Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Side effects and administration frequency are primary considerations for HIV patients and providers regarding treatment switchesHIV Patients and Providers Share Views on Long-Acting Injectable Treatment Options

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that side effects and administration frequency are the primary concerns for both patients and providers regarding HIV treatment.

This qualitative interview study explores the treatment preferences of 50 people living with HIV and 5 healthcare providers regarding hypothetical treatment switches. The study focuses on several key attributes including administration mode, setting, frequency, injection location, and side effects to identify what factors influence decision-making in the context of long-acting injectables.

Findings indicate that side effects were the highest priority attribute for both patients and healthcare providers, followed by administration frequency and mode. When considering all injection forms, most participants expressed a clear preference for injectable over oral administration. Furthermore, 4-month and 6-month intervals were widely preferred among the options for healthcare provider-administered injections.

A primary limitation of this study is that the results are based on a hypothetical treatment switch rather than real-world clinical transitions. The study provides qualitative insights into the priorities of patients and providers, specifically highlighting the importance of manageable side effects and less frequent dosing schedules. These findings may inform the development of patient-centered communication strategies regarding long-acting injectable options.

A new interview study asked 50 people living with HIV and 5 healthcare providers in the United States about their treatment preferences. Researchers wanted to understand what matters most when considering a switch to long-acting injectable HIV treatment.

Side effects were the top concern for both groups. After that, how often doses are given and how the medicine is delivered were the next most important factors. Most participants said they would choose an injection over a daily pill when all injection options were considered together.

When it came to how often injections are given, 4-month and 6-month intervals were widely preferred among options given by a healthcare provider. Participants also brought up other factors on their own that influence their treatment decisions.

The study has limits. It used a hypothetical scenario, meaning participants were asked about a possible switch rather than actually changing treatments. It was a qualitative interview study, not a clinical trial, so the findings reflect opinions and preferences rather than measured health outcomes.

Still, the results highlight what patients and providers care about most: side effects, dose frequency, and delivery method. These insights can help guide conversations about long-acting injectable options for HIV care.

What this means for you:
Side effects, dose frequency, and injection mode are the top priorities for HIV patients and providers considering long-acting injectables.

Common questions

What do patients and doctors care about most in HIV treatment?

Both people living with HIV and healthcare providers identified side effects as the highest priority. They also prioritized how often a person needs to take their medicine and the method used to give the treatment, such as an injection versus a pill.

Is an injection better than a pill for HIV?

In this study, most participants expressed a clear preference for an injectable treatment over an oral one when all injection forms were considered together. They specifically preferred injections that were administered every 4 or 6 months.

What are the limitations of these findings?

These results are based on a hypothetical treatment switch rather than a real-world clinical trial. Because the scenario was hypothetical, the findings reflect preferences for future options rather than a specific, currently available medication.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
IntroductionTo develop effective HIV treatments, including long-acting injectables, understanding the treatment attributes and personal factors that are significant to people living with HIV is essential.MethodsWe conducted individual qualitative interviews with people living with HIV and healthcare providers (HCP) in the United States to evaluate treatment preferences if considering a hypothetical treatment switch. We performed a targeted literature review and identified five attributes related to HIV treatment: (1) administration mode, (2) administration setting, (3) administration frequency, (4) location of injection on the body, and (5) side effects. We also recorded any spontaneously mentioned attributes and other factors influencing treatment decisions. A thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA, with dual independent coding of 20% of transcripts and third-party reconciliation by the qualitative lead. Spanish-language transcripts were reviewed in both the original and translated versions to preserve meaning.ResultsWe interviewed 50 people living with HIV and 5 HCPs. Among people living with HIV, 60% were male, 62% had no prior injection treatment experience, and median (interquartile range) age was 50 (39.8–55.8) years. Side effects emerged as the highest priority attribute for people living with HIV and for HCPs, followed by administration frequency and mode. Most participants expressed a clear preference for injectable over oral administration when all injection forms (intramuscular, subcutaneous, intravenous, combinations) were considered together. Among HCP-administered injection options, 4- and 6-month intervals were widely preferred, driven by alignment with existing appointment schedules and relationships with providers.ConclusionWhen considering treatment options, the highest priorities for people living with HIV are reducing side effects and administration frequency. A planned quantitative discrete choice experiment will evaluate generalizability of our results and provide evidence to support stakeholder decisions.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.