Search

Introduction Women-controlled HIV prevention technologies that overcome adherence challenges of available daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis and give women a choice of options are urgently needed. Broadly neutralising monoclonal antibodies (bnAbs) administered passively may offer a valuable non-antiretroviral biological intervention for HIV prevention. Animal and human studies have demonstrated that bnAbs which neutralise HIV can prevent infection. The optimal plasma antibody concentrations to confer protection against HIV infection in humans is under intense study. The Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) 012C trial will evaluate extended safety and pharmacokinetics of CAP256V2LS and VRC07-523LS among young HIV-negative South African and Zambian women. The study design also allows for an evaluation of a signal of HIV prevention efficacy.Methods and analysis CAPRISA 012 is a series of trials with three distinct protocols. The completed CAPRISA 012A and 012B phase 1 trials provided critical data for the CAPRISA 012C trial, which is divided into parts A and B. In part A, 90 participants were randomised to receive both CAP256V2LS and VRC07-523LS at 20 mg/kg or placebo, subcutaneously every 16 or 24 weeks. Part B will enrol 900 participants in South Africa and Zambia who will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio and receive an initial loading dose of 1.2 g of CAP256V2LS and VRC07-523LS or placebo followed by 600 mg of CAP256V2LS and 1.2 g of VRC07-523LS or placebo subcutaneously every 6 months. Safety will be assessed by frequency and severity of reactogenicity and other related adverse events. Pharmacokinetics of both antibodies will be measured in systemic and mucosal compartments over time, while participants will be monitored for breakthrough HIV infections.Ethics and dissemination of study findings The University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee and South African Health Products Regulatory Authority have approved the trial (BREC/00002492/2021, SAHPRA20210317). Results will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and the clinical trial registry.Trial registration number PACTR202112683307570.

Objectives To compare unannounced standardised patient approach (eg, mystery clients) with typical exit interviews for assessing patient experiences in HIV care (eg, unfriendly providers, long waiting times). We hypothesise standardised patients would report more negative experiences than typical exit interviews affected by social desirability bias.Setting Cross-sectional surveys in 16 government-operated HIV primary care clinics in Lusaka, Zambia providing antiretroviral therapy (ART).Participants 3526 participants aged ≥18 years receiving ART participated in the exit surveys between August 2019 and November 2021.Intervention Systematic sample (every nth file) of patients in clinic waiting area willing to be trained received pre-visit training and post-visit interviews. Providers were unaware of trained patients.Outcome measures We compared patient experience among patients who received brief training prior to their care visit (explaining each patient experience construct in the exit survey, being anonymous, without manipulating behaviour) with those who did not undergo training on the survey prior to their visit.Results Among 3526 participants who participated in exit surveys, 2415 were untrained (56% female, median age 40 (IQR: 32–47)) and 1111 were trained (50% female, median age 37 (IQR: 31–45)). Compared with untrained, trained patients were more likely to report a negative care experience overall (adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) for aggregate sum score: 1.64 (95% CI: 1.39 to 1.94)), with a greater proportion reporting feeling unwelcome by providers (aPR: 1.71 (95% CI: 1.20 to 2.44)) and witnessing providers behaving rude (aPR: 2.28 (95% CI: 1.63 to 3.19)).Conclusion Trained patients were more likely to identify suboptimal care. They may have understood the items solicited better or felt empowered to be more critical. We trained existing patients, unlike studies that use ‘standardised patients’ drawn from outside the patient population. This low-cost strategy could improve patient-centred service delivery elsewhere.Trial registration number Assessment was nested within a parent study; www.pactr.org registered the parent study (PACTR202101847907585).