Antiretroviral Drugs Protect Against HIV-1 Infection in Heterosexuals

BackgroundAntiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis is a promising approach for preventing human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in heterosexual populations.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial of oral antiretroviral therapy for use as preexposure prophylaxis among HIV-1-serodiscordant heterosexual couples from Kenya and Uganda. The HIV-1-seronegative partner in each couple was randomly assigned to one of three study regimens--once-daily tenofovir (TDF), combination tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC), or matching placebo--and followed monthly for up to 36 months. At enrollment, the HIV-1-seropositive partners were not eligible for antiretroviral therapy, according to national guidelines. All couples received standard HIV-1 treatment and prevention services.ResultsWe enrolled 4758 couples, of whom 4747 were followed: 1584 randomly assigned to TDF, 1579 to TDF-FTC, and 1584 to placebo. For 62% of the couples followed, the HIV-1-seronegative partner was male. Among HIV-1-seropositive participants, the median CD4 count was 495 cells per cubic millimeter (interquartile range, 375 to 662). A total of 82 HIV-1 infections occurred in seronegative participants during the study, 17 in the TDF group (incidence, 0.65 per 100 person-years), 13 in the TDF-FTC group (incidence, 0.50 per 100 person-years), and 52 in the placebo group (incidence, 1.99 per 100 person-years), indicating a relative reduction of 67% in the incidence of HIV-1 with TDF (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 81; P<0.001) and of 75% with TDF-FTC (95% CI, 55 to 87; P<0.001). Protective effects of TDF-FTC and TDF alone against HIV-1 were not significantly different (P=0.23), and both study medications significantly reduced the HIV-1 incidence among both men and women. The rate of serious adverse events was similar across the study groups. Eight participants receiving active treatment were found to have been infected with HIV-1 at baseline, and among these eight, antiretroviral resistance developed in two during the study.ConclusionsOral TDF and TDF-FTC both protect against HIV-1 infection in heterosexual men and women. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Partners PrEP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00557245.)

Population health impact, cost-effectiveness, and affordability of community-based HIV treatment and monitoring in South Africa: A health economics modelling study.

Community-based delivery and monitoring of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV has the potential to increase viral suppression for individual- and population-level health benefits. However, the cost-effectiveness and budget impact are needed for public health policy. We used a mathematical model of HIV transmission in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, to estimate population prevalence, incidence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) from 2020 to 2060 for two scenarios: 1) standard clinic-based HIV care and 2) five-yearly home testing campaigns with community ART for people not reached by clinic-based care. We parameterised model scenarios using observed community-based ART efficacy. Using a health system perspective, we evaluated incremental cost-effectiveness and net health benefits using a threshold of $750/DALY averted. In a sensitivity analysis, we varied the discount rate; time horizon; costs for clinic and community ART, hospitalisation, and testing; and the proportion of the population receiving community ART. Uncertainty ranges (URs) were estimated across 25 best-fitting parameter sets. By 2060, community ART following home testing averted 27.9$44.9 million (35.8-50.1) annually, representing 14.3% (11.4-16.0) of the annual HIV budget. The cost per DALY averted was $102 (85-117) for community ART compared with standard of care. Providing six-monthly refills instead of quarterly refills further increased cost-effectiveness to$78.5 per DALY averted (62.9-92.8). Cost-effectiveness was robust to sensitivity analyses. In a high-prevalence setting, scale-up of decentralised ART dispensing and monitoring can provide large population health benefits and is cost-effective in preventing death and disability due to HIV

Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection : A Randomized Trial.

BackgroundEffective prevention against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is currently limited to nonpharmaceutical strategies. Laboratory and observational data suggested that hydroxychloroquine had biological activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially permitting its use for prevention.ObjectiveTo test hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignHousehold-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine postexposure prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04328961).SettingNational U.S. multicenter study.ParticipantsClose contacts recently exposed (<96 hours) to persons with diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection.InterventionHydroxychloroquine (400 mg/d for 3 days followed by 200 mg/d for 11 days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg/d followed by 250 mg/d) as a placebo-equivalent control.MeasurementsParticipants self-collected mid-turbinate swabs daily (days 1 to 14) for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at enrollment.ResultsBetween March and August 2020, 671 households were randomly assigned: 337 (407 participants) to the hydroxychloroquine group and 334 (422 participants) to the control group. Retention at day 14 was 91%, and 10 724 of 11 606 (92%) expected swabs were tested. Among the 689 (89%) participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline, there was no difference between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in SARS-CoV-2 acquisition by day 14 (53 versus 45 events; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.66]; P > 0.20). The frequency of participants experiencing adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than the control group (66 [16.2%] versus 46 [10.9%], respectively; P = 0.026).LimitationThe delay between exposure, and then baseline testing and the first dose of hydroxychloroquine or ascorbic acid, was a median of 2 days.ConclusionThis rigorous randomized controlled trial among persons with recent exposure excluded a clinically meaningful effect of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.Primary funding sourceBill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection : A Randomized Trial.

BackgroundEffective prevention against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is currently limited to nonpharmaceutical strategies. Laboratory and observational data suggested that hydroxychloroquine had biological activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially permitting its use for prevention.ObjectiveTo test hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignHousehold-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine postexposure prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04328961).SettingNational U.S. multicenter study.ParticipantsClose contacts recently exposed (<96 hours) to persons with diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection.InterventionHydroxychloroquine (400 mg/d for 3 days followed by 200 mg/d for 11 days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg/d followed by 250 mg/d) as a placebo-equivalent control.MeasurementsParticipants self-collected mid-turbinate swabs daily (days 1 to 14) for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at enrollment.ResultsBetween March and August 2020, 671 households were randomly assigned: 337 (407 participants) to the hydroxychloroquine group and 334 (422 participants) to the control group. Retention at day 14 was 91%, and 10 724 of 11 606 (92%) expected swabs were tested. Among the 689 (89%) participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline, there was no difference between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in SARS-CoV-2 acquisition by day 14 (53 versus 45 events; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.66]; P > 0.20). The frequency of participants experiencing adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than the control group (66 [16.2%] versus 46 [10.9%], respectively; P = 0.026).LimitationThe delay between exposure, and then baseline testing and the first dose of hydroxychloroquine or ascorbic acid, was a median of 2 days.ConclusionThis rigorous randomized controlled trial among persons with recent exposure excluded a clinically meaningful effect of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.Primary funding sourceBill & Melinda Gates Foundation