Advertisement

AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 877–886 | Cite as

How Presentation of Drug Detection Results Changed Reports of Product Adherence in South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe

  • Petina MusaraEmail author
  • Elizabeth T. Montgomery
  • Nyaradzo M. Mgodi
  • Kubashni Woeber
  • Carolyne A. Akello
  • Miriam Hartmann
  • Helen Cheng
  • Lisa Levy
  • Ariana Katz
  • Cynthia I. Grossman
  • Z. Mike Chirenje
  • Ariane van der Straten
  • Barbara Mensch
  • On behalf of the Microbicide Trials Network-003D Study Team
Original Paper

Abstract

Accurate estimates of study product use are critical to understanding and addressing adherence challenges in HIV prevention trials. The VOICE trial exposed a significant gap between self-reported adherence and drug detection. The VOICE-D qualitative study was designed to better understand non-adherence during VOICE, and was conducted in 2 stages: before (stage 1) and after (stage 2) drug detection results were provided to participants. Transcripts from 44 women who participated in both stages were analysed to understand the effect of presenting drug detection data on narratives of product use. Thirty-six women reported high adherence in stage 1, yet admitted non-use in stage 2, three reported high adherence in both stages (contrary to their drug detection results) and five had consistent responses across both stages and drug results. Presenting objective measures of use may facilitate more accurate product use reporting and should be evaluated in future prevention trials.

Keywords

Drug detection results Adherence measures Pre-exposure prophylaxis Microbicides HIV prevention 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants of this study for their dedication, the MTN Leadership and Kailazarid Gomez-Feliciano for their contribution to the development, implementation and analysis of this study, and Amy J. Markowitz and Joelle Brown for mentoring. The full MTN003-D study team can be viewed at http://www.mtnstopshiv.org/studies/4493. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

The study was designed and implemented by the Microbicide Trials Network (MTN) of the Division of AIDS (DAIDS) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), an institute of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). The Microbicide Trials Network is funded by NIAID Grants (UM1AI068633, UM1AI068615, UM1AI106707), with co-funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health, all components of the U.S. NIH.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Research Triangle Institute International and at each of the study sites. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants enrolled in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    JC2746_en.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2016 Feb 8]. http://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2746_en.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Marrazzo JM, Ramjee G, Richardson BA, Gomez K, Mgodi N, Nair G, et al. Tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(6):509–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, Smith DK, Rose CE, Segolodi TM, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):423–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, Mugo NR, Campbell JD, Wangisi J, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):399–410.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Damme L, Corneli A, Ahmed K, Agot K, Lombaard J, Kapiga S, et al. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV infection among African women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(5):411–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Minnis AM, Gandham S, Richardson BA, Guddera V, Chen BA, Salata R, et al. Adherence and acceptability in MTN 001: a randomized cross-over trial of daily oral and topical tenofovir for HIV prevention in women. AIDS Behav. 2013;17(2):737–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Straten A, Brown ER, Marrazzo JM, et al. Divergent adherence estimates with pharmacokinetic and behavioural measures in the MTN-003 (VOICE) study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2016;19(1):20642.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, McMahan V, Liu AY, Vargas L, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2587–99.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Straten A, Montgomery ET, Musara P, Etima J, Naidoo S, Laborde N, et al. Disclosure of pharmacokinetic drug results to understand nonadherence. AIDS Lond Engl. 2015;29(16):2161–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duby Z, Hartmann M, Montgomery ET, Colvin CJ, Mensch B, van der Straten A. Condoms, lubricants and rectal cleansing: practices associated with heterosexual penile-anal intercourse amongst participants in an HIV prevention Trial in South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:754.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    PLoS ONE: Women’s Experiences with Oral and Vaginal Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis: The VOICE-C Qualitative Study in Johannesburg, South Africa [Internet]. [cited 2016 Feb 9]. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089118.
  13. 13.
    Agot K, Taylor D, Corneli AL, Wang M, Ambia J, Kashuba ADM, et al. Accuracy of self-report and pill-count measures of adherence in the FEM-PrEP clinical trial: implications for future HIV-prevention trials. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(5):743–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mensch BS, Brown ER, Liu K, Marrazzo J, Chirenje ZM, Gomez K, et al. Reporting of adherence in the VOICE trial: did disclosure of Product nonuse increase at the termination visit? AIDS Behav. 2016;23:1–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montgomery ET, Mensch B, Musara P, Hartmann M, Woeber K, Etima J, et al. Misreporting of product adherence in the MTN-003/VOICE trial for HIV prevention in Africa: Participants’ explanations for dishonesty. AIDS Behav. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1609-1.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corneli AL, McKenna K, Perry B, Ahmed K, Agot K, Malamatsho F, et al. The science of being a study participant: FEM-PrEP participants’ explanations for overreporting adherence to the study pills and for the whereabouts of unused pills. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;68(5):578–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montgomery ET, van der Straten A, Stadler J, Hartmann M, Magazi B, Mathebula F, et al. Male partner influence on women’s HIV prevention trial participation and use of pre-exposure prophylaxis: the importance of “Understanding”. AIDS Behav. 2015;19(5):784–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koester KA, Liu A, Eden C, Amico KR, McMahan V, Goicochea P, et al. Acceptability of drug detection monitoring among participants in an open-label pre-exposure prophylaxis study. AIDS Care. 2015;27(10):1199–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hendrix CW, Chen BA, Guddera V, Hoesley C, Justman J, Nakabiito C, et al. MTN-001: randomised pharmacokinetic cross-over study comparing tenofovir vaginal gel and oral tablets in vaginal tissue and other compartments. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e55013.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karim QA, Baxter C, Karim SA. Microbicides and their potential as a catalyst for multipurpose sexual and reproductive health technologies. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121(Suppl 5):53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Petina Musara
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth T. Montgomery
    • 3
  • Nyaradzo M. Mgodi
    • 1
  • Kubashni Woeber
    • 2
  • Carolyne A. Akello
    • 6
  • Miriam Hartmann
    • 3
  • Helen Cheng
    • 3
  • Lisa Levy
    • 4
  • Ariana Katz
    • 3
  • Cynthia I. Grossman
    • 5
  • Z. Mike Chirenje
    • 1
  • Ariane van der Straten
    • 3
    • 7
  • Barbara Mensch
    • 8
  • On behalf of the Microbicide Trials Network-003D Study Team
  1. 1.University of Zimbabwe-University of California San Francisco Collaborative Research ProgrammeHarareZimbabwe
  2. 2.HIV Prevention Research UnitSouth African Medical Research CouncilCape TownSouth Africa
  3. 3.Women’s Global Health Imperative; RTI InternationalSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.FHI-360DurhamUSA
  5. 5.DAIDS/NIH/NIMHBethesdaUSA
  6. 6.Makerere University-Johns Hopkins University Research CollaborationKampalaUganda
  7. 7.Center for AIDS Prevention StudiesUCSFSan FranciscoUSA
  8. 8.Population CouncilNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations