AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 6, pp 2222–2236 | Cite as

An Evaluation of Methods to Improve the Reporting of Adherence in a Placebo Gel Trial in Andhra Pradesh, India

  • Sharon A. Abbott
  • Barbara A. Friedland
  • Avina Sarna
  • Lauren L. Katzen
  • Ulrike Rawiel
  • Aylur K. Srikrishnan
  • C. S. Shalini
  • Waimar Tun
  • Christine A. Kelly
  • Suniti Solomon
  • Barbara S. Mensch
Original Paper

Abstract

Female sex workers (FSWs) were recruited for a 4-month placebo vaginal gel trial in Nellore, India. Two experiments explored if prior knowledge of biomarkers for unprotected sex and insertion of gel applicators would yield more accurate self-reports. A third experiment compared self-reports of gel use and adherence levels between FSWs randomly assigned to interactive voice response survey (IVRS) and those assigned to paper diaries. Prior knowledge of biomarkers did not improve accuracy of self-reported condom or gel use, nor did it affect actual adherence. Of those who tested positive for the presence of semenogelin in the vagina, 76 % reported no unprotected sex in the previous 48 h. Overall, women reported using gel on 90 % of days whereas the biomarker indicated gel use on fewer than 50 % of days. Compliance to IVRS was low, despite familiarity with mobile phone technology. Additional explorations with other populations are needed.

Keywords

Female sex workers India Biomarkers Adherence Clinical Trials Microbicides Interactive voice response survey (IVRS) 

References

  1. 1.
    Heise L. Topical microbicides: new hope for STI/HIV prevention. Takoma Park, MD: Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE); 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elias CJ, Coggins C. Female-controlled methods to prevent sexual transmission to HIV. AIDS. 1996;10(Suppl 3):S43–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trussell J, Dominik R. Will microbicide trials yield unbiased estimates of microbicide efficacy? Contraception. 2005;72(6):408–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Masse B, Boily M-C, Dimitrov D, Desai K. Efficacy dilution in randomized placebo-controlled vaginal microbicide trials. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2009;6(1):5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gordis L. Conceptual and methodologic problems in measuring patient compliance. In: Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL, editors. Compliance in health care. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1979. p. 23–45.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farmer KC. Methods for measuring and monitoring medication regimen adherence in clinical trials and clinical practice. Clin Ther. 1999;21(6):1074–90; discussion 1073.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burkhart PV, Dunbar-Jacob JM, Rohay JM. Accuracy of children’s self-reported adherence to treatment. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33(1):27–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L. Further analysis of contraceptive failure of the ovulation method. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165(6 Part 2):2054–2059.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L. Contraceptive failure of the ovulation method of periodic abstinence. Fam Planning Perspect. 1990;22(2):65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peipert J, Redding CA, Blume J, Allsworth JE, Iannuccillo K, Lozowski F, et al. Design of a stage-matched intervention trial to increase dual method contraceptive use (Projedt PROTECT). Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(5):626–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Montgomery CM, Gafos M, Lees S, Morar NS, Mweemba O, Ssali A, et al. Re-framing microbicide acceptability: findings from the MDP301 trial. Cult Health Sex. 2010;12(6):649–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woodsong C, Alleman P. Sexual pleasure, gender power and microbicide acceptability in Zimbabwe and Malawi. AIDS Educ Prev. 2008;20(2):171–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tolley EE, Severy LJ. Integrating behavioral and social science research into microbicide clinical trials: challenges and opportunities. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(1):79–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wallace A, Thorn M, Maguire RA, Sudol KM, Phillips DM. Assay for establishing whether microbicide applicators have been exposed to the vagina. Sex Transm Dis. 2004;31(8):465–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallace AR, Teitelbaum A, Wan L, Mulima MG, Guichard L, Skiler S, et al. Determining the feasibility of utilizing the microbicide applicator compliance assay for use in clinical trials. Contraception. 2007;76:53–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mauck C. Biomarkers for evaluating vaginal microbicides and contraceptives: discovery and early validation. Sex Transm Dis. 2009;36(3 Suppl):S73–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van de Wijgert J, Jones H, Kilmarx PH. Vaginal microbicide adherence biomarkers should be validated. Lancet. 2009;373(9665):721; author reply 721–2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mehendale SM, Gupte N, Paranjape RS, Brahme RG, Kohli R, Joglekar N, et al. Declining HIV incidence among patients attending sexually transmited infection clinics in Pune, India. Epidemiol Soc Sci. 2007;45(5):564–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kumar R, Jha P, Arora P, Mony P, Bhatia P, Millson P, et al. Trends in HIV-1 in young adults in south India from 2000 to 2004: a prevalence study. Lancet. 2006;367:1164–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panchanadeswaran S, Johnson SC, Mayer KH, Srikrishnan AK, Sivaram S, Zelaya CE, et al. Gender differences in the prevalence of sexually transmitted infections and genital symptoms in an urban setting in southern India. Sex Transm Infect. 2006;82(6):491–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Minnis AM, Steiner MJ, Gallo MF, Warner L, Hobbs MM, van der Straten A, et al. Biomarker validation of reports of recent sexual activity: results of a randomized controlled study in Zimbabwe. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;170(7):918–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mauck CK, Doncel GF. Biomarkers of semen in the vagina: applications in clinical trials of contraception and prevention of sexually transmitted pathogens including HIV. Contraception. 2007;75(6):407–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ghanem KG, Melendez JH, McNeil-Solis C, Giles JA, Yuenger J, Smith TD, et al. Condom use and vaginal Y-chromosome detection: the specificity of a potential biomarker. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(8):620–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brotman RM, Melendez JH, Smith TD, Galai N, Zenilman JM. Effect of menses on clearance of Y-chromosome in vaginal fluid: implications for a biomarker of recent sexual activity. Sex Transm Dis. 2010;37(1):1–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aho J, Koushik A, Diakite SL, Loua KM, Nguyen VK, Rashed S. Biological validation of self-reported condom use among sex workers in Guinea. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1287–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Macaluso M, Lawson L, Akers R, Valappil T, Hammond K, Blackwell R, et al. Prostate-specific antigen in vaginal fluid as a biologic marker of condom failure. Contraception. 1999;59(3):195–201.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gallo MF. Self-reported condom use is associated with reduced risk of chlamydia, gonorrhea, and trichomoniasis. Sex Transm Dis. 2007;34(10):829–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lundwall A, Bjartell A, Olsson AY, Malm J. Semogelin I and II, the predominant human seminal plasma proteins, are also expressed in non-genital tissues. Mol Hum Reprod. 2002;8(9):805–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    MacQueen KM, Vanichseni S, Kitayaporn D, Lin LS, Buavirat A, Naiwatanakul T, et al. Willingness of infection drug users to participate in an HIV vaccine efficacy trial in Bangkok, Thailand. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1999;21:243–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mensch BS, Hewett PC, Abbott S, Rankin J, Littlefield S, Ahmed K, et al. Assessing the reporting of adherence and sexual activity in a simulated microbicide trial in South Africa: an interview mode experiment using a placebo gel. AIDS Behav. 2011;15(2):407–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomsen S, Gallo M, Ombidi W, Omungo Z, Janowitz B. Randomized controlled trial on whether advance knowledge of prostrate-specific antigen testing improves participant reporting of unprotected sex. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83(5):419–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Van Damme L, Wright A, Depraetere K, Rosenstein I, Vandersmissen V, Poulter L, et al. A phase I study of a novel potential intravaginal microbicide, PRO 2000, in healthy sexually inactive women. Sex Transm Infect. 2000;76:126–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lacey CJN, Wright A, Weber JN, Profy AT. Measurement of in vivo vaginal microbicide levels of PRO 2000 achieved in a human safety study. AIDS 2006; 20(7).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mauck C, Rosenberg Z, Van Damme L. Recommendations for the clinical development of topical microbicides: an update. AIDS. 2001;15(7):857–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Katzen LL, Fernández-Romero JA, Sarna A, Murugavel KG, Gawarecki D, Zydowsky TM, et al. Validation of a dye stain assay for vaginally inserted hydroxyethylcellulose-filled microbicide applicators. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38(11):1050–5. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31822e6160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Skoler-Karpoff S, Ramjee G, Ahmed K, Altini L, Plagianos MG, Friedland B, et al. Efficacy of carraguard for prevention of HIV infection in women in South Africa: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9654):1977–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Haberer J, Kiwanuka J, Nansera D, Wilson I, Bangsberg D. Challenges in using mobile phones for collection of antiretroviral therapy adherence data in a resource-limited setting. AIDS Behav. 2010;14(6):1294–301.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    De Costa A, Shet A, Kumarasam N, Ashorn P, Eriksson B, Bogg L, et al. Design of a randomized trial to evaluate the influence of mobile phone reminders on adherence to first line antiretroviral treatment in South India—the HIVIND study protocol. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010;10(25).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mbuagbaw L, Thabane L, Ongolo-Zogo P, Lang T. The challenges and opportunities of conducting a clinical trial in a low resource setting: the case of the Cameroon mobile phone SMS (CAMPS) trial, an investigator initiated trial. In: Trials; 2011.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rodrigues R, Antony ASJ, Sidney K, Arumugam K, Krishnamurthy S, D’Souza G, et al. Supporting adherence to antiretroviral therapy with mobile phone reminders: results from a cohort in South India. In: PLoS One; 2012.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Allen CF, Lees SS, Desmond NA, Der G, Chiduo B, Hambleton I, et al. Validity of coital diaries in a feasibility study for the microbicides development programme trial among women at high risk of HIV/AIDS in Mwanza. Tanzania. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83:490–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ferguson AG, Morris CN, Kariuki CW. Using diaries to measure parameters of transactional sex: An example from the Trans-Africa highway in Kenya. Cult Health Sex. 2006;8(2):175–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ramjee G, Weber AE, Morar NS. Recording sexual behavior: comparison of recall questionnaires with a coital diary. Sex Transm Dis. 1999;26(7):374–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    McLaws M, Oldenburg B, Ross M, Cooper D. Sexual behaviour in AIDS-related research: reliability and validity of recall and diary measures. J Sex Res. 1990;27(2):265–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Miller L, Hays R. Measuring adherence to antiretroviral medications in clinical trials. HIV Clin Trials. 2000;1(1):36–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hays MA, Irsula B, McMullen SL, Feldblum PJ. A comparison of three daily coital diary designs and a phone-in regimen. Contraception 2001;63(3):159-166(8).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Weiler K, Christ A, Woodworth G, Weiler R, Weiler J. Quality of patient-reported outcome data captured using paper and interactive voice response diaries in an allergic rhinitis study: is electronic data capture really better? Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2004;92(3):335–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Corkrey R, Parkinson L. Interactive voice response: review of studies 1989–2000. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2002;34(3):342–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Searles JS, Perrine MW, Mundt JC, Helzer JE. Self-report of drinking using touch-tone telephone: extending the limits of reliable daily contact. J Stud Alcohol. 1995;56(4):375–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Piette JD. Interactive voice response systems in the diagnosis and management of chronic disease. Am J Manag Care. 2000;6(7):817–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Schroder K, Johnson C. Interactive voice response technology to measure HIV-related behavior. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2009;6(4):210–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Mensch BS, Friedland BA, Abbott SA, Katzen LL, Tun W, Kelly CA, et al. Characteristics of female sex workers in southern India willing and unwilling to participate in a placebo gel trial. AIDS Behav. 2012. doi:10.1007/s10461-012-0259-1.
  54. 54.
    Tun W, Katzen L, Abbott S, Srikrishnan AK, Kelly C, Sarna A, et al. Using a 2-stage strategy with respondent-driven sampling to recruit a hard-to-reach population for a placebo microbicide gel clinical trial in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh (India). (Submitted 2011).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Herold B. Personal communication. 2012.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Sarna AS, Friedland BA, Srikrishnan AK, Katzen LL, Tun W, Abbott SA, et al. Sexually transmitted infections and reproductive health morbidity among a cohort of female sex workers screened for a microbicide feasibility study in Nellore, India In preparation. 2012.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Tien D, Schnaare RL, Kang F, Cohil G, McCormick TJ, Moench TR, et al. In vitro and in vivo characterization of a potential universal placebo designed for use in vaginal microbicide clinical trials. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2005;21(10):845–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schwartz JL, Mauck C, Lai JJ, Creinin MD, Brache V, Ballagh SA, et al. Fourteen-day safety and acceptability study of 6% cellulose sulfate gel: a randomized double-blind phase I safety study. Contraception. 2006;74(2):133–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, Grobler AC, Baxter C, Mansoor LE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science 2010;329(5996):1168–74.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Abdool Karim SS, Richardson BA, Ramjee G, Hoffman IF, Chirenje ZM, Taha T, et al. Safety and effectiveness of BufferGel and 0.5% PRO2000 gel for the prevention of HIV infection in women. AIDS. 2011.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    McCormack S, Ramjee G, Kamali A, Rees H, Crook AM, Gafos M, et al. PRO2000 vaginal gel for prevention of HIV-1 infection (microbicides development programme 301): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9749):1329–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Van Damme L, Govinden R, Mirembe FM, Guedou F, Solomon S, Becker ML, et al. Lack of effectiveness of cellulose sulfate gel for the prevention of vaginal HIV transmission. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(5):463–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Coetzee N, Blanchard K, Ellertson C, Hoosen AA, Friedland B. Acceptability and feasibility of Micralax applicators and of methyl cellulose gel placebo for large-scale clinical trials of vaginal microbicides. AIDS. 2001;15(14):1837–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Nunn A, McCormack S, Crook A, Pool R, Rutterford C, Hayes R. Microbicides development programme: design of a phase III trial to measure the efficacy of the vaginal microbicide PRO 2000/5 for HIV prevention. Trials 2009;10(99).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gallo M, Behets F, Steiner M, Hobbs M, Hoke T, Van Damme K, et al. Prostate-specific antigen to ascertain reliability of self-reported coital exposure to semen. Sex Transm Dis. 2006;33(8):476–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Mensch BS. The validity of self-reported data on unprotected sex: practical challenges to successful RCT execution: population selection, condom use, reliability of self-reported data. Washington, DC: Hormonal Contraception-HIV Acquisition Risk Meeting; 2011.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kelly CA, Hewett PC, Mensch BS, Nsobya S, Kalibala S, Nyegenye W, et al. Assessing the validity of sexual behaviour reporting among young women in Kampala, Uganda: evidence from a randomized interview mode experiment with biological data. (Submitted 2012).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Thomsen SC, Gallo MF, Ombidi W, Omungo Z, Janowitz B, Hawken M, et al. Randomised controlled trial on whether advance knowledge of prostate-specific antigen testing improves participant reporting of unprotected sex. Sex Transm Infect. 2007;83:419–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lauritsen K. Symptom recording in a randomised clinical trial: paper diaries vs. electronic or telephone data capture. Control Clin Trials. 2004;25(6):585–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Stone AA, Shiffman S, Schwartz JE, Broderick JE, Hufford MR. Patient compliance with paper and electronic diaries. Control Clin Trials. 2003;24(2):182–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q. 1996;60(2):275–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Collection sensitive information with different modes of data collection. In: Couper MPl, Reginal P. Baker, Jelke Bethlehem, Cynthia Z.F. Clark, Jean Martin, William L. Nicholls II, James M. O’Reilly, editor. Computer assisted survey information collection. New York: Wiley; 1998. p. 431–453.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Austin MN, Rabe LK, Hillier SL. Limitations of the dye-based method for determining vaginal applicator use in microbicide trials. Sex Transm Dis. 2009;36(6):368–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mauck CK, Schwartz JL. Dyeing to know: the use of vaginal applicator staining and other techniques to assess adherence to product use in microbicide trials. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(9):713–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sharon A. Abbott
    • 1
    • 5
  • Barbara A. Friedland
    • 1
  • Avina Sarna
    • 2
  • Lauren L. Katzen
    • 1
  • Ulrike Rawiel
    • 1
  • Aylur K. Srikrishnan
    • 3
  • C. S. Shalini
    • 3
  • Waimar Tun
    • 4
  • Christine A. Kelly
    • 1
  • Suniti Solomon
    • 3
  • Barbara S. Mensch
    • 1
  1. 1.Population CouncilNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Population CouncilNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.YRG CareChennaiIndia
  4. 4.Population CouncilWashingtonUSA
  5. 5.BrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations