining the reasons for monitoring constraints when they cannot be alleviated. Further studies are necessary to confirm our results.

Mission Creep or Mission Lapse? Scientific Review in Research Oversight

BACKGROUND

The ethical use both of human and non-human animals in research is predicated on the assumption that it is of a high quality and its projected benefits are more significant than the risks and harms imposed on subjects. Yet questions remain about whether and how IRBs and IACUCs should consider the scientific value of proposed research studies.

METHODS

We draw upon 45 interviews with IRB and IACUC members and researchers with oversight experience about their perceptions of their own roles in reviewing the quality and value of scientific protocols. Interview transcripts were memoed to highlight specific findings, which were then used to identify key themes through an iterative process.

RESULTS

IRB and IACUC members expressed broad trust in the need for and value of research, and they often assumed that protocols had social value or that prior review, especially when associated with funding, affirmed both the rigor and merit of those protocols. Some oversight members also took an explicit stance against scientific review by stating that such review is not within the regulatory mandates governing their parts in the oversight system. Yet other interviewees expressed uneasiness about the current paradigm for evaluating the quality and overall value of science, suggesting that IRB and IACUC members perceive gaps in the oversight systems.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings reveal many similarities in how IRB and IACUC members understand the roles and limitations of their respective oversight committees. We conclude with a discussion of how the lack of a clear mandate regarding scientific review within US federal regulations may undermine ethical engagement of whether human and animal research is scientifically justified, resulting in a "mission lapse" wherein no organizational body is clearly responsible for ensuring that the research being conducted has the potential to advance science and benefit society.

Ethical considerations for HIV remission clinical research involving participants diagnosed during acute HIV infection

HIV remission clinical researchers are increasingly seeking study participants who are diagnosed and treated during acute HIV infection—the brief period between infection and the point when the body creates detectable HIV antibodies. This earliest stage of infection is often marked by flu-like illness and may be an especially tumultuous period of confusion, guilt, anger, and uncertainty. Such experiences may present added ethical challenges for HIV research recruitment, participation, and retention. The purpose of this paper is to identify potential ethical challenges associated with involving acutely diagnosed people living with HIV in remission research and considerations for how to mitigate them. We identify three domains of potential ethical concern for clinicians, researchers, and ethics committee members to consider: 1) Recruitment and informed consent; (2) Transmission risks and partner protection; and (3) Ancillary and continuing care. We discuss each of these domains with the aim of inspiring further work to advance the ethical conduct of HIV remission research. For example, experiences of confusion and uncertainty regarding illness and diagnosis during acute HIV infection may complicate informed consent procedures in studies that seek to recruit directly after diagnosis. To address this, it may be appropriate to use staged re-consent procedures or comprehension assessment. Responsible conduct of research requires a broad understanding of acute HIV infection that encompasses its biomedical, psychological, social, and behavioral dimensions. We argue that the lived experience of acute HIV infection may introduce ethical concerns that researchers and reviewers should address during study design and ethical approval.

Cohort profile: the Netherlands Cohort Study on Acute HIV infection (NOVA), a prospective cohort study of people with acute or early HIV infection who immediately initiate HIV treatment

PURPOSE

Initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) during acute or early HIV-infection (AEHI) limits the size of the viral reservoir and preserves immune function. This renders individuals who started cART during AEHI promising participants in HIV-cure trials. Therefore, we established a multicentre prospective cohort study in the Netherlands that enrols people with AEHI. In anticipation of future cure trials, we will longitudinally investigate the properties of the viral reservoir size and HIV-specific immune responses among cohort participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants immediately initiate intensified cART: dolutegravir, emtricitabine/tenofovir and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r). After 4 weeks, once baseline resistance data are available, DRV/r is discontinued. Three study groups are assembled based on the preparedness of individuals to participate in the extensiveness of sampling. Participants accepting immediate treatment and follow-up but declining additional sampling are included in study group 1 ('standard') and routine diagnostic procedures are performed. Participants willing to undergo blood, leukapheresis and semen sampling are included in study group 2 ('less invasive'). In study group 3 ('extended'), additional tissue (gut-associated lymphoid tissue, peripheral lymph node) and cerebrospinal fluid sampling are performed.

FINDINGS TO DATE

Between 2015 and 2020, 140 individuals with AEHI have been enrolled at nine study sites. At enrolment, median age was 36 (IQR 28-47) years, and 134 (95.7%) participants were men. Distribution of Fiebig stages was as follows: Fiebig I, 3 (2.1%); II, 20 (14.3%); III, 7 (5.0%); IV, 49 (35.0%); V, 39 (27.9%); VI, 22 (15.7%). Median plasma HIV RNA was 5.9 (IQR 4.7-6.7) log10 copies/mL and CD4 count 510 (IQR 370-700) cells/mm3. Median time from cART initiation to viral suppression was 8.0 (IQR 4.0-16.0) weeks.

FUTURE PLANS

The Netherlands Cohort Study on Acute HIV infection remains open for participant enrolment and for additional sites to join the network. This cohort provides a unique nationwide platform for conducting future in-depth virological, immunological, host genetic and interventional studies investigating HIV-cure strategies.

Ethics of HIV and hepatitis B cure research

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Achieving a cure for HIV or hepatitis B virus (HBV) is expected to have a range of salutary effects including eliminating the need for continued treatments, minimizing risk to sexual and injecting partners, reducing prevalence, and decreasing stigma. Nevertheless, conducting research to achieve such laudable goals is necessarily associated with a broad set of ethical challenges. This review aims at describing key findings from selected peer-reviewed literature published in the last 2 years (2018-2019) that enhance understanding of some of these issues.

RECENT FINDINGS

A variety of ethical issues in HIV cure research have been informed by recent conceptual and empirical scholarship. These include: analytical treatment interruptions; attitudes towards participation; responsibilities to nonparticipants; consent and terminology; and selected other issues.

SUMMARY

Understanding of the ethical issues in HIV cure research has been enhanced by sustained normative and empirical scholarship with a range of stakeholders. This work has crucial implications for HBV cure research, but there is also a pressing need for directed work on HBV cure research. In both HIV and HBV cure research, such scholarship promises to help ensure that critically important research efforts are ethically sound.

Ethical and practical considerations for interventional HIV cure-related research at the end-of-life: A qualitative study with key stakeholders in the United States

Background

A unique window of opportunity currently exists to generate ethical and practical considerations presented by interventional HIV cure-related research at the end-of-life (EOL). Because participants would enroll in these studies for almost completely altruistic reasons, they are owed the highest ethical standards, safeguards, and protections. This qualitative empirical ethics study sought to identify ethical and practical considerations for interventional HIV cure-related research at the EOL.

Methods and findings

We conducted 20 in-depth interviews and three virtual focus groups (N = 36) with four key stakeholder groups in the United States: 1) bioethicists, 2) people with HIV, 3) HIV care providers, and 4) HIV cure researchers. This study produced six key themes to guide the ethical implementation of interventional HIV cure-related research at the EOL: 1) all stakeholder groups supported this research conditioned upon a clearly delineated respect for participant contribution and autonomy, participant understanding and comprehension of the risks associated with the specific intervention(s) to be tested, and broad community support for testing of the proposed intervention(s); 2) to ensure acceptable benefit-risk profiles, researchers should focus on limiting the risks of unintended effects and minimizing undue pain and suffering at the EOL; 3) only well-vetted interventions that are supported by solid pre-clinical data should be tested in the EOL translational research model; 4) the informed consent process must be robust and include process consent; 5) research protocols should be flexible and adopt a patient/participant centered approach to minimize burdens and ensure their overall comfort and safety; and 6) a participant’s next-of-kin/loved ones should be a major focus of EOL research but only if the participant consents to such involvement.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this empirical ethics study generated the first ethical and practical considerations for interventional HIV cure-related research at the EOL. The ethical complexities of such research must be considered now. We must navigate this ethical conundrum so that we are good stewards of the participants’ extremely altruistic gifts by maximizing the impact and social value of this research. We hope that this study will serve as the foundation for future research and discussion on this topic.

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.

Framing a Consent Form to Improve Consent Understanding and Determine How This Affects Willingness to Participate in HIV Cure Research: An Experimental Survey Study

HIV cure research carries serious risks and negligible benefits. We investigated how participants understand these risks and what influences their willingness to participate. Through internet-based and in-person convenience sampling, 86 HIV+ participants completed an experimental survey. Participants were randomized to read a standard consent form describing a hypothetical HIV cure study or one adapted using Fuzzy Trace Theory-a decision-making model to facilitate complex information processing. We measured consent understanding and cognitive (e.g., safe/harmful) and affective (e.g., concerning, satisfying) evaluations of HIV cure research. Participants who read the adapted consent form had improved consent understanding, but only positive affective evaluations were associated with a willingness to participate. Consent processes can use decision-making theories to facilitate comprehension of study information.

Time for revolution? Enhancing meaningful involvement of people living with HIV and affected communities in HIV cure-focused science

INTRODUCTION

Involving affected communities and people living with HIV (PLHIV) in HIV cure-focused clinical trials has ethical and practical benefits. However, there can be barriers to meaningful involvement of 'lay people' in scientific research meaning community consultation is often limited or tokenistic. This paper reports on an Australian project, the INSPIRE project (Improve, Nurture and Strengthen education, collaboration, and communication between PLHIV and Researchers), which aimed to explore barriers and enablers to enactment of the principles of meaningful involvement of PLHIV (MIPA) and affected communities in HIV cure-focused research.

METHODS

The project involved a workshop attended by 40 stakeholders involved in HIV care, research or advocacy including PLHIV, community organizations, basic scientists, and clinicians. The workshop involved a facilitated discussion about community involvement in a hypothetical HIV cure-focused clinical trial. Data were collected through notetaking and video recordings. Qualitative, thematic analysis was undertaken to organize the data and identify core themes related to MIPA.

RESULTS

Workshop discussions revealed community stakeholders often feel their involvement in HIV clinical research is undervalued, evidenced by limited financial remuneration and minimal capacity to influence the research design or processes. Building long-term, formal and informal relationships between community organizations, PLHIV, researchers and research teams or laboratories was identified as a strategy to support MIPA at all stages of a clinical trial, from design to dissemination of findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Enacting MIPA principles in HIV cure-focused research requires a better understanding of the potential to improve research outcomes and ensure quality in the research process.

HIV Cure Research: Risks Patients Expressed Willingness to Accept

Despite doing well on antiretroviral therapy, many people living with HIV have expressed a willingness to accept substantial risks for an HIV cure. To date, few studies have assessed the specific quantitative maximal risk that future participants might take; probed whether, according to future participants, the risk can be offset by the benefits; and examined whether taking substantial risk is a reasonable decision. In this qualitative study, we interviewed 22 people living with HIV and used standard gamble methodology to assess the maximum chance of death a person would risk for an HIV cure. We probed participants' reasoning behind their risk-taking responses. Conventional inductive content analysis was used to categorize key themes regarding decision-making. We found that some people would be willing to risk even death for an HIV cure, and some of their reasons were plausible and went far beyond the health-related utility of an HIV cure. We contend that people's expressed willingness to take substantial risk for an HIV cure should not be dismissed out of hand.

Reconceptualising risk-benefit analyses: the case of HIV cure research

Modern antiretroviral therapies (ART) are capable of suppressing HIV in the bloodstream to undetectable levels. Nonetheless, people living with HIV must maintain lifelong adherence to ART to avoid the re-emergence of the infection. So despite the existence and efficacy of ART, there is still substantial interest in development of a cure. But HIV cure trials can be risky, their success is as of yet unlikely, and the medical gain of being cured is limited against a baseline of ART access. The medical prospect associated with participation in cure research thus look poor. Are the risks and burdens that HIV cure research places on participants so high that it is unethical, at present, to conduct it? In this paper, I answer 'no'. I start my argument by describing a foundational way of thinking about the ethical justification for regulatory limits on research risk; I then apply this way of thinking to HIV cure trials. In offering this analysis, I confine my attention to studies enrolling competent adults and I also do not consider risks research may pose to third parties or society. Rather, my concern is to engage with the thought that some trials are so risky that performing them is an ethically unacceptable way to treat the participants themselves. I reject this thought and instead argue that there is no level of risk, no matter how high, that inherently mistreats a participant.

How to Address the Risk of HIV Transmission in Remission Studies With Treatment Interruption: The Low-Hanging Fruit Approach

Some HIV remission studies include a treatment interruption that seriously risks infecting participants' sex partners with HIV. What, ethically, is owed to these nonparticipants? Until greater certainty emerges on what protections should be afforded nonparticipants of research studies, what I call a "low-hanging fruit" approach may help researchers and review bodies determine how to address infection risks to nonparticipants in these studies.

Going off antiretroviral treatment in a closely monitored HIV "cure" trial: longitudinal assessments of acutely diagnosed trial participants and decliners

INTRODUCTION

The South East Asia Research Collaboration in HIV (SEARCH) RV411 clinical trial in Thailand was a systematic investigation of analytic treatment interruption (ATI) in individuals diagnosed and treated since Fiebig stage I acute HIV infection. Here, we explore decision-making processes and perceptions of trial participation in a phase I trial that raised important ethical considerations, to identify potential areas of improvement in this relatively new field of HIV research. Similar considerations apply to other HIV phase I trials, especially those involving ATI, making this trial a model to identify challenges and opportunities in promoting informed choice.

METHODS

Using longitudinal semi-structured interviews and a validated questionnaire, we examined how decisions to join or decline the trial were made, whether there was evidence of decisional conflict, and reactions to the trial outcomes. We also explored contrasting views and experiences in this small trial cohort. We report analyses of data from these questionnaires and interviews, conducted from February through December of 2016 with the 14 SEARCH cohort participants who either joined (n = 8) or declined (n = 6) participation in RV411.

RESULTS

The eight participants and six decliners had low overall decisional conflict, which remained low over time. Decision making was more difficult for decliners than participants, at least initially. While all interviewees described being satisfied with their decisions, our study identified important negative consequences for a few individuals, including seroconversion, negative experiences with optional procedures and disappointment due to rapid viral rebound.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our results reflect the experiences of a small group invited to join this trial, our overall finding of low decisional conflict even while some individuals reported negative experiences provides lessons for clinical trial investigators. We developed points-to-consider in helping participants make informed choices, to support participants during the trial and to support decliners in their decisions.

The psychology of "cure" - unique challenges to consent processes in HIV cure research in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Consent processes for clinical trials involving HIV prevention research have generated considerable debate globally over the past three decades. HIV cure/eradication research is scientifically more complex and consequently, consent processes for clinical trials in this field are likely to pose a significant challenge. Given that research efforts are now moving toward HIV eradication, stakeholder engagement to inform appropriate ethics oversight of such research is timely. This study sought to establish the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders in HIV treatment and research to inform consent processes for cure research.

METHODS

In total, 68 South African stakeholders participated in two qualitative research modalities. In-depth interviews (IDIs) were conducted with a purposive sample of 42 individuals - audiotaped with consent. Twenty-six stakeholders participated in three focus group discussions (FGDs). Thematic analysis of transcribed IDIs and FGDs was conducted.

RESULTS

The majority of respondents indicated that there could be unique challenges in HIV cure research requiring special attention. In particular, given the complexity of cure science, translation of concepts into lay language would be critical for potential participants to adequately appreciate risks and benefits in early phase research with experimental interventions. Furthermore, to aid understanding of risks and benefits against a background of desperation for a cure, specially trained facilitators would be required to assist with a psychological assessment prior to consent to avoid curative misconceptions. Long-term participant engagement to assess durability of a cure would mean that the consent process would be prolonged, necessitating annual re-consent. Building trust to maintain such long-term relationships would be critical to retain study participants.

CONCLUSION

Unique consent requirements for cure research in South Africa would include significant efforts to maximise understanding of trial procedures, risks and the need for long-term follow-up. However, the psychological dimension of cure must not be underestimated. Beyond an understanding of cure science, the emotional impact of HIV cure advances the discourse from cure to healing. Consequently, the consent process for cure research would need to be enhanced to include psychological support and counselling. This has several important implications for research ethics review requirements for consent in HIV cure research.

Indirect Benefits in HIV Cure Clinical Research: A Qualitative Analysis

Currently, much of early phase HIV cure research involves unknown and potentially serious risks, with little or no chance of direct health benefits. During informed consent, researchers emphasize this lack of personal medical benefit to minimize misconceptions that undermine genuine consent. We explored participants' and researchers' perspectives on HIV cure clinical research participation and its potential benefits. We conducted semistructured interviews with 17 HIV cure research participants and nine researchers in North Carolina, USA. We analyzed interviews to identify participant experience-related themes. We were particularly interested in indirect benefits, such as psychological support or improved care. We also assessed five consent documents for benefit/risk-related language. Research participants were male, with a median age of 50 (range: 28-62); most were non-Hispanic white (15/17) and men who have sex with men (13/17). All 17 trial participants found research participation meaningful and beneficial. Reported benefits included improved healthcare (16/17), HIV knowledge (13/17), intimate relationships (10/17), and positive behaviors (6/17). In addition, all participants described psychological benefits, including increased positive outlook, improved sense of purpose, emotional support, and enriched self-image. Participants reported risks such as quality of life concerns, uncomfortable procedures (e.g., leukapheresis), latency reversal, and HIV status disclosure. While the consent documents included discussion of these and other risks, they did not mention potential indirect benefits. Individuals involved in HIV clinical research have recognized participant psychological, social, and behavioral benefits. We recommend that researchers and institutional review boards consider these benefits for inclusion during risk/benefit assessments, consent procedures, and other discussions with prospective participants.

Maximising the global health impact of future HIV cure-related interventions through advance planning

Thinking about public health impact should inform HIV curative investigations. Should an effective HIV cure or sustained viral remission intervention emerge from ongoing investigations, implementation strategies aimed at ensuring global access will be needed if these approaches are to be impactful, and planning accordingly makes sense now. Specifically, we discuss three key access barriers to future cure-related interventions: high cost of the strategy; non-financial challenges to procurement, distribution and point-of-care delivery; and non-adherence and the need for long-term monitoring. As we argue, plans and decision-making for overcoming each of these barriers will need to be developed in advance. An evaluation of remaining barriers and likely global impact of the leading strategies under investigation should inform decisions on which strategy might receive funding priority. Among the strategies being investigated, implementation barriers for latency-reversing agents, immunotherapy and combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be overcome on a global scale with some effort. Overcoming implementation barriers for medically complex and high-risk interventions, such as stem cell and, to some degree, gene therapy, may be less feasible.

Ethical challenges in developing an educational video to empower potential participants during consent processes in HIV cure research in South Africa

Obtaining consent for HIV research is complex, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Low levels of education, complexity of science and research processes, confusion about basic elements of research, and socio-economic conditions that make access to medical care difficult have collectively led to concerns about the adequacy of the consent process. Given the exponential growth of HIV prevention and treatment research in South Africa, HIV researchers are increasingly facing challenges obtaining authentic informed consent from potential participants. It is anticipated that HIV cure research, despite being in its infancy in South Africa, will introduce a new discourse into a population that is often struggling to understand the differences between 'cure', 'preventive and therapeutic vaccines' and other elements of the research process. Coupled with this, South Africa has a complex history of 'illegitimate' or 'false cures' for HIV. It is therefore logical to anticipate that HIV cure research may face significant challenges during consent processes. HIV prevention research in South Africa has demonstrated the importance of early community engagement in educating potential research participants and promoting community acceptance of research. Consequently, in an attempt to extrapolate from this experience of engaging with communities early regarding cure research, a 15-minute educational video entitled 'I have a dream: a world without HIV' was developed to educate and ultimately empower potential research participants to make informed choices during consent processes in future HIV cure clinical trials. To aid others in the development of educational interventions, this paper discusses the challenges faced in developing this educational video.

Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment

Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort.In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks.These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

What can the lived experience of participating in risky HIV cure-related studies establish?

This response to Gail Henderson et al argues that they were right that interviewees' appraisals of cure study participation should inform (future) protocol review decisions, but wrong to take these appraisals at face value.

Perceptions of Equipoise, Risk-Benefit Ratios, and "Otherwise Healthy Volunteers" in the Context of Early-Phase HIV Cure Research in the United States: A Qualitative Inquiry

Early-phase HIV cure research is conducted against a background of highly effective antiretroviral therapy, and involves risky interventions in individuals who enjoy an almost normal life expectancy. To explore perceptions of three ethical topics in the context of HIV cure research-(a) equipoise, (b) risk-benefit ratios, and (c) "otherwise healthy volunteers"-we conducted 36 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with three groups of purposively selected key informants: clinician-researchers ( n = 11), policy-makers and bioethicists ( n = 13), and people living with HIV (PLWHIV; n = 12). Our analysis revealed variability in perceptions of equipoise. Second, most key informants believed there was no clear measure of risk-benefit ratios in HIV cure research, due in part to the complexity of weighing (sometimes unknown) risks to participants and (sometimes speculative) benefits to science and society. Third, most clinician-researchers and policy-makers/bioethicists viewed potential HIV cure study participants as "otherwise healthy volunteers," but this perception was not shared among PLWHIV in our study.

'Well, It's the Risk of the Unknown… Right?': A Qualitative Study of Perceived Risks and Benefits of HIV Cure Research in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Biomedical research towards an HIV cure is advancing in the United States and elsewhere, yet little is known about perceptions of risks and benefits among potential study participants and other stakeholders. We conducted a qualitative study to explore perceived risks and benefits of investigational HIV cure research among people living with HIV (PLWHIV), biomedical HIV cure researchers, policy-makers and bioethicists.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative research study using in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of PLWHIV, biomedical HIV cure researchers, policy-makers and bioethicists in 2015-2016. We analysed interview transcripts using thematic analysis anchored in grounded theory.

RESULTS

We conducted and analyzed 36 key informant interviews. Qualitative analysis revealed four main findings. 1) Potential HIV cure study volunteers noted needing more information and education about the potential risks of HIV cure research. 2) Biomedical HIV cure researchers, policy-makers and bioethicists showed less awareness of social and financial risks of HIV cure research than PLWHIV. 3) Most respondents across the different categories of informants identified some risks that were too great to be acceptable in HIV cure research, although a subset of PLWHIV did not place an upper limit on acceptable risk. 4) PLWHIV showed a better awareness of potential psychological benefits of participating in HIV cure research than other groups of stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

Our research suggests that PLWHIV have a variable understanding of the individual risks, sometimes substantial, associated with participating in biomedical HIV cure research studies. Community engagement and increased research literacy may help improve community understanding. Intensive informed consent procedures will be necessary for ethical study implementation. The current state of HIV cure research offers greater potential benefits to society than to participants. There is likely to be disagreement among regulators, researchers, clinicians, and potential participants about what constitutes acceptable risk for HIV cure studies.