MAVMET trial: maraviroc and/or metformin for metabolic dysfunction associated fatty liver disease in adults with suppressed HIV.

OBJECTIVE: Metabolic dysfunction associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) is over-represented in people with HIV (PWH). Maraviroc (MVC) and/or metformin (MET) may reduce MAFLD by influencing inflammatory pathways and fatty acid metabolism. DESIGN: Open-label, 48-week randomized trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design. SETTING: Multicenter HIV clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Nondiabetic, virologically suppressed PLWH, aged at least 35 years, with confirmed/suspected MAFLD (≥1 biochemical/anthropometric/radiological/histological features). INTERVENTION: Adjunctive MVC; MET; MVC+MET vs. antiretroviral therapy (ART) alone. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Change in liver fat fraction (LFF) between baseline and week-48 using magnetic resonance proton density fat fraction (MR PDFF). RESULTS: Six sites enrolled 90 participants (93% male; 81% white; median age 52 [interquartile range, IQR 47-57] years) between March 19, 2018, and November 11, 2019. Seventy percent had imaging/biopsy and at least one 1 MAFLD criteria. The analysis included 82/90 with week-0 and week-48 scans. Median baseline MR PDFF was 8.9 (4.6-17.1); 40, 38, 8, and 14% had grade zero, one, two, and three steatosis, respectively. Mean LFF increased slightly between baseline and follow-up scans: 2.22% MVC, 1.26% MET, 0.81% MVC+MET, and 1.39% ART alone. Prolonged intervention exposure (delayed week-48 scans) exhibited greater increases in MR PDFF (estimated difference 4.23% [95% confidence interval, 95% CI 2.97-5.48], P  < 0.001). There were no differences in predicted change for any intervention compared to ART alone: MVC (-0.42% [95% CI -1.53 to 0.68, P  = 0.45]), MET (-0.62 [-1.81 to 0.56, P  = 0.30]), and MVC+MET (-1.04 [-2.74 to 0.65, P  = 0.23]). Steatosis grade remained unchanged in 55% and increased in 24%. CONCLUSION: Baseline levels of liver fat were lower than predicted. Contrary to our hypothesis, neither MVC, MET, or the combination significantly reduced liver fat as measured by MRPDFF compared to ART alone.

Understanding experiences of potential harm among MSM (cis and trans) using HIV self-testing in the SELPHI randomised controlled trial in England and Wales: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The potential of HIV self-testing (HIVST) to cause harm is a concern hindering widespread implementation. The aim of this paper is to understand the relationship between HIVST and harm in SELPHI (An HIV Self-testing Public Health Intervention), the largest randomised trial of HIVST in a high-income country to date. METHODS: 10 111 cis and trans men who have sex with men (MSM) recruited online (geolocation social/sexual networking apps, social media), aged 16+, reporting previous anal intercourse and resident in England or Wales were first randomised 60/40 to baseline HIVST (baseline testing, BT) or not (no baseline testing, nBT) (randomisation A). BT participants reporting negative baseline test, sexual risk at 3 months and interest in further HIVST were randomised to three-monthly HIVST (repeat testing, RT) or not (no repeat testing, nRT) (randomisation B). All received an exit survey collecting data on harms (to relationships, well-being, false results or being pressured/persuaded to test). Nine participants reporting harm were interviewed in-depth about their experiences in an exploratory substudy; qualitative data were analysed narratively. RESULTS: Baseline: predominantly cis MSM, 90% white, 88% gay, 47% university educated and 7% current/former pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) users. Final survey response rate was: nBT=26% (1056/4062), BT=45% (1674/3741), nRT=41% (471/1147), RT=50% (581/1161).Harms were rare and reported by 4% (n=138/3691) in exit surveys, with an additional two false positive results captured in other study surveys. 1% reported harm to relationships and to well-being in BT, nRT and RT combined. In all arms combined, being pressured or persuaded to test was reported by 1% (n=54/3678) and false positive results in 0.7% (n=34/4665).Qualitative analysis revealed harms arose from the kit itself (technological harms), the intervention (intervention harms) or from the social context of the participant (socially emergent harms). Intervention and socially emergent harms did not reduce HIVST acceptability, whereas technological harms did. DISCUSSION: HIVST harms were rare but strategies to link individuals experiencing harms with psychosocial support should be considered for HIVST scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN20312003.

Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study.

BACKGROUND: Men with suspected prostate cancer usually undergo transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy. TRUS-guided biopsy can cause side effects and has relatively poor diagnostic accuracy. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-guided biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVES: To (1) assess the ability of mpMRI to identify men who can safely avoid unnecessary biopsy, (2) assess the ability of the mpMRI-based pathway to improve the rate of detection of clinically significant (CS) cancer compared with TRUS-guided biopsy and (3) estimate the cost-effectiveness of a mpMRI-based diagnostic pathway. DESIGN: A validating paired-cohort study and an economic evaluation using a decision-analytic model. SETTING: Eleven NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men at risk of prostate cancer undergoing a first prostate biopsy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants underwent three tests: (1) mpMRI (the index test), (2) TRUS-guided biopsy (the current standard) and (3) template prostate mapping (TPM) biopsy (the reference test). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy of mpMRI, TRUS-guided biopsy and TPM-biopsy measured by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) using primary and secondary definitions of CS cancer. The percentage of negative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans was used to identify men who might be able to avoid biopsy. RESULTS: Diagnostic study - a total of 740 men were registered and 576 underwent all three tests. According to TPM-biopsy, the prevalence of any cancer was 71% [95% confidence interval (CI) 67% to 75%]. The prevalence of CS cancer according to the primary definition (a Gleason score of ≥ 4 + 3 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 6 mm) was 40% (95% CI 36% to 44%). For CS cancer, TRUS-guided biopsy showed a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 42% to 55%), specificity of 96% (95% CI 94% to 98%), PPV of 90% (95% CI 83% to 94%) and NPV of 74% (95% CI 69% to 78%). The sensitivity of mpMRI was 93% (95% CI 88% to 96%), specificity was 41% (95% CI 36% to 46%), PPV was 51% (95% CI 46% to 56%) and NPV was 89% (95% CI 83% to 94%). A negative mpMRI scan was recorded for 158 men (27%). Of these, 17 were found to have CS cancer on TPM-biopsy. Economic evaluation - the most cost-effective strategy involved testing all men with mpMRI, followed by MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy in those patients with suspected CS cancer, followed by rebiopsy if CS cancer was not detected. This strategy is cost-effective at the TRUS-guided biopsy definition 2 (any Gleason pattern of ≥ 4 and/or cancer core length of ≥ 4 mm), mpMRI definition 2 (lesion volume of ≥ 0.2 ml and/or Gleason score of ≥ 3 + 4) and cut-off point 2 (likely to be benign) and detects 95% (95% CI 92% to 98%) of CS cancers. The main drivers of cost-effectiveness were the unit costs of tests, the improvement in sensitivity of MRI-guided TRUS-guided biopsy compared with blind TRUS-guided biopsy and the longer-term costs and outcomes of men with cancer. LIMITATIONS: The PROstate Magnetic resonance Imaging Study (PROMIS) was carried out in a selected group and excluded men with a prostate volume of > 100 ml, who are less likely to have cancer. The limitations in the economic modelling arise from the limited evidence on the long-term outcomes of men with prostate cancer and on the sensitivity of MRI-targeted repeat biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating mpMRI into the diagnostic pathway as an initial test prior to prostate biopsy may (1) reduce the proportion of men having unnecessary biopsies, (2) improve the detection of CS prostate cancer and (3) increase the cost-effectiveness of the prostate cancer diagnostic and therapeutic pathway. The PROMIS data set will be used for future research; this is likely to include modelling prognostic factors for CS cancer, optimising MRI scan sequencing and biomarker or translational research analyses using the blood and urine samples collected. Better-quality evidence on long-term outcomes in prostate cancer under the various management strategies is required to better assess cost-effectiveness. The value-of-information analysis should be developed further to assess new research to commission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16082556 and NCT01292291. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This project was also supported and partially funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London (UCL) Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and UCL and by The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and The Institute of Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and was co-ordinated by the Medical Research Council's Clinical Trials Unit at UCL (grant code MC_UU_12023/28). It was sponsored by UCL. Funding for the additional collection of blood and urine samples for translational research was provided by Prostate Cancer UK.

Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: Men with high serum prostate specific antigen usually undergo transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUS-biopsy). TRUS-biopsy can cause side-effects including bleeding, pain, and infection. Multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) used as a triage test might allow men to avoid unnecessary TRUS-biopsy and improve diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We did this multicentre, paired-cohort, confirmatory study to test diagnostic accuracy of MP-MRI and TRUS-biopsy against a reference test (template prostate mapping biopsy [TPM-biopsy]). Men with prostate-specific antigen concentrations up to 15 ng/mL, with no previous biopsy, underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. Clinically significant cancer was defined as Gleason score ≥4 + 3 or a maximum cancer core length 6 mm or longer. This study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01292291. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2012, and November 9, 2015, we enrolled 740 men, 576 of whom underwent 1·5 Tesla MP-MRI followed by both TRUS-biopsy and TPM-biopsy. On TPM-biopsy, 408 (71%) of 576 men had cancer with 230 (40%) of 576 patients clinically significant. For clinically significant cancer, MP-MRI was more sensitive (93%, 95% CI 88-96%) than TRUS-biopsy (48%, 42-55%; p<0·0001) and less specific (41%, 36-46% for MP-MRI vs 96%, 94-98% for TRUS-biopsy; p<0·0001). 44 (5·9%) of 740 patients reported serious adverse events, including 8 cases of sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Using MP-MRI to triage men might allow 27% of patients avoid a primary biopsy and diagnosis of 5% fewer clinically insignificant cancers. If subsequent TRUS-biopsies were directed by MP-MRI findings, up to 18% more cases of clinically significant cancer might be detected compared with the standard pathway of TRUS-biopsy for all. MP-MRI, used as a triage test before first prostate biopsy, could reduce unnecessary biopsies by a quarter. MP-MRI can also reduce over-diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer and improve detection of clinically significant cancer. FUNDING: PROMIS is funded by the UK Government Department of Health, National Institute of Health Research-Health Technology Assessment Programme, (Project number 09/22/67). This project is also supported and partly funded by UCLH/UCL Biomedical Research Centre and The Royal Marsden and Institute for Cancer Research Biomedical Research Centre and is coordinated by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit (MRC CTU) at UCL. It is sponsored by University College London (UCL).