Original content from the Mapping Pathways blog team
Kathleen (Kate) Morrow is a staff psychologist at the Miriam Hospital and an associate professor (research) of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University. She is driving two innovative microbicide projects – Project LINK and Project MIST. Kate is also a member of the IRMA Steering Committee.
MP: What got you started down the path of HIV prevention?
KM: From a personal perspective, I spent much of the ’80s losing people to the epidemic – that was a very powerful experience in my life. Then, after I trained to become a clinical psychologist, I worked as a clinician in an outpatient substance abuse clinic and many of my patients were infected with HIV. At that point, I was a Masters level clinician. When I went back for my doctorate, I decided to study HIV prevention – and it’s been my work ever since.
MP: And how did microbicides come into the picture?
KM: In the course of my post-doctoral fellowship I was introduced to microbicides by my mentor, Ken Mayer. Like many people, I didn’t even know what a microbicide was at that point! He asked me to pursue the notion of acceptability and how these new products would fare in that regard. I became very interested in how that was going to work, and it just…suited me as far as what I wanted my career to be about. It was about so many things close to my heart – giving people (especially women) the power and control to prevent HIV, something that didn’t interfere with their lives… My work primarily focused on women to begin with. Ultimately, I’ve gotten involved in the broader reality of what microbicides will be (I hope!), including vaginal and rectal microbicides for both men and women.
In my work with acceptability, a big issue for me was that we were conceptually equating acceptability and adherence. It’s like we were saying if they adhere to it, it must be acceptable and if it’s acceptable they’ll adhere to it. In my mind, that’s not a given. I mean, I would love to believe that if it’s acceptable, everyone will use it – but I don’t think that’s necessarily true given the relational and contextual issues that surround microbicide use.
MP: What is Project LINK all about?
KM: Project LINK began in 2006. It is funded primarily by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and was also supported by CONRAD. It is part of the NIH’s Microbicide Innovation Program.It is focused on the female user experience. The main idea is to try to understand how the formulation of a microbicide – the properties and characteristics of the gel itself – relates to the experiences the users have. The study involves approximately 350 women. The data collection is now complete, and we hope to have the results in the coming months.
We’ve been running into a lot of adherence issues across microbicides trials since the very beginning. LINK is trying to understand what the user experience is given the kind of formulations that they’re using and the properties of those formulations. Each product has its own constituents, its ingredients, and the way they interact with each other and with other external factors. If we can link these formulation characteristics to a woman’s experience, then maybe we can fix or enhance that experience and make it something that women can at least tolerate – if not enjoy.
MP: Could you explain with an example?
KM: Take, for example, leakage. Leakage is something that we always deal with when it comes to vaginal gels. Some gels leak while others are good at not leaking out. If leakage is a bad experience for women then we can alter the “recipe” of the formulation, so to speak, to minimize that leakage or to make it happen at a different, more preferable point in time. The idea is to figure out what women can feel and experience at a very sensory level, in their vaginas, and pinpoint which sensation is being driven by which of the gel’s properties or performance characteristics.
MP: What stage is Project LINK at currently? And what’s the end goal?
KM: We’ve developed a set of scales to show the range of different sensations and experiences reported by women when they use the products. Basically, these scales allow women to rate products given specific statements. We then tested four novel gels using these scales. The idea was to capture a range of women’s experiences from a relatively low-viscosity gel to a high-viscosity gel, along with other varying parameters (yield stress, dilutions properties, etc.). When the women had evaluated all four gels, at the end of their final visit in the study, they provided data on which formulation they would prefer. Their experiences impacted the product they chose – different women chose different experiences.
Now, we’re analyzing the data to understand the correspondence (hence, Project LINK) between the sensations and the properties of the gels. Once we’ve done that, we can try and make the microbicides feel better to the user – and make them work better, too. Obviously, the formulation is primarily about delivery and efficacy – to get the active ingredient where it needs to go, do what it needs to do, and stay there for as long as it needs to. That’s key. But if we can figure out how to make the best formulation for drug delivery and make it one that women can at least tolerate, if not like, then we have a better shot at effectiveness overall. If it feels good, women will use it.
Actually, there are two ways of looking at microbicide gels. First, you could think of it as a product with a neutral impact on the sexual experience – some people enjoy sex the way it is and don’t want it altered by a product. This would also be useful for women who need the microbicide to be covert. Second, you can develop a product that actually enhances sexual pleasure. Hopefully, if people like it, that would increase the likelihood of their using it. And if it’s efficacious to begin with, then that means we’re reducing the possibility for HIV infection.
Watch this space for Part 2 of this interview, where Kate talks about the broadening scope of her research in Project MIST, behavioral science, what inspires her, and the hardest part about her job.
[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]
MP: What got you started down the path of HIV prevention?
KM: From a personal perspective, I spent much of the ’80s losing people to the epidemic – that was a very powerful experience in my life. Then, after I trained to become a clinical psychologist, I worked as a clinician in an outpatient substance abuse clinic and many of my patients were infected with HIV. At that point, I was a Masters level clinician. When I went back for my doctorate, I decided to study HIV prevention – and it’s been my work ever since.
MP: And how did microbicides come into the picture?
KM: In the course of my post-doctoral fellowship I was introduced to microbicides by my mentor, Ken Mayer. Like many people, I didn’t even know what a microbicide was at that point! He asked me to pursue the notion of acceptability and how these new products would fare in that regard. I became very interested in how that was going to work, and it just…suited me as far as what I wanted my career to be about. It was about so many things close to my heart – giving people (especially women) the power and control to prevent HIV, something that didn’t interfere with their lives… My work primarily focused on women to begin with. Ultimately, I’ve gotten involved in the broader reality of what microbicides will be (I hope!), including vaginal and rectal microbicides for both men and women.
In my work with acceptability, a big issue for me was that we were conceptually equating acceptability and adherence. It’s like we were saying if they adhere to it, it must be acceptable and if it’s acceptable they’ll adhere to it. In my mind, that’s not a given. I mean, I would love to believe that if it’s acceptable, everyone will use it – but I don’t think that’s necessarily true given the relational and contextual issues that surround microbicide use.
KM: Project LINK began in 2006. It is funded primarily by a grant from the National Institutes of Health, and was also supported by CONRAD. It is part of the NIH’s Microbicide Innovation Program.It is focused on the female user experience. The main idea is to try to understand how the formulation of a microbicide – the properties and characteristics of the gel itself – relates to the experiences the users have. The study involves approximately 350 women. The data collection is now complete, and we hope to have the results in the coming months.
We’ve been running into a lot of adherence issues across microbicides trials since the very beginning. LINK is trying to understand what the user experience is given the kind of formulations that they’re using and the properties of those formulations. Each product has its own constituents, its ingredients, and the way they interact with each other and with other external factors. If we can link these formulation characteristics to a woman’s experience, then maybe we can fix or enhance that experience and make it something that women can at least tolerate – if not enjoy.
MP: Could you explain with an example?
KM: Take, for example, leakage. Leakage is something that we always deal with when it comes to vaginal gels. Some gels leak while others are good at not leaking out. If leakage is a bad experience for women then we can alter the “recipe” of the formulation, so to speak, to minimize that leakage or to make it happen at a different, more preferable point in time. The idea is to figure out what women can feel and experience at a very sensory level, in their vaginas, and pinpoint which sensation is being driven by which of the gel’s properties or performance characteristics.
MP: What stage is Project LINK at currently? And what’s the end goal?
KM: We’ve developed a set of scales to show the range of different sensations and experiences reported by women when they use the products. Basically, these scales allow women to rate products given specific statements. We then tested four novel gels using these scales. The idea was to capture a range of women’s experiences from a relatively low-viscosity gel to a high-viscosity gel, along with other varying parameters (yield stress, dilutions properties, etc.). When the women had evaluated all four gels, at the end of their final visit in the study, they provided data on which formulation they would prefer. Their experiences impacted the product they chose – different women chose different experiences.
Now, we’re analyzing the data to understand the correspondence (hence, Project LINK) between the sensations and the properties of the gels. Once we’ve done that, we can try and make the microbicides feel better to the user – and make them work better, too. Obviously, the formulation is primarily about delivery and efficacy – to get the active ingredient where it needs to go, do what it needs to do, and stay there for as long as it needs to. That’s key. But if we can figure out how to make the best formulation for drug delivery and make it one that women can at least tolerate, if not like, then we have a better shot at effectiveness overall. If it feels good, women will use it.
Actually, there are two ways of looking at microbicide gels. First, you could think of it as a product with a neutral impact on the sexual experience – some people enjoy sex the way it is and don’t want it altered by a product. This would also be useful for women who need the microbicide to be covert. Second, you can develop a product that actually enhances sexual pleasure. Hopefully, if people like it, that would increase the likelihood of their using it. And if it’s efficacious to begin with, then that means we’re reducing the possibility for HIV infection.
Watch this space for Part 2 of this interview, where Kate talks about the broadening scope of her research in Project MIST, behavioral science, what inspires her, and the hardest part about her job.
[Content that is linked from other sources is for informational purposes and should not construe a Mapping Pathways position.]
No comments:
Post a Comment