1 / 21

UCLA Microbicide Development Program Project 3 funded by NIH Grant U19 A1060614

Acceptability of potential rectal microbicide delivery mechanisms for HIV prevention Heather Pines, Pamina Gorbach, Robert Weiss, Kristen Hess, Ryan Murphy, Terry Saunders, Leonardo Colemon, Edward Robbie, Joelle Brown, Ross Cranston, and Peter Anton.

marlis
Download Presentation

UCLA Microbicide Development Program Project 3 funded by NIH Grant U19 A1060614

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Acceptability of potential rectal microbicide delivery mechanisms for HIV preventionHeather Pines, Pamina Gorbach, Robert Weiss, Kristen Hess, Ryan Murphy, Terry Saunders, Leonardo Colemon, Edward Robbie, Joelle Brown, Ross Cranston, and Peter Anton UCLA Microbicide Development Program Project 3 funded by NIH Grant U19 A1060614

  2. Introduction • Various formulations and devices can be used to deliver rectal microbicides • Potential impact of rectal microbicides on HIV infection rates will depend on adherence, which is likely affected by acceptability • Purpose: • To investigate the acceptability of different rectal delivery methods to inform the development of rectal microbicides

  3. Pre-SeedTM Applicator filled with Lubricant TucksTM Suppository Normosol-R Enema Introduction • Objective: • To measure the acceptability of 3 over-the-counter placebo anorectal products among men and women who practice receptive anal intercourse (RAI) • Study Products:

  4. Methods • Study Design: • Randomized crossover clinical trial • Study Population: • Men and women recruited from various community sources and screened for inclusion between February 2009 and September 2010 • Eligibility Criteria: ≥18 years of age; STI and HIV-negative; history of RAI; no anorectal symptoms of grade 2 or higher at visits 1 and 2; no anorectal herpes outbreak within 30 days of visit 1; no known allergies to components of study products or other anorectal products; not homeless; not pregnant or breastfeeding; not participating in another clinical trial involving anorectal products; willing and able to comply with procedures and give informed consent

  5. Methods • Study Procedures: • Data Collection: • Computer-assisted self-interviews (CASI) • Face-to-face interviews: concomitant medications & AEs • Telephone-computer-assisted self-interviews (T-CASI)

  6. Clinical Trials Open Market Cost Risk perception Type of partner Access Microbicide Acceptability & Adherence Across Phases of Product Development Acceptability Phase I & II ? Study Population Protocol requirements Partner characteristics Continuation/ Maintenance Product characteristics (smell, texture, applicator, partner response, impact on sexual pleasure, formulation, side effects) Stigma General population Effectiveness level Open behavioral conditions Adherence Phase IIb, III Clinic access Counseling Reporting Methods Other services provided Incentives Partner characteristics Coly A and Gorbach PM. Microbicide Acceptability Research: Recent Findings and Context Evolution. Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS; Oct 2008, Vol. 3, No. 5: 581-586

  7. Defining Acceptability • Participants evaluated 11 statements included in CASI questionnaires about product characteristics via likert scale responses (strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree) • I liked using the product • I found the product difficult to use • I found the product inconvenient to use • I found the product painful to use • Using the product irritated my butt • I had no problem using the product • I found that using the product was too runny • I found that using the product interrupted sex • I found that using the product increased my sexual pleasure • I found that using the product increased my partner’s sexual pleasure • My partner liked it when I used the product • Overall acceptability score created by averaging the sum of all individual scores for each statement

  8. Statistical Analysis • Linear random effects model used to estimate a mean acceptability score for each product • Differences between product acceptability scores calculated to determine product preferences • Examined the effects of various covariates on acceptability • Examined whether these covariates affect product preferences (i.e. whether differences between product acceptability scores differed across subgroups of these covariates) • Poisson random effects model used to measure the association between acceptability and adherence

  9. Baseline Characteristics (N=117)

  10. Baseline Characteristics (N=117)

  11. Product Use in the Past 2 Weeks Significant difference (p < 0.05) between enema & applicator (*), enema & suppository (†), and applicator & suppository (‡).

  12. Anorectal Symptoms and AEs Significant difference (p ≤ 0.1) between enema & nothing (^), applicator & nothing (§), and suppository & nothing (¶). Significant difference (p ≤ 0.1) between enema & applicator (*), enema & suppository (†), and applicator & suppository (‡).

  13. Product Feedback Significant difference (p < 0.05) between enema & applicator (*), enema & suppository (†), and applicator & suppository (‡).

  14. Product Feedback Among those who Reported Sex in the Past 2 Weeks Significant difference (p < 0.05) between enema & applicator (*), enema & suppository (†), and applicator & suppository (‡).

  15. Overall Product Acceptability Scores (N=109)

  16. Effect of Covariates on Acceptability (N=109)

  17. Final Model:Acceptability by Age & Gender • Among participants with prior experience using the product, who reported no symptoms and reported using the product in the context of sex at last use p-value for age*product interaction = 0.003; p-value for gender*product interaction = 0.03

  18. Acceptability & Adherence

  19. Summary • Applicator filled with lubricant had the highest overall acceptability score: • Most convenient to use and least runny • Increased participant’s and their partner’s sexual pleasure • Acceptability scores were higher among: • Males • Older participants • Participants who reported no symptoms or AEs in the past 2 weeks • Participants who reported using products in the context of sex at last use • Product preferences differed by age and gender: • Product preferences stronger among females • Females of all ages preferred the applicator • Younger males preferred the applicator, no preferences between products among older males

  20. Discussion • Limitations: • No data on final preferences among products at study exit • No data on frequency of product use in the context of sex/RAI • If people dropped out because they did not like products, estimates of acceptability may be upwardly biased • Strengths: • Assessed acceptability as a multi-dimensional concept through use of a 11 item scale with likert responses • Evaluated acceptability of multiple anorectal products – allowed for a comparison across products • Study sample included RAI experienced males AND females • High retention rate = 89% • Next Steps: • Examine which statement or groups of statements predict adherence best

  21. Thank you, questions?

More Related