Suchergebnisse

BackgroundThis cross‐sectional study assessed factors affecting access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among HIV‐positive women from the prevention of mother to child transmission HIV programme in Chitungwiza, Zimbabwe.MethodsData were collected between June and August 2008. HIV‐positive women attending antenatal clinics who had been referred to the national ART programme from January 2006 until December 2007 were surveyed. The questionnaire collected socio‐demographic data, treatment‐seeking behaviours, and positive or negative factors that affect access to HIV care and treatment.ResultsOf the 147 HIV‐positive women interviewed, 95 (65%) had registered with the ART programme. However, documentation of the referral was noted in only 23 (16%) of cases. Of the 95 registered women, 35 (37%) were receiving ART; 17 (18%) had not undergone CD4 testing. Multivariate analysis revealed that participants who understood the referral process were three times more likely to access HIV care and treatment (OR = 3.21, 95% CI 1.89‐11.65) and participants enrolled in an HIV support group were twice as likely to access care and treatment (OR = 2.34, 95% CI 1.13‐4.88). Those living with a male partner were 60% less likely to access care and treatment (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.16‐0.99). Participants who accessed HIV care and treatment faced several challenges, including long waiting times (46%), unreliable access to laboratory testing (35%) and high transport costs (12%). Of the 147 clients surveyed, 52 (35%) women did not access HIV care and treatment. Barriers included perceived long queues (50%), competing life priorities, such as seeking food or shelter (33%) and inadequate referral information (15%).ConclusionsDespite many challenges, the majority of participants accessed HIV care. Development of referral tools and decentralization of CD4 testing to clinics will improve access to ART. Psychosocial support can be a successful entry point to encourage client referral to care and treatment programmes.

AbstractIntroductionInfant HIV prophylaxis with broadly neutralizing anti‐HIV antibodies (bNAbs) could provide long‐acting protection against vertical transmission. We sought to estimate the potential clinical impact and cost‐effectiveness of hypothetical bNAb prophylaxis programmes for children known to be HIV exposed at birth in three sub‐Saharan African settings.MethodsWe conducted a cost‐effectiveness analysis using the CEPAC‐Pediatric model, simulating cohorts of infants from birth through death in Côte d'Ivoire, South Africa and Zimbabwe. These settings were selected to reflect a broad range of HIV care cascade characteristics, antenatal HIV prevalence and budgetary constraints. We modelled strategies targeting bNAbs to only WHO‐designated "high‐risk" HIV‐exposed infants (HR‐HIVE) or to all HIV‐exposed infants (HIVE). We compared four prophylaxis approaches within each target population: standard of care oral antiretroviral prophylaxis (SOC), andSOCplus bNAbs at birth (1‐dose), at birth and 3 months (2‐doses), or every 3 months throughout breastfeeding (Extended). Base‐case model inputs included bNAb efficacy (60%/dose), effect duration (3 months/dose) and costs ($60/dose), based on published literature. Outcomes included paediatric HIV incidence and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) calculated from discounted life expectancy and lifetime HIV‐related costs.ResultsThe model projects that bNAbs would reduce absolute infant HIV incidence by 0.3–2.2% (9.6–34.9% relative reduction), varying by country, prophylaxis approach and target population. In all three settings,HR‐HIVE–1‐dosewould be cost‐saving compared toSOC. Using a 50% GDP per capita ICER threshold,HIVE‐Extendedwould be cost‐effective in all three settings with ICERs of $497/YLS in Côte d'Ivoire, $464/YLS in South Africa and $455/YLS in Zimbabwe. In all three settings, bNAb strategies would remain cost‐effective at costs up to $200/dose if efficacy is ≥30%. If the bNAb effect duration were reduced to 1 month, the cost‐effective strategy would becomeHR‐HIVE–1‐dosein Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe andHR‐HIVE–2‐dosesin South Africa. Findings regarding the cost‐effectiveness of bNAb implementation strategies remained robust in sensitivity analyses regarding breastfeeding duration, maternal engagement in postpartum care, early infant diagnosis uptake and antiretroviral treatment costs.ConclusionsAt current efficacy and cost estimates, bNAb prophylaxis for HIV‐exposed children in sub‐Saharan African settings would be a cost‐effective intervention to reduce vertical HIV transmission.

AbstractIntroductionSub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) carries the burden of the HIV epidemic, especially among adolescents and young people (AYP). Little is known about pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and preferences among AYP in SSA. We describe preferences for daily and on‐demand PrEP among AYP in South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe.MethodsA cross‐sectional survey was conducted in 2019 among 13‐ to 24‐year olds, capturing socio‐demographics, HIV risk behaviours and preferences for daily or on‐demand PrEP. Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios, adjusting for site, sex and age.Results and discussionA total of 1330 participants from Cape Town (n = 239), Johannesburg (n = 200), Entebbe (n = 491) and Chitungwiza (n = 400) were enrolled; 673 (51%) were male, and the median age was 19 years (interquartile range 17–22 years). Of 1287 participants expressing a preference, 60% indicated a preference for on‐demand PrEP with differences by site (p < 0.001), sex (p < 0.001) and age group (p = 0.003). On‐demand PrEP was most preferred in Entebbe (75%), among males (65%) versus females (54%) and in older participants (62% in 18‐ to 24‐year‐olds vs. 47% in 13‐ to 15‐year‐olds). After adjusting for site, sex and age group, preference for on‐demand PrEP decreased as sex frequency over the past month increased (p‐trend = 0.004) and varied with the number of partners in the last 6 months, being least popular among those reporting four or more partners (p = 0.02). Participants knowing further in advance that they were likely to have sex were more likely to prefer on‐demand PrEP (p‐trend = 0.02). Participants having a larger age gap with their most recent partner and participants whose last partner was a transactional sex partner or client were both less likely to prefer on‐demand compared to daily PrEP (p = 0.05 andp = 0.09, respectively). Participants who knew their most recent partner was living with HIV or who did not know the HIV status of their most recent partner were less likely to prefer on‐demand PrEP (p = 0.05).ConclusionsOur data show that AYP in four SSA communities prefer on‐demand over daily PrEP options, with differences seen by site, age and sex. PrEP demand creation needs to be reviewed, optimized and tailored to socio‐demographic differences and designed in conjunction with AYP.

AbstractIntroductionPregnant women are routinely excluded from clinical trials, leading to the absence or delay in even the most basic pharmacokinetic (PK) information needed for dosing in pregnancy. When available, pregnancy PK studies use a small sample size, resulting in limited safety information. We discuss key study design elements that may enhance the timely availability of pregnancy data, including the role and timing of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate pregnancy safety; efficacy and safety outcome measures; stand‐alone protocols, platform trials, single arm studies, sample size and the effect that follow‐up time during gestation has on analysis interpretations; and observational studies.DiscussionPregnancy PK should be studied during drug development, after dosing in non‐pregnant persons is established (unless non‐clinical or other data raise pregnancy concerns). RCTs should evaluate the safety during pregnancy of priority new HIV agents that are likely to be used by large numbers of females of childbearing age. Key endpoints for pregnancy safety studies include birth outcomes (prematurity, small for gestational age and stillbirth) and neonatal death, with traditional adverse events and infant growth also measured (congenital anomalies are best studied through surveillance). We recommend that viral efficacy be studied as a secondary endpoint of pregnancy RCTs, once PK studies confirm adequate drug exposure in pregnancy. RCTs typically use a stand‐alone protocol for new agents. In contrast, master protocols using a platform design can add agents over time, possibly speeding safety data ascertainment. To speed accrual, stand‐alone pregnancy trial protocols can include pre‐specified starting rules based upon adequate PK levels in pregnancy; and seamless master protocols or platform trials can include a pregnancy PK and safety component. When RCTs are unethical or cost‐prohibitive, observational studies should be conducted, preferably using target trial emulation to avoid bias.ConclusionsPregnancy PK needs to be obtained earlier in drug evaluation. Timely RCTs are needed to understand safety in pregnancy for high‐priority new HIV agents. RCTs that enrol pregnant women should focus on outcomes unique to pregnancy, and observational studies should focus on questions that RCTs are not equipped to answer.

AbstractIntroductionHIV incidence is high during pregnancy and breastfeeding with HIV acquisition risk more than doubling during pregnancy and the postpartum period compared to when women are not pregnant. The World Health Organization recommends offering pre‐exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to pregnant and postpartum women at substantial risk of HIV infection. However, maternal PrEP national guidelines differ and most countries with high maternal HIV incidence are not offering PrEP. We conducted a systematic review of recent research on PrEP safety in pregnancy to inform national policy and rollout.MethodsWe used a standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) approach to conduct a systematic review by searching for completed, ongoing, or planned PrEP in pregnancy projects or studies from clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed and NIH RePORTER from 2014 to March 2019. We performed a systematic review of studies that assess tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)‐based oral PrEP safety in pregnant and breastfeeding HIV‐uninfected women.Results and discussionWe identified 14 completed (n = 5) and ongoing/planned (n = 9) studies that evaluate maternal and/or infant outcomes following PrEP exposure during pregnancy or breastfeeding. None of the completed studies found differences in pregnancy or perinatal outcomes associated with PrEP exposure. Nine ongoing studies, to be completed by 2022, will provide data on >6200 additional PrEP‐exposed pregnancies and assess perinatal, infant growth and bone health outcomes, expanding by sixfold the data on PrEP safety in pregnancy. Research gaps include limited data on (1) accurately measured PrEP exposure within maternal and infant populations including drug levels needed for maternal protection; (2) uncommon perinatal outcomes (e.g. congenital anomalies); (3) infant outcomes such as bone growth beyond one year following PrEP exposure; (4) outcomes in HIV‐uninfected women who use PrEP during pregnancy and/or lactation.ConclusionsExpanding delivery of PrEP is an essential strategy to reduce HIV incidence in pregnancy and breastfeeding women. Early safety studies of PrEP among pregnant women without HIV infection are reassuring and ongoing/planned studies will contribute extensive new data to bolster the safety profile of PrEP use in pregnancy. However, addressing research gaps is essential to expanding PrEP delivery for women in the context of pregnancy.