Cost-effectiveness of adoption strategies for point of care HIV viral load monitoring in South Africa

Background: Viral load (VL) testing is recommended for monitoring people on ART. The National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS) in South Africa conducts >5million laboratory-based VL tests but faces challenges with specimen integrity and results delivery. Point-of-care (POC) VL monitoring may improve VL suppression (VLS). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for POC testing in South Africa. Methods: We developed a cost-outcome model utilizing NHLS data, including facility-level annual VL volumes, proportion with VLS, specimen rejection rates, turn-around-time, and the cost/test. We assessed the impact of adopting POC VL technology under 4 strategies: (1) status-quo; (2) targeted POC testing at facilities with high levels of viral failure; (3) targeted POC testing at low-performing facilities; (4) complete POC adoption. For each strategy, we determined the total cost, effectiveness (expected number of virally suppressed people) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) based on expected (>10%) VLS improvement. Findings: Existing laboratory-based VL testing costs $126 m annually and achieves 85.2$40/additional person suppressed, compared to the status-quo. Should resources allow, complete POC adoption may be cost-effective (ICER: $136/additional person suppressed), requiring an additional$49 m annually and achieving 94.5% VLS. All other strategies were dominated in the incremental analysis. Interpretation: Assuming POC VL monitoring confers clinical benefits, the most cost-effective strategy for POC adoption in South Africa is a targeted approach with POC VL technologies placed at facilities with high level of viral failure. Funding: Funding support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Implementation and outcomes of dolutegravir-based first-line antiretroviral therapy for people with HIV in South Africa: a retrospective cohort study

Background There are few data assessing the uptake of first-line dolutegravir among men and women living with HIV in low-income and middle-income countries, and subsequent clinical outcomes in non-trial settings. We aimed to determine dolutegravir uptake in women, and the effect of dolutegravir on clinical outcomes in routine care in South Africa. Methods In this cohort study, we analysed deidentified data from adults receiving first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) at 59 South African clinics from Dec 1, 2019, to Feb 28, 2022, using two distinct cohorts. In the initiator cohort, we used Poisson regression models to assess the outcome of initiation with dolutegravir-based ART by gender, and associations between dolutegravir use and the outcomes of 12-month retention in care and viral suppression at less than 50 copies per mL. In the transition cohort, comprising adults who received non-dolutegravir-based first-line ART in December, 2019, we used Cox proportional hazards models to assess the outcome of transition to first-line dolutegravir by gender. We then used time-dependent propensity score matching to compare the outcomes of subsequent 12-month retention in care and viral suppression between people who transitioned to dolutegravir and those who had not yet transitioned at the same timepoint. In both the initiation and transition cohort, the primary viral load analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis, with a secondary as-treated analysis that excluded people who changed their ART regimen after baseline. Findings In the initiator cohort, between Dec 1, 2019, and Feb 28, 2022, 45 392 people were initiated on ART. 23 945 (52·8%) of 45 392 were non-pregnant women, 4780 (10·5%) were pregnant women, and 16 667 (36·7%) were men. The median participant age was 31·0 years (IQR 26·0–38·0) and 2401 (5·3%) were receiving tuberculosis treatment at time of ART initiation. 31 264 (68·9%) of 45 392 people were initiated on dolutegravir, 14 102 (31·1%) on efavirenz, and 26 (0·1%) on nevirapine. In a univariable Poisson regression model, pregnant women (risk ratio [RR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·49 to 0·66; risk difference –35·4%, 95% CI –42·3 to –28·5) and non-pregnant women (RR 0·78, 0·74 to 0·82; risk difference –18·4%, –21·6 to –15·2) were less likely to be initiated on dolutegravir than were men. In Poisson models adjusted for age, gender (including pregnancy), time, tuberculosis status, and initiation CD4 count, people initiated on dolutegravir were more likely to be retained in care at 12 months (adjusted RR 1·09, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·14; adjusted risk difference 5·2%, 2·2 to 8·4) and virally suppressed (adjusted RR 1·04, 95% CI 1·01 to 1·06; adjusted risk difference 3·1%, 1·2 to 5·1) compared with those initiated on non-dolutegravir-based regimens. For the transition cohort, on Dec 1, 2019, 180 956 people were receiving non-dolutegravir-based first-line ART at the study clinics, of whom 124 168 (68·6%) were women. The median age was 38 years (IQR 32–45), and the median time on ART was 3·9 years (2·0–6·4) years, with most people receiving efavirenz (178 624 [98·7%] people) and tenofovir (178 148 [98·4%]). By Feb 28, 2022, 121 174 (67·0%) of 180 956 people had transitioned to first-line dolutegravir at a median of 283 days (IQR 203–526). In a univariable Cox regression model the hazard of being transitioned to dolutegravir was lower in women than in men (hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·56 to 0·57). Among 92 318 propensity score matched people, the likelihood of retention in care was higher among the dolutegravir group compared with matched controls (adjusted RR 1·03, 95% CI 1·02 to 1·03; risk difference 2·5%, 95% CI 2·1 to 2·9). In the dolutegravir group, 33 423 (90·5%) of 36 920 people were suppressed at less than 50 copies per mL compared with 31 648 (89·7%) of 35 299 matched controls (adjusted RR 1·01, 95% CI 1·00 to 1·02; risk difference 0·8%, 95% CI 0·3 to 1·4). Interpretation Women were less likely to receive dolutegravir than men. As dolutegravir was associated with improved outcomes, roll-out should continue, with a particular emphasis on inclusion of women. Funding Wellcome Trust, Africa Oxford Initiative, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Translation For the isiZulu translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Clinical outcomes with second-line dolutegravir in people with virological failure on first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens in South Africa: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir (DTG) is recommended for second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) after virological failure on first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens in people living with HIV in low-income and middle-income countries. We compared the effectiveness of DTG versus the previously recommended ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimen for second-line treatment in South Africa. METHODS: In this retrospective observational cohort study, we used routinely collected, de-identified data from 59 primary health-care facilities in eThekwini Municipality, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. We included people living with HIV aged 15 years or older with virological failure (defined as two consecutive viral loads of ≥1000 copies per mL at least 56 days apart) on first-line NNRTI-based ART containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and who switched to second-line ART. Our primary outcomes were retention in care and viral suppression (<50 copies per mL) at 12 months after starting second-line treatment. We used modified Poisson regression models to compare these outcomes between second-line regimens (zidovudine [AZT]/emtricitabine or lamivudine [XTC]/DTG; TDF/XTC/DTG; and AZT/XTC/LPV/r). FINDINGS: We included 1214 participants in our study, of whom 729 (60%) were female and 485 (40%) were male, and whose median age was 36 years (IQR 30-42). 689 (57%) were switched to AZT/XTC/LPV/r, 217 (18%) to AZT/XTC/DTG, and 308 (25%) to TDF/XTC/DTG. Compared with AZT/XTC/LPV/r (75%), retention in care was higher with AZT/XTC/DTG (86%, adjusted risk ratio [aRR]=1·14, 95% CI 1·03-1·27; adjusted risk difference [aRD]=10·89%, 95% CI 2·01 to 19·78) but similar with TDF/XTC/DTG (77%, aRR=1·01, 0·94-1·10; aRD=1·04%, -5·03 to 7·12). Observed retention in care was lower with TDF/XTC/DTG than with AZT/XTC/DTG, although in multivariable analysis evidence for a difference was weak (aRR=0·89, 0·78-1·01, p=0·060; aRD=-9·85%, -20·33 to 0·63, p=0·066). Of 799 participants who were retained in care with a 12-month viral load test done, viral suppression was higher with AZT/XTC/DTG (59%; aRR=1·25, 1·06-1·47; aRD=11·57%, 2·37 to 20·76) and higher with TDF/XTC/DTG (61%; aRR=1·30, 1·14-1·48; aRD=14·16%, 7·14 to 21·18) than with AZT/XTC/LPV/r (47%). INTERPRETATION: These findings from routine care support further implementation of WHO's recommendation to use DTG instead of LPV/r in people living with HIV who experience virological failure while receiving first-line NNRTI-based ART. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the isiZulu translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Clinical Outcomes After Viremia Among People Receiving Dolutegravir vs Efavirenz-Based First-line Antiretroviral Therapy in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare clinical outcomes after viremia between dolutegravir vs efavirenz-based first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) as evidence is lacking outside clinical trials in resource-limited settings. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis with routine data from 59 South African clinics. We included people with HIV aged ≥15 years receiving first-line tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, lamivudine, dolutegravir (TLD) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, efavirenz (TEE) and with first viremia (≥50 copies/mL) between June and November 2020. We used multivariable modified Poisson regression models to compare retention in care and viral suppression (<50 copies/mL) after 12 months between participants on TLD vs TEE. RESULTS: At first viremia, among 9657 participants, 6457 (66.9%) were female, and the median age (interquartile range [IQR]) was 37 (31-44) years; 7598 (78.7%) were receiving TEE and 2059 (21.3%) TLD. Retention in care was slightly higher in the TLD group (84.9%) than TEE (80.8%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06). Of 6569 participants retained in care with a 12-month viral load, viral suppression was similar between the TLD (78.9%) and TEE (78.8%) groups (aRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.05). However, 3368 participants changed ART during follow-up: the majority from TEE to first-line TLD (89.1%) or second-line (TLD 3.4%, zidovudine/emtricitabine/lopinavir-ritonavir 2.1%). In a sensitivity analysis among the remaining 3980 participants who did not change ART during follow-up and had a 12-month viral load, viral suppression was higher in the TLD (78.9%) than TEE (74.9%) group (aRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Among people with viremia on first-line ART, dolutegravir was associated with slightly better retention in care and similar or better viral suppression than efavirenz

Clinic flow for STI, HIV, and TB patients in an urban infectious disease clinic offering point-of-care testing services in Durban, South Africa.

CAPRISA, 2018.Abstract available in pdf

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.MethodsPANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.FindingsBetween Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Diagnostic accuracy of the rapid Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load XC, Xpert HIV-1 Viral Load & m-PIMA HIV-1/2 Viral Load in South African clinics

Background: We aimed to evaluate the analytic performance of three rapid HIV viral load assays: the novel Xpert HIV-1 VL XC (Xpert XC), the Xpert HIV-1 VL (Xpert VL), and the m-PIMA HIV52 1/2 VL (m-PIMA). Setting: Two South African clinics. Methods: We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Site-laboratory technicians and nurses used the Xpert XC, Xpert VL and m-PIMA to test plasma samples from people with HIV receiving antiretroviral therapy. We compared results with the Roche Cobas HIV-1 reference assay. We determined accuracy to detect viraemia at the World Health Organization (WHO) failure threshold of 1000 copies/mL on all three assays, and 50 and 200 copies/mL on the Xpert assays. We assessed agreement using Bland-Altman plots. Results: We enrolled 140 participants (98 [70%] women, median age 37 years), who provided 189 paired samples at one or more timepoints. We tested 174 samples with the Xpert XC, 188 with the Xpert VL, and 128 with the m-PIMA. At 1000 copies/mL, sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence intervals) were 97% (82-100) and 98% (93-99) (Xpert XC), 100% (87-100) and 96% (91-98) (Xpert VL), and 92% (72-99) and 99% (93-100) (m-PIMA) respectively. At 50 copies/mL, sensitivity and specificity were 93% (81-98) and 96% (91-99) (Xpert XC), and 95% (84-99) and 95% (90-98) (Xpert VL) respectively. Mean bias was -0.10 (-0.54 to 0.34) log10 copies/mL (Xpert XC), 0.07 (-0.37 to 0.52) log10 copies/mL (Xpert VL) and -0.26 (-0.83 to 0.31) log10 copies/mL (m-PIMA). Conclusions: In these South African clinics, the accuracy of all three assays was clinically acceptable to detect viraemia at the WHO failure threshold, while both Xpert assays were also accurate at detecting low level viraemia

The Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners clinical informatics digital hub: Protocol to develop extended COVID-19 surveillance and trial platforms

Background: Routinely recorded primary care data have been used for many years by sentinel networks for surveillance. More recently, real world data have been used for a wider range of research projects with the anticipation they could be used to support rapid, lower cost clinical trials. Much larger numbers of general practices are required to deliver effective surveillance and in-pandemic trials, given the partial national lockdown has resulted in falling community disease incidence. Objective: To describe the rapid design and development of the Oxford Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital (ORCHID) Hub, and its first two platforms. The Surveillance Platform will provide extended primary care surveillance, while the Trials Platform will be a streamlined clinical trials platform integrated into routine primary care practice. Methods: We will apply the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) metadata principles to a new, unique, integrated digital health hub, combining routinely collected electronic health date from UK general practice. The hub will be findable through membership of Health Data Research UK and European metadata repositories. Accessibility through an online application system will allow study-ready datasets to be accessed or custom datasets developed. Interoperability will be facilitated by fixed linkage to other key sources such as Hospital Episodes Statistics and the Office of National Statistics using pseudonymised data. All semantic descriptors (i.e. ontologies) and code used for analysis will be made shareable, to accelerate analyses. We will also make data available using common data models starting with the FDA Sentinel and OMOP approaches to facilitate international studies. The Surveillance Platform will provide access to data for health protection and promotion work as authorised through agreements between Oxford, the Royal College of General Practitioners and by Public Health England. All studies using the Trials Platform will have gone through appropriate ethical and other regulatory approval. Results: The hub will be a bottom-up, professionally led network ensuring benefits for member practices, our health service and the population served. Data will only be used for SQuIRE (surveillance, quality improvement, research and education) purposes. There has already been a positive response from practices and the number in the network has doubled since February to over 1,150. COVID-19 Surveillance has delivered a trebling of virology sites to 293 (target 300), helping collect the largest ever weekly total of surveillance swabs in the UK as well as over 3,000 SARS-CoV-2 serology samples. Practices are recruiting to the PRINCIPLE trial and follow-up of these participants will take place through ORCHID. These initial outputs demonstrate the feasibility of ORCHID to provide an extended national, digital health hub. Conclusions: ORCHID will deliver equitable and innovative use of big data, through a professionally-led national primary care network and the application of FAIR principles. The unique and secure data hub will host routinely collected general practice data linked to other key healthcare repositories. ORCHID will support rapid data extraction, analysis and dissemination with the aim of improving future research and development in general practice to positively impact upon patient care