Nandi Siegfried1, Rachel L Beanland2, Nathan Ford3, Kenneth H Mayer4. 1. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, South Africa Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Department of HIV/AIDS, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 3. Centre for Infectious Disease Epidemiology and Research, University of Cape Town, South Africa Department of HIV/AIDS, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 4. The Fenway Institute, Fenway Health Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During a World Health Organization-convened Guideline Development Group meeting, recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for human immunodeficiency virus were made and research gaps identified. METHODS: We used the PEP clinical management pathway and the Grading of Evidence, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as a framework to formulate future research questions, describe the most feasible study design, and identify potential biases. RESULTS: Three key study design formats were identified to address 12 research questions: (1) survey- and interview-driven research to identify barriers to access to PEP and related clinical care; (2) establishment of a global PEP registry to generate data to inform the choice of an optimal PEP drug regimen, record drug toxicities arising from specific PEP regimens, and track follow-up and linkage to care (including transition from PEP to preexposure prophylaxis); and (3) randomized controlled trials to determine the optimal adherence promotion strategies necessary for successful outcomes following PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Positioning key clinical and programmatic research questions within the GRADE framework facilitates the formulation of an evidence-based research agenda and future revisions of guidelines.
BACKGROUND: During a World Health Organization-convened Guideline Development Group meeting, recommendations for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) for human immunodeficiency virus were made and research gaps identified. METHODS: We used the PEP clinical management pathway and the Grading of Evidence, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system as a framework to formulate future research questions, describe the most feasible study design, and identify potential biases. RESULTS: Three key study design formats were identified to address 12 research questions: (1) survey- and interview-driven research to identify barriers to access to PEP and related clinical care; (2) establishment of a global PEP registry to generate data to inform the choice of an optimal PEP drug regimen, record drug toxicities arising from specific PEP regimens, and track follow-up and linkage to care (including transition from PEP to preexposure prophylaxis); and (3) randomized controlled trials to determine the optimal adherence promotion strategies necessary for successful outcomes following PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Positioning key clinical and programmatic research questions within the GRADE framework facilitates the formulation of an evidence-based research agenda and future revisions of guidelines.
Authors: Eric Munene Muriuki; Joshua Kimani; Zipporah Machuki; James Kiarie; Alison C Roxby Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: S Hargreaves; J Himmels; L B Nellums; G Biswas; A F Gabrielli; N Gebreselassie; M Zignol; D Schellenberg; S L Norris; N Ford; D Maher Journal: Public Health Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.427
Authors: Nandi Siegfried; Manjulaa Narasimhan; Carmen H Logie; Rebekah Thomas; Laura Ferguson; Kevin Moody; Michelle Remme Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2020-03-30