Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized, controlled trial involving women in South Africa and Uganda, twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir was superior to daily oral emtricitabine–tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in preventing HIV infection.

Twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir has been shown to be efficacious for prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in cisgender women. The efficacy of lenacapavir for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in cisgender men, transgender women, transgender men, and gender-nonbinary persons is unclear. In this phase 3, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned participants in a 2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous lenacapavir every 26 weeks or daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF). The primary efficacy analysis compared the incidence of HIV infection in the lenacapavir group with the background HIV incidence in the screened population. The secondary efficacy analysis compared the incidence of HIV infection in the lenacapavir group with that in the F/TDF group. Among 3265 participants who were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis, HIV infections occurred in 2 participants in the lenacapavir group (0.10 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01 to 0.37) and in 9 participants in the F/TDF group (0.93 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.77). The background HIV incidence in the screened population (4634 participants) was 2.37 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.65 to 3.42). The incidence of HIV infection in the lenacapavir group was significantly lower than both the background incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.18; P<0.001) and the incidence in the F/TDF group (incidence rate ratio, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.51; P = 0.002). No safety concerns were identified. A total of 26 of 2183 participants (1.2%) in the lenacapavir group and 3 of 1088 (0.3%) in the F/TDF group discontinued the trial regimen because of injection-site reactions. The HIV incidence with twice-yearly lenacapavir was significantly lower than the background incidence and the incidence with F/TDF. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PURPOSE 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04925752.).

Randomised placebo-controlled trials have shown that daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir–emtricitabine reduces the risk of HIV infection. However, this benefit could be counteracted by risk compensation in users of PrEP. We did the PROUD study to assess this effect. PROUD is an open-label randomised trial done at 13 sexual health clinics in England. We enrolled HIV-negative gay and other men who have sex with men who had had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (245 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg) either immediately or after a deferral period of 1 year. Randomisation was done via web-based access to a central computer-generated list with variable block sizes (stratified by clinical site). Follow-up was quarterly. The primary outcomes for the pilot phase were time to accrue 500 participants and retention; secondary outcomes included incident HIV infection during the deferral period, safety, adherence, and risk compensation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN94465371) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02065986). We enrolled 544 participants (275 in the immediate group, 269 in the deferred group) between Nov 29, 2012, and April 30, 2014. Based on early evidence of effectiveness, the trial steering committee recommended on Oct 13, 2014, that all deferred participants be offered PrEP. Follow-up for HIV incidence was complete for 243 (94%) of 259 patient-years in the immediate group versus 222 (90%) of 245 patient-years in the deferred group. Three HIV infections occurred in the immediate group (1·2/100 person-years) versus 20 in the deferred group (9·0/100 person-years) despite 174 prescriptions of post-exposure prophylaxis in the deferred group (relative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64–96, p=0·0001; absolute difference 7·8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4·3–11·3). 13 men (90% CI 9–23) in a similar population would need access to 1 year of PrEP to avert one HIV infection. We recorded no serious adverse drug reactions; 28 adverse events, most commonly nausea, headache, and arthralgia, resulted in interruption of PrEp. We detected no difference in the occurrence of sexually transmitted infections, including rectal gonorrhoea and chlamydia, between groups, despite a suggestion of risk compensation among some PrEP recipients. In this high incidence population, daily tenofovir–emtricitabine conferred even higher protection against HIV than in placebo-controlled trials, refuting concerns that effectiveness would be less in a real-world setting. There was no evidence of an increase in other sexually transmitted infections. Our findings strongly support the addition of PrEP to the standard of prevention for men who have sex with men at risk of HIV infection. MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Public Health England, and Gilead Sciences.

Tenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention. This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is no longer recruiting. Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19–1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06–0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19–0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints. Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Gilead Sciences.

Doxycycline postexposure prophylaxis has been shown to prevent STIs in cisgender men and transgender women. In this trial involving cisgender women in Kenya, STI incidence was not lower with doxycycline than with standard care.

Introduction Stigma and disclosure concerns have been key barriers to oral pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) adherence for African adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in efficacy trials. We aimed to understand the impact of these factors among African AGYW in an open‐label PrEP study. Methods HPTN 082 was an open‐label PrEP study among AGYW (ages 16 to 24) in Harare, Zimbabwe, and Cape Town and Johannesburg, South Africa from 2016 to 2018. Women starting PrEP were randomized to standard adherence support (counselling, two‐way SMS, monthly adherence clubs) or standard support plus drug‐level feedback. Serial in‐depth interviews were conducted among 67 AGYW after 13‐week and 26‐week study visits to explore experiences of stigma, disclosure and PrEP adherence. We analysed data by coding transcripts and memo‐writing and diagramming to summarize themes. Results AGYW described stigma related to sexual activity (e.g. “people say I'm a prostitute”) and being perceived to be living with HIV because of taking antiretrovirals (e.g. “my husband's friends say I'm HIV infected”). Participants who anticipated stigma were reluctant to disclose PrEP use and reported adherence challenges. Disclosure also resulted in stigmatizing experiences. Across all sites, negative descriptions of stigma and disclosure challenges were more common in the first interview. In the second interview, participants often described disclosure as an “empowering” way to combat community‐level PrEP stigma; many said that they proactively discussed PrEP in their communities (e.g. became a “community PrEP ambassador”), which improved their ability to take PrEP and encourage others to use PrEP. These empowering disclosure experiences were facilitated by ongoing HPTN 082 study activities (e.g. counselling sessions, adherence clubs) in which they could discuss PrEP‐related stigma, disclosure and PrEP adherence issues. Conclusions Stigma and disclosure challenges were initial concerns for African AGYW newly initiating PrEP but many were empowered to disclose PrEP use over their first six months of PrEP use, which helped them cope with stigma and feel more able to take PrEP regularly. PrEP programmes can foster disclosure through community and clinic‐based discussion, adherence clubs and activities normalizing sexual behaviour and PrEP use, which can reduce stigma and improve PrEP adherence and thus effectiveness.

Additional forms of pre-exposure prophylaxis are needed to prevent HIV-1 infection. 3BNC117 and 10-1074 are broadly neutralizing anti-HIV-1 antibodies that target non-overlapping epitopes on the HIV-1 envelope. We investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of the intravenous administration of the combination of 3BNC117 and 10-1074 in healthy adults. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single center, phase 1 study enrolled healthy adults aged 18-65 years to receive one infusion of 3BNC117 immediately followed by 10-1074 at 10 mg/kg, three infusions of 3BNC117 followed by 10-1074 at 3 mg/kg or 10 mg/kg every 8 weeks, or placebo infusions. The primary outcomes were safety and pharmacokinetics. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02824536. Twenty-four participants were enrolled in a 3:1 ratio to receive the study products or placebo. The combination of 3BNC117 and 10-1074 was safe and generally well tolerated. There were no serious adverse events considered related to the infusions. The mean elimination half-lives of 3BNC117 and 10-1074 were 16.4 ± 4.6 days and 23.0 ± 5.4 days, respectively, similar to what was observed in previous studies in which each antibody was administered alone. Anti-drug antibody responses were rare and without evidence of related adverse events or impact on elimination kinetics. Single and repeated doses of the combination of 3BNC117 and 10-1074 were well tolerated in healthy adults. These data support the further development of the combination of 3BNC117 and 10-1074 as a long-acting injectable form of pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV-1 infection.

HPTN 084 compared the safety and efficacy of long-acting injectable cabotegravir (CAB) to daily oral TDF/FTC for prevention of HIV-1 in uninfected African women. Like a similar trial in MSM/TGW (HPTN 083), the trial was stopped early for efficacy, expediting the need to consider introduction strategies for different populations. We examine survey and qualitative data from a four-country sub-study to examine oral and injectable PrEP acceptability and considerations for CAB access among African women. Participants completed baseline and follow-up surveys on HIV risk perception, sexual behavior. product acceptability and adherence during the blinded trial. Additionally, up to two in-depth interviews each with 73 sub-study participants explored product use and trial-related experiences, during the blinded and unblinded study periods. Using survey data, we classified participants as: engaged in female sex work (FSW), having multiple non-transactional partners, or monogamous. A study statistician identified participants' assigned study arm. We followed a thematic analysis process to read transcripts, develop a codebook and apply codes in NVivo to transcripts with intermittent intercoder reliability checks; using Excel matrices to explore differences across risk categories and study arms. Participants overwhelmingly preferred injections to pills, appreciating the ease, convenience, and privacy of a long-acting formulation. Many participants described challenges with contraceptive and/or study pill adherence, impeded by late night work, unexpected travel, or heavy drinking. Women in the TDF/FTC arm were more likely to describe side effects, compared to those in the CAB arm. Pain also varied widely by study arm. When considering post-trial access to CAB, limited PrEP knowledge, cost and concerns around stigma and poor service quality were potential access barriers. Women's desire for privacy and ease of use outweighed injectable concerns, resulting in a strong preference for CAB. Cost and accessibility will need to be addressed by implementation programs.

Background Cost remains an important barrier to HIV pre-exposure prophlyaxis (PrEP) delivery in Africa. Simplified delivery models that reduce costs without compromising PrEP outcomes are needed. The JiPime-JiPrEP trial tested a model of six-month PrEP dispensing supported with interim HIV self-testing (HIVST) and found non-inferior HIV testing, PrEP refilling, and adherence compared to three-month PrEP dispensing and quarterly clinic visits, the standard-of-care (SOC). We estimated the cost of this novel differentiated PrEP delivery model compared to SOC in Kenya. Methods Using activity-based micro-costing (payer perspective) and time-and-motion observations, we estimated the cost of PrEP delivery (per client-month) in the intervention and SOC between May 2018 to December 2019. Data from budgets and expense reports, published documents, and interviews informed our estimates. We calculated costs over a one-year horizon for: 1) the trial scenario (i.e., costs within the trial), and 2) the Ministy of Health (MOH) scenario (i.e., hypothetical costs at public clinics). Estimates were in 2019 US dollars and excluded research-related costs. Results The mean personnel time attributable to PrEP delivery was 76 minutes per visit and 152 minutes projected over a year in the intervention and 54 minutes per visit and 282 minutes per year in the SOC. In the trial scenario, PrEP delivery cost $17.73 per client-month in the intervention (n=2039 PrEP-months) and $25.50 in the SOC (n=913 PrEP-months). The projected cost of PrEP delivery in the MOH scenario was $11.94 in the intervention and $14.76 in the SOC, with the addition of HIVST kits in the intervention more than offset by personnel savings. In this scenario, personnel (intervention: 55%; SOC: 44%) and medication (intervention: 16%; SOC: 32%) were the primary cost drivers. Including serum creatine testing twice a year in the MOH scenario resulted in a slight increase in the cost of PrEP delivery in the intervention ($12.88 per client-month) versus SOC ($16.17 per client-month). Conclusions Six-month PrEP with interim HIVST demonstrated lower costs than three-month dispensing, with decreased personnel time. Scale-up of PrEP delivery requires efficient use of limited resources; the savings in this model of PrEP delivery could be redirected towards currently unmet medical needs. Clinial trial number NCT03593629|| https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ with the Clinical Trial Registry (Registration date: 2018-07-20).

PurposeIn the subgroup of patients with Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II > 53 in the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) trial, there was interaction (P = 0.049) suggesting increased mortality in patients allocated to pantoprazole as compared with placebo. We aimed to explore this further.MethodsThe SUP-ICU trial allocated acutely admitted adults at risk of gastrointestinal bleeding to pantoprazole vs placebo. In this post hoc study, we repeated all the preplanned analyses of SUP-ICU in patients with baseline SAPS II > 53.ResultsA total of 1140 patients had a complete SAPS II > 53 and were included. At 90 days, 272/579 patients (47%) assigned to pantoprazole had died, as compared with 229/558 patients (41%) assigned to placebo [relative risk 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.29]. This was supported by sensitivity analyses adjusted for risk factors and those in the per-protocol population. When accounting for patients with incomplete SAPS II in two additional analyses, the relative risk was 1.08; 95% CI 0.96–1.22 and 1.10; 95% CI 0.97–1.25. This was also observed for the secondary outcome days alive without life support. There were no differences between the intervention groups in the other secondary outcomes.ConclusionsIn this post hoc analysis of patients with high disease severity included in the SUP-ICU trial, we observed higher 90-day mortality and fewer days alive without life support with pantoprazole vs placebo. Some of this may have been explained by missing SAPS II data, but further research is needed to draw firm conclusions.ClinicalTrials.govClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT02467621.