Search

Background HIV is a potent risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). Therefore, community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV (UTT) could contribute to TB control, but evidence for this is limited. Community-wide TB screening can decrease population-level TB prevalence. Combining UTT with TB screening could therefore significantly impact TB control in sub-Saharan Africa, but to our knowledge there is no evidence for this combined approach. Methods and findings HPTN 071 (PopART) was a community-randomised trial conducted between November 2013 to July 2018; 21 Zambian and South African communities (with a total population of approximately 1 million individuals) were randomised to arms A (community-wide UTT and TB screening), B (community-wide universal HIV testing with treatment following national guidelines and TB screening), or C (standard-of-care). In a cohort of randomly selected adults (18 to 44 years) enrolled between 2013 and 2015 from all 21 communities (total size 38,474; 27,139 [71%] female; 8,004 [21%] HIV positive) and followed-up annually for 36 months to measure the population-level impact of the interventions, data on self-reported TB treatment in the previous 12 months (self-reported TB) were collected by trained research assistants and recorded using a structured questionnaire at each study visit. In this prespecified analysis of the trial, self-reported TB incidence rates were measured by calendar year between 2014 and 2017/2018. A p-value [less than or equal to]0.05 on hypothesis testing was defined as reaching statistical significance. Between January 2014 and July 2018, 38,287 individuals were followed-up: 494 self-reported TB during 104,877 person-years. Overall incidence rates were similar across all arms in 2014 and 2015 (0.33 to 0.46/100 person-years). In 2016 incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C overall (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.48 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.28 to 0.81; p = 0.01]), with statistical significance reached. In 2017/2018, while incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C, statistical significance was not reached (aRR 0.58 [95% CI 0.27 to 1.22; p = 0.13]). Among people living with HIV (PLHIV) incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C in 2016 (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.08; p = 0.08]) and 2017/2018 (RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.26 to 0.95; p = 0.04]); statistical significance was only reached in 2017/2018. Incidence rates in arms B and C were similar, overall and among PLHIV. Among HIV-negative individuals, there were too few events for cross-arm comparisons. Study limitations include the use of self-report which may have been subject to under-reporting, limited covariate adjustment due to the small number of events, and high losses to follow-up over time. Conclusions In this study, community-wide UTT and TB screening resulted in substantially lower TB incidence among PLHIV at population-level, compared to standard-of-care, with statistical significance reached in the final study year. There was also some evidence this translated to a decrease in self-reported TB incidence overall in the population. Reduction in arm A but not B suggests UTT drove the observed effect. Our data support the role of UTT in TB control, in addition to HIV control, in high TB/HIV burden settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01900977., Author(s): L. Telisinghe 1,2,*, S. Floyd 3, D. MacLeod 3, A. Schaap 2,3, R. Dunbar 4, J. Bwalya 2, N. Bell-Mandla 4, E. Piwowar-Manning 5, D. Donnell 6, K. Shaunaube [...]

Background: A universal testing and treatment strategy is a potential approach to reduce the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, yet previous trial results are inconsistent.Methods: In the HPTN 071 (PopART) community-randomized trial conducted from 2013 through 2018, we randomly assigned 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa (total population, approximately 1 million) to group A (combination prevention intervention with universal antiretroviral therapy [ART]), group B (the prevention intervention with ART provided according to local guidelines [universal since 2016]), or group C (standard care). The prevention intervention included home-based HIV testing delivered by community workers, who also supported linkage to HIV care and ART adherence. The primary outcome, HIV incidence between months 12 and 36, was measured in a population cohort of approximately 2000 randomly sampled adults (18 to 44 years of age) per community. Viral suppression (<400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter) was assessed in all HIV-positive participants at 24 months.Results: The population cohort included 48,301 participants. Baseline HIV prevalence was 21% or 22% in each group. Between months 12 and 36, a total of 553 new HIV infections were observed during 39,702 person-years (1.4 per 100 person-years; women, 1.7; men, 0.8). The adjusted rate ratio for group A as compared with group C was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.18; P = 0.51) and for group B as compared with group C was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = 0.006). The percentage of HIV-positive participants with viral suppression at 24 months was 71.9% in group A, 67.5% in group B, and 60.2% in group C. The estimated percentage of HIV-positive adults in the community who were receiving ART at 36 months was 81% in group A and 80% in group B.Conclusions: A combination prevention intervention with ART provided according to local guidelines resulted in a 30% lower incidence of HIV infection than standard care. The lack of effect with universal ART was unanticipated and not consistent with the data on viral suppression. In this trial setting, universal testing and treatment reduced the population-level incidence of HIV infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; HPTN 071 [PopArt] ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900977.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In stepped-wedge trials (SWTs), the intervention is rolled out in a random order over more than 1 time-period. SWTs are often analysed using mixed-effects models that require strong assumptions and may be inappropriate when the number of clusters is small. We propose a non-parametric within-period method to analyse SWTs. This method estimates the intervention effect by comparing intervention and control conditions in a given period using cluster-level data corresponding to exposure. The within-period intervention effects are combined with an inverse-variance-weighted average, and permutation tests are used. We present an example and, using simulated data, compared the method to (1) a parametric cluster-level within-period method, (2) the most commonly used mixed-effects model, and (3) a more flexible mixed-effects model. We simulated scenarios where period effects were common to all clusters, and when they varied according to a distribution informed by routinely collected health data. The non-parametric within-period method provided unbiased intervention effect estimates with correct confidence-interval coverage for all scenarios. The parametric within-period method produced confidence intervals with low coverage for most scenarios. The mixed-effects models' confidence intervals had low coverage when period effects varied between clusters but had greater power than the non-parametric within-period method when period effects were common to all clusters. The non-parametric within-period method is a robust method for analysing SWT. The method could be used by trial statisticians who want to emphasise that the SWT is a randomised trial, in the common position of being uncertain about whether data will meet the assumptions necessary for mixed-effect models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine if tuberculosis (TB) screening improves patient outcomes, we conducted two systematic reviews to investigate the effect of TB screening on diagnosis, treatment outcomes, deaths (clinical review assessing 23 outcome indicators); and patient costs (economic review)., Methods: Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched between 1/1/1980-13/4/2020 (clinical review) and 1/1/2010-14/8/2020 (economic review). As studies were heterogeneous, data synthesis was narrative., Findings: Clinical review: of 27,270 articles, 18 (n=3 trials) were eligible. Nine involved general populations. Compared to passive case finding (PCF), studies showed lower smear grade (n=2/3) and time to diagnosis (n=2/3); higher pre-treatment losses to follow-up (screened 23% and 29% vs PCF 15% and 14%; n=2/2); and similar treatment success (range 68-81%; n=4) and case fatality (range 3-11%; n=5) in the screened group. Nine reported on risk groups. Compared to PCF, studies showed lower smear positivity among those culture-confirmed (n=3/4) and time to diagnosis (n=2/2); and similar (range 80-90%; n=2/2) treatment success in the screened group. Case fatality was lower in n=2/3 observational studies; both reported on established screening programmes. A neonatal trial and post-hoc analysis of a household contacts trial found screening was associated with lower all-cause mortality. Economic review: From 2841 articles, six observational studies were eligible. Total costs (n=6) and catastrophic cost prevalence (n=4; range screened 9-45% vs PCF 12-61%) was lower among those screened., Interpretation: We found very limited patient outcome data. Collecting and reporting this data must be prioritised to inform policy and practice., Funding: WHO and EDCTP., Competing Interests: LT reports WHO consultancy work for the guideline development process and a Clinical Research Training Fellowship from the MRC (Grant Ref: MR/N020618/1). LHC reports a contract from WHO TB Programme to Jonathan Golub for systematic review of ACF for TB and sub-contract/consulting for JHU for systematic review of ACF for TB. JEG received a contract provided to Johns Hopkins University to conduct systematic reviews for the WHO's TB screening guidelines; received an NIH grant to conduct TB case finding in India, a second to test for and treat latent TB infection in Brazil; received UNITAID grants to conduct implementation research around latent TB infection in several African countries; and sat on the Scientific Advisory Board for the Aurum Institute in November 2019. CM is a salaried staff of the WHO and is involved in policy development on TB. CM alone is responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of WHO. ELC has received a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship in Clinical Science: 200901/Z/16/Z to their institution. RMB reports salary support from my Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD fellowship, awarded through her institution, grant number 203905/Z/16/Z; received payment from WHO to her institution for work on systematic review linked to this present review (but different to this review). PM reports that he is funded by Wellcome (206575/Z/17/Z). EK has a consultancy contract with LSHTM for other work, this work was done under that umbrella. HMA reports WHO consultancy for the work for the guideline development process; reports that EDCTP fund the larger TREATS consortium as a grant paid to her institution that covers some of her time; reports that she is a member of the technical review panel of the Global Fund and receive honoraria for her work. All other authors have nothing to declare. The designations used and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, nor concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

Female genital schistosomiasis (FGS) results from egg-deposition in the female reproductive tract primarily by the waterborne parasite Schistosoma (S.) haematobium, and less commonly by Schistosoma (S.) mansoni. FGS affects an estimated 20-56 million women worldwide, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. There is cross-sectional evidence of increased HIV-1 prevalence in schistosomiasis-infected women, but a causal relationship between FGS and either HIV-1 acquisition or transmission has not been fully established. Beyond the pathognomonic breach in the cervicovaginal barrier caused by FGS, this narrative review explores potential mechanisms for a synergistic relationship between S. haematobium infection, FGS, and HIV-1 acquisition through vaginal inflammation and target cell recruitment., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)