A need for implementation science to optimise the use of evidence-based interventions in HIV care: A systematic literature review.

To improve health outcomes in people living with HIV, adoption of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) using effective and transferable implementation strategies to optimise the delivery of healthcare is needed. ViiV Healthcare's Positive Pathways initiative was established to support the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals. A compendium of EBIs was developed to address gaps within the HIV care continuum, yet it was unknown whether efforts existed to adapt and implement these EBIs across diverse clinical contexts. Therefore, this review sought to report on the use of implementation science in adapting HIV continuum of care EBIs. A systematic literature review was undertaken to summarise the evaluation of implementation and effectiveness outcomes, and report on the use of implementation science in HIV care. Ten databases were reviewed to identify studies (time-period: 2013-2018; geographic scope: United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia and Europe; English only publications). Studies were included if they reported on people living with HIV or those at risk of acquiring HIV and used interventions consistent with the EBIs. A broad range of study designs and methods were searched, including hybrid designs. Overall, 118 publications covering 225 interventions consistent with the EBIs were identified. These interventions were evaluated on implementation (N = 183), effectiveness (N = 81), or both outcomes (N = 39). High variability in the methodological approaches was observed. Implementation outcomes were frequently evaluated but use of theoretical frameworks was limited (N = 13). Evaluations undertaken to assess effectiveness were inconsistent, resulting in a range of measures. This review revealed extensive reporting on implementation science as defined using evaluation outcomes. However, high variability was observed in how implementation outcomes and effectiveness were defined, quantified, and reported. A more specific and consistent approach to conducting and reporting on implementation science in HIV could facilitate achievement of UNAIDS 90-90-90 targets.

Once-daily maraviroc versus tenofovir/emtricitabine each combined with darunavir/ritonavir for initial HIV-1 treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of maraviroc along with darunavir/ritonavir, all once daily, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected individuals. DESIGN: MODERN was a multicentre, double-blind, noninferiority, phase III study in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral-naive adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA at least 1000 copies/ml and no evidence of reduced susceptibility to study drugs. METHODS: At screening, participants were randomized 1 : 1 to undergo either genotypic or phenotypic tropism testing. Participants with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 were randomized 1 : 1 to receive maraviroc 150 mg once daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine once daily each with darunavir/ritonavir once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) at Week 48. A substudy evaluated bone mineral density, body fat distribution and serum bone turnover markers. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-seven participants were dosed (maraviroc, n = 396; tenofovir/emtricitabine, n = 401). The Data Monitoring Committee recommended early study termination due to inferior efficacy in the maraviroc group. At Week 48, the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml was 77.3% for maraviroc and 86.8% for tenofovir/emtricitabine [difference of -9.54% (95% confidence interval: -14.83 to -4.24)]. More maraviroc participants discontinued for lack of efficacy, which was not associated with non-R5 tropism or resistance. Discontinuations for adverse events, Category C events, Grade 3/4 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: A once-daily nucleos(t)ide-sparing two-drug regimen of maraviroc and darunavir/ritonavir was inferior to a three-drug regimen of tenofovir/emtricitabine and darunavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive adults.