Perspective
Focus on Research
Challenges to HIV Prevention — Seeking Effective Measures in the Absence of a Vaccine
N Engl J Med 2008; 358:1543-1545April 10, 2008
- Article
In this issue of the Journal, Watson-Jones et al. (pages 1560–1571) report anxiously awaited findings about a strategy for preventing infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by pharmacologically suppressing herpes simplex virus type 2. Despite a sound rationale for the intervention, the results represent yet another disappointment in efforts to reduce the spread of HIV with the use of a biomedical agent.
Indeed, apart from important advances in preventing mother-to-child transmission, primarily through the use of antiretroviral drugs, and in preventing the acquisition of HIV in men by means of circumcision, only one late-stage randomized biomedical trial — involving the treatment of sexually transmitted infections — has shown a beneficial effect on the risk of HIV infection, and this benefit was not corroborated by subsequent studies.
Other late-stage biomedical HIV-prevention trials that failed to demonstrate a benefit examined the use of vaginal microbicide gels, the diaphragm as a cervical barrier, preexposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral medications, and two types of HIV vaccines. Although several behavioral interventions have been shown to reduce self-reported high-risk behaviors and some have reduced the rates of certain non-HIV sexually transmitted infections, none have demonstrated a reduction in the incidence of HIV infection.1
Shortcomings in research design have inhibited progress in identifying effective HIV-prevention interventions.1 Design deficiencies led to premature termination of some trials because of inadequate research before the trial began, poor site preparation, or lack of community engagement. Other trials with inconclusive results raised the possibility that interventions had modest effects that could not be detected. In light of these problems, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review the methodologic challenges of trials of nonvaccine biomedical interventions for HIV prevention and to recommend ways to improve the likelihood of success of future trials — an effort in which we participated.1
Methodologic challenges make late-stage biomedical HIV-prevention trials more difficult to conduct and interpret than many other types of research on preventive or therapeutic interventions. A key problem has been accurately estimating the expected incidence of HIV in the trial population, which is crucial to determining a planned trial's necessary size and duration. Some researchers substantially overestimated the expected incidence, which resulted in an inadequate sample size and thus inconclusive trial results. Trials have also been adversely affected by high rates of nonadherence to prescribed regimens and of attrition among participants, which reduce a trial's power to detect an effect and can bias the results. Accurate assessment of the adherence and risk-taking behavior of participants, which is key to interpreting results, has also proved challenging.
A particularly vexing problem relates to high pregnancy rates among participants. Women who become pregnant are routinely required to discontinue use of study products, and researchers sometimes cease to follow these women to track HIV and pregnancy outcomes, both of which exacerbate attrition problems and preclude the evaluation of effects on pregnant women and fetuses. Since any successful product introduced into the community would most likely be used by women after they became pregnant, this practice creates a clinical and ethical dilemma.
HIV-prevention trials also lack reliable surrogate end points for HIV infection or product activity and must therefore use HIV infection as the end point. Thus, effectiveness trials cannot be preceded by smaller studies using surrogate end points to demonstrate proof of concept and efficacy under ideal circumstances. As a result, such studies need to be large and sometimes lengthy, making them both costly and challenging.
The Joint United Nations Program on HIV–AIDS (UNAIDS) estimates that 2.5 million persons (range, 1.8 million to 4.1 million) became infected with HIV in 2007.2 The graph
Projected Numbers of New HIV Infections before a Vaccine Becomes Available, Assuming a 2.5% Annual Decrease in the Number of Infections in 2007. shows the cumulative number of people who would become infected over the next two decades if there is a 2.5% annual decrease in incidence in the coming years (a decrease based roughly on UNAIDS estimates from 1998 through 2007). These estimates suggest that in the 15 to 20 years it may take to develop and evaluate a highly efficacious vaccine, the world may be facing 20 million to 60 million new HIV infections. Such projections emphasize the urgency of finding effective nonvaccine approaches to prevention. Since any such advances will probably be modest in magnitude or limited to particular subpopulations and settings, it is critical to learn how to optimize the use of multiple, partially effective biomedical and behavioral interventions in the settings and populations in which they are most effective.Beyond continuing the vaccine search, researchers and sponsors can take some steps to accelerate advances in HIV prevention in the coming decade.1 First, the research community should intensify its investment in the development of safe, easy-to-use biomedical interventions. Second, preclinical and early-stage clinical testing and prioritization of products for later-stage testing need to be improved to make the most efficient use of research resources and to minimize large-scale testing of unsafe or ineffective products. Because having a reliable surrogate end point could greatly accelerate product evaluation, investigators should prioritize research toward identifying such surrogates. In addition, cross-sectional biomarkers that can be used in standard and less sensitive assays to estimate HIV incidence, which could be extremely valuable but are not yet sufficiently reliable, should also be a focus of research. Better methods for accurately assessing adherence and risk-taking behavior and better strategies for improving adherence are also needed.
Several problems that have plagued late-stage HIV-prevention trials must be overcome. Future trials should include adequate planning to ensure community acceptance and sustainability of the intervention, should involve proper preparation of sites to ensure adequately trained staff and sufficient physical infrastructure, and should include reliable estimation of the rates of HIV infection, pregnancy, loss to follow-up, and nonadherence to determine an adequate sample size and trial duration. Trials must be carefully monitored, with the use of event-driven timetables, and researchers must capture reliable information on adherence and risk-taking behavior.
Young women are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic in many regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa,2 and high rates of pregnancy are common in many target populations. Therefore, sponsors and researchers must take additional steps to evaluate the safety and efficacy of preventive products in pregnant women. These steps include completing studies of reproductive toxic effects and other appropriate preclinical research, ideally before phase 2 studies begin; identifying circumstances in which it might be safe to continue using the product during pregnancy; and developing plans for the collection of key safety information during trials and at their completion.
Identifying and implementing improved behavioral interventions to reduce the risk of HIV infection represent an important opportunity that has not been adequately exploited, in part because most of these studies have been too small to permit evaluation of HIV infection as an end point. The IOM report1 advocates integrating research on behavioral interventions into biomedical intervention trials by using factorial and other study designs. Such integrated strategies could be effective in reducing risky behavior and promoting condom use, thereby enhancing the ultimate effectiveness of a biomedical intervention.1
Evaluating multiple interventions and collecting more reliable outcome information, as well as conducting trials of adequate size, place additional demands on trial sites — underscoring the importance of investing in the human, physical, and regulatory capacity at study locations, ensuring their sustainability. We believe that sponsors need to reconsider the traditional financial and time constraints that have been placed on investigators conducting HIV-prevention trials.
The challenges in HIV-prevention research are enormous, and even the best-designed trials may fail. Yet a staggering number of new HIV infections are likely to occur before a highly effective vaccine becomes available. With so many lives at stake, it is imperative to prioritize the identification and implementation of more effective behavioral and nonvaccine biomedical interventions. It is equally important to design, fund, and conduct these trials in ways that give them the best chance of success.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Source Information
Dr. Lagakos is a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, and a statistical consultant to the Journal. Ms. Gable is a senior program officer at the IOM, Washington, DC. Dr. Lagakos was the chair, and Ms. Gable the study director, of the IOM Committee on Methodological Challenges in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials; the other committee members were as follows: Dr. Harvey J. Alter, National Institutes of Health; Dr. Ronald Bayer, Columbia University; Dr. Solomon R. Benatar, University of Cape Town; Dr. Ronald S. Brookmeyer, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Carlos Del Rio, Emory University; Dr. David W. Feigal, Elan Pharmaceuticals; Dr. Els Goetghebeur, Ghent University; Dr. Laura A. Guay, Johns Hopkins University; Dr. Sally L. Hodder, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey; Dr. Shabbar Jaffar, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; Dr. Edward K. Kurumira, Makerere University; Dr. George W. Rutherford, University of California, San Francisco; Dr. Olive Shisana, South African Human Sciences Research Council; and Dr. Gina Wingood, Emory University.
- References
- Citing Articles (21)
Citing Articles
1
Kristen Underhill, Don Operario, Matthew J. Mimiaga, Margie R. Skeer, Kenneth H. Mayer. (2010) Implementation Science of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis: Preparing for Public Use. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 7:4, 210-219
CrossRef2
Lisa Maher, Bethany White, Margaret Hellard, Annie Madden, Maria Prins, Thomas Kerr, Kimberly Page. (2010) Candidate hepatitis C vaccine trials and people who inject drugs: Challenges and opportunities. Vaccine 28:45, 7273-7278
CrossRef3
Nancy S Padian, Sandra I McCoy, Jennifer E Balkus, Judith N Wasserheit. (2010) Weighing the gold in the gold standard: challenges in HIV prevention research. AIDS 24:5, 621-635
CrossRef4
Stewart E Reid, James Y Dai, Jing Wang, Bupe N Sichalwe, Godspower Akpomiemie, Frances M Cowan, Sinead Delany-Moretlwe, Jared M Baeten, James P Hughes, Anna Wald, Connie Celum. (2009) Pregnancy, Contraceptive Use, and HIV Acquisition in HPTN 039: Relevance for HIV Prevention Trials Among African Women. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes1
CrossRef5
Ronald H Gray. (2009) Methodologies for evaluating HIV prevention intervention (populations and epidemiologic settings). Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS 4:4, 274-278
CrossRef6
Sten H Vermund, Katherine L Allen, Quarraisha Abdool Karim. (2009) HIV-prevention science at a crossroads: advances in reducing sexual risk. Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS 4:4, 266-273
CrossRef7
, Ariane Straten, Helen Cheng, Jie Moore, Deborah Kacanek, Kelly Blanchard, Guy Bruyn, Gita Ramjee, Tsungai Chipato, Elizabeth T. Montgomery, Nancy Padian. (2009) The Use of the Diaphragm Instead of Condoms in a Phase III Diaphragm Trial. AIDS and Behavior 13:3, 564-572
CrossRef8
Wynne E. Norton, K. Rivet Amico, Deborah H. Cornman, William A. Fisher, Jeffrey D. Fisher. (2009) An Agenda for Advancing the Science of Implementation of Evidence-Based HIV Prevention Interventions. AIDS and Behavior 13:3, 424-429
CrossRef9
Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus, Dallas Swendeman, Gary Chovnick. (2009) The Past, Present, and Future of HIV Prevention: Integrating Behavioral, Biomedical, and Structural Intervention Strategies for the Next Generation of HIV Prevention. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 5:1, 143-167
CrossRef10
Craig W. Hendrix, Ying Jun Cao, Edward J. Fuchs. (2009) Topical Microbicides to Prevent HIV: Clinical Drug Development Challenges. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology 49:1, 349-375
CrossRef11
Wynne E Norton, William A Fisher, Jeffrey D Fisher. (2009) Achieving the potential of HIV prevention interventions: critical global need for collaborative dissemination efforts. AIDS 23:1, 139-141
CrossRef12
Susan M. Graham, Prakesh S. Shah, Zoë Costa-von Aesch, Joseph Beyene, Ahmed M. Bayoumi. (2009) A Systematic Review of the Quality of Trials Evaluating Biomedical HIV Prevention Interventions Shows That Many Lack Power. HIV Clinical Trials 10:6, 413-431
CrossRef13
Mead Over. (2009) Échec de la prévention : le poids croissant des droits engendrés par l'aide américaine au financement du traitement mondial contre le VIH/SIDA et la voie à suivre. Revue d'économie du développement 23:1, 107
CrossRef14
Victor DeGruttola, Susan Little, Robert Schooley. (2008) Controlling the HIV epidemic, without a vaccine!. AIDS 22:18, 2554-2555
CrossRef15
Connie Celum, Anna Wald, Jim Hughes, Larry Corey. (2008) Effect of aciclovir on HIV-1 acquisition in HSV-2-positive patients – Authors' reply. The Lancet 372:9646, 1298-1299
CrossRef16
Stefan H.E. Kaufmann, Shreemanta K. Parida. (2008) Tuberculosis in Africa: Learning from Pathogenesis for Biomarker Identification. Cell Host & Microbe 4:3, 219-228
CrossRef17
Mary Poynten, Joelle M Brown, Monica Sovero, Iona Y Millwood, John M Kaldor. (2008) Microbicide safety and effectiveness: an overview of recent clinical trials. Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS 3:5, 574-580
CrossRef18
Daniel T Halperin, Richard G Wamai, Helen A Weiss, Catherine Hankins, Kawango Agot, Quarraisha Abdool Karim, Olive Shisana, Robert C Bailey, Bilonda Betukumesu, John Bongaarts, Kasonde Bowa, Richard Cash, Ward Cates, Mamadou Otto Diallo, Sibongile Dludlu, Nathan Geffen, Mark Heywood, Helen Jackson, Patrick Kalambayi Kayembe, Saidi Kapiga, Poloko Kebaabetswe, Leon Kintaudi, Jeffrey D Klausner, Suzanne Leclerc-Madlala, Khanya Mabuza, Mzamani Benjamin Makhubele, Kenneth Micheni, Brian J Morris, Antonio de Moya, Johanna Ncala, Innocent Ntaganira, Obrian F Nyamucherera, Emmanuel Oladipo Otolorin, Jean William Pape, Mannasseh Phiri, Helen Rees, Monica Ruiz, Jorge Sanchez, Sharif Sawires, Esther Salang Seloilwe, David M Serwadda, Geoffrey Setswe, Nelson Sewankambo, Dudu Simelane, François Venter, David Wilson, Godfrey Woelk, Nompumelelo Zungu. (2008) Male circumcision is an efficacious, lasting and cost-effective strategy for combating HIV in high-prevalence AIDS epidemics. Future HIV Therapy 2:5, 399-405
CrossRef19
Richard Horton, Pam Das. (2008) Putting prevention at the forefront of HIV/AIDS. The Lancet 372:9637, 421-422
CrossRef20
D. P. Wilson, P. M. Coplan, M. A. Wainberg, S. M. Blower. (2008) The paradoxical effects of using antiretroviral-based microbicides to control HIV epidemics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:28, 9835-9840
CrossRef21
John M Kaldor, Rebecca J Guy, David Wilson. (2008) Efficacy trials of biomedical strategies to prevent HIV infection. Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS 3:4, 504-508
CrossRef
