MedElevator
Войти в исследования Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2025
Perspectives of People With HIV on Implementing Long-acting Cabotegravir Plus Rilpivirine in Clinics and Community Settings in the United Kingdom: Results From the Antisexist, Antiracist, Antiageist Implementing Long-acting Novel Antiretrovirals Study.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Orkin Chloe, Hayes Rosalie, Haviland Joanne, Wong Yuk Lam, Ring Kyle, Apea Vanessa, Kasadha Bakita, Clarke Emily, Byrne Ruth, Fox Julie, Barber Tristan J, Clarke Amanda, Paparini Sara
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The equity-focused Implementing Long-Acting Novel Antiretrovirals study evaluated feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness of delivering on-label 2-monthly cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB + RPV) injections for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 therapy in clinics and community settings.
METHODS: The study, which mandated inclusive recruitment, was conducted May-December 2022 at 6 UK sites. Injections were delivered in clinic (month [M] 1-6) and in clinic or community setting according to patient choice (M6-12). Surveys were completed at baseline, M4, and M12 using validated measures for feasibility (FIM), acceptability (AIM), and appropriateness (IAM). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants agreeing that the injection and community setting were feasible (FIM ≥4) at M12. Fourteen participants completed interviews at baseline and M12.
RESULTS: Community settings offered by sites included: home visits (n = 3), HIV support organizations (n = 2), and community clinic (n = 1). Of 114 participants, 54% were female, 70% racially minoritized, and 40% aged ≥50 years. A total of 27/114 chose to receive injections in community settings. FIM/AIM/IAM scores at M12 were high for the injection (79.0-87.4%) and lower for the community setting (44.2-47.4%) overall. Subgroup analyses indicated differences in scores by gender and ethnicity. Among those who attended the community, FIM/AIM/IAM scores for the community setting at M12 were high (73.1-80.8%). Concerns about stigma, inconvenience, and losing access to trusted clinicians negatively influenced perceptions of receiving injections at community settings, amongst other factors.
CONCLUSIONS: CAB + RPV injections were considered highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; however, few chose community delivery. Those that chose community delivery found it highly acceptable and feasible. Further exploration of CAB + RPV delivery in alternative community sites not offered (eg, primary care, pharmacies) is warranted.
CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT05294159.
METHODS: The study, which mandated inclusive recruitment, was conducted May-December 2022 at 6 UK sites. Injections were delivered in clinic (month [M] 1-6) and in clinic or community setting according to patient choice (M6-12). Surveys were completed at baseline, M4, and M12 using validated measures for feasibility (FIM), acceptability (AIM), and appropriateness (IAM). Primary endpoint: proportion of participants agreeing that the injection and community setting were feasible (FIM ≥4) at M12. Fourteen participants completed interviews at baseline and M12.
RESULTS: Community settings offered by sites included: home visits (n = 3), HIV support organizations (n = 2), and community clinic (n = 1). Of 114 participants, 54% were female, 70% racially minoritized, and 40% aged ≥50 years. A total of 27/114 chose to receive injections in community settings. FIM/AIM/IAM scores at M12 were high for the injection (79.0-87.4%) and lower for the community setting (44.2-47.4%) overall. Subgroup analyses indicated differences in scores by gender and ethnicity. Among those who attended the community, FIM/AIM/IAM scores for the community setting at M12 were high (73.1-80.8%). Concerns about stigma, inconvenience, and losing access to trusted clinicians negatively influenced perceptions of receiving injections at community settings, amongst other factors.
CONCLUSIONS: CAB + RPV injections were considered highly feasible, acceptable, and appropriate; however, few chose community delivery. Those that chose community delivery found it highly acceptable and feasible. Further exploration of CAB + RPV delivery in alternative community sites not offered (eg, primary care, pharmacies) is warranted.
CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT05294159.