Interventions for families affected by HIV

Family-based interventions are efficacious for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) detection, prevention, and care, but they are not broadly diffused. Understanding intervention adaptation and translation processes can support evidence-based intervention (EBI) diffusion processes. This paper provides a narrative review of a series of EBI for families affected by HIV (FAH) that were adapted across five randomized controlled trials in the US, Thailand, and South Africa over 15 years. The FAH interventions targeted parents living with HIV and their children or caregiver supports. Parents with HIV were primarily mothers infected through sexual transmission. The EBIs for FAH are reviewed with attention to commonalities and variations in risk environments and intervention features. Frameworks for common and robust intervention functions, principles, practice elements, and delivery processes are utilized to highlight commonalities and adaptations for each location, time period, and intervention delivery settings. Health care, housing, food, and financial security vary dramatically in each risk environment. Yet, all FAH face common health, mental health, transmission, and relationship challenges. The EBIs efficaciously addressed these common challenges and were adapted across contexts with fidelity to robust intervention principles, processes, factors, and practices. Intervention adaptation teams have a series of structural decision points: mainstreaming HIV with other local health priorities or not; selecting an optimal delivery site (clinics, homes, community centers); and how to translate intervention protocols to local contexts and cultures. Replication of interventions with fidelity must occur at the level of standardized functions and robust principles, processes, and practices, not manualized protocols. Adopting a continuous quality improvement paradigm will enhance rapid and global diffusion of EBI for FAH

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events