Jacqueline E Rudolph1, Stephen R Cole1, Joseph J Eron2, Angela D Kashuba3, Adaora A Adimora1,2. 1. From the Department of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for determining efficacy of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have not been conducted among US women because their lower HIV incidence requires impractically large studies. Results from higher-incidence settings, like Sub-Saharan Africa, may not apply to US women owing to differences in age, sexual behavior, coinfections, and adherence. METHODS: We propose a novel strategy for evaluating PrEP efficacy in the United States using data from both settings to obtain four parameters: (1) intention-to-treat (ITT) and (2) per-protocol effects in the higher-incidence setting, (3) per-protocol effect generalized to the lower-incidence setting, and (4) back-calculated ITT effect using adherence data from the lower-incidence setting. To illustrate, we simulated two RCTs comparing PrEP against placebo: one in 4000 African women and another in 500 US women. We estimated all parameters using g-computation and report risk ratios averaged over 2000 simulations, alongside the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the simulation results. RESULTS: Twelve months after randomization, the African ITT and per-protocol risk ratios were 0.65 (0.47, 0.88) and 0.20 (0.08, 0.34), respectively. The US ITT and per-protocol risk ratios were 0.42 (0.20, 0.62) and 0.17 (0.03, 0.38), respectively. These results matched well the simulated true effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our simple demonstration informs the design of future studies seeking to estimate the effectiveness of a treatment (like PrEP) in lower-incidence settings where a traditional RCT would not be feasible. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B506.
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for determining efficacy of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have not been conducted among US women because their lower HIV incidence requires impractically large studies. Results from higher-incidence settings, like Sub-Saharan Africa, may not apply to US women owing to differences in age, sexual behavior, coinfections, and adherence. METHODS: We propose a novel strategy for evaluating PrEP efficacy in the United States using data from both settings to obtain four parameters: (1) intention-to-treat (ITT) and (2) per-protocol effects in the higher-incidence setting, (3) per-protocol effect generalized to the lower-incidence setting, and (4) back-calculated ITT effect using adherence data from the lower-incidence setting. To illustrate, we simulated two RCTs comparing PrEP against placebo: one in 4000 African women and another in 500 US women. We estimated all parameters using g-computation and report risk ratios averaged over 2000 simulations, alongside the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the simulation results. RESULTS: Twelve months after randomization, the African ITT and per-protocol risk ratios were 0.65 (0.47, 0.88) and 0.20 (0.08, 0.34), respectively. The US ITT and per-protocol risk ratios were 0.42 (0.20, 0.62) and 0.17 (0.03, 0.38), respectively. These results matched well the simulated true effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our simple demonstration informs the design of future studies seeking to estimate the effectiveness of a treatment (like PrEP) in lower-incidence settings where a traditional RCT would not be feasible. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B506.
Authors: Maya L Petersen; Kristin E Porter; Susan Gruber; Yue Wang; Mark J van der Laan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Mackenzie L Cottrell; Kuo H Yang; Heather M A Prince; Craig Sykes; Nicole White; Stephanie Malone; Evan S Dellon; Ryan D Madanick; Nicholas J Shaheen; Michael G Hudgens; Jacob Wulff; Kristine B Patterson; Julie A E Nelson; Angela D M Kashuba Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Adaora A Adimora; James P Hughes; Jing Wang; Danielle F Haley; Carol E Golin; Manya Magnus; Anne Rompalo; Jessica Justman; Carlos del Rio; Wafaa El-Sadr; Sharon Mannheimer; Lydia Soto-Torres; Sally L Hodder Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2014-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jeanne M Marrazzo; Gita Ramjee; Barbra A Richardson; Kailazarid Gomez; Nyaradzo Mgodi; Gonasagrie Nair; Thesla Palanee; Clemensia Nakabiito; Ariane van der Straten; Lisa Noguchi; Craig W Hendrix; James Y Dai; Shayhana Ganesh; Baningi Mkhize; Marthinette Taljaard; Urvi M Parikh; Jeanna Piper; Benoît Mâsse; Cynthia Grossman; James Rooney; Jill L Schwartz; Heather Watts; Mark A Marzinke; Sharon L Hillier; Ian M McGowan; Z Mike Chirenje Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander Breskin; Stephen R Cole; Jessie K Edwards; Ron Brookmeyer; Joseph J Eron; Adimora A Adimora Journal: Stat Med Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 2.497