The cost‐effectiveness of prophylaxis strategies for individuals with advanced HIV starting treatment in Africa

Introduction Many HIV‐positive individuals in Africa have advanced disease when initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) so have high risks of opportunistic infections and death. The REALITY trial found that an enhanced‐prophylaxis package including fluconazole reduced mortality by 27% in individuals starting ART with CD4 <100 cells/mm3. We investigated the cost‐effectiveness of this enhanced‐prophylaxis package versus other strategies, including using cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing, in individuals with CD4 <200 cells/mm3 or <100 cells/mm3 at ART initiation and all individuals regardless of CD4 count. Methods The REALITY trial enrolled from June 2013 to April 2015. A decision‐analytic model was developed to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of six management strategies in individuals initiating ART in the REALITY trial countries. Strategies included standard‐prophylaxis, enhanced‐prophylaxis, standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole; and three CrAg testing strategies, the first stratifying individuals to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or standard‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐negative), the second to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or enhanced‐prophylaxis without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative) and the third to standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole (CrAg‐positive) or without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative). The model estimated costs, life‐years and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) over 48 weeks using three competing mortality risks: cryptococcal meningitis; tuberculosis, serious bacterial infection or other known cause; and unknown cause. Results Enhanced‐prophylaxis was cost‐effective at cost‐effectiveness thresholds of US$300 and US$500 per QALY with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$157 per QALY in the CD4 <200 cells/mm3 population providing enhanced‐prophylaxis components are sourced at lowest available prices. The ICER reduced in more severely immunosuppressed individuals (US$113 per QALY in the CD4 <100 cells/mm3 population) and increased in all individuals regardless of CD4 count (US$722 per QALY). Results were sensitive to prices of the enhanced‐prophylaxis components. Enhanced‐prophylaxis was more effective and less costly than all CrAg testing strategies as enhanced‐prophylaxis still conveyed health gains in CrAg‐negative patients and savings from targeting prophylaxis based on CrAg status did not compensate for costs of CrAg testing. CrAg testing strategies did not become cost‐effective unless the price of CrAg testing fell below US$2.30. Conclusions The REALITY enhanced‐prophylaxis package in individuals with advanced HIV starting ART reduces morbidity and mortality, is practical to administer and is cost‐effective. Efforts should continue to ensure that components are accessed at lowest available prices

Late Presentation With HIV in Africa: Phenotypes, Risk, and Risk Stratification in the REALITY Trial.

This article has been accepted for publication in Clinical Infectious Diseases Published by Oxford University PressBackground: Severely immunocompromised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals have high mortality shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We investigated predictors of early mortality and "late presenter" phenotypes. Methods: The Reduction of EArly MortaLITY (REALITY) trial enrolled ART-naive adults and children ≥5 years of age with CD4 counts .1). Results: Among 1711 included participants, 203 (12%) died. Mortality was independently higher with older age; lower CD4 count, albumin, hemoglobin, and grip strength; presence of World Health Organization stage 3/4 weight loss, fever, or vomiting; and problems with mobility or self-care at baseline (all P < .04). Receiving enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis independently reduced mortality (P = .02). Of five late-presenter phenotypes, Group 1 (n = 355) had highest mortality (25%; median CD4 count, 28 cells/µL), with high symptom burden, weight loss, poor mobility, and low albumin and hemoglobin. Group 2 (n = 394; 11% mortality; 43 cells/µL) also had weight loss, with high white cell, platelet, and neutrophil counts suggesting underlying inflammation/infection. Group 3 (n = 218; 10% mortality) had low CD4 counts (27 cells/µL), but low symptom burden and maintained fat mass. The remaining groups had 4%-6% mortality. Conclusions: Clinical and laboratory features identified groups with highest mortality following ART initiation. A screening tool could identify patients with low CD4 counts for prioritizing same-day ART initiation, enhanced prophylaxis, and intensive follow-up. Clinical Trials Registration: ISRCTN43622374.REALITY was funded by the Joint Global Health Trials Scheme (JGHTS) of the UK Department for International Development, the Wellcome Trust, and Medical Research Council (MRC) (grant number G1100693). Additional funding support was provided by the PENTA Foundation and core support to the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (grant numbers MC_UU_12023/23 and MC_UU_12023/26). Cipla Ltd, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck Sharp & Dohme donated drugs for REALITY, and ready-to-use supplementary food was purchased from Valid International. A. J. P. is funded by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 108065/Z/15/Z). J. A. B. is funded by the JGHTS (grant number MR/M007367/1). The Malawi-Liverpool–Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Programme, University of Malawi College of Medicine (grant number 101113/Z/13/Z) and the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)/Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi (grant number 203077/Z/16/Z) are supported by strategic awards from the Wellcome Trust, United Kingdom. Permission to publish was granted by the Director of KEMRI. This supplement was supported by funds from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Complex realities: Community engagement for a paediatric randomized controlled malaria vaccine trial in Kilifi, Kenya

Background: Community engagement (CE) is increasingly promoted for biomedical research conducted in resource poor settings for both intrinsic and instrumental purposes. Given the potential importance of CE, but also complexities and possibility of unexpected negative outcomes, there is need for more documentation of CE processes in practice. We share experiences of formal CE for a paediatric randomized controlled malaria vaccine trial conducted in three sites within Kilifi County, Kenya.Methods: Social scientists independent of the trial held in-depth individual interviews with trial researchers (n = 5), community leaders (n = 8) and parents (15 with enrolled children and 4 without); and group discussions with fieldworkers (n = 6) and facility staff (n = 2). We conducted a survey of participating households (n = 200) and observed over 150 CE activities.Results: The overall CE plan was similar across the three study sites, although less community-based information in site C. Majority perceived CE activities to clear pre-existing concerns and misconceptions; increase visibility, awareness of and trust in trial staff. Challenges included: some community leaders attempting to exert pressure on people to enrol; local wording in information sheets and consent forms feeding into serious anxieties about the trial; and concerns about reduced CE over time. Negative effects of these challenges were mitigated through changes to on-going CE activities, and final information sharing and consent being conducted individually by trained clinical staff. One year after enrolment, 31% (n = 62) of participants' parents reported malaria prevention as the main aim of the activities their children were involved in, and 93% wanted their children to remain involved.Conclusion: The trial teams' goals for CE were relatively clear from the outset. Other actors' hopes and expectations (like higher allowances and future employment) were not openly discussed, but emerged over the course of engagements. Encouraging open discussion of all actors' intentions and goals from the outset takes time, risks raising expectations that cannot be met, and is complex. However, doing so in future similar trials may allow successes here to be built upon, and some challenges minimized or avoided.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00866619 (registration 19-Mar-2009). © 2014 Angwenyi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Complex realities: community engagement for a paediatric randomized controlled malaria vaccine trial in Kilifi, Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement (CE) is increasingly promoted for biomedical research conducted in resource poor settings for both intrinsic and instrumental purposes. Given the potential importance of CE, but also complexities and possibility of unexpected negative outcomes, there is need for more documentation of CE processes in practice. We share experiences of formal CE for a paediatric randomized controlled malaria vaccine trial conducted in three sites within Kilifi County, Kenya. METHODS: Social scientists independent of the trial held in-depth individual interviews with trial researchers (n=5), community leaders (n=8) and parents (15 with enrolled children and 4 without); and group discussions with fieldworkers (n=6) and facility staff (n=2). We conducted a survey of participating households (n=200) and observed over 150 CE activities. RESULTS: The overall CE plan was similar across the three study sites, although less community-based information in site C. Majority perceived CE activities to clear pre-existing concerns and misconceptions; increase visibility, awareness of and trust in trial staff. Challenges included: some community leaders attempting to exert pressure on people to enrol; local wording in information sheets and consent forms feeding into serious anxieties about the trial; and concerns about reduced CE over time. Negative effects of these challenges were mitigated through changes to on-going CE activities, and final information sharing and consent being conducted individually by trained clinical staff. One year after enrolment, 31% (n = 62) of participants' parents reported malaria prevention as the main aim of the activities their children were involved in, and 93% wanted their children to remain involved. CONCLUSION: The trial teams' goals for CE were relatively clear from the outset. Other actors' hopes and expectations (like higher allowances and future employment) were not openly discussed, but emerged over the course of engagements. Encouraging open discussion of all actors' intentions and goals from the outset takes time, risks raising expectations that cannot be met, and is complex. However, doing so in future similar trials may allow successes here to be built upon, and some challenges minimized or avoided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00866619 (registration 19-Mar-2009)

Undertaking community engagement for a controlled human malaria infection study in Kenya: approaches and lessons learnt

Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with disease-causing pathogens under controlled conditions. These studies are "controlled" by way of using specific types of pathogens, including dose, and the availability of emergency medical facilities to research volunteers. Most HIS involve diseases whose treatment is known and are done to accelerate the development of novel therapeutics such as vaccines, to address emerging and existing infectious diseases. Traditionally, HIS have been conducted primarily in high-income countries (HICs) but are now increasingly being conducted in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). In LMICs settings, HIS are likely to raise concerns among various stakeholders including participating populations and regulatory bodies, that are unfamiliar with this type of research. Deliberately infecting a healthy individual with a disease-causing pathogen seems to go against the normal practice of medicine of "do no harm". Such types of studies can give rise to increased rumors and jeopardize research participation in study activities, including non-HIS research. Community engagement can be one approach to address particular issues that HIS studies raise through meaningfully engaging with communities, where views and voices inform the conduct of HIS studies. In addition, engagement can inform the ethical conduct and acceptability of HIS studies in LMICs settings and provide opportunities for sharing information, listening to, and responding to concerns and views from potential participants, and the larger community in which the study would be conducted. Despite community engagement being an important aspect to consider, very few published and gray literature cover the types of approaches that have been used, and lessons learnt in engagement for HIS. This article outlinesthe community engagement approaches that were used to engage stakeholders and communities for malaria HIS-controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), undertaken in Kilifi, Kenya. It outlines the engagement activities across the research cycle, from activities conducted during protocol development, to planning, and implementation of the study. We discuss the challenges experienced, lessons learnt, and provide some recommendations for engagement around HIS

TRUE-1: Trial of Repurposed Unithiol for snakebite Envenoming phase 1 (safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in healthy Kenyan adults)

Background: Snakebites affect over 5 million people each year, and over 100,000 per year die as a result. The only available treatment is antivenom, which has many shortcomings including high cost, intravenous administration, and high risk of adverse events. One of the most abundant and harmful components of viper venoms are the zinc-dependent snake venom metalloproteinases (SVMPs). Unithiol is a chelating agent which is routinely used to treat heavy metal poisoning. In vivo experiments in small animal models have demonstrated that unithiol can prevent local tissue damage and death caused by a certain viper species. This phase I clinical trial will assess the safety of ascending doses of unithiol with a view for repurposing for snakebite indication. Methods: This open label, single agent, phase I clinical trial of a repurposed drug has a primary objective to evaluate the safety of escalating doses of unithiol, and a secondary objective to describe its pharmacokinetics. In total, 64 healthy Kenyan volunteers from Kilifi County will be dosed in consecutive groups of eight, with dose escalation decisions dependent on review of safety data by an independent data safety monitoring board. Four groups will receive ascending single oral doses, two will receive multiple oral doses, and two will receive single intravenous doses. Follow-up will be for 6-months and includes full adverse event reporting. Pharmacokinetic analysis will define the Cmax, Tmax, half-life and renal elimination. Conclusions: This clinical trial will assess the safety and tolerability of a promising oral therapeutic in a relevant setting where snakebites are prevalent. Unithiol is likely to be safer than antivenom, is easier to manufacture, has activity against diverse snake species, and can be administered orally, and thus shows promise for repurposing for tropical snakebite. Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR202103718625048 (3/3/2021