Effect of tuberculosis screening and retention interventions on early antiretroviral therapy mortality in Botswana: a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed tuberculosis (TB) remains the most common cause of HIV-related mortality. Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is being rolled out globally to improve TB diagnostic capacity. However, previous Xpert impact trials have reported that health system weaknesses blunted impact of this improved diagnostic tool. During phased Xpert rollout in Botswana, we evaluated the impact of a package of interventions comprising (1) additional support for intensified TB case finding (ICF), (2) active tracing for patients missing clinic appointments to support retention, and (3) Xpert replacing sputum-smear microscopy, on early (6-month) antiretroviral therapy (ART) mortality. METHODS: At 22 clinics, ART enrollees > 12 years old were eligible for inclusion in three phases: a retrospective standard of care (SOC), prospective enhanced care (EC), and prospective EC plus Xpert (EC+X) phase. EC and EC+X phases were implemented as a stepped-wedge trial. Participants in the EC phase received SOC plus components 1 (strengthened ICF) and 2 (active tracing) of the intervention package, and participants in the EC+X phase received SOC plus all three intervention package components. Primary and secondary objectives were to compare all-cause 6-month ART mortality between SOC and EC+X and between EC and EC+X phases, respectively. We used adjusted analyses, appropriate for study design, to control for baseline differences in individual-level factors and intra-facility correlation. RESULTS: We enrolled 14,963 eligible patients: 8980 in SOC, 1768 in EC, and 4215 in EC+X phases. Median age of ART enrollees was 35 and 64% were female. Median CD4 cell count was lower in SOC than subsequent phases (184/µL in SOC, 246/µL in EC, and 241/µL in EC+X). By 6 months of ART, 461 (5.3%) of SOC, 54 (3.2%) of EC, and 121 (3.0%) of EC+X enrollees had died. Compared with SOC, 6-month mortality was lower in the EC+X phase (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.97, p = 0.029). Compared with EC enrollees, 6-month mortality was similar among EC+X enrollees. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to strengthen ICF and retention were associated with lower early ART mortality. This new evidence highlights the need to strengthen ICF and retention in many similar settings. Similar to other trials, no additional mortality benefit of replacing sputum-smear microscopy with Xpert was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02538952).

Tuberculosis treatment outcomes among people living with HIV diagnosed using Xpert MTB/RIF versus sputum-smear microscopy in Botswana: a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Xpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) has high sensitivity for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) compared to sputum-smear microscopy (smear) and can reduce time-to-diagnosis, time-to-treatment and potentially unfavorable patient-level treatment outcome. METHODS: People living with HIV (PLHIV) initiating antiretroviral therapy at 22 HIV clinics were enrolled and underwent systematic screening for TB (August 2012-November 2014). GeneXpert instruments were deployed following a stepped-wedge design at 13 centers from October 2012-June 2013. Treatment outcomes classified as an unfavorable outcome (died, treatment failure or loss-to-follow-up) or favorable outcome (cured and treatment completed). To determine outcome, smear was performed at month 5 or 6. Empiric treatment was defined as initiating treatment without/before receiving TB-positive results. Adjusting for intra-facility correlation, we compared patient-level treatment outcomes between patients screened using smear (smear arm)- and Xpert-based algorithms (Xpert arm). RESULTS: Among 6041 patients enrolled (smear arm, 1816; Xpert arm, 4225), 256 (199 per 2985 and 57 per 1582 person-years of follow-up in Xpert and smear arms, respectively; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 9.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.70-17.48; p < 0.001) received TB diagnosis and were treated. TB treatment outcomes were available for 203 patients (79.3%; Xpert, 157; smear, 46). Unfavorable outcomes were reported for 21.7% (10/46) in the smear and 13.4% (21/157) in Xpert arm (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI: 0.75-2.26; p = 0.268). Compared to smear, in Xpert arm median days from sputum collection to TB treatment was 6 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2-17 versus 22 days [IQR] 3-51), p = 0.005; patients with available sputum test result had microbiologically confirmed TB in 59.0% (102/173) versus 41.9% (18/43), adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 2.00, 95% CI: 1.01-3.96, p = 0.048). In smear arm empiric treatment was 68.4% (39/57) versus 48.7% (97/199), aOR, 2.28, 95% CI: 1.24-4.20, p = 0.011), compared to Xpert arm. CONCLUSIONS: TB treatment outcomes were similar between the smear and Xpert arms. However, compared to the smear arm, more patients in the Xpert arm received a TB diagnosis, had a microbiologically confirmed TB, and had a shorter time-to-treatment, and had a lower empiric treatment. Further research is recommended to identify potential gaps in the Botswana health system and similar settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02538952. Retrospectively registered on 2 September 2015.

Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize current practices for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes and to offer recommendations to improve future trials. We searched for group-randomized trials involving cancer-related risk factors or outcomes that were published or online in peer-reviewed journals in 2011-15. During 2016-17, in Bethesda MD, we reviewed 123 articles from 76 journals to characterize their design and their methods for sample size estimation and data analysis. Only 66 (53.7%) of the articles reported appropriate methods for sample size estimation. Only 63 (51.2%) reported exclusively appropriate methods for analysis. These findings suggest that many investigators do not adequately attend to the methodological challenges inherent in group-randomized trials. These practices can lead to underpowered studies, to an inflated type 1 error rate, and to inferences that mislead readers. Investigators should work with biostatisticians or other methodologists familiar with these issues. Funders and editors should ensure careful methodological review of applications and manuscripts. Reviewers should ensure that studies are properly planned and analyzed. These steps are needed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of group-randomized trials. The Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has taken several steps to address these issues. ODP offers an online course on the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. ODP is working to increase the number of methodologists who serve on grant review panels. ODP has developed standard language for the Application Guide and the Review Criteria to draw investigators' attention to these issues. Finally, ODP has created a new Research Methods Resources website to help investigators, reviewers, and NIH staff better understand these issues.

A Brief Screening Tool to Assess the Risk of Contracting HIV Infection Among Active Injection Drug Users.

OBJECTIVE: To incorporate preexposure prophylaxis and other biomedical or intensive behavioral interventions into the care of injection drug users (IDUs), health care providers need validated, rapid, risk screening tools for identifying persons at highest risk of incident HIV infection. METHODS: To develop and validate a brief screening tool for assessing the risk of contracting HIV (ARCH), we included behavioral and HIV test data from 1904 initially HIV-uninfected men and women enrolled and followed in the AIDS Linked to the Intravenous Experience prospective cohort study between 1988 and 2008. Using logistic regression analyses with generalized estimating equations, we identified significant predictors of incident HIV infection, then rescaled and summed their regression coefficients to create a risk score. RESULTS: The final logistic regression model included age, engagement in a methadone maintenance program, and a composite injection risk score obtained by counting the number of the following 5 behaviors reported during the past 6 months: injection of heroin, injection of cocaine, sharing a cooker, sharing needles, or visiting a shooting gallery. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.720; possible scores on the index ranged from 0 to 100 and a score 46 or greater had a sensitivity of 86.2% and a specificity of 42.5%, appropriate for a screening tool. DISCUSSION: We developed an easy to administer 7-question screening tool with a cutoff that is predictive of incident HIV infection in a large prospective cohort of IDUs in Baltimore. The ARCH-IDUs screening tool can be used to prioritize persons who are injecting illicit drugs for consideration of preexposure prophylaxis and other intensive HIV prevention efforts.

Development of a clinical screening index predictive of incident HIV infection among men who have sex with men in the United States.

BACKGROUND: To implement biomedical and other intensive HIV prevention interventions cost-effectively, busy care providers need validated, rapid, risk screening tools for identifying persons at highest risk of incident infection. METHODS: To develop and validate an index, we included behavioral and HIV test data from initially HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men who reported no injection drug use during semiannual interviews in the VaxGen VAX004 study and Project Explore HIV prevention trials. Using generalized estimating equations and logistic regression analyses, we identified significant predictors of incident HIV infection, then weighted and summed their regression coefficients to create a risk index score. RESULTS: The final logistic regression model included age, and the following behaviors reported during the past 6 months: total number of male sex partners, total number of HIV-positive male sex partners, number of times the participant had unprotected receptive anal sex with a male partner of any HIV status, number of times the participant had insertive anal sex with an HIV-positive male partner, whether the participant reported using poppers, and whether they reported using amphetamines. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.74, possible scores on index range from 0 to 47 and a score ≥10 had as sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 45%, levels appropriate for a screening tool. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an easily administered and scored 7-item screening index with a cutoff that is predictive of HIV seroconversion in 2 large prospective cohorts of US men who have sex with men. The index can be used to prioritize patients for intensive HIV prevention efforts (eg, preexposure prophylaxis).

Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: a review of current practices.

BACKGROUND: Previous reviews have identified problems in the design and analysis of group-randomized trials in a number of areas. Similar problems may exist in cancer research, but there have been no comprehensive reviews. METHODS: We searched Medline and PubMed for group-randomized trials focused on cancer prevention and control that were published between 2002 and 2006. We located and reviewed 75 articles to determine whether articles included evidence of taking group randomization into account in establishing the size of the trial, such as reporting the expected intraclass correlation, the group component of variance, or the variance inflation factor. We also examined the analytical approaches to determine their appropriateness. RESULTS: Only 18 (24%) of the 75 articles documented appropriate methods for sample size calculations. Only 34 (45%) limited their reports to analyses judged to be appropriate. Fully 26 (34%) failed to report any analyses that were judged to be appropriate. The most commonly used inappropriate analysis was an analysis at the individual level that ignored the groups altogether. Nine articles (12%) did not provide sufficient information. CONCLUSIONS: Many investigators who use group-randomized trials in cancer research do not adequately attend to the special design and analytic challenges associated with these trials. Failure to do so can lead to reporting type I errors as real effects, mislead investigators and policy-makers, and slow progress toward control and prevention of cancer. A collaborative effort by investigators, statisticians, and others will be required to ensure that group-randomized trials are planned and analyzed using appropriate methods so that the scientific community can have confidence in the published results.