Dobromir T Dimitrov1, Benoît R Mâsse, Deborah Donnell. 1. *Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; †CHU Sainte-Justine Research Centre, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; and ‡Vaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that the efficacy of tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) strongly depends on the consistency of PrEP use. We explore how the patterns of pill taking and waning of PrEP protection may affect PrEP efficacy for HIV prevention. METHODS: A 2-arm RCT was simulated by mathematical models assuming that the prescribed daily doses were skipped periodically, randomly, or in large blocks. Risk-driven adherence, in which PrEP was taken when sex was expected, was also investigated. Three temporal PrEP protection profiles were explored: long (5 days), intermediate (3 days), and short (24 hours). Modeling results were compared to the efficacy observed in completed RCTs. RESULTS: The expected PrEP efficacy was 60% with periodic, 50% with random, and 34% with block adherence when PrEP had a long protection profile and pills were taken only 50% of the days. Risk-driven pill taking resulted in 29% and 37% daily pills taken and efficacy of 43% and 51%, respectively, for long protection. High PrEP efficacy comparable with that observed in Partners PrEP and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Botswana trials was simulated under long protection, high overall adherence, and limited block pill taking; the moderate efficacy observed in iPrEx and Bangkok trials was comparable with the 50% adherence scenarios under random pill taking and long protection. CONCLUSIONS: Pill-taking patterns may have a substantial impact on the protection provided by PrEP even when the same numbers of pills are taken. When PrEP retains protection for longer than a day, pill-taking patterns can explain a broad range of efficacies observed in PrEP RCTs.
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that the efficacy of tenofovir-based preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) strongly depends on the consistency of PrEP use. We explore how the patterns of pill taking and waning of PrEP protection may affect PrEP efficacy for HIV prevention. METHODS: A 2-arm RCT was simulated by mathematical models assuming that the prescribed daily doses were skipped periodically, randomly, or in large blocks. Risk-driven adherence, in which PrEP was taken when sex was expected, was also investigated. Three temporal PrEP protection profiles were explored: long (5 days), intermediate (3 days), and short (24 hours). Modeling results were compared to the efficacy observed in completed RCTs. RESULTS: The expected PrEP efficacy was 60% with periodic, 50% with random, and 34% with block adherence when PrEP had a long protection profile and pills were taken only 50% of the days. Risk-driven pill taking resulted in 29% and 37% daily pills taken and efficacy of 43% and 51%, respectively, for long protection. High PrEP efficacy comparable with that observed in Partners PrEP and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Botswana trials was simulated under long protection, high overall adherence, and limited block pill taking; the moderate efficacy observed in iPrEx and Bangkok trials was comparable with the 50% adherence scenarios under random pill taking and long protection. CONCLUSIONS: Pill-taking patterns may have a substantial impact on the protection provided by PrEP even when the same numbers of pills are taken. When PrEP retains protection for longer than a day, pill-taking patterns can explain a broad range of efficacies observed in PrEP RCTs.
Authors: Terrence F Blaschke; Lars Osterberg; Bernard Vrijens; John Urquhart Journal: Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 13.820
Authors: Quarraisha Abdool Karim; Salim S Abdool Karim; Janet A Frohlich; Anneke C Grobler; Cheryl Baxter; Leila E Mansoor; Ayesha B M Kharsany; Sengeziwe Sibeko; Koleka P Mlisana; Zaheen Omar; Tanuja N Gengiah; Silvia Maarschalk; Natasha Arulappan; Mukelisiwe Mlotshwa; Lynn Morris; Douglas Taylor Journal: Science Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Peter L Anderson; David V Glidden; Albert Liu; Susan Buchbinder; Javier R Lama; Juan Vicente Guanira; Vanessa McMahan; Lane R Bushman; Martín Casapía; Orlando Montoya-Herrera; Valdilea G Veloso; Kenneth H Mayer; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Mauro Schechter; Linda-Gail Bekker; Esper Georges Kallás; Robert M Grant Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2012-09-12 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Michael C Thigpen; Poloko M Kebaabetswe; Lynn A Paxton; Dawn K Smith; Charles E Rose; Tebogo M Segolodi; Faith L Henderson; Sonal R Pathak; Fatma A Soud; Kata L Chillag; Rodreck Mutanhaurwa; Lovemore Ian Chirwa; Michael Kasonde; Daniel Abebe; Evans Buliva; Roman J Gvetadze; Sandra Johnson; Thom Sukalac; Vasavi T Thomas; Clyde Hart; Jeffrey A Johnson; C Kevin Malotte; Craig W Hendrix; John T Brooks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jared M Baeten; Deborah Donnell; Patrick Ndase; Nelly R Mugo; James D Campbell; Jonathan Wangisi; Jordan W Tappero; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Craig R Cohen; Elly Katabira; Allan Ronald; Elioda Tumwesigye; Edwin Were; Kenneth H Fife; James Kiarie; Carey Farquhar; Grace John-Stewart; Aloysious Kakia; Josephine Odoyo; Akasiima Mucunguzi; Edith Nakku-Joloba; Rogers Twesigye; Kenneth Ngure; Cosmas Apaka; Harrison Tamooh; Fridah Gabona; Andrew Mujugira; Dana Panteleeff; Katherine K Thomas; Lara Kidoguchi; Meighan Krows; Jennifer Revall; Susan Morrison; Harald Haugen; Mira Emmanuel-Ogier; Lisa Ondrejcek; Robert W Coombs; Lisa Frenkel; Craig Hendrix; Namandjé N Bumpus; David Bangsberg; Jessica E Haberer; Wendy S Stevens; Jairam R Lingappa; Connie Celum Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gabriela B Gomez; Annick Borquez; Carlos F Caceres; Eddy R Segura; Robert M Grant; Geoff P Garnett; Timothy B Hallett Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Timothy B Hallett; Jared M Baeten; Renee Heffron; Ruanne Barnabas; Guy de Bruyn; Íde Cremin; Sinead Delany; Geoffrey P Garnett; Glenda Gray; Leigh Johnson; James McIntyre; Helen Rees; Connie Celum Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-11-15 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Marie-Claude Boily; Rebecca F Baggaley; Lei Wang; Benoit Masse; Richard G White; Richard J Hayes; Michel Alary Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Surulivelrajan Mallayasamy; Ayyappa Chaturvedula; Michael J Fossler; Mark Sale; Vineet Goti; Namandje N Bumpus; Mark A Marzinke; Craig W Hendrix; Jessica E Haberer Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Dobromir Dimitrov; James R Moore; Daniel Wood; Kate M Mitchell; Maoji Li; James P Hughes; Deborah J Donnell; Sharon Mannheimer; Timothy H Holtz; Robert M Grant; Marie-Claude Boily Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: David W Pantalone; Ian W Holloway; Alison E A Goldblatt; Kaitlyn R Gorman; Cara Herbitter; Christian Grov Journal: Arch Sex Behav Date: 2019-10-18
Authors: Nicholas Thuo; Madison Polay; Anna M Leddy; Kenneth Ngure; Purba Chatterhee; Monica Gandhi; K Rivet Amico Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2021-04-24