BACKGROUND: Several cluster-randomized trials are underway to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of a universal test-and-treat strategy on the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. We consider nesting studies of pre-exposure prophylaxis within these trials. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is a general strategy where high-risk HIV- persons take antiretrovirals daily to reduce their risk of infection from exposure to HIV. We address how to target pre-exposure prophylaxis to high-risk groups and how to maximize power to detect the individual and combined effects of universal test-and-treat and pre-exposure prophylaxis strategies. METHODS: We simulated 1000 trials, each consisting of 32 villages with 200 individuals per village. At baseline, we randomized the universal test-and-treat strategy. Then, after 3 years of follow-up, we considered four strategies for targeting pre-exposure prophylaxis: (1) all HIV- individuals who self-identify as high risk, (2) all HIV- individuals who are identified by their HIV+ partner (serodiscordant couples), (3) highly connected HIV- individuals, and (4) the HIV- contacts of a newly diagnosed HIV+ individual (a ring-based strategy). We explored two possible trial designs, and all villages were followed for a total of 7 years. For each village in a trial, we used a stochastic block model to generate bipartite (male-female) networks and simulated an agent-based epidemic process on these networks. We estimated the individual and combined intervention effects with a novel targeted maximum likelihood estimator, which used cross-validation to data-adaptively select from a pre-specified library the candidate estimator that maximized the efficiency of the analysis. RESULTS: The universal test-and-treat strategy reduced the 3-year cumulative HIV incidence by 4.0% on average. The impact of each pre-exposure prophylaxis strategy on the 4-year cumulative HIV incidence varied by the coverage of the universal test-and-treat strategy with lower coverage resulting in a larger impact of pre-exposure prophylaxis. Offering pre-exposure prophylaxis to serodiscordant couples resulted in the largest reductions in HIV incidence (2% reduction), and the ring-based strategy had little impact (0% reduction). The joint effect was larger than either individual effect with reductions in the 7-year incidence ranging from 4.5% to 8.8%. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation, data-adaptively adjusting for baseline covariates, substantially improved power over the unadjusted analysis, while maintaining nominal confidence interval coverage. CONCLUSION: Our simulation study suggests that nesting a pre-exposure prophylaxis study within an ongoing trial can lead to combined intervention effects greater than those of universal test-and-treat alone and can provide information about the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis in the presence of high coverage of treatment for HIV+ persons.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Several cluster-randomized trials are underway to investigate the implementation and effectiveness of a universal test-and-treat strategy on the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. We consider nesting studies of pre-exposure prophylaxis within these trials. Pre-exposure prophylaxis is a general strategy where high-risk HIV- persons take antiretrovirals daily to reduce their risk of infection from exposure to HIV. We address how to target pre-exposure prophylaxis to high-risk groups and how to maximize power to detect the individual and combined effects of universal test-and-treat and pre-exposure prophylaxis strategies. METHODS: We simulated 1000 trials, each consisting of 32 villages with 200 individuals per village. At baseline, we randomized the universal test-and-treat strategy. Then, after 3 years of follow-up, we considered four strategies for targeting pre-exposure prophylaxis: (1) all HIV- individuals who self-identify as high risk, (2) all HIV- individuals who are identified by their HIV+ partner (serodiscordant couples), (3) highly connected HIV- individuals, and (4) the HIV- contacts of a newly diagnosed HIV+ individual (a ring-based strategy). We explored two possible trial designs, and all villages were followed for a total of 7 years. For each village in a trial, we used a stochastic block model to generate bipartite (male-female) networks and simulated an agent-based epidemic process on these networks. We estimated the individual and combined intervention effects with a novel targeted maximum likelihood estimator, which used cross-validation to data-adaptively select from a pre-specified library the candidate estimator that maximized the efficiency of the analysis. RESULTS: The universal test-and-treat strategy reduced the 3-year cumulative HIV incidence by 4.0% on average. The impact of each pre-exposure prophylaxis strategy on the 4-year cumulative HIV incidence varied by the coverage of the universal test-and-treat strategy with lower coverage resulting in a larger impact of pre-exposure prophylaxis. Offering pre-exposure prophylaxis to serodiscordant couples resulted in the largest reductions in HIV incidence (2% reduction), and the ring-based strategy had little impact (0% reduction). The joint effect was larger than either individual effect with reductions in the 7-year incidence ranging from 4.5% to 8.8%. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation, data-adaptively adjusting for baseline covariates, substantially improved power over the unadjusted analysis, while maintaining nominal confidence interval coverage. CONCLUSION: Our simulation study suggests that nesting a pre-exposure prophylaxis study within an ongoing trial can lead to combined intervention effects greater than those of universal test-and-treat alone and can provide information about the efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis in the presence of high coverage of treatment for HIV+ persons.
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: Jens D Lundgren; Abdel G Babiker; Fred Gordin; Sean Emery; Birgit Grund; Shweta Sharma; Anchalee Avihingsanon; David A Cooper; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Josep M Llibre; Jean-Michel Molina; Paula Munderi; Mauro Schechter; Robin Wood; Karin L Klingman; Simon Collins; H Clifford Lane; Andrew N Phillips; James D Neaton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ana Maria Henao-Restrepo; Ira M Longini; Matthias Egger; Natalie E Dean; W John Edmunds; Anton Camacho; Miles W Carroll; Moussa Doumbia; Bertrand Draguez; Sophie Duraffour; Godwin Enwere; Rebecca Grais; Stephan Gunther; Stefanie Hossmann; Mandy Kader Kondé; Souleymane Kone; Eeva Kuisma; Myron M Levine; Sema Mandal; Gunnstein Norheim; Ximena Riveros; Aboubacar Soumah; Sven Trelle; Andrea S Vicari; Conall H Watson; Sakoba Kéïta; Marie Paule Kieny; John-Arne Røttingen Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alethea W McCormick; Nadia N Abuelezam; Erin R Rhode; Taige Hou; Rochelle P Walensky; Pamela P Pei; Jessica E Becker; Madeline A DiLorenzo; Elena Losina; Kenneth A Freedberg; Marc Lipsitch; George R Seage Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gabriel Chamie; Tamara D Clark; Jane Kabami; Kevin Kadede; Emmanuel Ssemmondo; Rachel Steinfeld; Geoff Lavoy; Dalsone Kwarisiima; Norton Sang; Vivek Jain; Harsha Thirumurthy; Teri Liegler; Laura B Balzer; Maya L Petersen; Craig R Cohen; Elizabeth A Bukusi; Moses R Kamya; Diane V Havlir; Edwin D Charlebois Journal: Lancet HIV Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 12.767
Authors: Linda-Gail Bekker; Benjamin Brown; Dvora Joseph-Davey; Kathrine Gill; Michelle Moorhouse; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe; Landon Myer; Catherine Orrell; Kevin Rebe; W D Francois Venter; Carole L Wallis Journal: South Afr J HIV Med Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 2.744