Combining general practice with international work: online survey of experiences of UK GPs

Objectives: To conduct an exploratory study to learn about the experiences of GPs who have undertaken international work. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Online survey of UK-based GPs. Members of all UK RCGP faculties were invited to participate by email and the survey was publicised on the RCGP website. Participants: All UK-based GPs. Main outcome measures: Types of UK and international work undertaken, barriers, competencies gained, influence on career and future plans. Results: The study identified 439 respondents, in a variety of GP roles at all career stages, who had undertaken international work in their role as a doctor. GPs are undertaking international work in both high and low/middle-income countries, engaging in a wide range of clinical and non-clinical activities. Respondents reported gaining a range of competencies from international work, which could be transferred back to the UK setting to a variable degree. Commonly cited barriers to international work were having to leave friends and family, and concerns regarding future employment and pension. Most reported that engaging in international work had influenced the direction of their career, with the largest proportion stating that they wish to work predominantly in the UK, with some international work in the future. Conclusion: The study highlights the variety of ways in which UK GPs are combining UK general practice and international work, competencies gained with such work, and ability to transfer these back to the UK setting. Historical barriers to international work still exist and future research could further examine the value of such work

COVID-19 and HIV viral load suppression in children and adolescents in Durban, South Africa

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses challenges to paediatric and adolescent HIV treatment programme. Modelling exercises raised concerns over potential impact of disruptions. OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on viral load (VL) testing among infants, children and adolescents on antiretroviral treatment (ART) in Durban, South Africa. METHOD: Routinely collected, aggregated data of monthly VL counts done on all those less than 19 years old from January 2018 to January 2022 was analysed. An interrupted time series analysis using a Prais-Winsten linear regression model, including terms for lockdowns and excess mortality determined VL trends. RESULTS: The unadjusted mean VL was 2166 (confidence interval [CI]: 252.2) and 2016 (CI: 241.9), P = 0.039, and percentage VL suppression rates (72.9%, CI: 2.4% vs 73.6%, CI: 1.8%) across COVID and pre-COVID periods, showing no significant difference, P = 0.262. In the interrupted time series analysis, modelled monthly VL counts did not differ significantly by lockdown level (e.g., level 5 lockdown: -210.5 VLs, 95% CI: -483.0 to +62.1, P = 0.138) or excess mortality (-0.1, 95% CI: -6.3 to 6.1, P = 0.969). A significant downward trend in VL testing over time, including during the pre-COVID-19 period (-6.6 VL per month, 95% CI: -10.4 to -2.7, P = 0.002), was identified. CONCLUSION: Viral load suppression for children and adolescents were not negatively affected by COVID-19. A trend of decrease in VL testing predated COVID-19. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Evidence presented that HIV VL testing and suppression rates in children and adolescents in a high burden setting were sustained through the COVID pandemic

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 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

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

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

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

Introduction: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. // Methods and analysis: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. // Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. // Trial registration number: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31

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

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not 77 been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of 78 SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n=253) or Usual Care 79 (n=324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated

Molnupiravir Plus Usual Care Versus Usual Care Alone as Early Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 at Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes (PANORAMIC): Preliminary Analysis from the United Kingdom Randomised, Controlled Open-Label, Platform Adaptive Trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P<0·001)]. 59 (0·4%) participants experienced serious adverse events in the molnupiravir group and 52 (0·4%) in usual care. Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care