Implementation of long‐acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine: primary results from the perspective of staff study participants in the Cabotegravir And Rilpivirine Implementation Study in European Locations
Authors: Gutner Cassidy A. , Hocqueloux Laurent , Jonsson‐Oldenbüttel Celia , Vandekerckhove Linos , van Welzen Berend J. , Slama Laurence , Crusells‐Canales María , Sierra Julián Olalla , DeMoor Rebecca , Scherzer Jenny , Ait‐Khaled Mounir , Bontempo Gilda , Gill Martin , Patel Natasha , D'Amico Ronald , Hove Kai , Baugh Bryan , Barnes Nicola , Hadi Monica , Low Emma L. , Anand Savita Bakhshi , Hamilton Alison , Garges Harmony P. , Czarnogorski Maggie 
Published: July 2024

Introduction

Cabotegravir plus rilpivirine (CAB + RPV) is the first complete long‐acting (LA) regimen recommended for maintaining HIV‐1 virological suppression. Cabotegravir And Rilpivirine Implementation Study in European Locations (CARISEL) is an implementation–effectiveness study examining the implementation of CAB+RPV LA administered every 2 months (Q2M) in European HIV centres. We present staff study participant (SSP) perspectives on the administration of CAB+RPV LA over 12 months.

Methods

Eighteen clinics were randomized to one of two implementation support packages: standard arm (Arm‐S) or enhanced arm (Arm‐E). Arm‐S included video injection training and provider/patient toolkits. Additionally, Arm‐E included skilled wrap‐around team meetings, face‐to‐face injection training and continuous quality improvement (CQI) calls. SSPs completed surveys on the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of CAB+RPV LA as an intervention and its implementation into their clinics, as well as barriers and facilitators to implementation. All surveys were completed at Month (M)1 (baseline), M5 and M12; data collection was completed by February 2022. Qualitative data were obtained from semi‐structured interviews at M1, M5 and M12. The primary objective was assessed via formal statistical comparisons between study arms of the Acceptability of Implementation Measure, Implementation Appropriateness Measure and Feasibility of Implementation Measure surveys (1–5 Likert scale ranging from 1 = “completely disagree” to 5 = “completely agree”). Equivalent measures anchored to CAB+RPV LA as a therapy were also assessed.

Results

Seventy SSPs completed surveys and interviews at M1, 68 at M5 and 62 at M12. Mean acceptability/appropriateness/feasibility scores were ≥3.8 (out of 5) at M12 for implementation‐ and intervention‐based measures. An analysis of covariance showed no significant differences between study arms for these outcomes. Although barriers were noted, most SSPs were not overly concerned that these would impact implementation; concern about these anticipated barriers also decreased over time. At M12, 90.3% (n = 56/62) of SSPs held a positive opinion about CAB+RPV LA implementation. Qualitative interviews and CQI calls highlighted three top practices that supported implementation: implementation planning; education about CAB+RPV LA clinical efficacy; and education around administering injections and managing pain/discomfort after injections.

Conclusions

CARISEL demonstrated that CAB+RPV LA dosed Q2M was successfully implemented across a range of European locations, with SSPs finding implementation highly acceptable, appropriate and feasible.

ClinicalTrials.gov number

NCT04399551