AzTrials
AzTrials

HIV InfectionsPhase 4GLACIERNCT04982445

Study Using CABENUVA™ for the Treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-1, Administered in Infusion Centers (IC) or Alternate Sites of Administration (ASA) in the United States (U.S.)

A Phase 4 study testing CABENUVA in people with HIV Infections, run by ViiV Healthcare at 15 sites in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

GLACIER (Giving Long Acting CABENUVA in an Infusion center/ASA) is an interventional study examining the administration of CABENUVA (Cabotegravir long acting [LA] plus Rilpivirine LA) intramuscular (IM) in infusion centers/ASAs in United States. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
HIV Infections
What is being tested?
CABENUVA
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
44 participants
Where
15 sitesUnited States
Study dates
18 Nov 2021to 31 Jan 2024
Phase
Phase 4
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Adults (greater than or equal to [>=]18 years old) at the time of signing the informed consent.
  • HIV-1 infected and have been prescribed CABNEUVA per the United States Prescribing information (USPI).
  • Participants can be enrolled
  • If they have been taking oral VOCABRIA + EDURANT or other ART for approximately 1 month (at least 28 days) prior to Baseline/Month 1, or
  • Already taking CABENUVA prior to Baseline/Month 1 and the last injections were within a 1 month +/- 7-day window or for every 2-month injections, the timing will vary if they are receiving the initiation injections (1 month +/- 7-day) or the continuation injections (2 months +/- 7 days) per the USPI, or
  • Prescribed direct to inject and receive their 1st injection without an oral lead in at the Infusion Center/ASA on the last day of any other antiretroviral therapy
  • Agreement to receive CABENUVA IM injections at participating infusion center/ASA.

Who cannot join

  • Participants are excluded from the study as dictated in the Prescribing Information (CABENUVA [USPI]) in consultation with the HIV care provider.
  • Contraindications, as per the current Prescribing Information [CABENUVA USPI]
  • New health condition / prohibited medication reported - Other Reason at the discretion of the HIV care provider or IC/ ASA staff

Trial locations and contacts

15 sites in 1 country.

15 sites in 1 country

United States15 sites

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Charleston, South Carolina, 29414

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Charlotte, North Carolina, 28226

  • GSK Investigational Site

    East Lansing, Michigan, 48823

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Evans, Georgia, 30809

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Florence, South Carolina, 29501

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Fort Worth, Texas, 76244-5307

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Greensboro, North Carolina, 27405

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Kingwood, Texas, 77339

  • GSK Investigational Site

    North Richland Hills, Texas, 76180-7379

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Novi, Michigan, 48377-2977

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Plano, Texas, 75093

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Plymouth, Minnesota, 55446

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Raleigh, North Carolina, 27612

  • GSK Investigational Site

    Summerville, South Carolina, 29483

  • GSK Investigational Site

    West Columbia, South Carolina, 29169

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Phase 4, Open-label, Single Arm Study to Optimize Implementation of CABENUVA for the Treatment of HIV-1, for Administration in U.S. Community-based Infusion Centers or Other Alternate Sites of Administration

GLACIER (Giving Long Acting CABENUVA in an Infusion center/ASA) is an interventional study examining the administration of CABENUVA (Cabotegravir long acting [LA] plus Rilpivirine LA) intramuscular (IM) in infusion centers/ASAs in United States. In this study, the intervention is the process of using an infusion center/ASA as the location to receive the CABENUVA IM injections. The acceptability and feasibility of the IC/ASA to deliver CABENUVA IM injections will be assessed from the perspectives of the participants, HIV care providers and IC/ASA staff. In this study, Month 1 is the Baseline visit. CABENUVA is a registered trademark of ViiV Healthcare.

Conditions
HIV Infections
Being tested
CABENUVA
Keywords
HIV, CABENUVA, Intramuscular, Cabotegravir, Rilpivirine
Medical subject headings
HIV Infections

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • CABENUVADrug

    CABENUVA will be administered IM at infusion centers/ASAs

Study groups in NCT04982445
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Participants receiving CABENUVAExperimentalEligible participants received CABENUVA injections intramuscularly at infusion centers/ASAs monthly or every-2-months.
Receives: Drug: CABENUVA

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Number of Participants Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)

    Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) were employed to evaluate the feasibility of CABENUVA administration at Infusion Centers (IC)/ alternate sites of administration (ASA). Higher scores on FIM indicate greater feasibility, where each item can be scored from 1 to 5: Completely disagree (score=1), disagree (score=2), neither agree or disagree (score=3), agree (score=4), completely agree (score=5). This scoring looked at the number responding '4' or '5' to each question divided by the number completing all 4-items where "items" refer to the individual questions or statements that participants respond to in order to assess their perceptions of an intervention. Each item is designed to measure a specific aspect of either acceptability or feasibility.

    Measured: At Month 8

Secondary outcomes (101)

  1. Number of Participants Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the FIM at Month 1 and 3

    Measured: At Months 1 and 3

  2. Number of HIV Care Providers Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the FIM at Month 1, 4 and 8

    Measured: At Months 1, 4, and 8

  3. Number of IC/ ASA Staff Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the FIM Prior to Month 1 and at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline) and at Months 3 and 8

  4. Change in FIM Score Over Time in Participants at Month 3 and 8

    The mean score for feasibility of the intervention administration was calculated by averaging the responses from the 4 items. The responses were scored based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree.

    Measured: From Month 1 (Baseline) to Months 3 and 8

  5. Change in FIM Score Over Time in HIV Care Providers at Month 4 and 8

    Measured: From Month 1 (Baseline) to Months 4 and 8

  6. Change in FIM Score Over Time in IC/ ASA Staff at Month 3 and 8

    Measured: From Month 1 (Baseline) to Months 3 and 8

  7. Number of Participants Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    The tailored questionnaire for participants receiving CABENUVA was developed specifically for this study and contains items regarding the reasons for switching to CABENUVA, adherence to their previous oral HIV medication, preferences and attitudes regarding their medication regimen, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of receiving injections at the IC/ASA. In this outcome measure, participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (any/biggest concerns about receiving CABENUVA at an infusion center).

    Measured: At Month 1

  8. Number of Participants Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration (Concern About Continuing to Receive CABENUVA) by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3 and 8

    The tailored questionnaire for participants receiving CABENUVA was developed specifically for this study and contains items regarding the reasons for switching to CABENUVA, adherence to their previous oral HIV medication, preferences and attitudes regarding their medication regimen, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of receiving injections at the IC/ASA. In this outcome measure, participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (any concerns about continuing to receive CABENUVA at an infusion center) at Months 3 and 8.

    Measured: At Month 3 and 8

  9. Number of Participants Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3 and 8

    Participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (biggest concerns about continuing to receive CABENUVA at an infusion center).

    Measured: At Month 3 and 8

  10. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    The tailored HIV care provider/clinical staff questionnaire was developed specifically for this study and contains items regarding the provider's practice and experience, as well as their attitudes, expectations, and concerns regarding the use of CABENUVA/long-acting injectable administered by ICs/ASAs.

    Measured: At Month 1

  11. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 4

    Measured: At Month 4

  12. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  13. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Other Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    The tailored IC staff questionnaire was developed specifically for this study and contains items regarding the staff member's role at the IC, as well as their attitudes, concerns, and anticipated/implemented procedures regarding the use of CABENUVA/long-acting injectable administered by ICs. The IC/ASA staff members were asked to indicate their level of concern across 16 areas of potential concern, on a five-point scale from "not at all concerned" to "extremely concerned."

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  14. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants Assessed by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3

    The IC/ASA staff members were asked to indicate their level of concern across 16 areas of potential concern, on a five-point scale from "not at all concerned" to "extremely concerned."

    Measured: At Month 3

  15. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    The IC/ASA staff members were asked to indicate their level of concern across 16 areas of potential concern, on a five-point scale from "not at all concerned" to "extremely concerned."

    Measured: At Month 8

  16. Number of Participants Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Qualitative interviews were conducted at Month 8 to evaluate the opinions of participants on the feasibility of CABENUVA administration at IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  17. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Qualitative interviews were conducted at Month 8 to evaluate the general opinion of HIV care providers on the feasibility of referring participants to receive CABENUVA at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  18. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Feasibility of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Qualitative interviews were conducted at Month 8 to evaluate the general opinion of IC/ ASA staff on feasibility of CABENUVA administration at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  19. Composite Score of Feasibility Process Indications

    Composite score of feasibility process was calculated as the mean of the following four scores: FIM Score, Consent Rate, Show Rate, and Return Rate at Visit, on a 0 to 100 scale, where higher numbers correspond to better feasibility.

    Measured: Up to and including Month 8

  20. Change in Composite Score and Each Item of Composite Score Over Time

    This outcome measure was planned to evaluate change in composite score from baseline to month 8 according to the protocol. The composite score was however not evaluated as a change over time but as a point in time at month 8 as the components of each of the feasibility composite score (FIM score, consent rate, show rate and return rate) were captured at different time intervals.

    Measured: Baseline (Month 1) and at Month 8

  21. Number of HIV Care Providers Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM)

    AIM was employed to evaluate the acceptability of CABENUVA administration at Infusion Centers/ ASAs. Higher scores for AIM indicate greater acceptability, where each item was scored from 1 to 5: Completely disagree (score=1), disagree (score=2), neither agree or disagree (score=3), agree (score=4), completely agree (score=5).

    Measured: Months 1 (Baseline), 4, and 8

  22. Number of Participants Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the AIM

    AIM were employed to evaluate the acceptability of CABENUVA administration at Infusion Centers/ ASAs. Higher scores for AIM indicate greater acceptability, where each item was scored from 1 to 5: Completely disagree (score=1), disagree (score=2), neither agree or disagree (score=3), agree (score=4), completely agree (score=5).

    Measured: Month 1 (Baseline), 3 and 8

  23. Number of IC/ ASA Staff Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the AIM

    AIM were employed to evaluate the acceptability of CABENUVA administration at Infusion Centers/ ASAs. Higher scores for AIM indicate greater acceptability, where each item was scored from 1 to 5: Completely disagree (score=1), disagree (score=2), neither agree or disagree (score=3), agree (score=4), completely agree (score=5).

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline), and at Month 3 and 8

  24. Change in AIM Score Over Time in HIV Care Providers at Month 4 and 8

    The mean score for acceptability of the intervention is calculated by averaging the responses from 4 items. The responses were scored based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree.

    Measured: Month 1 (Baseline), at Months 4 and 8

  25. Change in AIM Score Over Time in Participants at Month 3 and 8

    The mean score for acceptability of the intervention is calculated by averaging the responses from 4 items. The responses were scored based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree.

    Measured: Month 1 (Baseline), at Months 3 and 8

  26. Change in AIM Score Over Time in IC/ ASA Staff at Month 3 and 8

    The mean score for acceptability of the intervention is calculated by averaging the responses from 4 items. The responses were scored based on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1=completely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, and 5=completely agree.

    Measured: Month 1 (Baseline), at Months 3 and 8

  27. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration in Participants at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaire at Months 1, 4 and 8

    Measured: At Months 1, 4 and 8

  28. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaire in at Months 1, 3 and 8

    The participants were asked how acceptable it was to come to the IC/ASA for CABENUVA using a 7-point scale from "very acceptable" to "very unacceptable" where 1= very acceptable, 2= somewhat acceptable, 3= a little acceptable, 4= neutral, 5= a little unacceptable, 6= somewhat unacceptable and 7= very unacceptable.

    Measured: At Months 1, 3 and 8

  29. Number of IC/ ASA Staff Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration in Participants at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaire Prior to Month 1

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  30. Number of IC/ ASA Staff Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration in Participants at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaire at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  31. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration at IC/ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Participants were asked about their opinion on acceptability of CABENUVA administration at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  32. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration in Participants at IC/ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    HIV care providers were asked about their opinion on the acceptability of participants receiving CABENUVA at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  33. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Acceptability of CABENUVA Administration in Participants at IC/ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    IC/ASA staff were asked about their opinion on the acceptability of administering CABENUVA at an IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  34. Number of Expert Panel That Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the FIM Scale

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline), and at Month 3 and 6

  35. Number of Expert Panel That Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the AIM Scale

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline), and at Month 3 and 6

  36. Change in FIM Score of Expert Panel Over Time Through Month 6

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline) and Up to Month 6

  37. Change in AIM Score of Expert Panel Over Time Through Month 6

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline) and Up to Month 6

  38. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of Insurance Coverage for CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  39. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of Communication for CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  40. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of CABENUVA Administration (Interval of Time) in Participants by Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    In this outcome measure, Expert Panel members were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (for patients receiving CABENUVA injections at the infusion center, what is the preferred interval of time for patients to be seen by their HIV provider).

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  41. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of Referring Participants for CABENUVA Administration by Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  42. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of Insurance and Communication for CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3

    Measured: At Month 3

  43. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of Insurance and Communication for CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 6

    Measured: At Month 6

  44. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Qualitative Interviews Prior to Month 1

    The Expert Panel were asked about the key steps focused on the process of CABENUVA administration at IC/ASAs in order to inform the development of the blueprint.

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  45. Number of Expert Panel Members Assessed for Feasibility, Acceptability and Process of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Qualitative Interviews at Month 6

    The Expert Panel were asked about the key steps focused on the process of CABENUVA administration at IC/ASAs in order to inform the development of the blueprint.

    Measured: At Month 6

  46. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    Measured: At Month 1

  47. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 1) at Month 3 and 8

    Measured: At Month 3 and 8

  48. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 2) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  49. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 3) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  50. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 4) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  51. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 5) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  52. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 6) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  53. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 7) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  54. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 8) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  55. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 9) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  56. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 10) at Months 3 and 8

    Participants were asked their opinion on who did they reach out to obtain answers to their questions.

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  57. Number of Participants Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration With Other Quantitative Questionnaires (Q 11) at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  58. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants With Other Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    Since CABENUVA must be administered within a two-week treatment window every month, IC/ASA staff were asked their opinion about the ease or difficulty in appointment re-scheduling and implementation of CABENUVA administration in their work-flow.

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  59. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants With Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3

    Since CABENUVA must be administered within a two-week treatment window (+/-)7 days relative to the target treatment date), the IC/ASA staff was asked their opinion about the ease or difficulty in appointment scheduling and re-scheduling and implementation of CABENUVA administration in their workflow.

    Measured: At Month 3

  60. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants With Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    Since CABENUVA must be administered within a two-week treatment window (+/-)7 days relative to the target treatment date), the IC/ASA staff was asked their opinion about the ease or difficulty in appointment scheduling and re-scheduling and implementation of CABENUVA administration in their workflow.

    Measured: At Month 8

  61. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants With Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    Measured: At Month 1

  62. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants With Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 4

    Measured: At Month 4

  63. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants With Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  64. Number of Participants Assessed for Facilitators of CABENUVA Administration by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Participants were asked about facilitators that made the process of receiving CABENUVA at IC/ASAs easier.

    Measured: At Month 8

  65. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    IC/ASA staff were asked their opinion on the infrastructure impact of administering CABENUVA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  66. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Perceptions, Facilitators and Barriers/Concerns of CABENUVA Administration in Participants by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    HIV care providers were asked about the facilitators and challenges related to referring participants to IC/ASAs.

    Measured: At Month 8

  67. Number of Participants Assessed for Preference on the Location to Receive CABENUVA With Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 1, 3 and 8

    Measured: At Month 1, 3 and 8

  68. Number of Participants Assessed for Preference on the Location to Receive CABENUVA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  69. Number of Participants Assessed for Advantages of Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    In this outcome measure, participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (advantages of going to the infusion center to receive CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Month 1

  70. Number of Participants Assessed for Advantages of Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 3 and 8

    In this outcome measure, participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (advantages of going to the infusion center to receive CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  71. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Advantages of Referring Participants to the IC/ ASA to Receive CABENUVA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1, 4 and 8

    In this outcome measure, HIV care providers were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (advantages of referring patients to an infusion center for CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Months 1, 4 and 8

  72. Number of Participants Assessed for Advantages of Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  73. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Advantages of Participants Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  74. Number of Participants Assessed for Disadvantages of Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    In this outcome measure, participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (disadvantages of going to the infusion center to receive CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Month 1

  75. Number of Participants Assessed for Disadvantages of Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 3 and 8

    In this outcome measure, participants were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (disadvantages of going to the infusion center to receive CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  76. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Disadvantages of Referring Participants to the IC/ ASA to Receive CABENUVA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    In this outcome measure, HIV care providers were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (potential disadvantages of referring patients to an IC for CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Month 1

  77. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Disadvantages of Referring Participants to the IC/ ASA to Receive CABENUVA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 4 and 8

    In this outcome measure, HIV care providers were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (disadvantages of referring patients to an IC for CABENUVA).

    Measured: At Months 4 and 8

  78. Number of Participants Assessed for Disadvantages of Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  79. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Disadvantages for Participants Receiving CABENUVA at IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    In this outcome measure, HIV care providers were asked about their views on the IC/ASA administration model (disadvantages for participants receiving CABENUVA at IC/ASAs).

    Measured: At Month 8

  80. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Receiving Injections at ICs/ ASAs by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    Measured: At Month 1

  81. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Receiving Injections at ICs/ ASAs by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3

    Measured: At Month 3

  82. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Receiving Injections at ICs/ ASAs by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  83. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Receiving Injections at ICs/ ASAs (Time Spent at IC) by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  84. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Referring Participants to the IC/ ASA for CABENUVA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 1, 4 and 8

    HIV care providers were asked about the type of patients they found acceptable to refer to an IC to receive CABENUVA.

    Measured: At Months 1, 4 and 8

  85. Number of Participants Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Receiving Injections at ICs/ ASAs by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Participants were asked about their opinion on the acceptability of CABENUVA administration at the IC.

    Measured: At Month 8

  86. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Acceptability of the Process of Participants Receiving Injections at ICs/ ASAs by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  87. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Usefulness of the Blueprint Intervention With Other Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1

    The blueprint guides IC/ASA staff on what to do with referrals to receive CABENUVA at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline)

  88. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Usefulness of the Blueprint Intervention With Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 3 and 8

    The blueprint guides IC/ASA staff on what to do with referrals to receive CABENUVA at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Months 3 and 8

  89. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Usefulness of Plan of Treatment (POT) by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 4 and 8

    Measured: At Months 4 and 8

  90. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Usefulness of the Blueprint Intervention and POT Assessed by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    Measured: Month 8

  91. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Usefulness of the Blueprint Intervention and POT by Qualitative Interviews at Month 8

    The blueprint guides HIV care providers on what to do with referrals to receive CABENUVA at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: Month 8

  92. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Overall Opinion of Administering the Injection at an IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires Prior to Month 1 and at Months 3 and 8

    Measured: Prior to Month 1 (Baseline) and Months 3 and 8

  93. Number of Participants Assessed for Overall Opinion of Receiving the Injection at an IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Months 1, 3 and 8

    Measured: At Months 1, 3 and 8

  94. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Overall Opinion of Referring the Participant to an IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 1

    Measured: At Month 1

  95. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Overall Opinion of Referring the Participant to an IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 4

    Measured: At Month 4

  96. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Overall Opinion of Referring the Participant to an IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  97. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Overall Opinion of Continuing to Refer Participants to an IC/ ASA by Other Quantitative Questionnaires at Month 8

    Measured: At Month 8

  98. Number of Participants Assessed for Overall Opinion of Receiving the Injection at an IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interview at Month 8

    Participants were asked about their overall favorable and non-favorable opinion of receiving CABENUVA at the IC/ASA.

    Measured: At Month 8

  99. Number of HIV Care Providers Assessed for Overall Opinion of Referring Patients to an IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interview at Month 8

    HIV care providers were asked about their overall favoring and non-favoring opinions on referring participants to IC/ASA for CABENUVA administration.

    Measured: At Month 8

  100. Number of IC/ASA Staff Assessed for Overall Opinion of Administering the Injection at an IC/ ASA by Qualitative Interview at Month 8

    IC/ASA staff was asked about their overall opinion on the participants referral process.

    Measured: At Month 8

  101. Number of Injections Occurring Within Target Window From Target Date

    This outcome measure evaluates the fidelity to treatment and dosing window. Fidelity to treatment and dosing window was defined based on a ±7-day window from target treatment date based on the calendar date of baseline injection.

    Measured: Up to and including Month 8

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted29 Jul 2021
  2. Study start18 Nov 2021
  3. Primary completion31 Jan 2024
  4. Study completion31 Jan 2024

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
44 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04982445
Sponsor's protocol ID
214747
Acronym
GLACIER
Status last verified
Mar 2025
First submitted
26 Jul 2021
Last updated
1 Apr 2025
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
Yes: IPD for this study will be made available via the Clinical Study Data Request site.

Publications

  • Gutner CA, Harrington C, Bontempo G, Pazhamalai S, Kumar A, Rimler K, Davis K, Williams W, Merrill D, Petty L, Garris C, Sarkar S, Daniele P, Gaglio B, May K, Aboud M, Czarnogorski M. Feasibility, Fidelity, and Effectiveness of Administering Long-Acting Cabotegravir + Rilpivirine in Infusion Centers in the United States: Findings From the Phase 4 GLACIER Implementation Study. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2026 Jan-Dec;25:23259582261439585. doi: 10.1177/23259582261439585. Epub 2026 May 12.

    PubMed 42117620

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 4 study testing CABENUVA in people with HIV Infections, run by ViiV Healthcare at 15 sites in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 1 Apr 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 15 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this phase mean?

Phase 4 studies take place after a treatment is approved, to learn more about its long-term benefits and risks in everyday use.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 1 Apr 2025). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Number of Participants Who Agree or Completely Agree (a Score of 4 or Higher) Across All Items on the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) (time frame: At Month 8). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04982445, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 1 Apr 2025.

AzTrials uses cookies for analytics and advertising. You can accept or reject them; the site works either way. Privacy Policy.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in