| Literature DB >> 22511916 |
Gaudensia Mutua1, Eduard Sanders, Peter Mugo, Omu Anzala, Jessica E Haberer, David Bangsberg, Burc Barin, James F Rooney, David Mark, Paramesh Chetty, Patricia Fast, Frances H Priddy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about safety of and adherence to intermittent HIV PrEP regimens, which may be more feasible than daily dosing in some settings. We present safety and adherence data from the first trial of an intermittent PrEP regimen among Kenyan men who have sex with men (MSM) and female sex workers (FSW). METHODS/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22511916 PMCID: PMC3325227 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033103
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Flow of participants.
Baseline demographics and HIV risk behavior for the past 28 days by treatment assignment-schedule and study site.
| Treatment | |||||||
| Active | Placebo | Site | Total (N = 72) | ||||
| Daily (N = 24) | Intermittent (N = 24) | Daily (N = 12) | Intermittent (N = 12) | Kilifi (N = 36) | Nairobi (N = 36) | ||
|
| 21 (88) | 24 (100) | 11 (92) | 11 (92) | 31 (86) | 36 (100) | 67 (93) |
|
| 26 (20–36) | 26 (19–35) | 27 (20–38) | 28 (18–46) | 26 (18–36) | 27 (20–46) | 26 (18–46) |
|
| 9 (38) | 14 (58) | 5 (42) | 6 (50) | 15 (42) | 19 (53) | 34 (47) |
|
| 8 (33) | 10 (42) | 7 (58) | 5 (42) | 22 (61) | 8 (22) | 30 (42) |
|
| 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (8) | 1 (3) | 1 (3) | 2 (3) |
|
| 11 (85) | 11 (100) | 5 (83) | 7 (100) | 19 (90) | 15 (94) | 34 (92) |
|
| 5 (100) | 6 (100) | 4 (100) | 1 (100) | 7 (100) | 9 (100) | 16 (100) |
|
| 17 (74) | 15 (63) | 8 (73) | 7 (58) | 26 (74) | 21 (60) | 47 (67) |
|
| 1 (4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) |
|
| 13 (59) | 17 (71) | 5 (45) | 9 (75) | 19 (56) | 25 (71) | 44 (64) |
|
| 13 (65) | 14 (61) | 8 (80) | 6 (55) | 18 (62) | 23 (66) | 41 (64) |
|
| 3 | 3 | 3 [1.5–4.5] | 3 [1.5–4] | 3 [1.5–4] | 3 | 3 |
P = 0.022.
Number (percentage) of volunteers with AEs categorized by maximum severity experienced, and treatment assignment and schedule.
| Assignment Schedule | Maximum AE Severity | |||||
| None | Mild | Mod | Severe | Very Severe | ||
|
|
| 4 (17) | 6 (25) | 11 (46) | 2 (8) | 1 (4) |
|
| 5 (21) | 4 (17) | 14 (58) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| 2 (17) | 5 (42) | 5 (42) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
|
| 4 (33) | 3 (25) | 5 (42) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
PrEP adherence rates for daily and intermittent groups.
| Active | Placebo | Overall | ||
|
| Overall unadjusted | 82% [62–89] | 84% [63–96] | 83% [63–92] |
|
| ||||
| Adjusted | 92% [79–101] | 93% [84–96] | 92% [82–99] | |
|
| Overall unadjusted | 72% [62–80] | 68% [63–76] | 68% [63–78] |
|
| ||||
| Fixed doses | 56% [31–88] | 34% [19–72] | 55% [28–78] | |
| Post-coital doses | 32% [13–50] | 19% [14–45] | 26% [14–50] | |
| Post-coital doses – (MEMS events and self report sexual events) | 27% [13–60] | 16% | 23% [13–50] | |
| Post-coital doses within | 115% [57–175] | 100% [61–174] | 105% [57–175] | |
| Post-coital doses within | 100% [100–100] | 100% [67–100] | 100% [96–100] |
Adjusted accounts for extra openings and extra pills taken out.
Days on which sexual event reported per SMS.