RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There are gaps in uptake of, adherence to, and persistence in the use of preexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention among cisgender women. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving adolescent girls and young women in South Africa and Uganda. Participants were assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous lenacapavir every 26 weeks, daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), or daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF; active control); all participants also received the alternate subcutaneous or oral placebo. We assessed the efficacy of lenacapavir and F/TAF by comparing the incidence of HIV infection with the estimated background incidence in the screened population and evaluated relative efficacy as compared with F/TDF. RESULTS: Among 5338 participants who were initially HIV-negative, 55 incident HIV infections were observed: 0 infections among 2134 participants in the lenacapavir group (0 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.19), 39 infections among 2136 participants in the F/TAF group (2.02 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.76), and 16 infections among 1068 participants in the F/TDF group (1.69 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.74). Background HIV incidence in the screened population (8094 participants) was 2.41 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.82 to 3.19). HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.04; P<0.001) and than HIV incidence with F/TDF (incidence rate ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.10; P<0.001). HIV incidence with F/TAF did not differ significantly from background HIV incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28; P = 0.21), and no evidence of a meaningful difference in HIV incidence was observed between F/TAF and F/TDF (incidence rate ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.14). Adherence to F/TAF and F/TDF was low. No safety concerns were found. Injection-site reactions were more common in the lenacapavir group (68.8%) than in the placebo injection group (F/TAF and F/TDF combined) (34.9%); 4 participants in the lenacapavir group (0.2%) discontinued the trial regimen owing to injection-site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: No participants receiving twice-yearly lenacapavir acquired HIV infection. HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence and HIV incidence with F/TDF. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PURPOSE 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04994509.).
RESUMEN
AIM: We compared the effect of two different doses of sucrose on neonatal pain scores during venepuncture. METHODS: This randomised crossover study focused on neonates born weighing more than 1000 g from December 2014 to June 2016, who received neonatal intensive care at two hospitals: one in Empangeni, South Africa, and one in Trondheim, Norway. During two consecutive venepuncture procedures, 27 neonates from South Africa and 26 neonates from Norway were randomised to receive 0.2 mL or 0.5 mL sucrose. Half was administered two minutes before venepuncture and the rest immediately before the procedure. South Africa used 25% sucrose and Norway 24%. Pain scores were measured twice using the Premature Infant Pain Profile-Revised: during skin puncture and after the needle was removed. RESULTS: The mean pain scores during skin puncture were significantly lower with 0.5 mL sucrose than with 0.2 mL (5.3 versus 6.8, p=0.008), but the mean pain scores after the needle was removed were similar with both doses (4.7 versus 5.4, p=0.29). We found no significant association between weight and pain scores. CONCLUSION: We showed that neonates received better pain relief from 0.5 mL than 0.2 mL sucrose during venepuncture but not after the needle was removed.