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.

Strategies to control HIV in the absence of antiretroviral therapy are needed to cure HIV. However, such strategies will require analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs) to determine their efficacy. We investigated how U.S. stakeholders involved in HIV cure research perceive ATIs. We conducted 36 in-depth interviews with three groups of stakeholders: 12 people living with HIV, 11 clinician-researchers, and 13 policy-makers/bioethicists. Qualitative data revealed several themes. First, there was little consensus on when ATIs would be ethically warranted. Second, the most frequent perceived hypothetical motivators for participating in research on ATIs were advancing science and contributing to society. Third, risks related to viral rebound were the most prevalent concerns related to ATIs. Stakeholders suggested ways to minimize the risks of ATIs in HIV cure research. Increased cooperation between scientists and local communities may be useful for minimizing risk. Further ethics research is necessary.

The human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic, and responses to it, have exposed clear political, social and economic inequities between and within nations. The most striking manifestations of this inequity is access to AIDS treatment. In affluent nations, antiretroviral treatment is becoming the standard of care for those with AIDS, while the same treatment is currently only available for a privileged few in most resource-poor countries. Patients without sufficient financial and social capital -i.e., most people with AIDS -die each day by the thousands. Recent AIDS treatment initiatives such as the UNAIDS and WHO "3 by 5" programme aim to rectify this symptom of global injustice. However, the success of these initiatives depends on the identification of people in need of treatment through a rapid and massive scale-up of HIV testing. In this paper, we briefly explore key ethical challenges raised by the acceleration of HIV testing in resource-poor countries, focusing on the 2004 policy of routine ("opt-out") HIV testing recommended by UNAIDS and WHO. We suggest that in settings marked by poverty, weak health-care and civil society infrastructures, gender inequalities, and persistent stigmatization of people with HIV/AIDS, optout HIV-testing policies may become disconnected from the human rights ideals that first motivated calls for universal access to AIDS treatment. We leave open the ethical question of whether opt-out policies should be implemented, but we recommend that whenever routine HIV-testing policies are introduced in resource-poor countries, that their effect on individuals and communities should be the subject of empirical research, human-rights monitoring and ethical scrutiny. Voir page 55 le résumé en français. En la página 56 figura un resumen en español.

No abstract

IntroductionStakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/AVAC Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines.MethodsWe used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow‐up, results and dissemination.Results and discussionOf the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty‐eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high‐income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle‐income countries and nine (8.3%) in low‐income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty‐five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV‐affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at‐risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post‐trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%).ConclusionsOur findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.