Are US Populations Appropriate for Trials of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Vaccine?

The HIVNET Vaccine Preparedness Study

George R. Seage III1,2, Sarah E. Holte3,4, David Metzger5,6, Beryl A. Koblin7, Michael Gross1,8, Connie Celum9, Michael Marmor10, George Woody5,6, Kenneth H. Mayer11, Cladd Stevens7, Franklyn N. Judson12, David McKirnan13, Amy Sheon14, Steven Self3,4 and Susan P. Buchbinder15

1 Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, MA.
2 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
3 Statistical Center for HIV/AIDS Research and Prevention (SCHARP), Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
4 Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
5 University of Pennsylvania/VA Center for Studies of Addiction, Philadelphia, PA.
6 Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA.
7 Laboratory of Epidemiology, New York Blood Center, New York, NY.
8 Division of AIDS, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD.
9 University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
10 Departments of Environmental Medicine and Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY.
11 Research Department, Fenway Community Health Center, Boston, MA, and Brown University, Providence, RI.
12 Denver Department of Public Health, Denver, CO.
13 Department of Psychology, University of Illinois and Howard Brown Health Center, Chicago, IL.
14 University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
15 AIDS Office, San Francisco Department of Public Health, San Francisco, CA.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Questions exist about whether testing of preventive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 vaccines, which will require rapid recruitment and retention of cohorts with high HIV-1 seroincidence, is feasible in the United States. A prospective cohort study was conducted in 1995–1997 among 4,892 persons at high risk for HIV infection in nine US cities. At 18 months, with an 88% retention rate, 90 incident HIV-1 infections were observed (1.31/100 person-years (PY), 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06, 1.61). HIV-1 seroincidence rates varied significantly by baseline eligibility criteria—1.55/100 PY among men who had sex with men, 0.38/100 PY among male intravenous drug users, 1.24/100 PY among female intravenous drug users, and 1.13/100 PY among women at heterosexual risk—and by enrollment site, from 0.48/100 PY to 2.18/100 PY. HIV-1 incidence was highest among those men who had sex with men who reported unprotected anal intercourse (2.01/100 PY, 95% CI: 1.54, 2.63), participants who were definitely willing to enroll in an HIV vaccine trial (1.96/100 PY, 95% CI: 1.41, 2.73), and women who used crack cocaine (1.62/100 PY, 95% CI: 0.92, 2.85). Therefore, cohorts with HIV-1 seroincidence rates appropriate for HIV-1 vaccine trials can be recruited, enrolled, and retained.

cohort studies; HIV infections; incidence; vaccination; vaccines

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; HIVNET, HIV Network for Prevention Trials; IDU, injection drug use(r); MSM, men who had sex with men; PY, person-years.


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Efficacy testing of candidate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccines must address the biologic requirements of vaccine candidates, which include the variable routes of HIV-1 transmission (1GoGoGoGoGoGo–7Go), and feasibility concerns. Feasibility concerns involve identifying populations with high HIV seroincidence, recruiting and retaining participants, obtaining informed consent, and addressing potential social harms (8GoGoGoGoGoGoGo–15Go). Indeed, feasibility concerns were cited as one component of the June 1994 decision by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases not to move ahead with a phase III efficacy trial of gp120 candidates (16GoGoGo–19Go).

One of the most important elements of a successful HIV prevention trial is the identification of populations with high HIV seroincidence. For a definitive phase III HIV-1 vaccine trial, with 95 percent power to evaluate a 60 percent effective vaccine, as many as 3,000 persons per study arm would be needed in a population with a 2 percent annualized seroincidence (20Go). In the United States, on the basis of both reported data and projections, Holmberg estimated a wide range of HIV seroincidence, 0.1–4.9/100 person-years (PY), which varied by population and location (21Go). Other longitudinal cohort studies have reported an HIV seroincidence ranging from 0.12 to 10.7/100 PY (22GoGoGoGoGoGo–28Go). These reported seroincidence rates have varied by population and geography as well as over time. Thus, optimization of eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies may lead to cohorts with high HIV seroincidence that are of sufficient size for HIV vaccine efficacy trials. Of particular importance is whether populations with high HIV seroincidence are willing to join intervention trials and can be followed for the time necessary to complete the trial. In 1996, Buchbinder et al. found that gay/bisexual men reporting the greatest interest in enrolling in HIV vaccine trials also had a high seroincidence rate (3.7/100 PY) (27Go). However, many of the populations at highest risk have proven difficult to retain; in the US literature reviewed, retention has been as low as 36 percent at 1 year (28Go).

A number of US initiatives have sought to identify and recruit populations at high risk of HIV to assess the feasibility of implementing preventive vaccine trials (29GoGo–31Go). While these initiatives were successful, previous recruitment efforts did not include women at risk from heterosexual contact. Protocols and risk assessment instruments varied across populations, making cross-group comparisons problematic. Moreover, earlier studies were conducted prior to the widespread use of needle exchange programs or highly active antiretroviral therapy, two factors that might influence infection rates among high-risk, uninfected cohorts. Rapid recruitment of very large cohorts at high risk for HIV using the same protocol across different study sites, settings, and populations is critical to the success of randomized clinical trials of HIV vaccine efficacy. It is important to determine whether HIV seroincidence declines significantly over time in high-risk cohorts followed under conditions comparable to those of a vaccine trial, including the provision of risk-reduction counseling. This issue was assessed by the Vaccine Preparedness Study of the HIV Network for Prevention Trials (HIVNET), a prospective cohort study of 4,892 persons at high risk of HIV infection recruited from nine cities in the United States.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Populations
In October 1994, 15 study sites in the following nine cities were established: Boston, Massachusetts, with subsites in Pawtucket and Providence, Rhode Island; Chicago, Illinois (with two subsites); Denver, Colorado; New York City, New York (with two primary and three subsites); Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; and Seattle, Washington. A common protocol as well as parallel risk assessment instruments were developed for men and women. All sites obtained institutional review board approval, developed a community advisory board, and began enrollment in April 1995.

To enroll a cohort with high HIV incidence willing to disclose HIV risk behaviors, we established the following eligibility criteria: 1) men who had sex with men (MSM) (receptive or insertive anal intercourse) during the previous year; 2) injection drug users (IDUs) who used drugs intravenously or intramuscularly at least once in the previous 6 months; and 3) women at high risk through heterosexual contact. Because of limited HIV seroincidence data evaluating risk factors for heterosexual transmission among women, the following broad entry criteria were used to enroll women: 1) had a current male sex partner who was infected with HIV; had sex with other men; was diagnosed with gonorrhea, syphilis, or chlamydia in the last year; and/or injected drugs in the last 5 years; 2) had five or more sexual partners in the past year; 3) was diagnosed with either syphilis, gonorrhea, pelvic inflammatory disease, Trichomonas, or chancroid and/or had a first episode of genital herpes in the last year; 4) exchanged sex for money or drugs in the last year; or 5) used crack cocaine in the last year. All eligible participants had to be aged 18 years or older, be HIV seronegative according to licensed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and provide informed consent.

Recruitment
Eight of the sites had cohorts that had participated in either MSM (Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York Blood Center, San Francisco) or IDU (New York University, Philadelphia) HIV seroincidence studies (22Go, 24Go, 25Go, 27GoGoGoGoGoGo–33Go). However, none had enrolled women exclusively at heterosexual risk. Recruitment strategies for new participants included targeting sexually transmitted disease clinics, advertising, conducting targeted outreach on street corners and in gay bars and clubs, and obtaining subjects through participant referral. After providing informed consent, persons were screened for eligibility by using a brief, confidential questionnaire. Those eligible were interviewed by a trained interviewer who used a detailed, standardized questionnaire to inquire about sociodemographic characteristics, alcohol and drug use, and HIV-1 sexual and injection-related risk behaviors. In addition, participants were given a brief description of a hypothetical vaccine efficacy trial and were asked to indicate, using a four-point Likert scale ranging from "definitely" to "definitely not" willing to participate (34Go), how willing they would be to enroll.

Potential participants then underwent HIV-1 antibody counseling and testing. Those whose specimens were repeatedly reactive to HIV-1 enzyme immunoassay, confirmed by positive Western blot, were counseled and were referred for appropriate care. HIV-1 seronegative participants were requested to return every 6 months over an 18-month study period for repeat HIV-1 antibody counseling, testing, and follow-up interviews.

Analysis
Loss to follow-up was defined as the proportion of eligible study participants for whom we were not able to obtain a study endpoint. To evaluate factors associated with loss to follow-up, crude odds ratios and their 95 percent confidence intervals were estimated by using chi-square analysis for enrollment site, gender, eligibility criteria, stability of housing in the 6 months prior to enrollment, frequency of moving in the past 6 months, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and age. To control for confounding, a logistic regression model was developed that included all of these variables.

A parametric survival regression model was used to calculate stratified HIV-1 seroincidence rates and 95 percent confidence intervals (35Go). Person-years of follow-up were calculated by summing the years in the study defined as time from enrollment to date of last completed Vaccine Preparedness Study visit across participants. For seroconverters, the midpoint between the last known HIV seronegative visit and the date of the seroconversion visit was used to estimate the date of seroconversion. HIV-1 seroincidence rates were calculated stratified by baseline demographic and behavioral variables and by specific behavioral data obtained at the initial interview to assist in identifying new eligibility criteria for future HIV vaccine trials. Standardized mortality rates were calculated by using the initial eligibility criteria adjusted for age and gender to the 1996 US population (36Go).


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
A total of 4,892 HIV-1 seronegative participants were recruited at the 15 sites in nine US cities over a 7-month period (April–November 1995): 3,257 MSM, 770 male IDUs, 511 women at heterosexual risk, and 354 female IDUs. Almost all female IDUs (87 percent) also met the eligibility criteria for women at heterosexual risk. The majority of participants were new recruits (n = 2,915, 59.6 percent); 21.3 percent were recruited by friends/acquaintances (snowball), 18.4 percent by site staff, 7.4 percent by flyers or posters, and 6.8 percent from advertisements; 1.6 percent were referred by agencies; and 4.1 percent were recruited from other sources. The remainder (n = 1,977, 40.4 percent) were "rollover" participants from previous observational studies.

Lost to follow-up were 6, 11, and 12 percent (cumulative) of the participants at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. Significant differences in loss were observed by study site, gender, frequency of moving before enrollment, unstable housing, educational attainment, race/ethnicity, and age (table 1). In multivariate analysis, gender, enrollment criteria, study site, frequency of moving, age, education, race/ethnicity, and unstable housing remained significantly associated with loss to follow-up.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Overall 18-month loss to follow-up, by site and factors associated with retention, of persons enrolled in the HIVNET* Vaccine Preparedness Study, United States, 1995–1997

 
Table 2 shows the number of seroconverters, PY of follow-up, and HIV-1 seroincidence rates and 95 percent confidence intervals by a number of participant characteristics at baseline and over time. The overall HIV-1 seroincidence rate was 1.31/100 PY (95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.06, 1.61), and the mean duration of follow-up was 1.53 years. While HIV-1 seroincidence varied slightly by enrollment method, seroincidence varied greatly by enrollment site and risk group. San Francisco, Denver, and Chicago reported the highest seroincidence rates: 2.18/100 PY, 1.76/100 PY, and 1.50/100 PY, respectively. By eligibility criteria, MSM had the highest HIV-1 seroincidence rates (1.55/100 PY), while the lowest rates were observed among male injectors (0.38/100 PY, p < 0.01). Participants less than or equal to 35 years of age, Hispanics, and persons who self-identified as "other" race had the highest HIV-1 seroincidence rates, although none of these differences was statistically significant. In addition, no statistically significant differences in HIV-1 seroincidence over time were observed.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. HIV*-1 seroincidence rates, by recruitment source, site, baseline eligibility criteria, sociodemographic characteristics, and follow-up, HIVNET* Vaccine Preparedness Study, United States, 1995–1997

 
To evaluate how changing eligibility might optimize recruitment for future prevention trials, we calculated seroincidence based on slightly more restrictive eligibility criteria by using HIV-1 risk behaviors reported during the baseline interviews. Among the 3,110 MSM who responded that they had had anal sex within the previous year, 69 seroconversions were observed over 4,398 PY of follow-up (1.57/100 PY, 95 percent CI: 1.24, 1.99) (table 3). Among MSM who self-reported receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months, 65 (94 percent) seroconversions were observed over 3,276 PY, a rate of 1.98/100 PY (95 percent CI: 1.56, 2.53); among men who reported unprotected receptive anal intercourse in the past 6 months, the HIV-1 seroincidence rate was 2.57/100 PY, and approximately two thirds of seroconverters were retained in this smaller sample.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 3. HIV*-1 seroincidence rates, by modifications{dagger} in baseline eligibility criteria, among men who had sex with men and women, HIVNET* Vaccine Preparedness Study, United States, 1995–1997

 
Among the 865 women at heterosexual risk, 14 seroconversions were observed over 1,187 PY of follow-up (1.18/100 PY, 95 percent CI: 0.70, 1.99) (table 3). Almost all of the women met the criteria for heterosexual risk; in addition, 354 had a history of IDU in the past year, with 6 seroconversions observed over 482 PY of follow-up (1.24/100 PY). Women who reported crack use in the previous 6 months had a high HIV-1 seroincidence (1.62/100 PY). Among the 12 crack-using women who seroconverted, 5 had also injected drugs within the past year (incidence rate = 2.01, 95 percent CI: 0.84, 4.82). In fact, women at multiple risk, in particular women who met four or more eligibility criteria, had a high HIV-1 seroincidence (6 seroconversions, incidence rate = 2.41, 95 percent CI: 1.08, 5.36).

We also examined HIV-1 seroincidence according to a participant's stated level of willingness to enroll in future HIV preventive vaccine trials. Although no trend was observed in HIV-1 seroincidence by level of willingness, persons who indicated that they were definitely willing to enroll in a future vaccine trial had the highest HIV-1 seroincidence rate (1.96/100 PY, 95 percent CI: 1.41, 2.73) (table 4), with 82 percent of the participants stating that they were either probably or definitely willing to participate in HIV vaccine efficacy trials.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 4. HIV*-1 seroincidence rates, by stated willingness to participate in future HIV-1 preventive vaccine trials, HIVNET* Vaccine Preparedness Study, United States, 1995–1997

 
Finally, 53 participants died of non-HIV-related conditions (overall mortality rate = 0.77/100 PY, 95 percent CI: 0.59, 1.00). The mortality rate was highest among female and male IDUs (2.66 and 2.54/100 PY, respectively), significantly higher than their HIV-1 seroincidence rates (table 5). The overall standardized mortality ratio for the Vaccine Preparedness Study was 2.59, and substantially higher-than-expected mortality was observed among women at heterosexual risk (3.57), male IDUs (5.79), and female IDUs (17.40).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 5. Mortality rates, by baseline eligibility criteria, among persons enrolled in the HIVNET* Vaccine Preparedness Study, United States, 1995–1997

 

    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
This study demonstrated the feasibility of rapid recruitment and high retention of US populations of MSM and women at risk for HIV-1, with sufficient HIV-1 seroincidence to enable HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trials and other prevention strategies to be conducted. Within a 7-month period, we recruited a behaviorally diverse population in nine US cities, and 88 percent of participants were retained in follow-up for 18 months. Our finding of HIV seroincidence rates of 1.98/100 PY among the 2,308 MSM with a history of anal intercourse and 1.62/100 PY among the 535 women who had smoked crack in the previous 6 months documents the feasibility of preventive vaccine trials with HIV-1 infection as the primary endpoint.

Previous work has suggested that a definitive phase III HIV-1 vaccine trial, with 95 percent power to evaluate a 60 percent effective vaccine in populations with a 2 percent annualized seroincidence, will require sample sizes of approximately 3,000 per study arm (20Go) followed for 3 years. Rida et al. proposed testing HIV-1 vaccines using an intermediate trial design to allow for efficient screening to eliminate products with no or low (<=30 percent) efficacy (20Go). By using the existing, less-restrictive eligibility criteria from the Vaccine Preparedness Study, it would be feasible to conduct an intermediate-sized HIV-1 vaccine trial among 2,475 participants per study arm (1,375 women at risk at 1.18/100 PY, 1,100 MSM at 1.55/100 PY) followed over 18 months, allowing for a 10 percent loss to follow-up (20Go). On the basis of the Vaccine Preparedness Study results, either the classic phase III or intermediate trial design approach appears feasible in the United States.

Temporal changes in incidence rates, which are critical in trial planning, have been problematic in other prevention trials. During a randomized clinical trial of isoniazid to prevent tuberculosis in persons with anergy and HIV-1, the incidence of tuberculosis declined from 6.6/100 PY to 0.9/100 PY in the placebo group, with a 17.8/100 PY death rate (37Go). The decline in the placebo group was due to dramatic changes in tuberculosis control, particularly the reestablishment of directly observed therapy that has been credited with a decline in community-acquired tuberculosis. Extending the trial was not a viable option, since the overall mortality rate was so high. Thus, despite a well-designed and well-conducted trial, the result was a noninformative null finding.

Likewise, our observed HIV-1 seroincidence rate among MSM was slightly lower than that reported previously (27Go), although this difference was not statistically significant. Among rollover participants followed at the three original Vaccine Preparedness Initiative sites (Chicago, Denver, and San Francisco), HIV seroincidence was nearly unchanged (1.96/100 PY, 95 percent CI: 1.39, 2.76) compared with the previous rate (2.3/100 PY, 95 percent CI: 1.7, 2.9) (27Go). These data suggest that in this cohort, introduction of highly effective antiretroviral treatment, postexposure prophylaxis, or other interventions have not yet had a significant effect on temporal trends of HIV-1 seroincidence. Continued monitoring of MSM by using large, population-based cohort studies is needed for trial planning, particularly so as to not repeat the experience of the tuberculosis prophylactic trial mentioned above (37Go).

Our observed seroincidence rates among women at risk for HIV infection were somewhat lower than those observed among MSM (1.18 vs. 1.55). Our initial eligibility criteria were intentionally broad, reflecting the lack of HIV-1 incidence and risk information for women in late 1994. Our data establish that some women in the United States, including crack-cocaine-using women who do not also inject drugs, have multiple risks for HIV-1 infection, and those multiple risks are associated with high HIV-1 incidence (1.42/100 PY). The fact that a large fraction of the women in the Vaccine Preparedness Study have multiple risks may make it difficult to disentangle the attributable risk of various risk factors. Thus, interventions to supplement condoms, particularly woman-controlled methods such as microbicides, as well as behavioral strategies that will be effective against both parental and sexual exposures, are urgently needed.

Among male injectors, however, HIV-1 seroincidence was too low in this cohort (0.38/100 PY) and mortality rates from competing risks too high to enable an HIV preventive vaccine trial to be conducted, despite high retention. These rates are in sharp contrast to those observed earlier at the same and similar sites (range, 1.38–5.30/100 PY) (21Go, 38Go); in Baltimore, Maryland (3.80/100 PY) (23Go); in Montreal, Canada (5.1/100 PY) (39Go); and at four high-HIV-prevalence National AIDS Demonstration Research Sites (5.3–11.2/100 PY (28Go)). The eligibility criteria for the Vaccine Preparedness Study were developed in late 1994 and were based on HIV seroincidence data then available for IDUs. While controversy surrounds the potential effects of community interventions among IDUs, such as expanded access to needle exchange programs (28Go, 39Go, 40Go), our data suggest that HIV seroincidence is labile among male IDUs. Further observational studies in which eligibility criteria and recruitment methods are modified, combined with very aggressive approaches to retention, are needed to determine whether HIV vaccine trials are feasible in male IDU populations in the United States.

Retention is of critical importance in conducting randomized clinical trials of prophylactic vaccines or nonvaccine interventions. Our overall retention rate, 88 percent after 18 months, is high for an observational study among healthy, uninfected populations at risk for HIV and is similar to retention rates among HIV-infected populations in clinical trial networks of treatment for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (41Go). Low follow-up rates have hampered randomized clinical trials of prevention interventions in the United States and internationally, with follow-up rates ranging from 46 percent at 2 years in a peer-led behavioral intervention in Zimbabwe (W. C. McFarland et al., University of California, unpublished manuscript), to 78 percent at 4 months in a phase II trial of a herpes vaccine (42Go), and to 78–84 percent in studies of nonoxynol-9 (43Go, 44Go). Innovations in retention methods, such as the use of home specimen collection techniques for remote follow-up (45Go), and the motivation associated with being in an intervention trial may be expected to result in even-higher retention in HIV-1 vaccine or other intervention trials at sites with experience working with populations at risk for HIV.

Although our study found sufficient HIV-1 seroincidence to support future HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trials, our data also suggest a cautionary note. HIV-1 seroincidence rates within populations in different communities may change over time as a result of changing HIV seroprevalence, sexual practices, competing morbidity and mortality, and implementation of effective prevention strategies in the community. For example, the substantial decrease in HIV seroincidence in the male IDU population relative to previous studies at these sites may reflect a competing mortality on the one hand and, on the other, the introduction of syringe exchange programs in those cities. Alternatively, "saturation" with HIV-1 infection of those persons at the highest risk in those cities may result in low incidence without mortality or prevention successes. In addition, some have speculated that introducing highly active antiretroviral therapy in the HIV-infected community and offering postexposure chemoprophylaxis following nonoccupational exposures among high-risk persons may lead to decreased HIV-1 seroincidence among uninfected persons in those communities (because of decreased infectiousness) or increased HIV-1 seroincidence (if risk activity increases) (46GoGo–48Go). Although we found no significant decline in HIV-1 seroincidence over time in our cohort, it is possible that such changes may occur in the future. Monitoring of trends in HIV-1 incidence within at-risk populations, including the provision of risk-reduction counseling and high retention, will be critical in planning future HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trials.

Our results indicate that recruitment, retention, and, with minor modifications in eligibility, HIV-1 incidence among MSM and women at heterosexual or injection risk for HIV-1 infection are sufficient to conduct HIV-1 vaccine efficacy and other HIV prevention trials in the United States, with HIV-1 infection as an endpoint. In addition, the procedures and processes implemented in the Vaccine Preparedness Study have resulted in the rapid enrollment of participants in a phase II vaccine trial as well as enrollment in a phase III vaccine trial. Among male IDUs, recruitment and retention were successful; however, additional work will be needed to recruit IDUs with HIV-1 seroincidence levels sufficient to enable prevention interventions to be evaluated. The results of this study, along with studies from the Vaccine Preparedness Study of informed consent (49Go), willingness to participate in HIV vaccine trials (34Go), lack of serious social harms in a previous phase II trial (15Go), and successful conduct of a phase II HIV vaccine trial, indicate that the major feasibility concerns raised in 1994 have been addressed successfully.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by HIVNET—sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Health and Human Services—through contract NO1-AI-35176 with Abt Associates Inc., contract NO1-AI-45200 with Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and subcontracts with the Denver Department of Public Health, Fenway Community Health Center, Howard Brown Health Center, New York Blood Center, New York University Medical Center, San Francisco Department of Public Health, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Washington. In addition, this project was also supported in part by General Clinical Research Center grant M01RR00096 and by National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, and Center for AIDS Research grant AI 27742 to the New York University Medical Center.

The following institutions and persons associated with HIVNET participated in the Vaccine Preparedness Study Protocol Team: Domestic Master Contractor: Abt Associates Inc.: Drs. G. Seage and M. Gross; Statistical and Clinical Coordinating Center: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington: Drs. T. Fleming and S. Self; Central Laboratory: Viral and Rickettsial Disease Laboratory, California Department of Health Services: Drs. H. Sheppard and M. Ascher; Repository Contractor: Biomedical Research Inc.: Dr. J. Leff; Denver Department of Public Health: Dr. F. N. Judson; Fenway Community Health Center: Dr. K. Mayer; Howard Brown Health Center: Dr. D. McKirnan; New York Blood Center: Drs. C. Stevens and B. Koblin; New York University Medical Center: Dr. M. Marmor and S. Titus; Beth Israel Medical Center, New York: Dr. D. Des Jarlais; San Francisco Department of Public Health: Drs. E. Stone and S. Buchbinder; University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center: Drs. D. Metzger and G. Woody; University of Washington: Dr. C. Celum; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Dr. R. Hoff, M. McCauley, and Dr. Z. Rosenberg.

The authors are grateful for the editorial assistance of Dr. Sherry Marts, the efforts of the Vaccine Preparedness Study site staff, and the contributions of HIVNET Community Advisory Board members.

The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the US Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the US government.


    NOTES
 
Reprint requests to Dr. George R. Seage III, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail gseage{at}hsph.harvard.edu).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Letvin NL. Vaccines against human immunodeficiency virus—progress and prospects. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1400–5.[Free Full Text]
  2. Salk J, Bretscher PA, Salk PL, et al. A strategy for prophylactic vaccination against HIV. Science 1993;260:1270–2.[ISI][Medline]
  3. Haynes BF. Scientific and social issues of human immunodeficiency virus vaccine development. Science 1993;260:1279–86.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Bolognesi DP. Prospects for an HIV vaccine. Sci Med 1994;March/April:44–53.
  5. National Institutes of Health. NIAID HIV/AIDS vaccine research and development: strategy and opportunity. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, November 30, 1995.
  6. Bangham CRM, Phillips RE. What is required of an HIV vaccine? Lancet 1997;350:1617–22.[ISI][Medline]
  7. Heilman CA, Baltimore D. HIV vaccines—where are we going? Nat Med 1998 May;4(5 suppl):532–4.
  8. Snow W. Efficacy trials, design, and implementation: working with the community. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9(suppl 1):S153.
  9. Lein B. Community concerns in AIDS vaccine development. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9(suppl 1):S21.
  10. Vazquez R. A discussion of community concerns regarding HIV vaccines. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9(suppl 1):S23–5.
  11. Jaffe HW. Value of non-vaccine prevention research in trials. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9(suppl 1):S151.
  12. Vermund SH, Fischer RD, Hoff R, et al. Preparing for HIV vaccine efficacy trials: partnerships and challenges. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1993;9(suppl 1):S127–32.
  13. Hausler H, Lambert JS. Preparation for HIV vaccine trials: ethical, behavioral, and social issues. Pediatr AIDS 1994;5:238–43.
  14. Chesney MA, Lurie P, Coates TJ. Strategies for addressing the social and behavioral challenges of prophylactic HIV vaccine trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1995;9:30–5.
  15. Sheon AR, Wagner L, McElrath MJ, et al. Preventing discrimination against volunteers in prophylactic HIV vaccine trials: lessons from a phase II trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1998;19:519–26.
  16. Cohen J. AIDS vaccine research. U.S. panel votes to delay real-world vaccine trials. Science 1994;264:1839.[ISI][Medline]
  17. Cohen J. The HIV vaccine paradox. Science 1994;264:1072–4.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Steele FR. gp120: good, bad or indifferent? Nat Med 1995;1:1105–6.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Greene J. Who put the lid on gp120? New York Times Sunday Magazine 1995; Mar 25: 50–57, 74, 82.
  20. Rida W, Fast P, Hoff R, et al. Intermediate-size trials for the evaluation of HIV vaccine candidates: a workshop summary. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1997;16:195–203.
  21. Holmberg SD. The estimated prevalence and incidence of HIV in 96 large US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health 1996;86:642–54.[Abstract]
  22. Metzger DS, Woody GE, McLellan AT, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus seroconversion among intravenous drug users in- and out-of-treatment: an 18-month prospective follow-up. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1993;6:1049–56.[Medline]
  23. Nelson KE, Vlahov D, Galai N, et al. Preparations for AIDS vaccine trials. Incident human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections in a cohort of injection drug users in Baltimore, Maryland. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1994;10(suppl 2):S201–6.
  24. Marmor M, Titus M, Wolfe H, et al. Retention, behavior change and HIV-seroconversion among injecting drug users (IDUs) and sexual partners of IDUs. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1994;10(suppl 2):S207–14.
  25. Meyers K, Metzger DS, Navaline H, et al. HIV vaccine trials: will intravenous drug users enroll? Am J Public Health 1994;84:761–6.[Abstract]
  26. Osmond DH, Page K, Wiley J, et al. HIV infection in homosexual and bisexual men 18 to 29 years of age: the San Francisco Young Men's Health Study. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1933–7.[Abstract]
  27. Buchbinder SP, Douglas JM, McKirnan DJ, et al. Feasibility of human immunodeficiency virus vaccine trials in homosexual men in the United States: risk behavior, seroincidence, and willingness to participate. J Infect Dis 1996;174:954–61.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Des Jarlais DC, Marmor M, Friedman P, et al. HIV incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1992–1997: evidence of a declining epidemic. Am J Public Health 2000;90:352–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Metzger DS, Woody G, Marmor M, et al. Risk characteristics of injection drug users (IDUs) participating in the Vaccine Preparedness Study (VPS). (Abstract TuC2413). Presented at the XI International Conference on AIDS, Vancover, British Columbia, July 7–12, 1996.
  30. Koblin BA, Taylor PE, Avrett S, et al. The feasibility of HIV-1 vaccine efficacy trials among gay/bisexual men in New York City: Project ACHIEVE. AIDS 1996;10:1555–61.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Gross M, Seage GR III, Mayer KH, et al. Interest among gay/bisexual men in greater Boston in participating in clinical trials of preventive HIV vaccines. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 1996;12:406–12.
  32. Seage GR III, Mayer KH, Horsburgh CR Jr. Risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection from unprotected receptive anal intercourse increases with decline in immunologic status of infected partners. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137:899–908.[Abstract]
  33. Koblin BA, Heagerty P, Sheon A, et al. Readiness of high-risk populations in the HIV Network for Prevention Trials to participate in HIV vaccine efficacy trials in the United States. AIDS 1998;12:785–93.[ISI][Medline]
  34. Seage GR, Mayer KH, Lenderking WR, et al. HIV and hepatitis B infection and risk behavior in young gay and bisexual men. Public Health Rep 1997;112:158–67.[ISI][Medline]
  35. Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1980.
  36. Peters KD, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL. Deaths: final data for 1996. In: National vital statistics reports. Vol 47, no. 9. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, November 10, 1998.
  37. Gordin FM, Matts JP, Miller C, et al. A controlled trial of isoniazid in persons with anergy and human immunodeficiency virus infection who are at high risk for tuberculosis. N Engl J Med 1997;337:315–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  38. Des Jarlais DC, Marmor M, Paone D, et al. HIV incidence among injecting drug users in New York City syringe-exchange programmes. Lancet 1996;348:987–91.[ISI][Medline]
  39. Lurie P. Invited commentary: Le mystère de Montréal. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:1003–6.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, et al. High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: results of a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 1997;146:994–1002.[Abstract]
  41. National Institutes of Health. AIDS Research Program Evaluation Clinical Trials Area Review Panel. Findings and recommendations. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.
  42. Langenberg AG, Burke RL, Adair SF, et al. A recombinant glycoprotein vaccine for herpes simplex type 2: safety and immunogenicity. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:889–98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  43. Louv WC, Austin H, Alexander WJ, et al. A clinical trial of nonoxynol-9 for preventing gonococcal and chlamydial infections. J Infect Dis 1988;158:518–23.[ISI][Medline]
  44. Kreiss J, Ngugi E, Holmes, K, et al. Efficacy of nonoxynol 9 contraceptive sponge use in preventing heterosexual acquisition of HIV in Nairobi prostitutes. JAMA 1992;268:477–82.[Abstract]
  45. Spielberg F, Critchlow C, Vittinghoff E, et al. Home specimen collection for early detection of HIV. Presented at the 12th World AIDS Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, June 28–July 3, 1998.
  46. Halloran ME, Haber M, Longini IM Jr, et al. Direct and indirect effects in vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Am J Epidemiol 1991;133:323–31.[Abstract]
  47. Anderson RM, Gupta S, May RM. Potential of community-wide chemotherapy or immunotherapy to control the spread of HIV-1. Nature 1991;350:356–9.[ISI][Medline]
  48. Anderson DJ, Politch JA, O'Brien T, et al. Effects of disease stage and zidovudine therapy on the prevalence of HIV-1 in semen. JAMA 1992;267:2769–74.[Abstract]
  49. Coletti AS, Heagerty P, Seage GR III, et al. Randomized, controlled evaluation of a prototype informed consent process for domestic HIV vaccine trials. Presented at the 12th World AIDS Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, June 28–July 3, 1998.
Received for publication December 6, 1999. Accepted for publication June 28, 2000.