Patients’ high acceptability of a future therapeutic HIV vaccine in France: a French paradox?

Abstract

Background France is the European country with the lowest level of confidence in vaccines. Measurement of patients’ acceptability towards a future therapeutic HIV vaccine is critically important. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate patients’ acceptability of a future therapeutic HIV vaccine in a representative cohort of French patients living with HIV-AIDS (PLWHs). Methods This multicentre study used quantitative and qualitative methods to assess PLWHs’ opinions and their potential acceptance of a future therapeutic HIV vaccine. Cross-sectional study on 220 HIV-1 infected outpatients, aged 18–75 years. Results The participants’ characteristics were similar to those of the overall French PLWH population. Responses from the questionnaires showed high indices of acceptance: the mean score for acceptability on the Visual Analog Scale VAS was 8.4 of 10, and 92% of patients agreed to be vaccinated if a therapeutic vaccine became available. Acceptability depended on the expected characteristics of the vaccine, notably the duration of its effectiveness: 44% of participants expected it to be effective for life. This acceptance was not associated with socio-demographic, clinical (mode of contamination, duration of disease), quality of life, or illness-perception parameters. Acceptability was also strongly correlated with confidence in the treating physician. Conclusion The PLWHs within our cohort had high indices of acceptance to a future therapeutic HIV vaccine. Trial registration This study was retroactively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with ID: NCT02077101 in February 21, 2014.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among French People Living with HIV

“…The intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccination varies substantially across countries [ 8 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], and France records the lowest rate in the European Union [ 15 ]. The COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy remains a main concern in this vulnerable population [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].…”

Acceptability of and willingness to pay for human immunodeficiency virus vaccination: A systematic literature review

“…A total of 15 quantitative ( Dimi et al, 2019;Frew et al, 2008;Kakinami et al, 2008;Kpanake et al, 2018;Lee et al, 2008;2012;Newman et al, 2006;Painter et al, 2013;Ravert and Zimet, 2009;Weaver et al, 2013;Young et al, 2014;Zimet et al, 2005) and 16 qualitative (Atujuna et al, 2018;Barrington et al, 2007;Dimi et al, 2019;Frew et al, 2008;Koniak et al, 2007;Lee et al, 2008;Lindegger et al, 2007;Newman et al, 2012a;2012b;Nguyen, 2007;Nodin et al, 2008;Roberts et al, 2005;Rudy et al, 2005;Salazar et al, 2005;Sayles et al, 2010) studies were included. Three studies (Dimi et al, 2019;Frew et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2008) performed both qualitative and quantitative analyses. All the studies were published in English and revolved around seven themes: vaccine characteristics, demographic factors, attitudes toward HIV vaccines, HIV risk perceptions, structural factors, social factors, and behavioral determinants.…”

“…The ages of the participants ranged from 17 to 86 years. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 11) (Frew et al, 2008;Kakinami et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2008;2012;Newman et al, 2006;Painter et al, 2013;Ravert and Zimet, 2009;Young et al, 2014;Zimet et al, 2005), whereas the four remaining studies were carried out in Thailand , Canada (Weaver et al, 2013), Togo (Kpanake et al, 2018), and France (Dimi et al, 2019). The most prevalent sample compositions were highrisk adults (n = 4) (Frew et al, 2008;Newman et al, 2006;, followed by general adults (n = 3) (Kakinami et al, 2008;Kpanake et al, 2018;Painter et al, 2013) and multi-ethnic Los Angeles groups (n = 2) (Lee et al, 2012;.…”

“…To ensure a broad distribution for end-users, future HIV vaccines should be suitable for individuals presenting with a high risk of infection. Aside from yielding favorable clinical outcomes, vaccines should be developed along ethically acceptable principles to ensure consideration of the health care needs of recipients (Dimi et al, 2019). To date, studies have rarely examined the acceptability of future HIV vaccines, which are less tolerated in developing countries than in developed nations (Cameron et al, 2013).…”

“…Numerous studies have been devoted to the acceptability of and WTP for HIV vaccination (Cameron et al, 2013;Dimi et al, 2019;Kpanake et al, 2018;Whittington et al, 2008), but a comprehensive systematic review of these works is rarely conducted (Kim et al, 2014;Newman and Logie, 2010). Among the few initiatives in this regard is the assessment carried out by Newman and Logie (2010), who reported that the acceptability score of vaccination against HIV infection on a 100-point scale ranges from 37.2 to 94.0, with the average value being 65.6.…”