Risk if ART is deferred is taken from [328]. The predicted 6-month risk if ART is initiated is based on the assumption that the rate with immediate therapy initiation is one-third the rate without therapy initiation. This (probably conservative) value is based on considering evidence from multiple sources, including references [32,[329][330][331][332][333].BHIVA treatment guidelines 569 r 2008 British HIV Association HIV Medicine (2008) 9, 563-608 but high CD4 percentages, but also may support a decision to start therapy earlier in patients with absolute CD4 counts 4350 cells/mL but with low CD4 percentages {e.g. o14%, where Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis is indicated [35]; some studies have indicated increased risk of disease progression in patients with CD4 percentages o15-17% [36]}. Patients with a CD4 count 4350 cells/mLAs detailed above, at CD4 counts 4350 cells/mL, multiple cohort studies have suggested that there might be benefits to ART. This is supported by data from the substudy of patients not on therapy at entry to the SMART study [32]. Some of the previous concerns about earlier initiation of therapy have been reduced because of the availability of simpler, less toxic and better tolerated antiretroviral regimens, improved pharmacokinetic profiles and increasing options after virological failure. For the majority of patients, the absolute risk of deferring therapy until the CD4 count is o350 cells/mL is likely to be low, but in a subgroup at particularly high risk of clinical events that may be preventable by ART, this is not the case. For all these reasons, in a small number of patients, treatment may be started or considered before the CD4 count is below 350 cells/mL, including the following: AIDS diagnosis (e.g. Kaposi's sarcoma); any HIV-related comorbidity; hepatitis B infection, where treatment of hepatitis B is indicated (see hepatitis guidelines); hepatitis C infection in some cases, where treatment for hepatitis is deferred; low CD4 percentage (e.g. o14%, where PCP prophylaxis would be indicated); established CVD or a very high risk of cardiovascular events (e.g. Framingham risk of CVD 420% over 10 years).Additionally, it is likely that successful antiretroviral treatment, by reducing viral load, reduces infectivity irrespective of the current CD4 cell count, and this may be taken into account in deciding on the timing of starting treatment, particularly in discordant couples where the infected partner has a high viral load. This is likely to be an issue in a very small number of patients, and it must be stressed that antiretroviral treatment in this context would be an adjunct rather than an alternative to safer sex.In patients who do not have an AIDS diagnosis or coinfection with hepatitis B or C virus, and whose CD4 counts are above 500 cells/mL, the benefits of starting therapy remain unclear, the risk of deferring therapy is low, and we recommend that they consider enrolment in the START study, where this is an option. ComorbiditiesWhilst it has been clearly shown that...

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at University College London varies by research type and setting. We developed a series of case studies of PPI to document and share good practice.MethodsWe used purposive sampling to identify studies representing the scope of research at the MRC CTU and different approaches to PPI. We carried out semi-structured interviews with staff and patient representatives. Interview notes were analysed descriptively to categorise the main aims and motivations for involvement; activities undertaken; their impact on the studies and lessons learned.ResultsWe conducted 19 interviews about ten case studies, comprising one systematic review, one observational study and 8 randomised controlled trials in HIV and cancer. Studies were either open or completed, with start dates between 2003 and 2011. Interviews took place between March and November 2014 and were updated in summer 2015 where there had been significant developments in the study (i.e. if the study had presented results subsequent to the interview taking place). A wide range of PPI models, including representation on trial committees or management groups, community engagement, one-off task-focused activities, patient research partners and participant involvement had been used. Overall, interviewees felt that PPI had a positive impact, leading to improvements, for example in the research question; study design; communication with potential participants; study recruitment; confidence to carry out or complete a study; interpretation and communication of results; and influence on future research.ConclusionsA range of models of PPI can benefit clinical studies. Researchers should consider different approaches to PPI, based on the desired impact and the people they want to involve. Use of multiple models may increase the potential impacts of PPI in clinical research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1488-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

BackgroundPatient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials aims to ensure that research is carried out collaboratively with patients and/or members of the public. However, current guidance on involving clinical trial participants in PPI activities is not consistent.MethodsWe reviewed the concept of participant involvement, based on our experience. Two workshops were held at the MRCCTU at UCL with the aim of defining participant involvement, considering its rationale; benefits and challenges; and identifying appropriate models for participant involvement in clinical trials. We considered how participant involvement might complement the involvement of other public contributors. Both workshops were attended by two patient representatives and seven staff members with experience of PPI in trials. Two of the staff members had also been involved in studies that had actively involved participants. They shared details of that work to inform discussions.ResultsWe defined trial participants as individuals taking part in the study in question, including those who had already completed their trial treatment and/or follow-up. Because of their direct experience, involving participants may offer advantages over other public contributors; for example, in studies of new interventions or procedures, and where it is hard to identify or reach patient or community groups that include or speak for the study population.Participant involvement is possible at all stages of a trial; however, because there are no participants to involve during the design stage of a trial, prior to enrolment, participant involvement should complement and not replace involvement of PPI stakeholders. A range of models, including those with managerial, oversight or responsive roles are appropriate for involving participants; however, involvement in data safety and monitoring committees may not be appropriate where there is a potential risk of unblinding.Involvement of participants can improve the trial experience for other participants; optimising study procedures, improving communications; however, there are some specific, notably, managing participant confidentiality and practicalities relating to payments.ConclusionsParticipant involvement in clinical trials is feasible and complements other forms of PPI in clinical trials. Involving active participants offers significant advantages, particularly in circumstances where trials are assessing new, or otherwise unavailable, therapies or processes. We recommend that current guidance on PPI should be updated to routinely consider including participants as valid stakeholders in PPI and potentially useful approach to PPI.

No abstract