Search

Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate whether lamivudine (3TC) or emtricitabine (FTC) use following detection of M184V/I is associated with better virological outcomes. Methods: We identified people with viruses harbouring the M184V/I mutation in UK multicentre data sets who had treatment change/initiation within 1 year. We analysed outcomes of viral suppression (< 200 HIV‐1 RNA copies/mL) and appearance of new major drug resistance mutations (DRMs) using Cox and Poisson models, with stratification by new drug regimen (excluding 3TC/FTC) and Bayesian implementation, and estimated the effect of 3TC/FTC adjusted for individual and viral characteristics. Results: We included 2597 people with the M184V/I resistance mutation, of whom 665 (25.6%) were on 3TC and 458 (17.6%) on FTC. We found a negative adjusted association between 3TC/FTC use and viral suppression [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 0.71–0.98]. On subgroup analysis of individual drugs, there was no evidence of an association with viral suppression for 3TC (n = 184; HR 0.94; 95% CrI 0.73–1.15) or FTC (n = 454; HR 0.99; 95% CrI 0.80–1.19) amongst those on tenofovir‐containing regimens, but we estimated a reduced rate of viral suppression for people on 3TC amongst those without tenofovir use (n = 481; HR 0.71; 95% CrI 0.54–0.90). We found no association between 3TC/FTC and detection of any new DRM (overall HR 0.92; 95% CrI 0.64–1.18), but found inconclusive evidence of a lower incidence rate of new DRMs (overall incidence rate ratio 0.69; 95% CrI 0.34–1.11). Conclusions: We did not find evidence that 3TC or FTC use is associated with an increase in viral suppression, but it may reduce the appearance of additional DRMs in people with M184V/I. 3TC was associated with reduced viral suppression amongst people on regimens without tenofovir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: SELPHI (HIV Self‐Testing Public Health Intervention) is the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HIV self‐testing (HIVST) in a high‐income setting to date, and has recruited 10 000 men who have sex with men (cis‐ and transgender) and transgender women who have sex with men. This qualitative substudy aimed to explore how those utilizing self‐tests experience HIVST and the implications for further intervention development and scale‐up. This is the first qualitative study in Europe investigating experiences of HIVST among intervention users, and the first globally examining the experience of using blood‐based HIVST. Methods: Thirty‐seven cisgender MSM SELPHI participants from across England and Wales were purposively recruited to the substudy, in which semi‐structured interviews were used to explore testing history, HIVST experiences and intervention preferences. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed and analysed through a framework analysis. Results: Men accessed the intervention because HIVST reduced barriers related to convenience, stigma and privacy concerns. Emotional responses had direct links to acceptability. Supportive intervention components increased engagement with testing and addressed supportive concerns. HIVST facilitated more frequent testing, with the potential to reduce sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening frequency. Substudy participants with an HIV‐positive result (n = 2) linked to care promptly and reported very high acceptability. Minor adverse outcomes (n = 2; relationship discord and fainting) did not reduce acceptability. Ease of use difficulties were with the lancet and the test processing stage. Conclusions: Intervention components shaped acceptability, particularly in relation to overcoming a perceived lack of support. The intervention was broadly acceptable and usable; participants expressed an unexpected degree of enthusiasm for HIVST, including those with HIV‐positive results and individuals with minor adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Estimation of the risk of vertical transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been complicated by the lack of a reliable diagnostic test for paediatric HIV infection.Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify all statistical methods that have been used to estimate HIV vertical transmission risk. Although the focus of this article is the analysis of birth cohort studies, ad hoc studies are also reviewed.Conclusions: The standard method for estimating HIV vertical transmission risk is biased and inefficient. Various alternative analytical approaches have been proposed but all involve simplifying assumptions and some are difficult to implement. However, early diagnosis/exclusion of infection is now possible because of improvements in polymerase chain reaction technology and complex estimation methods should no longer be required. The best way to analyse studies conducted in breastfeeding populations is still unclear and deserves attention in view of the many intervention studies being planned or conducted in developing countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding how HIV self-testing (HIVST) can meet the testing needs of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and trans people whose social networks vary is key to upscaling HIVST implementation. We aim to develop a contextual understanding of social networks and HIV testing needs among GBMSM (cis and transgender) and trans women in SELPHI (An HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention), the UK's largest randomised trial on HIVST., Methods: This study re-analysed qualitative interviews conducted from 2015 to 2020. Forty-three in-person interviews were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. Our analytic matrix inductively categorised participants based on the unmet needs for HIV testing and the extent of social network support. The role of social networks on HIVST behaviour was explored based on individuals' testing trajectories., Results: Four distinct groups were identified based on their unmet testing needs and perceived support from social networks. Optimisation advocates (people with high unmet needs and with high network support, n = 17) strived to tackle their remaining barriers to HIV testing through timely support and empowerment from social networks. Privacy seekers (people with high unmet needs and with low network support, n = 6) prioritised privacy because of perceived stigma. Opportunistic adopters (people with low unmet needs and with high network support, n = 16) appreciated social network support and acknowledged socially privileged lives. Resilient testers (people with low unmet needs and with low network support, n = 4) might hold potentially disproportionate confidence in managing HIV risks without sustainable coping strategies for potential seroconversion. Supportive social networks can facilitate users' uptake of HIVST by: (1) increasing awareness and positive attitudes towards HIVST, (2) facilitating users' initiation into HIVST with timely support and (3) affording participants an inclusive space to share and discuss testing strategies., Conclusions: Our proposed categorisation may facilitate the development of differentiated person-centred HIVST programmes. HIVST implementers should carefully consider individuals' unmet testing needs and perceived levels of social support, and design context-specific HIVST strategies that link people lacking supportive social networks to comprehensive HIV care., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: core support from the Medical Research Council (MRC) UK to the MRC Clinical Trials Unit for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Background: Treatment-simplification strategies are important tools for patient-centred management. We evaluated long-term outcomes from a PI monotherapy switch strategy., Methods: Eligible participants attending 43 UK treatment centres had a viral load (VL) below 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on combination ART. Participants were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected PI monotherapy (PI-mono) with prompt return to combination therapy if VL rebounded. The primary outcome, previously reported, was loss of future drug options after 3 years, defined as new intermediate/high level resistance to at least one drug to which the participant's virus was considered sensitive at trial entry. Here we report resistance and disease outcomes after further extended follow-up in routine care. The study was registered as ISRCTN04857074., Findings: We randomised 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296) between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010 and followed them for a median of more than 8 years (100 months) until 2018. At the end of this follow-up time, one or more future drug options had been lost in 7 participants in the OT group and 6 in the PI-mono group; estimated cumulative risk by 8 years of 2.7% and 2.1% respectively (difference -0.6%, 95% CI -3.2% to 2.0%). Only one PI-mono participant developed resistance to the protease inhibitor they were taking (atazanavir). Serious clinical events (death, serious AIDS, and serious non-AIDS) were infrequent; reported in a total of 12 (4.1%) participants in the OT group and 23 (7.8%) in the PI-mono group (P = 0.08) over the entire follow-up period., Interpretation: A strategy of PI monotherapy, with regular VL monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment following rebound, preserved future treatment options. Findings confirm the high genetic barrier to resistance of the PI drug class that makes them well suited for creative, patient-centred, treatment-simplification approaches. The possibility of a small excess risk of serious clinical events with the PI monotherapy strategy cannot be excluded., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme., Competing Interests: NP reports grants to institution from Janssen; and honoraria for lectures from Janssen. AA-P reports grants to institution from Janssen, ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences and advisory board fees from ViiV Healthcare. AC reports contracts to run clinical trials with payments to institution from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, MSD and GSK; honoraria for lectures from MSD; support for attending meetings from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences; advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare and Theratechnologies. CO reports grants to institution from Janssen, Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, MSD and Astrazeneca; honoraria for lectures from Janssen, Gilead, ViiV Healthcare and MSD; and unpaid appointments as President of the Medical Women's Federation and a member of the International AIDS Society governing council. MG reports advisory board fees from Gilead. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Although over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered globally, the issue of whether the optimal doses are being used has received little attention. To address this question we reviewed the reports of early-phase dose-finding trials of the nine COVID-19 vaccines approved by World Health Organization, extracting information on study design and findings on reactogenicity and early humoral immune response. The number of different doses evaluated for each vaccine varied widely (range 1-7), as did the number of subjects studied per dose (range 15-190). As expected, the frequency and severity of adverse reactions generally increased at higher doses, although most were clinically tolerable. Higher doses also tended to elicit better immune responses, but differences between the highest dose and the second-highest dose evaluated were small, typically less than 1.6-fold for both binding antibody concentration and neutralising antibody titre. All of the trials had at least one important design limitation - few doses evaluated, large gaps between adjacent doses, or an inadequate sample size - although this is not a criticism of the study investigators, who were working under intense time pressures at the start of the epidemic. It is therefore open to question whether the single dose taken into clinical efficacy trials, and subsequently authorised by regulatory agencies, was optimal. In particular, our analysis indicates that the recommended doses for some vaccines appear to be unnecessarily high. Although reduced dosing for booster injections is an active area of research, the priming dose also merits study. We conclude by suggesting improvements in the design of future vaccine trials, for both next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and for vaccines against other pathogens., 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 © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Active-control trials, where an experimental treatment is compared with an established treatment, are performed when the inclusion of a placebo control group is deemed to be unethical. For time-to-event outcomes, the primary estimand is usually the rate ratio, or the closely-related hazard ratio, comparing the experimental group with the control group. In this article we describe major problems in the interpretation of this estimand, using examples from COVID-19 vaccine and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. In particular, when the control treatment is highly effective, the rate ratio may indicate that the experimental treatment is clearly statistically inferior even when it is worthwhile from a public health perspective. We argue that it is crucially important to consider averted events as well as observed events in the interpretation of active-control trials. An alternative metric that incorporates this information, the averted events ratio, is proposed and exemplified. Its interpretation is simple and conceptually appealing, namely the proportion of events that would be averted by using the experimental treatment rather than the control treatment. The averted events ratio cannot be directly estimated from the active-control trial, and requires an additional assumption about either: (a) the incidence that would have been observed in a hypothetical placebo arm (the counterfactual incidence) or (b) the efficacy of the control treatment (relative to no treatment) that pertained in the active-control trial. Although estimation of these parameters is not straightforward, this must be attempted in order to draw rational inferences. To date, this method has been applied only within HIV prevention research, but has wider applicability to treatment trials and other disease areas., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is a novel technology formulated as a low dose vaccine against COVID-19., Methods: A phase I first-in-human dose-ranging trial of a saRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at Imperial Clinical Research Facility, and participating centres in London, UK, between 19 th June to 28 th October 2020. Participants received two intramuscular (IM) injections of LNP-nCoVsaRNA at six different dose levels, 0.1-10.0μg, given four weeks apart. An open-label dose escalation was followed by a dose evaluation. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week from enrolment, with follow-up at regular intervals (1-8 weeks). The binding and neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, immunoblot, SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation and wild type neutralisation assays. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20)., Findings: 192 healthy individuals with no history or serological evidence of COVID-19, aged 18-45 years were enrolled. The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events related to vaccination. Seroconversion at week six whether measured by ELISA or immunoblot was related to dose (both p<0.001), ranging from 8% (3/39; 0.1μg) to 61% (14/23; 10.0μg) in ELISA and 46% (18/39; 0.3μg) to 87% (20/23; 5.0μg and 10.0μg) in a post-hoc immunoblot assay. Geometric mean (GM) anti-S IgG concentrations ranged from 74 (95% CI, 45-119) at 0.1μg to 1023 (468-2236) ng/mL at 5.0μg (p<0.001) and was not higher at 10.0μg. Neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 by participant sera was measurable in 15% (6/39; 0.1μg) to 48% (11/23; 5.0μg) depending on dose level received., Interpretation: Encapsulated saRNA is safe for clinical development, is immunogenic at low dose levels but failed to induce 100% seroconversion. Modifications to optimise humoral responses are required to realise its potential as an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2., Funding: This study was co-funded by grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC&#95;PC&#95;19076), and the National Institute Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, Restore the Earth., Competing Interests: P.F.M. and R.J.S. are co-inventors on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 saRNA vaccine. All the other authors have nothing to report., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Objectives: The averted infections ratio (AIR) is a novel measure for quantifying the preservation-of-effect in active-control non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. In the main formulation, the AIR requires an estimate of the counterfactual placebo incidence rate. We describe two approaches for calculating confidence limits for the AIR given a point estimate of this parameter, a closed-form solution based on a Taylor series expansion (delta method) and an iterative method based on the profile-likelihood., Methods: For each approach, exact coverage probabilities for the lower and upper confidence limits were computed over a grid of values of (1) the true value of the AIR (2) the expected number of counterfactual events (3) the effectiveness of the active-control treatment., Results: Focussing on the lower confidence limit, which determines whether non-inferiority can be declared, the coverage achieved by the delta method is either less than or greater than the nominal coverage, depending on the true value of the AIR. In contrast, the coverage achieved by the profile-likelihood method is consistently accurate., Conclusions: The profile-likelihood method is preferred because of better coverage properties, but the simpler delta method is valid when the experimental treatment is no less effective than the control treatment. A complementary Bayesian approach, which can be applied when the counterfactual incidence rate can be represented as a prior distribution, is also outlined., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest., (© 2021 David T. Dunn et al., published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.)

Introduction: Randomized trials of new agents for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) compare against emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF), without a placebo group. We used the well-characterized adherence-efficacy relationship for F/TDF to back-calculate the (non-PrEP) counterfactual background HIV incidence (bHIV) in a randomized trial of a novel PrEP agent and estimate comparative efficacy (to counterfactual bHIV)., Methods: The DISCOVER trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02842086) randomized 5387 men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women who have sex with men and demonstrated non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) to F/TDF (HIV incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·47, 95% CI: 0·19 to 1.15). Tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) levels in dried blood spots (DBS) were assessed for all diagnosed with HIV and in a random 10% of the cohort. We used a Bayesian model with a diffuse prior distribution, derived from established data relating tenofovir diphosphate levels to HIV prevention efficacy. This prior, combined with the F/TDF seroconversion rate and tenofovir diphosphate levels in DISCOVER, yielded Bayesian inferences on the counterfactual bHIV., Results: There were six versus 11 postbaseline HIV infections (0.14 vs. 0.25/100 person-years [PY]) on F/TAF and F/TDF respectively. Of the 11 on F/TDF, 10 had low, none had medium and one had high tenofovir diphosphate levels; among HIV-negative controls, 5% of the person-time years had low, 9% had medium and 86% had high TFV-DP levels. A non-informative prior distribution for counterfactual bHIV, combined with the prior for TFV-DP level-efficacy relationship, yielded a posterior counterfactual bHIV of 3·4 infections/100 PY (0.80 Bayesian credible interval [CrI] 1·9 to 5·9), which suggests a median HIV efficacy of 96% (0.95 CrI [88% to 99%]) for F/TAF and 93% (0.95 CrI [87% to 96%]) for F/TDF compared to bHIV., Conclusions: Based on the established connection of drug concentrations to PrEP prevention efficacy, a Bayesian framework can be used to estimate a synthetic non-PrEP control group in randomized, active-controlled PrEP trials that include a F/TDF-comparator group., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of the International AIDS Society published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the International AIDS Society.)

Background: HIV treatment guidelines have traditionally recommended that all HIV-positive individuals are tested for evidence of drug resistance prior to starting ART. Testing for resistance to reverse transcriptase inhibitors and PIs is well established in routine care. However, testing for integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI) resistance is less consistent., Objectives: To inform treatment guidelines by determining the prevalence of InSTI resistance in a national cohort of recently infected individuals., Patients and Methods: Recent (within 4 months) HIV-1 infections were identified using a Recent Infection Testing Algorithm of new HIV-1 diagnoses in the UK. Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in integrase, protease and reverse transcriptase were detected by ultradeep sequencing, which allows for the sensitive estimation of the frequency of each resistant variant in a sample., Results: The analysis included 655 randomly selected individuals (median age = 33 years, 95% male, 83% MSM, 78% white) sampled in the period 2014 to 2016 and determined to have a recent infection. These comprised 320, 138 and 197 samples from 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. None of the samples had major InSTI RAMs occurring at high variant frequency (≥20%). A subset (25/640, 3.9%) had major InSTI RAMs occurring only as low-frequency variants (2%-20%). In contrast, 47/588 (8.0%) had major reverse transcriptase inhibitor and PI RAMs at high frequency., Conclusions: Between 2014 and 2016, major InSTI RAMs were uncommon in adults with recent HIV-1 infection, only occurring as low-frequency variants of doubtful clinical significance. Continued surveillance of newly diagnosed patients for evidence of transmitted InSTI resistance is recommended to inform clinical practice., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Trials of candidate agents for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) might randomly assign participants to be given a new PrEP agent or oral coformulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine. This design presents unique challenges in interpretation. First, with two active arms, HIV incidence might be low. Second, the effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine varies across populations; thus, similar HIV incidence between groups could be consistent with a wide range of effectiveness for the new PrEP. We propose a two-part approach to trial results. First, we use Bayesian methods to incorporate assumptions about the background incidence of HIV in the trial in the absence of PrEP, possibly augmented by external data. On the basis of the estimated background incidence, we estimate and compare the number of averted (or prevented) HIV infections in each of the two trial groups, calculating the averted infections ratio. We apply these methods to a completed trial of tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine for PrEP. Our framework shows that leveraging external information to estimate averted infections and the averted infections ratio enhances the efficiency and interpretation of active-controlled PrEP trials., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To investigate the characteristics and outcomes of people who initiated different antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens during the era of integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs)., Design: UK-based observational cohort study., Methods: UK Collaborative HIV Cohort study participants were included if they had started ART between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2017. Virological failure was defined as the first of two consecutive plasma HIV RNA more than 50 copies/ml, at least 6 months after starting ART. Follow-up was censored at ART discontinuation, class switch or death. The risk of virological failure among those on INSTI, protease inhibitor or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) regimens was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods., Results: Of 12 585 participants, 45.6% started a NNRTI, 29.0% a protease inhibitor and 25.4% an INSTI regimen. Over a median follow-up of 20.3 months (interquartile range 7.9-38.9), 7.5% of participants experienced virological failure. Compared with those starting an NNRTI regimen, people receiving INSTIs or protease inhibitors were more likely to experience virological failure: INSTI group adjusted hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.95, P = 0.0009; protease inhibitor group adjusted hazard ratio 2.70, 95% confidence interval 2.27-3.21, P less than 0.0001, likelihood ratio test P less than 0.0001., Conclusion: First-line INSTI regimens were associated with a lower risk of virological failure than protease inhibitor regimens but both groups were more likely to experience virological failure than those initiating treatment with a NNRTI. There is likely to be residual channelling bias resulting from selected use of INSTIs and protease inhibitors in specific clinical contexts, including in those with a perceived risk of poor adherence.

SELPHI involves two interventions: (A) It provides one HIV self-testing (HIVST) kit; (B) It offers 3-monthly repeat HIVST kits if participants report ongoing risk. A logic model underpinned by the Behaviour Change Wheel informed the design of the intervention. SELPHI recruited 10,135 cis-men and trans people in England and Wales, all reporting anal sex with a man. This paper explores how the interventions were experienced and the pathways to impact for different groups of trial participants. In-depth interviews with 37 cis-men who have sex with men (MSM) were used to inductively categorise participants based on sexual and HIV testing histories. Themes relating to intervention experiences and impacts were mapped onto SELPHI-hypothesised intermediate outcomes to consider intervention impacts. Three groups were identified: 'Inexperienced testers' engaged with SELPHI to overcome motivational and social and physical opportunity testing barriers. For 'pro self-testers', testing frequency was constrained by psychological and social barriers and lack of opportunity. 'Opportunistic adopters' engaged in HIVST for novelty and convenience. Perceived impacts for inexperienced testers were most closely aligned with the logic model, but for opportunistic adopters there was little evidence of impact. Distinctive groups were discernible with divergent intervention experiences. Using COM-B as a model for understanding behaviour change in relation to HIVST, our results indicate how HIVST interventions could be adapted to respond to different needs based on the target population's demographic and behavioural features., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Background: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a novel HIV prevention method whereby HIV-negative individuals take the drugs tenofovir and emtricitabine to prevent HIV acquisition. Optimal adherence is critical for PrEP efficacy. Chemsex describes sexual activity under the influence of psychoactive drugs, in the UK typically; crystal methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyrate(GHB) and/or mephedrone. Chemsex drug use has been associated with increased HIV transmission risk among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and poor ART adherence among people living with HIV. This study assessed whether self-reported chemsex events affected self-reported daily PrEP adherence among PROUD study participants., Methods: The PROUD study was an open-label, randomised controlled trial, conducted in thirteen English sexual health clinics, assessing effectiveness of Truvada Ⓡ -PrEP among 544 HIV-negative GBM. The study reported an 86% risk-reduction of HIV from daily PrEP. Participants were asked about chemsex engagement at follow-up visits. Monthly self-reports of missed PrEP tablets were aggregated to assess adherence between visits. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to test for associations between chemsex and reporting less than seven out of seven intended doses(<7/7ID) in the 7 days before and/or after last condomless anal intercourse(CAI)., Results: 1479 follow-up visit forms and 2260 monthly adherence forms from 388 participants were included in the analyses, with 38.5% visit forms reporting chemsex since last visit and 29.9% follow-up periods reporting <7/7ID. No statistically significant associations were observed between reporting <7/7ID and chemsex (aOR=1.29 [95% CI 0.90-1.87], p = 0.168). Statistically significant associations were seen between reporting <7/7ID and participants perceiving that they would miss PrEP doses during the trial, Asian ethnicity, and reporting unemployment at baseline., Conclusions: These analyses suggest PrEP remains a feasible and effective HIV prevention method for GBM engaging in chemsex, a practise which is prevalent in this group and has been associated with increased HIV transmission risk., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Various ongoing trials seek to evaluate long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) agents by showing that they are non-inferior to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. Trials comparing oral PrEP to new methods examine effectiveness in a setting where only one or the other is provided; however, a new product will probably be delivered in a context where oral PrEP is also available. The effectiveness of a new PrEP product is best measured by its potential effect in a context that also includes oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine as an option. We offer an alternative standard for long-acting products-a measure of the effectiveness of the new product in addition to oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine as compared with oral PrEP alone. We term this measure mosaic effectiveness. We illustrate scenarios where a novel product can fail to show non-inferiority but show substantial mosaic effectiveness, thus implying the public health value of the novel product even if it is less effective than oral PrEP. Regulatory standards should consider mosaic effectiveness, not just comparative effectiveness. We assert that measurements that combine rigor with public health relevance can accelerate progress against the HIV epidemic., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug-resistant minority variants (DRMinVs) detected in patients who recently acquired human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) can be transmitted, generated de novo through virus replication, or technical errors. The first form is likely to persist and result in treatment failure, while the latter two could be stochastic and transient., Methods: Ultradeep sequencing of plasma samples from 835 individuals with recent HIV-1 infection in the United Kingdom was performed to detect DRMinVs at a mutation frequency between 2% and 20%. Sequence alignments including >110 000 HIV-1 partial pol consensus sequences from the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database (UK-HDRD), linked to epidemiological and clinical data from the HIV and AIDS Reporting System, were used for transmission cluster analysis. Transmission clusters were identified using Cluster Picker with a clade support of >90% and maximum genetic distances of 4.5% or 1.5%, the latter to limit detection to likely direct transmission events., Results: Drug-resistant majority variants (DRMajVs) were detected in 66 (7.9%) and DRMinVs in 84 (10.1%) of the recently infected individuals. High levels of clustering to sequences in UK-HDRD were observed for both DRMajV (n = 48; 72.7%) and DRMinV (n = 63; 75.0%) sequences. Of these, 43 (65.2%) with DRMajVs were in a transmission cluster with sequences that harbored the same DR mutation compared to only 3 (3.6%) sequences with DRMinVs (P < .00001, Fisher exact test). Evidence of likely direct transmission of DRMajVs was observed for 25/66 (37.9%), whereas none were observed for the DRMinVs (P < .00001)., Conclusions: Using a densely sampled HIV-infected population, we show no evidence of DRMinV transmission among recently infected individuals., (© Crown copyright 2018.)

Objectives: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective method of HIV prevention for men who have sex with men (MSM). However, uncertainty remains around the optimal eligibility criteria for PrEP, specifically whether there are subgroups at low risk of HIV for whom PrEP might not be warranted., Methods: PROUD was an open-label waitlist trial design that randomised MSM attending participating sexual health centres in England to receive PrEP immediately (IMM) or after a deferral period of 1 year (DEF). This analysis is based on participants who were randomised to the deferred arm, when they did not have access to PrEP. HIV incidence was compared between subgroups defined by baseline characteristics., Results: Overall, 21 participants acquired HIV infection over 239.3 person-years (PY) follow-up, yielding an incidence rate of 8.8/100 PY (95% CI 5.4 to 13.4). Two highly significant predictors for HIV acquisition were identified. Men with a self-reported diagnosis of syphilis, rectal chlamydia (CT) or rectal gonorrhoea (GC) in the previous 12 months had an incidence of 17.2/100 PY (95% CI 9.7 to 28.5); those reporting receptive anal intercourse without a condom (ncRAI) with two or more partners in the previous 3 months had an incidence of 13.6/100 PY (95% CI 7.9 to 21.7). The incidence rate among participants lacking both of these risk factors was 1.1/100 PY (1/87.6, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.4)., Conclusions: The high HIV incidence in PROUD suggests that most participants appropriately judged their need for PrEP. Eligibility criteria for a PrEP programme can therefore be broad, as in the current guidelines. However, a recent history of syphilis or rectal CT/GC, or multiple ncRAI partners indicates a high imminent risk of HIV infection. MSM with any of these characteristics should be offered PrEP as a matter of urgency., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The PROUD study was provided drug free of charge by Gilead Sciences which also distributed it to participating clinics and provided funds for additional diagnostic tests for HCV and drug levels. EW's university fees and stipend were funded by Gilead Sciences. DTD has received fees for participation on advisory boards and educational workshops from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences. PK was part funded by Gilead Sciences during 2017/2018. AC received advisory board fees from Gilead Sciences and GSK/ViiV; speaker fees from Gilead and conferences bursaries from Gilead & Janssen. SM reports grants from the European Union H2020 scheme, EDCTP 2, the National Institute of Health Research and Gilead Sciences; other support from Gilead Sciences, and the Population Council Microbicide Advisory Board; and is Chair of the Project Advisory Committee for USAID grant awarded to CONRAD to develop tenofovir-based products for use by women (non-financial)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)