Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29758049›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2018

User evaluations offer promise for pod-intravaginal ring as a drug delivery platform: A mixed methods study of acceptability and use experiences.

Kate M Guthrie, Rochelle K Rosen, Sara E Vargas, Melissa L Getz, Lauren Dawson, Melissa Guillen, Jaime J Ramirez, Marc M Baum, Kathleen L Vincent

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kate M GuthrieThe Centers for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5528-1212
Rochelle K RosenThe Centers for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Sara E VargasThe Centers for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2934-4766
Melissa L GetzThe Centers for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Lauren DawsonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America.
Melissa GuillenThe Centers for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Jaime J RamirezThe Centers for Behavioral & Preventive Medicine, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island, United States of America.
Marc M BaumDepartment of Chemistry, Oak Crest Institute of Science, Monrovia, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1558-5649
Kathleen L VincentDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3051-9551

Funding

Systematic Development of Antiretroviral Intravaginal Rings for HIV PreventionU19AI113048 · NIAID · OAK CREST INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE · PI MALONE, AMANDA · 2014 to 2018
$18.4M
Clinical safety and pharmacokinetic studies of intravaginal rings releasing multiple antiretroviralsR44HD075636 · NICHD · AURITEC PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. · PI SMITH, THOMAS J. · 2015 to 2016
$1.3M
Advancing Reproductive Health: Qualitative Methods & Interdisciplinary MentorshipK24HD062645 · NICHD · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI GUTHRIE, KATE M · 2012 to 2016
$689k
NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI113048NICHD NIH HHS K24 HD062645NICHD NIH HHS R44 HD075636
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective HIV prevention requires efficient delivery of safe and efficacious drugs and optimization of user adherence. The user's experiences with the drug, delivery system, and use parameters are critical to product acceptability and adherence. Prevention product developers have the opportunity to directly control a drug delivery system and its impact on acceptability and adherence, as well as product efficacy. Involvement of potential users during preclinical design and development can facilitate this process. We embedded a mixed methods user evaluation study into a safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) trial of a pod-intravaginal ring delivering antiretroviral agents. METHODOLOGY: Women enrolled in two cohorts, ultimately evaluating the safety/PK of a pod-IVRs delivering TDF-alone, TDF-FTC, and/or TDF-FTC-MVC. A 7-day use period was targeted for each pod-IVR, regardless of drug or drug combination. During the clinical study, participants provided both quantitative (i.e., survey) and qualitative (i.e., in-depth interview) data capturing acceptability, perceptibility, and adherence behaviors. Initial sexual and reproductive health history surveys, daily diaries, a final acceptability and willingness to use survey, and a qualitative in-depth interview comprised the user evaluation data for each pod-IVR experienced by the participants.

findingsOverall, the majority of participants (N = 10) reported being willing to use the pod-IVR platform for HIV prevention should it advance to market. Confidence to use the pod-IVR (e.g., insertion, removal) was high. There were no differences noted in the user experience of the pod-IVR platform; that is, whether the ring delivered TDF-alone, TDF-FTC, or TDF-FTC-MVC, users' experiences of the ring were similar and acceptable. Participants did report specific experiences, both sensory and behavioral, that impacted their use behaviors with respect to the ring, and which could ultimately impact acceptability and adherence. These experiences, and user evaluations elicited by them, could both challenge use or be used to leverage use in future trials and product rollout once fully articulated.

conclusionsHigh willingness-to-use data and lack of salient differences in user experiences related to use of the pod-IVR platform (regardless of agents delivered) suggests that the pod-IVR is a feasible and acceptable drug delivery device in and of itself. This finding holds promise both for an anti-HIV pod-IVR and, potentially, a multipurpose prevention pod-IVR that could deliver both prevention for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) including HIV and contraception. Given the very early clinical trial context, further acceptability, perceptibility, and adherence data should continue to be explored, in the context of longer use periods (e.g., 28-day ring use), and in the contexts of sexual activity and menses. Using early design and development contexts to gain insights into potential challenges and facilitators of drug delivery systems such as the pod-IVR could save valuable resources and time as a potential biomedical technology moves through the clinical trial pipeline and into real-world use.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravaginalAdolescentAdultAnti-HIV AgentsExerciseFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMenstrual CycleMiddle AgedPatient CompliancePatient SatisfactionQualitative ResearchSexual BehaviorYoung AdultAnti-HIV Agents

Identifiers

PMID29758049
PMCPMC5951541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.