Challenges with participant reimbursement: experiences from a post-trial access study.

Reimbursement of trial participants remains a frequently debated issue, with specific guidance lacking. Trials combining post-trial access and implementation science may necessitate new strategies and models. CAPRISA 008, a post-trial access study testing the feasibility of using family planning services to rollout a prelicensure HIV prevention intervention, tried to balance the real-life scenario of no reimbursement for attendance at public sector clinics with that of a trial including some visits that focused on research procedures and others that focused on standard of care procedures. A reduced reimbursement was offered for 'standard of care' visits, meant primarily to cover transport costs to and from the clinic only. This impacted negatively on accrual, retention and participant morale, primarily due to the protracted delay in regulatory approval, during which time, the costs of living, including travel costs had increased. Relevant guidelines were reviewed and institutional policy was updated to incorporate the South African National Health Research Ethics Committee guidelines on reimbursement (taking into account participant time, travel and inconvenience). The reimbursement amount for 'standard of care' visits was increased accordingly. The question remains whether a trial that combines post-trial access with implementation science, with clear benefits for the participants and the provision of above standard medical care, should have reimbursement rates that approach those of a proof-of-concept trial, for 'standard of care' visits.

The preventive misconception: experiences from CAPRISA 004.

Overestimating personal protection afforded by participation in a preventive trial, e.g. harboring a "preventive misconception" (PM), raises theoretical ethical concerns about the adequacy of the informed consent process, behavioral disinhibition, and adherence to prevention interventions. Data from the CAPRISA 004 1 % tenofovir gel trial were utilized to empirically evaluate these concerns. We found it necessary to re-think the current definition of PM during evaluation to distinguish between true misconception and reasonable inferences of protection based on increased access to evidence-based prevention interventions and/or clinical care. There was a significant association between PM and decreased condom use (p < 0.0001) and between PM and likelihood to present with an STI symptom (p = 0.023). There was, however, limited evidence in support of PM representing a lack of meaningful informed consent, or to suggest that it impacts adherence. Moreover, considering current insufficiencies in female-initiated HIV prevention interventions, PM is perhaps of limited concern in microbicide trials.

Co-enrollment in multiple HIV prevention trials - experiences from the CAPRISA 004 Tenofovir gel trial.

BACKGROUND: In settings where multiple HIV prevention trials are conducted in close proximity, trial participants may attempt to enroll in more than one trial simultaneously. Co-enrollment impacts on participant's safety and validity of trial results. We describe our experience, remedial action taken, inter-organizational collaboration and lessons learnt following the identification of co-enrolled participants. EXPERIENCES: Between February and April 2008, we identified 185 of the 398 enrolled participants as ineligible. In violation of the study protocol exclusion criteria, there was simultaneous enrollment in another HIV prevention trial (ineligible co-enrolled, n=135), and enrollment of women who had participated in a microbicide trial within the past 12 months (ineligible not co-enrolled, n=50). Following a complete audit of all enrolled participants, ineligible participants were discontinued via study exit visits from trial follow-up. Custom-designed education program on co-enrollment impacting on participants' safety and validity of the trial results was implemented. Shared electronic database between research units was established to enable verification of each volunteer's trial participation and to prevent future co-enrollments. LESSONS LEARNT: Interviews with ineligible enrolled women revealed that high-quality care, financial incentives, altruistic motives, preference for sex with gel, wanting to increase their likelihood of receiving active gel, perceived low risk of discovery and peer pressure are the reasons for their enrollment in the CAPRISA 004 trial. CONCLUSION: Instituting education programs based on the reasons reported by women for seeking enrollment in more than one trial and using a shared central database system to identify co-enrollments have effectively prevented further co-enrollments.