Perspectives of people with HIV on implementing long acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine in clinics and community settings in the UK: results from the anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-ageist ILANA study

• Published in: Clinical infectious diseases 2024-10
• Main Authors: 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
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1058-4838; 1537-6591; 1537-6591
• DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciae523

The equity-focused ILANA study evaluated feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness of delivering on-label two-monthly cabotegravir and rilpivirine (CAB+RPV) injections for HIV-1 therapy in clinics and community settings. The study, which mandated inclusive recruitment, was conducted May-December 2022 at six UK sites. Injections were delivered in clinic (months 1-6), and in clinic or community setting according to patient choice (months 6-12). 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. Community settings offered by sites included: home visits (n=3), HIV support organisations (n=2), community clinic (n=1). Of 114 participants,54% were female, 70% racially minoritised and 40% aged >50. 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. 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 (e.g. primary care or pharmacies) is warranted.