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
BACKGROUND: Reactogenicity informs vaccine safety, and may influence vaccine uptake. We evaluated factors associated with reactogenicity in HVTN 702, a typical HIV vaccine efficacy trial with multiple doses and products. METHODS: HVTN 702, a phase 2b/3 double-blind placebo-controlled trial, randomized 5404 African participants aged 18-35 years without HIV to placebo, or ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) at months 0, 1 and ALVAC-HIV (vCP2438) + Bivalent Subtype C gp120/MF59 at months 3, 6, 12 and 18. Using multivariate logistic regression, we evaluated associations between reactogenicity with clinical, sociodemographic and laboratory variables. RESULTS: More vaccine than placebo-recipients reported local symptoms (all p < 0.001), arthralgia (p = 0.008), chills (p = 0.012) and myalgia (p < 0.001). Reactogenicity was associated with female sex at birth (ORv = 2.50, ORp = 1.81, both p < 0.001) and geographic region. Amongst vaccine-recipients, each year of age was associated with 3 % increase in reactogenicity (OR = 1.03, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Vaccine receipt, female sex at birth, older age, and region may affect reactogenicity.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A safe, effective vaccine is essential to eradicating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. A canarypox-protein HIV vaccine regimen (ALVAC-HIV plus AIDSVAX B/E) showed modest efficacy in reducing infection in Thailand. An analogous regimen using HIV-1 subtype C virus showed potent humoral and cellular responses in a phase 1-2a trial in South Africa. Efficacy data and additional safety data were needed for this regimen in a larger population in South Africa. METHODS: In this phase 2b-3 trial, we randomly assigned 5404 adults without HIV-1 infection to receive the vaccine (2704 participants) or placebo (2700 participants). The vaccine regimen consisted of injections of ALVAC-HIV at months 0 and 1, followed by four booster injections of ALVAC-HIV plus bivalent subtype C gp120-MF59 adjuvant at months 3, 6, 12, and 18. The primary efficacy outcome was the occurrence of HIV-1 infection from randomization to 24 months. RESULTS: In January 2020, prespecified criteria for nonefficacy were met at an interim analysis; further vaccinations were subsequently halted. The median age of the trial participants was 24 years; 70% of the participants were women. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. During the 24-month follow-up, HIV-1 infection was diagnosed in 138 participants in the vaccine group and in 133 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.30; P = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: The ALVAC-gp120 regimen did not prevent HIV-1 infection among participants in South Africa despite previous evidence of immunogenicity. (HVTN 702 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02968849.).