OBJECTIVES: Assessment of safety is an integral part of real-time monitoring in clinical trials. In HIV prevention research, safety of investigational products and trial participation has been expanded to include monitoring for 'social harms', generally defined as negative consequences of trial participation that may manifest in social, psychological, or physical ways. Further research on social harms within HIV prevention research is needed to understand the potential safety risks for women and advance the implementation of prevention methods in real-world contexts. METHODS: Secondary analysis of quantitative data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of microbicide candidates in sub-Saharan Africa was conducted. Additionally, we assessed data from two prospective cohort studies that included participants who became HIV-positive or pregnant during parent trials. RESULTS: Social harms reporting was low across the largest and most recent microbicide studies. Social harm incidence per 100 person-years ranged from 1.10 (95% CI 0.78-1.52) to 3.25 (95% CI 2.83-3.74) in the phased trials. Reporting differed by dosing mechanism (e.g. vaginal gel, oral tablet, ring) and study, most likely as a function of measurement differences. Social harms were most frequently associated with male partners, rather than, for example, experiences of stigma in the community. CONCLUSION: Measurement and screening for social harms is an important component of conducting ethical research of novel HIV prevention methods. To date, social harm incidence reported in microbicide trials has been relatively low (<4% per 100 person-years), and the majority have been partner-related events. However, any incidence of social harm within the context of HIV prevention is important to capture and understand for the safety of individuals, and for the successful impact of prevention methods in a real-world context.
OBJECTIVES: Assessment of safety is an integral part of real-time monitoring in clinical trials. In HIV prevention research, safety of investigational products and trial participation has been expanded to include monitoring for 'social harms', generally defined as negative consequences of trial participation that may manifest in social, psychological, or physical ways. Further research on social harms within HIV prevention research is needed to understand the potential safety risks for women and advance the implementation of prevention methods in real-world contexts. METHODS: Secondary analysis of quantitative data from three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of microbicide candidates in sub-Saharan Africa was conducted. Additionally, we assessed data from two prospective cohort studies that included participants who became HIV-positive or pregnant during parent trials. RESULTS: Social harms reporting was low across the largest and most recent microbicide studies. Social harm incidence per 100 person-years ranged from 1.10 (95% CI 0.78-1.52) to 3.25 (95% CI 2.83-3.74) in the phased trials. Reporting differed by dosing mechanism (e.g. vaginal gel, oral tablet, ring) and study, most likely as a function of measurement differences. Social harms were most frequently associated with male partners, rather than, for example, experiences of stigma in the community. CONCLUSION: Measurement and screening for social harms is an important component of conducting ethical research of novel HIV prevention methods. To date, social harm incidence reported in microbicide trials has been relatively low (<4% per 100 person-years), and the majority have been partner-related events. However, any incidence of social harm within the context of HIV prevention is important to capture and understand for the safety of individuals, and for the successful impact of prevention methods in a real-world context.
Authors: Lilia Blima Schraiber; Maria do Rosário Dias O Latorre; Ivan França; Neuber José Segri; Ana Flávia Pires Lucas D'Oliveira Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Ariane van der Straten; Elizabeth T Montgomery; Petina Musara; Juliane Etima; Sarita Naidoo; Nicole Laborde; Miriam Hartmann; Lisa Levy; Thola Bennie; Helen Cheng; Jeanna Piper; Cynthia I Grossman; Jeanne Marrazzo; Barbara Mensch Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Edith A M Tarimo; Patricia Munseri; Said Aboud; Muhammad Bakari; Fred Mhalu; Eric Sandstrom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Frances M Cowan; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Eduard J Sanders; Nelly R Mugo; Fernand A Guedou; Michel Alary; Luc Behanzin; Owen Mugurungi; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 5.396
Authors: Elizabeth T Montgomery; Sarah T Roberts; Krishnaveni Reddy; Elizabeth Tolley; Miriam Hartmann; Ellen Wilson; Florence Mathebula; L Danielle Wagner; Seth Zissette; Michele Lanham; Rose Wilcher; Jared M Baeten; Thesla Palanee-Phillips Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-09-21
Authors: J Hanass-Hancock; S Hoffman; S Bergam; A D Harrison; N Benghu; S Khumalo; N Tesfay; T Exner; L Miller; C Dolezal Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-02-26
Authors: Sarah Lawrence; Dave Namusanya; Sumaya B Mohamed; Andrew Hamuza; Cornelius Huwa; Dennis Chasweka; Maureen Kelley; Sassy Molyneux; Wieger Voskuijl; Donna Denno; Nicola Desmond Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Elzette Rousseau; Ariana W K Katz; Shannon O'Rourke; Linda-Gail Bekker; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Elizabeth Bukusi; Danielle Travill; Victor Omollo; Jennifer F Morton; Gabrielle O'Malley; Jessica E Haberer; Renee Heffron; Rachel Johnson; Connie Celum; Jared M Baeten; Ariane van der Straten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 3.752