World Health Organization and US Fulbright Program.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

No abstract

Clinical and basic science advances have raised considerable hope for achieving an HIV cure by accelerating research. This research is dominated primarily by issues about the nature and design of current and future clinical trials. Stakeholder engagement for HIV cure remains in its early stages. Our analysis examines timing and mechanisms of historical stakeholder engagement in other HIV research areas for HIV-uninfected individuals [vaccine development and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)], and HIV-infected individuals (treatment as prevention, prevention of mother-to-child transmission, and treatment of acute HIV infection) and articulate a plan for HIV cure stakeholder engagement. The experience from HIV vaccine development shows that early engagement of stakeholders helped manage expectations, mitigating the failure of several vaccine trials, while paving the way for subsequent trials. The relatively late engagement of HIV stakeholders in PrEP research may partly explain some of the implementation challenges. The treatment-related stakeholder engagement was strong and community-led from the onset and helped translation from research to implementation. We outline five steps to initiate and sustain stakeholder engagement in HIV cure research and conclude that stakeholder engagement represents a key investment in which stakeholders mutually agree to share knowledge, benefits, and risk of failure. Effective stakeholder engagement prevents misconceptions. As HIV cure research advances from early trials involving subjects with generally favorable prognosis to studies involving greater risk and uncertainty, success may depend on early and deliberate engagement of stakeholders.

An overall decrease of HIV prevalence is now observed in several key Asian countries due to effective prevention programs. The decrease in HIV prevalence and incidence may further improve with the scale-up of combination prevention interventions. The implementation of future prevention trials then faces important challenges. The opportunity to identify heterosexual populations at high risk such as female sex workers may rapidly wane. With unabating HIV epidemics among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender (TG) populations, an effective vaccine would likely be the only option to turn the epidemic. It is more likely that efficacy trials will occur among MSM and TG because their higher HIV incidence permits smaller and less costly trials. The constantly evolving patterns of HIV-1 diversity in the region suggest close monitoring of the molecular HIV epidemic in potential target populations for HIV vaccine efficacy trials. CRF01_AE remains predominant in southeast Asian countries and MSM populations in China. This relatively steady pattern is conducive to regional efficacy trials, and as efficacy warrants, to regional licensure. While vaccines inducing nonneutralizing antibodies have promise against HIV acquisition, vaccines designed to induce broadly neutralizing antibodies and cell-mediated immune responses of greater breadth and depth in the mucosal compartments should be considered for testing in MSM and TG. The rationale and design of efficacy trials of combination prevention modalities such as HIV vaccine and preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) remain hypothetical, require high adherence to PrEP, are more costly, and present new regulatory challenges. The prioritization of prevention interventions should be driven by the HIV epidemic and decided by the country-specific health and regulatory authorities. Modeling the impact and cost-benefit may help this decision process.