Dynamic choice HIV prevention with cabotegravir long-acting injectable in rural Uganda and Kenya: a randomised trial extension.

BACKGROUND: HIV infections are ongoing globally despite efficacious biomedical prevention options. We sought to determine whether an HIV prevention package providing choice of daily pills or long-acting injectable cabotegravir and opportunities to change prevention options could increase biomedical prevention coverage and reduce new HIV infections. METHODS: This study was an extension of three randomised trials that used SEARCH dynamic choice HIV prevention to recruit adults (aged ≥15 years) at risk for HIV from antenatal, outpatient, and community settings in rural Uganda and Kenya. In this 48-week open-label extension, participants maintained their original (1:1) randomisation group; the option to choose cabotegravir long-acting injectable was added for intervention participants. Inclusion criteria for the extension were previous enrolment in a SEARCH dynamic choice HIV prevention trial, negative HIV rapid test, and residence in study region. The intervention provided person-centred choice of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or post-exposure HIV prophylaxis (PEP) or cabotegravir long-acting injectable, with the option to switch according to participant preference. The control provided standard-of-care access to oral PrEP and PEP, but not cabotegravir long-acting injectable. Biomedical prevention coverage (proportion of follow-up covered by oral PrEP, PEP, or cabotegravir long-acting injectable; primary outcome) and HIV incidence (secondary outcome) were compared between groups using targeted minimum loss-based estimation. The trial (NCT05549726) is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Of 1534 participants initially randomly assigned (from April 15, 2021 to Sept 29, 2022), 984 (487 in the intervention group and 497 in the standard-of-care group) reconsented to the extension (from Jan 2 to March 3, 2023). The mean proportion of follow-up covered by biomedical HIV prevention was 69·7% (95% CI 64·9-74·5) in the intervention group versus 13·3% (10·2-16·3) in the standard-of-care group, corresponding to an absolute difference of 56·4 percentage points (95% CI 50·8-62·1; p<0·0001). The intervention significantly improved coverage across prespecified subgroups (sex and age groups). During the study, 274 (56%) of 485 intervention participants used cabotegravir long-acting injectable, 255 (53%) used oral PrEP, and ten (2%) used PEP. Among cabotegravir long-acting injectable initiators, 118 (43%) of 274 were not previously using oral PrEP or PEP. There were seven incident HIV infections in 390 person-years of follow-up in the standard-of-care group and no infections in 400 person-years of follow-up in the intervention group (incidence rate difference per 100 person-years 1·8, 95% CI 0·4-3·2; p=0·014). INTERPRETATION: Offering people the choice of HIV biomedical prevention options including cabotegravir long-acting injectable in a flexible model can increase prevention coverage and reduce incident HIV infections. HIV programmes should support dynamic choice HIV prevention programmes that include effective oral and injectable long-acting products. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Randomized Trial of Dynamic Choice HIV Prevention at Antenatal and Postnatal Care Clinics in Rural Uganda and Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant and postpartum women in Sub-Saharan Africa are at high risk of HIV acquisition. We evaluated a person-centered dynamic choice intervention for HIV prevention (DCP) among women attending antenatal and postnatal care. SETTING: Rural Kenya and Uganda. METHODS: Women (aged 15 years or older) at risk of HIV acquisition seen at antenatal and postnatal care clinics were individually randomized to DCP vs. standard of care (SEARCH; NCT04810650). The DCP intervention included structured client choice of product (daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis), service location (clinic or out of facility), and HIV testing modality (self-test or provider-administered), with option to switch over time and person-centered care (phone access to clinician, structured barrier assessment and counseling, and provider training). The primary outcome was biomedical prevention coverage-proportion of 48-week follow-up with self-reported pre-exposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis use, compared between arms using targeted maximum likelihood estimation. RESULTS: Between April and July 2021, we enrolled 400 women (203 intervention and 197 control); 38% were pregnant, 52% were aged 15-24 years, and 94% reported no pre-exposure prophylaxis or postexposure prophylaxis use for ≥6 months before baseline. Among 384/400 participants (96%) with outcome ascertained, DCP increased biomedical prevention coverage 40% (95% CI: 34% to 47%; P < 0.001); the coverage was 70% in intervention vs. 29% in control. DCP also increased coverage during months at risk of HIV (81% in intervention, 43% in control; 38% absolute increase; 95% CI: 31% to 45%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A person-centered dynamic choice intervention that provided flexibility in product, testing, and service location more than doubled biomedical HIV prevention coverage in a high-risk population already routinely offered access to biomedical prevention options.

Dynamic choice HIV prevention intervention at outpatient departments in rural Kenya and Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: HIV prevention service delivery models that offer product choices, and the option to change preferences over time, may increase prevention coverage. Outpatient departments in sub-Saharan Africa diagnose a high proportion of new HIV infections, but are an understudied entry point to biomedical prevention. DESIGN: Individually randomized trial of dynamic choice HIV prevention (DCP) intervention vs. standard-of-care (SOC) among individuals with current/anticipated HIV exposure risk at outpatient departments in rural Kenya and Uganda (SEARCH; NCT04810650). METHODS: Our DCP intervention included 1) product choice (oral preexposure prophylaxis [PrEP] or postexposure prophylaxis [PEP]) with an option to switch over time, 2) HIV provider- or self-testing, 3) service location choice (community vs. clinic-based), and 4) provider training on patient-centered care. Primary outcome was proportion of follow-up covered by PrEP/PEP over 48 weeks assessed via self-report. RESULTS: We enrolled 403 participants (61% women; median 27 years, IQR 22-37). In the DCP arm, 86% ever chose PrEP, 15% ever chose PEP over 48 weeks; selection of HIV self-testing increased from 26 to 51% and of out-of-facility visits from 8 to 52%. Among 376 of 403 (93%) with outcomes ascertained, time covered by PrEP/PEP was higher in DCP (47.5%) vs. SOC (18.3%); difference = 29.2% (95% confidence interval: 22.7-35.7; P  < 0.001). Effects were similar among women and men (28.2 and 31.0% higher coverage in DCP, respectively) and larger during periods of self-reported HIV risk (DCP 64.9% vs. SOC 26.3%; difference = 38.6%; 95% confidence interval: 31.0-46.2; P  < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A dynamic choice HIV prevention intervention resulted in two-fold greater time covered by biomedical prevention products compared to SOC in general outpatient departments in eastern Africa.

A community-based dynamic choice model for HIV prevention improves PrEP and PEP coverage in rural Uganda and Kenya: a cluster randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: Optimizing HIV prevention may require structured approaches for providing client-centred choices as well as community-based entry points and delivery. We evaluated the effect of a dynamic choice model for HIV prevention, delivered by community health workers (CHWs) with clinician support, on the use of biomedical prevention among persons at risk of HIV in rural East Africa. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial among persons (≥15 years) with current or anticipated HIV risk in 16 villages in Uganda and Kenya (SEARCH; NCT04810650). The intervention was a client-centred HIV prevention model, including (1) structured client choice of product (pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] or post-exposure prophylaxis [PEP]), service location (clinic or out-of-clinic) and HIV testing modality (self-test or rapid test), with the ability to switch over time; (2) a structured assessment of patient barriers and development of a personalized support plan; and (3) phone access to a clinician 24/7. The intervention was delivered by CHWs and supported by clinicians who oversaw PrEP and PEP initiation and monitoring. Participants in control villages were referred to local health facilities for HIV prevention services, delivered by Ministry of Health staff. The primary outcome was biomedical prevention coverage: a proportion of 48-week follow-up with self-reported PrEP or PEP use. RESULTS: From May to July 2021, we enrolled 429 people (212 intervention; 217 control): 57% women and 35% aged 15-24 years. Among intervention participants, 58% chose PrEP and 58% chose PEP at least once over follow-up; self-testing increased from 52% (baseline) to 71% (week 48); ≥98% chose out-of-facility service delivery. Among 413 (96%) participants with the primary outcome ascertained, average biomedical prevention coverage was 28.0% in the intervention versus 0.5% in the control: a difference of 27.5% (95% CI: 23.0-31.9%, p<0.001). Impact was larger during periods of self-reported HIV risk: 36.6% coverage in intervention versus 0.9% in control, a difference of 35.7% (95% CI: 27.5-43.9, p<0.001). Intervention effects were seen across subgroups defined by sex, age group and alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: A client-centred dynamic choice HIV prevention intervention, including the option to switch between products and CHW-based delivery in the community, increased biomedical prevention coverage by 27.5%. However, substantial person-time at risk of HIV remained uncovered.