Search

Abstract Background Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-discordant couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when they are offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding factors that influence the choice of safer conception methods, couples' actual experiences using safer conception methods, and why some couples switch safer conception methods. Methods Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples who exited the SAFER study—a pilot safer conception study for HIV sero-discordant couples in Zimbabwe that offered couples a choice of ART with monthly viral load monitoring (ART/VL), oral PrEP, vaginal insemination, and semen washing. All couples in SAFER had used at least two safer conception methods. Results We found that safer conception method choice often centered around a desire for intimacy, condomless sex, and certainty in the conception process, particularly for men. Method-related attributes such as familiarity, perceived ease of use, side effects, and perceived level of effectiveness in preventing HIV and achieving pregnancy influenced method choice, switching, and satisfaction. Concerns were expressed about each safer conception method and couples were willing to try different methods until they found method(s) that worked for them. The majority of participants reported having positive experiences using safer conception, especially those using ART/VL + PrEP, citing that they were able to attempt pregnancy for the first time with peace of mind and experienced joy and satisfaction from being able to achieve pregnancy safely. Conclusions The differences in method preferences and experiences voiced by participants in this study and in other studies from the region point to the importance of having a variety of safer conception options in the service delivery package and addressing concerns about paternity, intimacy, and method-related attributes to enable HIV sero-discordant couples to safely achieve their reproductive goals.

Decision-making on childbearing and safer conception use in HIV sero-different couples involves an intricate balance of individual desires and perceived HIV acquisition risk. This paper addresses an important knowledge gap regarding HIV sero-different couples’ considerations and the relationship and power dynamics involved when deciding to use a safer conception method. Between February and June 2019, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews among 14 men and 17 women, representing 17 couples, who exited the SAFER study – a pilot study assessing the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a safer conception programme for HIV sero-different couples in Zimbabwe. All couples in SAFER were provided with a choice of safer conception methods and were followed for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts and 3 months following pregnancy. While couples generally perceived their safer conception discussions to be easy and consensus-driven, the decision-making process also involved complex gender dynamics and trade-offs in relationship power, which resulted in differing interpretations of what constituted a joint or shared couple decision. Participants regarded effective couple communication as an essential component of and precursor to good safer conception conversations and requested additional training in couple communication. Couples relied on information from healthcare providers to kickstart their safer conception discussions. Safer conception programmes should address relationship power imbalances, promote effective couple communication and offer healthcare provider support to enable HIV sero-different couples to make informed choices about conception in a manner that upholds their safety and reproductive autonomy.

Abstract Background This exploratory analysis investigates the prevalence and risk factors of neurocognitive toxicity in postpartum women on HIV treatment in response to a concern of an Isoniazid Preventive Therapy (IPT)/Efavirenz interaction. Trial Design Pregnant women on HIV treatment from countries with high TB prevalence were randomized in IMPAACT P1078 to 28 weeks of IPT started either during pregnancy or at 12 weeks postpartum. Partway through study implementation, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9, the cognitive complaint questionnaire, and the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index were added to evaluate depression, cognitive function, and sleep quality at postpartum weeks. Screening for peripheral neuropathy was conducted throughout the study. Methods We summarized percentages of women with depression symptoms, cognitive dysfunction, poor sleep quality and peripheral neuropathy and assessed the association of 11 baseline risk factors of neurotoxicity using logistic regression, adjusted for gestational age stratum. Results Of 956 women enrolled, 749 (78%) had at least one neurocognitive evaluation. During the postpartum period, the percentage of women reporting at least mild depression symptoms, cognitive complaint and poor sleep quality peaked at 13%, 8% and 10%, respectively, at 12 weeks, and the percentage of women reporting peripheral neuropathy peaked at 13% at 24 weeks. There was no evidence of study arm differences in odds of all four neurotoxic symptoms. Conclusions Timing of IPT initiation and EFV use were not associated with symptoms of neurotoxicity. Further study is advised to formally assess risk factors of neurotoxicity.

Safer conception services are needed to minimize HIV transmission among HIV sero-different couples desiring pregnancy. Few studies have evaluated the choices couples make when offered multiple safer conception methods or real-world method acceptability and effectiveness. We piloted a comprehensive safer conception program (Clintrials.gov identifier: NCT03049176) for HIV sero-different couples planning pregnancy in Zimbabwe to measure feasibility, method uptake, acceptability, pregnancy outcome, and HIV transmission. This study was not designed to compare rates of HIV transmission by safer conception method choice but rather to understand choices couples make when seeking to minimize risk of HIV transmission and maximize likelihood of pregnancy. Couples in this prospective, non-randomized study were given a choice of one or more currently available safer conception methods: antiretroviral therapy (ART) with monthly viral load (VL) monitoring for the HIV-positive partner (ART/VL), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the HIV-negative partner, vaginal insemination (VI) for couples with an HIV-positive woman, and semen washing (SW) for couples with an HIV-positive man. Couples were followed monthly for up to 12 months of pregnancy attempts, quarterly during pregnancy, and 12 weeks post-partum. At each visit, data on method use, urine for pregnancy testing, and blood for HIV antibody testing, or viral load if HIV-positive, were obtained. Infants born to HIV-positive women were tested for HIV at 6 and 12 weeks. Between March 2017 and June 2019, 46 individuals from 23 HIV sero-different partnerships were enrolled and followed. At enrollment, all couples chose ART/VL, and all couples chose at least one additional method; 74% chose PrEP, 36% chose SW, and 25% chose VI. During pre-pregnancy follow-up visits, three couples discontinued SW, and one couple discontinued VI; all four of these couples opted for ART/VL plus PrEP. Satisfaction with safer conception methods was high among those who chose ART/VL and PrEP. Twelve couples achieved pregnancy. There were no cases of HIV transmission to partners, and no infants tested positive for HIV. This safer conception program is feasible and acceptable, allowing sero-different couples to safely achieve pregnancy. Sero-different couples in Zimbabwe seek a combination of HIV prevention methods, particularly ART/VL plus PrEP. Trial Registration: Clintrials.gov, NCT03049176.

Abstract Background In recent years, safer conception strategies have been developed to help HIV-serodiscordant couples conceive a child without transmitting HIV to the seronegative partner. The SAFER clinical trial assessed implementation of these strategies in Zimbabwe. Methods As a part of the SAFER study, we estimated the costs (in 2017 $US) associated with individual and combination strategies, in the trial setting and real-world practice, from a healthcare system perspective. Safer conception strategies included: 1) ART with frequent viral load testing until achieving undetectable viral load (ART-VL); 2) daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); 3) semen-washing with intrauterine insemination; and 4) manual self-insemination at home. For costs in the trial, we used a micro-costing approach, including a time and motion study to quantify personnel effort, and estimated the cost per couple for individual and combination strategies for a mean of 6 months of safer services. For real-world practice, we modeled costs for three implementation scenarios, representing differences from the trial in input prices (paid by the Ministry of Health and Child Care [MOHCC]), intervention intensity, and increments to current HIV prevention and treatment practices and guidelines. We used one-way sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of uncertainty in input variables. Results Individual strategy costs were $769–$1615 per couple in the trial; $185–$563 if using MOHCC prices. Under the target intervention intensity and using MOHCC prices, individual strategy costs were $73–$360 per couple over and above the cost of current HIV clinical practices. The cost of delivering the most commonly selected combination, ART-VL plus PrEP, ranged from $166–$517 per couple under the three real-world scenarios. Highest costs were for personnel, lab tests, and strategy-specific consumables, in variable proportions by clinical strategy and analysis scenario. Total costs were most affected by uncertainty in the price of PrEP, number of semen-washing attempts, and scale-up of semen-washing capacity. Conclusions Safer conception methods have costs that may be affordable in many low-resource settings. These cost data will help implementers and policymakers add safer conception services. Cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to assess value for money for safer conception services overall and for safer strategy combinations. Trial registration Registry Name: Clinicaltrials.gov. Trial registration number: NCT03049176 . Registration date: February 9, 2017.

Safe practices for dispensing investigational product (IP) during clinical trials are not standardized and information in this regard is often limited. ASPIRE was a Phase 3 safety and effectiveness trial of a vaginal matrix ring containing 25 mg of dapivirine for the prevention of HIV-1 in women. The study enrolled 2629 women at 15 clinical research sites in Malawi, Uganda, South Africa and Zimbabwe who were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a vaginal ring containing 25 mg of dapivirine or a matching placebo vaginal ring. The vaginal rings and packaging were identical in appearance in order to maintain the study blind. A real-time, documented second check of the dispensing process was conducted by a second pharmacy staff. Frequent inventory counts and real time accountability audits were also useful for rapidly identifying a dispensing error. A total of 52,625 vaginal rings were dispensed with only three documented pharmacy dispensing errors. There were zero dispensing errors at 13 of the 15 sites with an overall rate of

Background: HIV discordance in stable couples is a major driver of new infections, and discordant couples trying to conceive may be particularly at risk. Strategies that can reduce the risk of HIV transmission in these couples include antiretroviral therapy with adequate viral load suppression (ART/VL), oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), artificial vaginal insemination (AVI), and semen washing (SW). Understanding the cost-effectiveness of these strategies is important, particularly in HIV endemic settings. Leveraging the ongoing SAFER study in Zimbabwe, we examined the cost-effectiveness of offering these strategies compared to current practice. Methods: The SAFER study is an observational cohort of discordant couples who are trying to conceive. SAFER participants are given a package of safer reproduction services, including counselling and a choice of one or more HIV prevention strategies: ART/VL, PrEP, AVI, or SW. We developed decision models to simulate the use of these strategies and to estimate their cost-effectiveness individually and in combination. Patient uptake of strategies was based on SAFER data. Total net costs and outcomes were assessed over a 30-year horizon from a health system perspective. Costs were derived from SAFER activities using micro-costing, including time and motion observations, and from published literature. Health outcomes were estimated using published literature and were measured in terms of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) associated with HIV infection. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using discounted total net health-care costs associated with each safer strategy versus current practice, and discounted DALYs for the seronegative partner and infant. Findings: Providing safer reproduction counselling and a choice of strategies is cost-effective compared with current practice, per the WHO standard of annual gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (US$1008 in Zimbabwe), and remains cost-effective up to 97% ART coverage in the general population. Each individual strategy is more cost-effective than current practice, and each has an ICER less than $875 per DALY averted. Both AVI and ART/VL are cost-saving for couples with an HIV-positive woman, and ART/VL and SW were the most cost-effective strategies for couples with an HIV-positive man. Interpretation: Modelling suggests that offering safer reproduction counselling and services to HIV-discordant couples trying to conceive is likely to be highly cost-effective for HIV prevention. Our findings may inform implementation of these strategies in Zimbabwe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Funding: None.