The overall objective of the CAB LA + RPV LA clinical development program is to develop a highly effective, well-tolerated, two-drug, LA injectable regimen which has the potential to offer improved treatment convenience, compliance and improved quality of life for people living with HIV compared to current standard of care. This interventional study will examine different implementation strategies in different clinic settings across European countries to identify strategies which best meet the needs in each local context and involve both participants receiving study treatment CAB LA + RPV LA (patient study participants \[PSP\]) as well as the healthcare providers at the investigator site level (staff study participants \[SSP\]). SSPs consists of 2 groups: standard and enhanced arm.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
437
CAB will be available as 30 milligrams (mg) tablet. It will be administered as one tablet once daily with food from Day 1 to Month 1.
CAB LA 600 mg will be administered as intramuscular (IM) injection.
RPV will be available as 25 mg tablet. It will be administered as one tablet once daily with food from Day 1 to Month 1.
RPV LA 900 mg will be administered as IM injection.
CQI will be attended by the enhanced arm (Arm-E). The CQI calls will be conducted to identify problems/challenges, generate plans to address the challenges, and identify how to measure the change that results from the plan.
GSK Investigational Site
Antwerp, Belgium
GSK Investigational Site
Brussels, Belgium
GSK Investigational Site
Brussels, Belgium
GSK Investigational Site
Ghent, Belgium
GSK Investigational Site
Bordeaux, France
GSK Investigational Site
Orléans, France
GSK Investigational Site
Paris, France
GSK Investigational Site
Paris, France
GSK Investigational Site
Paris, France
GSK Investigational Site
Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
...and 8 more locations
Change From Baseline in Acceptability of Implementation Measure (AIM-Imp) Score in SSP at Month 12
The AIM-Imp was designed to assess the acceptability of an implementation process (i.e., perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory). The measure consists of four items/statements (1. The implementation support thus far meets my approval 2. The implementation support thus far is appealing to me 3. I like the implementation support I have received 4. I welcome implementation support for the CAB + RPV injection treatment), each with a five-point rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = completely agree). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least acceptability and 5 the most acceptability.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Change From Baseline in Implementation Appropriateness Measure (IAM-Imp) Score in SSPs at Month 12
The IAM-Imp is designed to assess the appropriateness of an implementation process (i.e., the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer, and the perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem). The IAM-Imp is a four-item/statement measure (1. The implementation support thus far seems fitting 2. The implementation support seems suitable for using the CAB + RPV injection treatment 3. The implementation support seems applicable for the CAB + RPV injection treatment 4. The implementation support seems like a good match) with a five-point rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = completely agree). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least appropriateness and 5 the most appropriateness.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Change From Baseline in Feasibility of Implementation Measure (FIM-Imp) Score at Month 12
The FIM-Imp was a four-item/statement measure (1. The implementation support seems implementable in our clinic/practice 2. The implementation support seems possible in our clinic/practice 3. The implementation support seems doable in our clinic/practice 4. The implementation support seems easy to use in our clinic/practice) and was measured on a five-point rating scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = completely agree). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least feasibility and 5 the most feasibility.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Number of Participants That Discussed Themes Arising Out of Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews Which Are Coded as Acceptability
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the acceptability from the SSPs' perspective. The results of themes that are integral to successful implementation are presented based on implementation strategies.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of Participants That Discussed Themes Arising Out of Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews Which Are Coded as Appropriateness
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the appropriateness from the SSPs' perspective. The results of themes that are integral to successful implementation are presented based on implementation strategies.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of Participants That Discussed Themes Arising Out of Qualitative Semi-structured Interviews Which Are Coded as Feasibility
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the feasibility from the SSPs' perspective. The results of themes that are integral to successful implementation are presented based on implementation strategies.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of Staff Study Participants That Discussed Facilitators for Acceptability Assessed Via Semi Structured Interviews (SSIs)
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the acceptability from the SSPs' perspective. The results for facilitators that are integral to successful implementation are presented.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of Staff Study Participants That Discussed Barriers for Acceptability Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the acceptability from the SSPs' perspective. The results for barriers that are integral to successful implementation are presented.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of Staff Study Participants That Discussed Facilitators for Appropriateness Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the appropriateness from the SSPs' perspective. The results for facilitators that are integral to successful implementation are presented.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of Staff Study Participants That Discussed Barriers for Appropriateness Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the appropriateness from the SSPs' perspective. The results for barriers that are integral to successful implementation are presented.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of Staff Study Participants That Discussed Facilitators for Feasibility Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the feasibility from the SSPs' perspective. The results for facilitators that are integral to successful implementation are presented.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of Staff Study Participants That Discussed Barriers for Feasibility Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was designed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the feasibility from the SSPs' perspective. The results for barriers that are integral to successful implementation are presented.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Change From Baseline in Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS) Score at Month 12
The ILS is a 12-item (facilitate implementation, obstacles, clear department standards, knowledge, ability to answer questions, awareness of concept, recognition, support employee efforts to learn, support employee efforts to use intervention, persevere(s) through the ups and downs, carries on through the challenges and reaction to criticial issues) measure that assesses SSP understanding of the degree to which leadership in their clinic/practice setting is proactive, knowledgeable, supportive, and perseverant with regards to implementing the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment in their settings. The items are measured on a five-point rating scale (1 = very great extent, 2 = great extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = slight extent, and 5 = not at all). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5. Higher the score means less understanding in leadership.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Absolute Values of Implementation Climate Scale (ICS) Scores at Month 1 and Month 12
The ICS is a 9 item (team's main goals, importance of implementation, top priority, workshops, treatment training, training material, staff adaptability, flexibility, openness to new intervention) measure that assesses SSPs' perceptions of their team (i.e., the people that they work with) while using the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment in their clinic/practice setting. The items were measured on a five-point rating scale (1 = very great extent, 2 = great extent, 3 = moderate extent, 4 = slight extent, and 5 = not at all). The mean score ranges from 1 to 5. Higher the score means less seriousness for implementation in staff.
Time frame: Month 1 and Month 12
Number of Modifications Reported by SSPs Assessed Via FRAME-IS
The Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based interventions - Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS) was a seven-question measure (contained both open and closed categorical questions) used to record details the modifications made to the implementation of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment procedures.
Time frame: Month 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12
Number of Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) Cycles Developed During the Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Calls Course
CQI were a 60 minutes calls involved working through a plan to address the identified barriers, optimize processes, and evaluate these efforts. This process of addressing barriers was guided by a series of Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) cycles. Number of PDSA cycles developed are presented.
Time frame: Month 2 to Month 7
Number of Participants Spending Average Time in the Clinic/Practice for Each Injection Visit Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The average time was categorized as: Up to 20 Minutes, Up to 40 Minutes, Up to 60 Minutes, Up to 90 Minutes, More than 90 Minutes and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of Participants Spending Average Time in an Exam Room Waiting for a Nurse (or Other Healthcare Provider) to Get the Injection Administered Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The average time was categorized as: Up to 10 Minutes, 11-20 Minutes, 21-30 Minutes, 31-45 Minutes, More than 45 Minutes and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Rating Acceptability With the Amount of Time Spent in The Clinic/Practice for Each Injection Visit Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The rating of acceptability was categorized as extremely acceptable, very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, a little acceptable, not at all acceptable and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Rating Acceptability to Come to the Clinic/Practice Every 2 Months for the Injection Visit Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The rating of acceptability was categorized as extremely acceptable, very acceptable, somewhat acceptable, a little acceptable, not at all acceptable and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Taking Time Off From Work to Attend Appointment Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The time off responses were categorized as Whole day annual leave, Half day annual leave, Whole day sick leave, Half day sick leave, Whole day unpaid, Half day unpaid, Other, Not taken time off and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants With Time it Took Them to Get to the Clinic Where They Receive HIV Treatment/Check-ups Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Up to 15 minutes, 16-30 minutes, 31-45 minutes, 46-60 minutes, More than 60 minutes, and missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Who Seek Additional Care From a Dependent to Attend Appointment Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Yes, No, Not Applicable and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants That Endorsed Type of Transportation Used to Attend Appointments
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Taxi- Transportation service, Dropped-off, Private vehicle, Bicycle/scooter/ skateboard/ walked, Public transport and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Taking Time Off From Work to Recover From Any Injection Site Reaction Issue Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The time off responses were categorized as No, Yes - On the day of receiving the treatment, Yes - One day after receiving the treatment, Yes-Two days after receiving the treatment, Yes-More than two days after receiving the treatment, Not Applicable, Missing and Missing Response for 'Yes'. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question. Missing Response for 'Yes' include participants who responded 'Yes' but did not provide duration of time off.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Rating Convenience of Clinic/Practice's Procedures for Scheduling Injections Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The convenience responses were categorized as Extremely convenient, Very convenient, Somewhat convenient, A little convenient, Not at all convenient, and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Rating Convenience of Clinic/Practice's Procedures for Rescheduling Injections Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely convenient, Very convenient, Somewhat convenient, A little convenient, Not at all convenient, Not applicable; I did not have to reschedule and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Rating Feelings About Getting CAB+RPV Injection Treatment Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely positive, Very positive, Somewhat positive, A little positive, Not at all positive and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants That Rated Perceived Knowledge About CAB+RPV Injection Treatment Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely knowledgeable, Very knowledgeable, Somewhat knowledgeable, A little knowledgeable, Not at all knowledgeable and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants With Appointment Reminders Received Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question.The responses were categorized as Phone calls, Text/SMS messages, Existing clinic app, E-mail, Reminder in the mail, Another reminder and I did not receive reminders. The responses are not mutually exclusive.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants Who Rated Helpfulness of Appointment Outside of Typical Work Times Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Extremely helpful, Very helpful, Somewhat helpful, A Little helpful, Not at all helpful and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants That Rated Agreement in Recommending the CAB+RPV Injections to Others Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Completely agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Completely disagree and Missing. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of Participants With Things Tried to Reduce Soreness Following Injections Assessed Via Questionnaire
Study-specific questions were developed to gather data on the facilitators and barriers of the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment. The response options are different for each question. The responses were categorized as Take over-the-counter pain relievers, Use a hot compress, Use a cold compress, Avoid sitting for long periods of time, Light stretching and exercise, None of the above, Other and I don't get sore after my injections.
Time frame: Month 12
Number of PSPs That Discussed Facilitators for Acceptability Assessed Via Semi Structured Interviews (SSIs)
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed facilitators for acceptability are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of PSPs That Discussed Barriers for Acceptability Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed barriers for acceptability are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of PSPs That Discussed Facilitators for Appropriateness Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed facilitators for appropriateness are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of PSPs That Discussed Barriers for Appropriateness Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs with barriers for appropriateness are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of PSPs That Discussed Facilitators for Feasibility Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed facilitators for feasibility are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Number of PSPs That Discussed Barriers for Feasibility Assessed Via SSIs
A semi-structured interview guide was developed to support the discussion surrounding experience with for the implementation of CAB+RPV LA injection treatment. The interview guide topics were informed by the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework and Proctor Outcomes to facilitate discussions on the Acceptability, Appropriateness, Feasibility, and Sustainability from the PSPs' perspective. Results of number of PSPs that discussed barriers for feasibility are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 12
Change From Baseline in Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) Score in PSPs at Month 12
AIM assesses the acceptability of an intervention (i.e., perception among stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory). It is a four-item (1. The CAB+RPV injection treatment meets my approval for treating my HIV, 2. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is appealing to me, 3. I like the CAB+RPV injection treatment for my HIV, 4. I welcome the CAB+RPV injection treatment for my HIV) measure with a five-point rating scale, where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least acceptability and 5 the most acceptability.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Change From Baseline in Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) Score in PSPs at Month 12
IAM assesses the appropriateness of an intervention (i.e., the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer; and the perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem). It is a four-item (1. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is fitting for my life, 2. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is suitable for my life, 3. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is applicable to my life, 4. The CAB+RPV injection treatment is a good match for my life) measure with a five-point rating scale, where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least appropriateness and 5 the most appropriateness.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Change From Baseline in Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) Score in PSPs at Month 12
The four-item (1. The CAB+RPV injection treatment seems implementable in my life 2. The CAB+RPV injection treatment every 2 months is possible for me to use 3. The CAB+RPV injection treatment every 2 months seems doable in my life 4. The CAB+RPV injection treatment every 2 months seems easy to use in my life). FIM assesses perceived intervention feasibility. The items are measured on a five-point rating scale, where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree. The mean score ranges from 1 to 5 with 1 indicating the least feasibility and 5 the most feasibility.
Time frame: Baseline (Month 1) and Month 12
Associated Person Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (APCSAT) Average Domain Score at Month 12
The APCSAT is a 35-item measure that assesses SSP impressions of the data in their clinic. Sustainability refers to the ability to maintain and expand the CAB LA + RPV LA injection treatment and its benefits over time. SSPs were asked to rate their clinic/practice along a range of specific domains that affect sustainability, including: 'Engages Staff \& Leadership,' 'Engaging Stakeholders,' 'Monitoring and Evaluation,' 'Implementation \& Training,' 'Outcomes \& Effectiveness,' 'Workflow Integration,' and 'Organizational Readiness.' Five items were presented to SSPs in each section. The items were measured on a seven-point rating scale (1 = little to no extent to 7 = to a very great extent. Domain total was divided by the total number of items with a score to get average score.
Time frame: Month 12
Percentage of PSP Receiving Injections Within Target Window
The target window for participants to receive injection was from Day -7 to Day 7.
Time frame: Day -7 to Day 7 of Month 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12
Percentage of PSPs With Plasma HIV-1 Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) Less Than (<)50 Copies Per Milliliter (c/ml)
Plasma samples were collected from the participant at specific time points.
Time frame: Month 1, 2, 4, 8 and 12
Number of Participants With Confirmed Virologic Failure (CVF) Over Time
CVF was defined as rebound as indicated by two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA levels \>=200 c/ml.
Time frame: Month 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 and 12
Number of PSPs With Adverse Events (AEs) And Serious AEs (SAEs)
An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of a study intervention, whether or not considered related to the study intervention. An SAE is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that, at any dose may result in death or is life-threatening or requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in persistent disability/incapacity or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect or any other situation according to medical or scientific judgment or is associated with liver injury and impaired liver function.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of PSPs Discontinuing Treatment Due to AEs
An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a clinical study participant, temporally associated with the use of a study intervention, whether or not considered related to the study intervention.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months
Number of PSP With Preference for Therapy Assessed Via Preference Questionnaire
PSPs were asked to think about their experience of using the long-acting injectable medication versus the daily oral HIV medication, and to select their preferred treatment and all the reasons that support their preference. Results are categorized as: 'long-acting injectable HIV medication', 'daily oral HIV medication', 'no preference', Missing and Erroneous. Missing include participants who did not provide a response for the question. PSPs who completed this question incorrectly (i.e., checked reasons without a ticking a leading preference or checked more than one leading preference box) were included in Erroneous.
Time frame: Up to 12 Months