Services, or the United States government. The investigators have adhered to the policies for protection of human subjects as prescribed in AR-70-25.

16,17 ✉ and The International AIDS Society (IAS) Global Scientific Strategy working group*Despite the success of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for people living with HIV, lifelong treatment is required and there is no cure. HIV can integrate in the host genome and persist for the life span of the infected cell. These latently infected cells are not recognized as foreign because they are largely transcriptionally silent, but contain replication-competent virus that drives resurgence of the infection once ART is stopped. With a combination of immune activators, neutralizing antibodies, and therapeutic vaccines, some nonhuman primate models have been cured, providing optimism for these approaches now being evaluated in human clinical trials. In vivo delivery of gene-editing tools to either target the virus, boost immunity or protect cells from infection, also holds promise for future HIV cure strategies. In this Review, we discuss advances related to HIV cure in the last 5 years, highlight remaining knowledge gaps and identify priority areas for research for the next 5 years.

Ethics guidance recommends that researchers engage stakeholders and that RECs review research for such engagement. The ethics review process may present a unique opportunity to support stakeholder engagement practices for HIV prevention studies. We conducted 28 interviews with experts from 12 countries to explore this issue, and analyzed the data using Thematic Analysis. We found that the value of engagement and review processes was strongly endorsed. However, we identified 3 major thematic complexities, namely: “Tokenism” where processes risk being “tick-box”; “Toxicity”, where practices may inadvertently have negative consequences; and “Tailoring”, where processes need careful variation in intensity. We make recommendations for how these “Ts” can be addressed during the review process to help contribute to thoughtful review of meaningful stakeholder engagement in research.

IntroductionClinical trials of biomedical HIV prevention modalities require the cooperation of multiple stakeholders. Key stakeholders, such as community members, may have stark vulnerabilities. Consequently, calls for HIV prevention researchers to implement “stakeholder engagement” are increasingly common. Such engagement is held to benefit inter‐stakeholder relations, stakeholders themselves and the research itself. The ethics review process presents a unique opportunity to strengthen stakeholder engagement practices in HIV prevention trials. However, this is not necessarily straightforward. In this article, we consider several complexities. First, is stakeholder engagement a legitimate component of what Research Ethics Committees (RECs) should review for HIV prevention trials? Second, what are the core features of engagement that should be under ethics review? Third, what are the key practices that should be highlighted in ethics review?MethodsTo address these questions, we examined the international ethics guidelines specialized for such trials (UNAIDS 2012, UNAIDS‐AVAC GPP 2011) and directly applicable to such trials (CIOMS 2016; WHO 2011). Thematic analysis was used to code and analyse these guidelines.Results and discussionEthics guidelines support REC review of engagement. Guidance recommends that engagement be broad and inclusive; early and sustained; and dynamic and responsive. Broad engagement practices include evaluating the context, planning in writing, and resourcing. RECs should assess engagement as part of a comprehensive review, and recommend revisions where necessary. Researchers should profile key elements of engagement valued in ethics guidance, when they draft ethics submissions. Importantly, the ethics review process should not undermine the ‘dynamic responsiveness’ required for excellent engagement in this field.ConclusionsAs evidence‐informed engagement strategies emerge, these should inform the ethics submission and review process. Both parties in the review process should strive to avoid a superficial, check‐list type approach that caricatures what should be a thorough, nuanced ethics review of a rich, responsive engagement process.

IntroductionA major change in the ethics framework for preventive HIV vaccine trials worldwide is the release of the UNAIDS 2021 ethical considerations in HIV prevention trials. This new guidance comes at an exciting time when there are multiple HIV vaccine efficacy trials in the field. Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards are a most likely audience for these guidelines. Our objective is to highlight shifts in ethics recommendations from the earlier 2012 UNAIDS guidance.DiscussionWe review recommendations related to four key issues, namely standard of prevention, post‐trial access to safe and effective vaccines, enrolment of adolescents and enrolment of pregnant women. We outline implications and make recommendations for the ethics review process, including suggested lines of inquiry by RECs and responses by applicants.ConclusionsThere have been several shifts in the UNAIDS ethics guidance with implications for HIV vaccine researchers submitting applications for initial ethics review or re‐certification, and for RECs conducting such reviews. This review may assist RECs in a more efficient and consistent application of ethics recommendations. However, additional tools and training may further help stakeholders comply with new UNAIDS ethics recommendations during protocol development and ethics review.