Families as catalysts for peer adherence support in enhancing hope for people living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa

INTRODUCTION: Hope is an essential dimension of successful coping in the context of illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, because positive expectations for the future alleviate emotional distress, enhance quality of life and have been linked to the capacity for behavioural change. The social environment (e.g. family, peers) is a regulator of hope for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). In this regard, the dual aim of this article is (1) to analyze the influence of a peer adherence support (PAS) intervention and the family environment on the state of hope in PLWHA and (2) to investigate the interrelationship between the two determinants. METHODS: The Effective AIDS Treatment and Support in the Free State study is a prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited from 12 public antiretroviral treatment (ART) clinics across five districts in the Free State Province of South Africa. Each of these patients was assigned to one of the following groups: a control group receiving standard care, a group receiving additional biweekly PAS or a group receiving PAS and nutritional support. Latent cross-lagged modelling (Mplus) was used to analyse the impact of PAS and the family environment on the level of hope in PLWHA. RESULTS: The results of the study indicate that neither PAS nor the family environment has a direct effect on the level of hope in PLWHA. Subsequent analysis reveals a positive significant interaction between family functioning and PAS at the second follow-up, indicating that better family functioning increases the positive effect of PAS on the state of hope in PLWHA. CONCLUSIONS: The interplay between well-functioning families and external PAS generates higher levels of hope, which is an essential dimension in the success of lifelong treatment. This study provides additional insight into the important role played by family dynamics in HIV/AIDS care, and it underscores the need for PAS interventions that are sensitive to the contexts in which they are implemented

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health