Search

Background Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has proved ineffective in treating patients hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), but uncertainty remains over its safety and efficacy in chemoprevention. Previous chemoprevention randomised controlled trials (RCTs) did not individually show benefit of HCQ against COVID-19 and, although meta-analysis did suggest clinical benefit, guidelines recommend against its use. Methods and findings Healthy adult participants from the healthcare setting, and later from the community, were enrolled in 26 centres in 11 countries to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of COVID-19 chemoprevention. HCQ was evaluated in Europe and Africa, and chloroquine (CQ) was evaluated in Asia, (both base equivalent of 155 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was symptomatic COVID-19, confirmed by PCR or seroconversion during the 3-month follow-up period. The secondary and tertiary endpoints were: asymptomatic laboratory-confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection; severity of COVID-19 symptoms; all-cause PCR-confirmed symptomatic acute respiratory illness (including SARS-CoV-2 infection); participant reported number of workdays lost; genetic and baseline biochemical markers associated with symptomatic COVID-19, respiratory illness and disease severity (not reported here); and health economic analyses of HCQ and CQ prophylaxis on costs and quality of life measures (not reported here). The primary and safety analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Recruitment of 40,000 (20,000 HCQ arm, 20,000 CQ arm) participants was planned but was not possible because of protracted delays resulting from controversies over efficacy and adverse events with HCQ use, vaccine rollout in some countries, and other factors. Between 29 April 2020 and 10 March 2022, 4,652 participants (46% females) were enrolled (HCQ/CQ n = 2,320; placebo n = 2,332). The median (IQR) age was 29 (23 to 39) years. SARS-CoV-2 infections (symptomatic and asymptomatic) occurred in 1,071 (23%) participants. For the primary endpoint the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 was 240/2,320 in the HCQ/CQ versus 284/2,332 in the placebo arms (risk ratio (RR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.00; p = 0.05]). For the secondary and tertiary outcomes asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred in 11.5% of HCQ/CQ recipients and 12.0% of placebo recipients: RR: 0.96 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.12; p = 0.6). There were no differences in the severity of symptoms between the groups and no severe illnesses. HCQ/CQ chemoprevention was associated with fewer PCR-confirmed all-cause respiratory infections (predominantly SARS-CoV-2): RR 0.61 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.88; p = 0.009) and fewer days lost to work because of illness: 104 days per 1,000 participants over 90 days (95% CI, 12 to 199 days; p < 0.001). The prespecified meta-analysis of all published pre-exposure RCTs indicates that HCQ/CQ prophylaxis provided a moderate protective benefit against symptomatic COVID-19: RR 0.80 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91). Both drugs were well tolerated with no drug-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Study limitations include the smaller than planned study size, the relatively low number of PCR-confirmed infections, and the lower comparative accuracy of serology endpoints (in particular, the adapted dried blood spot method) compared to the PCR endpoint. The COPCOV trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov; number NCT04303507. Interpretation In this large placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial, HCQ and CQ were safe and well tolerated in COVID-19 chemoprevention, and there was evidence of moderate protective benefit in a meta-analysis including this trial and similar RCTs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04303507; ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10207947., Author(s): William H. K. Schilling 1,2,*, Mavuto Mukaka 1,2, James J. Callery 1,2, Martin J. Llewelyn 3,4, Cintia V. Cruz 1,2, Mehul Dhorda 1,2, Thatsanun Ngernseng 1, Naomi Waithira 1,2, [...]

IntroductionAchieving HIV epidemic control globally will require new strategies to accelerate reductions in HIV incidence and mortality. Universal test and treat (UTT) was evaluated in four randomized population-based trials (BCPP/Ya Tsie, HPTN 071/PopART, SEARCH, ANRS 12249/TasP) conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) during expanded antiretroviral treatment (ART) eligibility by World Health Organization guidelines and the UNAIDS 90-90-90 campaign.DiscussionThese three-year studies were conducted in Botswana, Zambia, Uganda, Kenya and South Africa in settings with baseline HIV prevalence from 4% to 30%. Key observations across studies were: (1) Universal testing (implemented via a variety of home and community-based testing approaches) achieved >90% coverage in all studies. (2) When coupled with robust linkage to HIV care, rapid ART start and patient-centred care, UTT achieved among the highest reported population levels of viral suppression in SSA. Significant gains in population-level viral suppression were made in regions with both low and high baseline population viral load; however, viral suppression gains were not uniform across all sub-populations and were lower among youth. (3) UTT resulted in marked reductions in community HIV incidence when universal testing and robust linkage were present. However, HIV elimination targets were not reached. In BCPP and HPTN 071, annualized HIV incidence was approximately 20% to 30% lower in the intervention (which included universal testing) compared to control arms (no universal testing). In SEARCH (where both arms had universal testing), incidence declined 32% over three years. (4) UTT reduced HIV associated mortality by 23% in the intervention versus control communities in SEARCH, a study in which mortality was comprehensively measured.ConclusionsThese trials provide strong evidence that UTT inclusive of universal testing increases population-level viral suppression and decreases HIV incidence and mortality faster than the status quo in SSA and should be adapted at a sub-country level as a public health strategy. However, more is needed, including integration of new prevention interventions into UTT, in order to reach UNAIDS HIV elimination targets.

: Introduction: HIV controllers have low viral loads (VL) without antiretroviral treatment (ART). We evaluated viraemic control in a community‐randomized trial conducted in Zambia and South Africa that evaluated the impact of a combination prevention intervention on HIV incidence (HPTN 071 [PopART]; 2013–2018). Methods: VL and antiretroviral (ARV) drug testing were performed using plasma samples collected 2 years after enrolment for 4072 participants who were HIV positive at the start of the study intervention. ARV drug use was assessed using a qualitative laboratory assay that detects 22 ARV drugs in five drug classes. Participants were classified as non‐controllers if they had a VL ≥2000 copies/ml with no ARV drugs detected at this visit. Additional VL and ARV drug testing was performed at a second annual study visit to confirm controller status. Participants were classified as controllers if they had VLs Results: The final cohort included 126 viraemic controllers and 766 non‐controllers who had no ARV drugs detected. The prevalence of controllers among the 4072 persons assessed was 3.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6%, 3.6%). This should be considered a minimum estimate, since high rates of ARV drug use in the parent study limited the ability to identify controllers. Among the 892 participants in the final cohort, controller status was associated with biological sex (female > male, p = 0.027). There was no significant association between controller status and age, study country or herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV‐2) status at study enrolment. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this report presents the first large‐scale, population‐level study evaluating the prevalence of viraemic control and associated factors in Africa. A key advantage of this study was that a biomedical assessment was used to assess ARV drug use (vs. self‐reported data). This study identified a large cohort of HIV controllers and non‐controllers not taking ARV drugs, providing a unique repository of longitudinal samples for additional research. This cohort may be useful for further studies investigating the mechanisms of virologic control., INTRODUCTION HIV controllers naturally suppress their HIV viral load (VL) to low levels without antiretroviral treatment (ART) [1]. Elite controllers maintain VLs Previous population‐level studies have reported the prevalence of [...]

Background Tuberculosis (TB) prevalence remains persistently high in many settings, with new or expanded interventions required to achieve substantial reductions. The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 071 (PopART) community-randomised trial randomised 14 communities to receive the 'PopART' intervention during 2014 to 2017 (7 arm A and 7 arm B communities) and 7 communities to receive standard-of-care (arm C). The intervention was delivered door-to-door by community HIV care providers (CHiPs) and included universal HIV testing, facilitated linkage to HIV care at government health clinics, and systematic TB symptom screening. The Tuberculosis Reduction through Expanded Anti-retroviral Treatment and Screening (TREATS) study aimed to measure the impact of delivering the PopART intervention on TB outcomes, in communities with high HIV and TB prevalence. Methods and findings The study population of the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial included individuals aged [greater than or equal to]15 years living in 21 urban and peri-urban communities in Zambia and South Africa, with a total population of approximately 1 million and an adult HIV prevalence of around 15% at the time of the trial. Two sputum samples for TB testing were provided to CHiPs by individuals who reported [greater than or equal to]1 TB suggestive symptom (a cough for [greater than or equal to]2 weeks, unintentional weight loss [greater than or equal to]1.5 kg in the last month, or current night sweats) or that a household member was currently on TB treatment. Antiretroviral therapy (ART) was offered universally at clinics in arm A and according to local guidelines in arms B and C. The TREATS study was conducted in the same 21 communities as the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial between 2017 and 2022, and TB prevalence was a co-primary endpoint of the TREATS study. The primary comparison was between the PopART intervention (arms A and B combined) and the standard-of-care (arm C). During 2019 to 2021, a TB prevalence survey was conducted among randomly selected individuals aged [greater than or equal to]15 years (approximately 1,750 per community in arms A and B, approximately 3,500 in arm C). Participants were screened on TB symptoms and chest X-ray, with diagnostic testing using Xpert-Ultra followed by culture for individuals who screened positive. Sputum eligibility was determined by the presence of a cough for [greater than or equal to]2 weeks, or [greater than or equal to]2 of 5 'TB suggestive' symptoms (cough, weight loss for [greater than or equal to]4 weeks, night sweats, chest pain, and fever for [greater than or equal to]2 weeks), or chest X-ray CAD4TBv5 score [greater than or equal to]50, or no available X-ray results. TB prevalence was compared between trial arms using standard methods for cluster-randomised trials, with adjustment for age, sex, and HIV status, and multiple imputation was used for missing data on prevalent TB. Among 83,092 individuals who were eligible for the survey, 49,556 (59.6%) participated, 8,083 (16.3%) screened positive, 90.8% (7,336/8,083) provided 2 sputum samples for Xpert-Ultra testing, and 308 (4.2%) required culture confirmation. Overall, estimated TB prevalence was 0.92% (457/49,556). The geometric means of 7 community-level prevalence estimates were 0.91%, 0.70%, and 0.69% in arms A, B, and C, respectively, with no evidence of a difference comparing arms A and B combined with arm C (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.67, 1.95], p = 0.60). TB prevalence was higher among people living with HIV than HIV-negative individuals, with an age-sex-community adjusted odds ratio of 2.29 [95% CI 1.54, 3.41] in Zambian communities and 1.61 [95% CI 1.13, 2.30] in South African communities. The primary limitations are that the study was powered to detect only large reductions in TB prevalence in the intervention arm compared with standard-of-care, and the between-community variation in TB prevalence was larger than anticipated. Conclusions There was no evidence that the PopART intervention reduced TB prevalence. Systematic screening for TB that is based on symptom screening alone may not be sufficient to achieve a large reduction in TB prevalence over a period of several years. Including chest X-ray screening alongside TB symptom screening could substantially increase the sensitivity of systematic screening for TB. Trial registration The TREATS study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739736 on November 14, 2018. The HPTN 071 (PopART) trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01900977 on July 17, 2013., Author(s): Eveline Klinkenberg 1,2,3,*, Sian Floyd 1,*, Kwame Shanaube 4, Linda Mureithi 5, Thomas Gachie 1,4, Petra de Haas 3, Barry Kosloff 1,4, Peter J. Dodd 6, Maria Ruperez 1, [...]

Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is a devastating infection of the central nervous system lacking an adequate point-of-care diagnostic test. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 550 Zambian adults with suspected TBM to determine the diagnostic accuracy of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Xpert MTB/RIF, CSF lipoarabinomannan (LAM), urine LAM, CSF total protein, and CSF glucose compared with the gold standard of CSF culture. We categorized patients with a positive CSF tuberculosis (TB) culture as definite TBM. We also assessed inpatient and 1-year mortality on definite TBM patients when CSF Xpert MTB/RIF results were available in real time to treating physicians relative to a historical comparison cohort in whom Xpert results were not available in real time. Of the 550 patients, 474 (86.2%) were HIV-infected and 105/550 (19.1%) had definite TBM based on a positive CSF culture. The sensitivity/specificity of the diagnostic tests were CSF Xpert MTB/RIF, 52.9%/94.2%; CSF LAM, 21.9%/94.2%; urine LAM, 24.1%/76.1%; and CSF glucose 100 mg/dl, 66.3%/90%. A model including CSF Xpert MTB/RIF, CSF LAM, CSF glucose, and CSF total protein demonstrated an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.90. The inpatient and 1-year mortality for definite TBM was 43% and 57%, respectively. There was low sensitivity for the diagnosis of TBM across all diagnostics tests. CSF Xpert MTB/RIF and CSF LAM are highly specific for the diagnosis of TBM. Despite the use of Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnostic purpose in real time, TBM was still associated with a high mortality in Zambian patients.

Background: High HIV viral loads (VL) are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and on-going transmission. HIV controllers maintain low VLs in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART). We previously used a massively multiplexed antibody profiling assay (VirScan) to compare antibody profiles in HIV controllers and persons living with HIV (PWH) who were virally suppressed on ART. In this report, we used VirScan to evaluate whether antibody reactivity to specific HIV targets and broad reactivity across the HIV genome was associated with VL and controller status 1–2 years after infection. Methods: Samples were obtained from participants who acquired HIV infection in a community-randomized trial in Africa that evaluated an integrated strategy for HIV prevention (HPTN 071 PopART). Controller status was determined using VL and antiretroviral (ARV) drug data obtained at the seroconversion visit and 1 year later. Viremic controllers had VLs <2,000 copies/mL at both visits; non-controllers had VLs >2,000 copies/mL at both visits. Both groups had no ARV drugs detected at either visit. VirScan testing was performed at the second HIV-positive visit (1–2 years after HIV infection). Results: The study cohort included 13 viremic controllers and 64 non-controllers. We identified ten clusters of homologous peptides that had high levels of antibody reactivity (three in gag, three in env, two in integrase, one in protease, and one in vpu). Reactivity to 43 peptides (eight unique epitopes) in six of these clusters was associated with lower VL; reactivity to six of the eight epitopes was associated with HIV controller status. Higher aggregate antibody reactivity across the eight epitopes (more epitopes targeted, higher mean reactivity across all epitopes) and across the HIV genome was also associated with lower VL and controller status. Conclusions: We identified HIV antibody targets associated with lower VL and HIV controller status 1–2 years after infection. Robust aggregate responses to these targets and broad antibody reactivity across the HIV genome were also associated with lower VL and controller status. These findings provide novel insights into the relationship between humoral immunity and viral containment that could help inform the design of antibody-based approaches for reducing HIV VL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The HPTN 071 (PopART) trialdemonstrated that universalHIV testing-and-treatment reduced community-level HIV incidence. Door-to-door delivery of HIV testing services (HTS) was one of the main components of the intervention. From an early stage, men were less likely to know their HIV status than women, primarily because they were not home during service delivery. To reach more men, different strategies were implemented during the trial. We present the relative contribution of these strategies to coverage of HTS and the impact of community hubs implemented after completion of the trial among men. Methods: Between 2013 and 2017, three intervention rounds (IRs) of door-to-door HTS delivery were conducted in eight PopART communities in Zambia. Additionalstrategies implemented in parallel, included: community-wide 'Man-up' campaigns (IR1), smaller HTS campaigns at work/socialplaces (IR2) and revisits to households with the option of HIV self-testing (HIVST) (IR3). In 2018, community 'hubs' offering HTS were implemented for 7 months in alleight communities. Population enumeration data for each round of HTS provided the denominator, allowing for calculation of the proportion of men tested as a result of each strategy during different time periods. Results: By the end of the three IRs, 65-75% of men were reached with HTS, primarily through door-to-door service delivery. In IR1 and IR2, 'Man-up' and work/socialplace campaigns accounted for ~1 percentage point each and in IR3, revisits with the option of self-testing for ~15 percentage points of this totalcoverage per IR. The yield of newly diagnosed HIV-positive men ranged from 2.2% for HIVST revisits to 9.9% in work/socialplaces. At community hubs, the majority of visitors accepting services were men (62.8%). In total, we estimated that ~36% (2.2% tested HIV positive) of men resident but not found at their household during IR3 of PopART accessed HTS provided at the hubs after trial completion. Conclusions: Achieving high coverage of HTS among men requires universal, home-based service delivery combined with an option of HIVST and delivery of HTS through community-based hubs. When men are reached, they are willing to test for HIV Reaching men thus requires implementers to adapt their HTS delivery strategies to meet men's needs. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01900977 Keywords: men; HIV testing; Zambia; sub-Saharan Africa; community-based, 1 | INTRODUCTION Data from sub-Saharan African countries consistently show that men are less likely than women to test for HIV [1-3]. In Zambia, the 2013-14 Demographic and Health Survey [...]

Introduction: Cross-sectional incidence testing is used to estimate population-level HIV incidence and measure the impact of prevention interventions. There are limited data evaluating the accuracy of estimates in settings where antiretroviral therapy coverage and levels of viral suppression are high. Understanding cross-sectional incidence estimates in these settings is important as viral suppression can lead to false recent test results. We compared the accuracy of multi-assay algorithms (MAA) for incidence estimation to that observed in the community-randomized HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, where the majority of participants with HIV infection were virally suppressed. Methods: HIV incidence was assessed during the second year of the study, and included only individuals who were tested for HIV at visits 1 and 2 years after the start of the study (2016-2017). Incidence estimates from three MAAs were compared to the observed incidence between years 1 and 2 (MAA-C: LAg-Avidity 400 copies/ml; LAg+VL MAA: LAg-Avidity 1000 copies/ml; Rapid+VL MAA: Asante recent rapid result + VL >1000 copies/ml). The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) used for the three MAAs was 248, 130 and 180 days, respectively. Results and discussion: The study consisted of: 15,845 HIV-negative individuals; 4406 HIV positive at both visits; and 221 who seroconverted between visits. Viral load (VL) data were available for all HIV-positive participants at the 2-year visit. Sixty four (29%) of the seroconverters and 3227 (72%) prevelant positive participants were virally supressed ( Conclusions: MAA-C and the LAg+VL MAA provided accurate point estimates of incidence in this cohort with high levels of viral suppression. The Rapid+VL significantly underestimated incidence, suggesting that the MDRI recommended by the manufacturer is too long or the assay is not accurately detecting enough recent infections. Keywords: validation study; cross-sectional incidence estimation; sub-Saharan Africa; HPTN; PopART; multi-assay algorithm, 1 | INTRODUCTION HIV incidence is the rate of new HIV infections in a population and the primary measure in evaluating the state of the epidemic and the effectiveness of [...]

DesignUniversal voluntary HIV counselling and testing followed by prompt initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all those diagnosed HIV-infected (universal test and treat, UTT) is now a global health standard. However, its population-level impact, feasibility and cost remain unknown. Five community-based trials have been implemented in sub-Saharan Africa to measure the effects of various UTT strategies at population level: BCPP/YaTsie in Botswana, MaxART in Swaziland, HPTN 071 (PopART) in South Africa and Zambia, SEARCH in Uganda and Kenya and ANRS 12249 TasP in South Africa. This report describes and contrasts the contexts, research methodologies, intervention packages, themes explored, evolution of study designs and interventions related to each of these five UTT trials.MethodsWe conducted a comparative assessment of the five trials using data extracted from study protocols and collected during baseline studies, with additional input from study investigators. We organized differences and commonalities across the trials in five categories: trial contexts, research designs, intervention packages, trial themes and adaptations.ResultsAll performed in the context of generalized HIV epidemics, the trials highly differ in their social, demographic, economic, political and health systems settings. They share the common aim of assessing the impact of UTT on the HIV epidemic but differ in methodological aspects such as study design and eligibility criteria for trial populations. In addition to universal ART initiation, the trials deliver a wide range of biomedical, behavioural and structural interventions as part of their UTT strategies. The five studies explore common issues, including the uptake rates of the trial services and individual health outcomes. All trials have adapted since their initiation to the evolving political, economic and public health contexts, including adopting the successive national recommendations for ART initiation.ConclusionsWe found substantial commonalities but also differences between the five UTT trials in their design, conduct and multidisciplinary outputs. As empirical literature on how UTT may improve efficiency and quality of HIV care at population level is still scarce, this article provides a foundation for more collaborative research on UTT and supports evidence-based decision making for HIV care in country and internationally.

Background The growing population of adolescents and young people (AYP) aged 15 to 24 in sub-Saharan Africa face a high burden of HIV in many settings. Unintended pregnancies among adolescent girls in the region remain high. Nonetheless, the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service needs of AYP have remained underserved. We conducted a cluster-randomised trial (CRT) to estimate the impact of community-based, peer-led SRH service provision on knowledge of HIV status and other SRH outcomes, including met need for contraceptives. Methods and findings Yathu Yathu was a cluster-randomised trial (CRT) conducted from 2019 to 2021 in 2 urban communities in Lusaka, Zambia. The communities were divided into 20 zones (approximately 2,350 AYP/zone) that were randomly allocated to the Yathu Yathu intervention or control arm. In each intervention zone, a community-based hub, staffed by peer support workers, was established to provide SRH services. In 2019, a census was conducted in all zones; all consenting AYP aged 15 to 24 were given a Yathu Yathu card, which allowed them to accrue points for accessing SRH services at the hub and health facility (intervention arm) or the health facility only (control arm). Points could be exchanged for rewards, thus acting as an incentive to use SRH services in both arms. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in 2021 to estimate the impact of Yathu Yathu on the primary outcome: knowledge of HIV status (self-reporting living with HIV or HIV testing in the last 12 months) and secondary outcomes, including use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in the last 12 months, current use of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and met need for contraceptive services. The sampling was stratified on sex and age group, and we analysed data at cluster-level using a two-stage process recommended for CRTs with Conclusions Delivering community-based, peer-led SRH services increased knowledge of HIV status among AYP, both males and females, compared with the control arm. Scaling up the highly effective Yathu Yathu strategy has the potential to make a substantial contribution to increasing access to HIV prevention and care services for young people. However, additional implementation research is needed to understand how to improve uptake of broader SRH services, beyond uptake of HIV testing. Trial registration ISRCTN75609016, clinicaltrials.gov number NCT04060420, Author(s): Bernadette Hensen 1,2,*, Sian Floyd 3, Mwelwa M. Phiri 4, Ab Schaap 3,4, Lucheka Sigande 4, Melvin Simuyaba 4, Lawrence Mwenge 4, Rosemary Zulu-Phiri 4, Louis Mwape 4, Sarah [...]