The effect of universal testing and treatment for HIV on health-related quality of life - An analysis of data from the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster randomised trial.

Background: HIV treatment has clear Health-Related Quality-of-Life (HRQoL) benefits. However, little is known about how Universal Testing and Treatment (UTT) for HIV affects HRQoL. This study aimed to examine the effect of a combination prevention intervention, including UTT, on HRQoL among People Living with HIV (PLHIV). Methods: Data were from HPTN 071 (PopART), a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa (2013-2018). Arm A received the full UTT intervention of door-to-door HIV testing plus access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) regardless of CD4 count, Arm B received the intervention but followed national treatment guidelines (universal ART from 2016), and Arm C received standard care. The intervention effect was measured in a cohort of randomly selected adults, over 36 months. HRQoL scores, and the prevalence of problems in five HRQoL dimensions (mobility, self-care, performing daily activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) were assessed among all participants using the EuroQol-5-dimensions-5-levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). We compared HRQoL among PLHIV with laboratory confirmed HIV status between arms, using adjusted two-stage cluster-level analyses. Results: At baseline, 7,856 PLHIV provided HRQoL data. At 36 months, the mean HRQoL score was 0.892 (95% confidence interval: 0.887-0.898) in Arm A, 0.886 (0.877-0.894) in Arm B and 0.888 (0.884-0.892) in Arm C. There was no evidence of a difference in HRQoL scores between arms (A vs C, adjusted mean difference: 0.003, -0.001-0.006; B vs C: -0.004, -0.014-0.005). The prevalence of problems with pain/discomfort was lower in Arm A than C (adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.37, 0.14-0.97). There was no evidence of differences for other HRQoL dimensions. Conclusions: The intervention did not change overall HRQoL, suggesting that raising HRQoL among PLHIV might require more than improved testing and treatment. However, PLHIV had fewer problems with pain/discomfort under the full intervention; this benefit of UTT should be maximised during roll-out.

Predictors of participant retention in a community-based HIV prevention cohort: perspectives from the HPTN 071 (PopART) study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2021, there were 38.4 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) globally, of which 20.6 million (54%) were living in Eastern and Southern Africa. Longitudinal studies, inclusive of community randomized trials (CRTs), provide critical evidence to guide a broad range of health care interventions including HIV prevention. In this study, we have used an individual-level cohort study design to evaluate the association between sex and other baseline characteristics and participant retention in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and South Africa. METHODS: HPTN 071 (PopART) was a community randomized trial (CRT) conducted from 2013 to 2018, in 21 communities. The primary outcome was measured in a randomly selected population cohort (PC), followed up over 3 to 4 years at annual rounds. PC retention was defined as completion of an annual follow-up questionnaire. Baseline characteristics were described by study arm and Poisson regression analyses used to measure the association between baseline factors and retention. In addition, we present a description of researcher-documented reasons for study withdrawal by PC participants. RESULTS: Of the 38,474 participants enrolled during the first round of the trial (PC0), most were women (27,139, 71%) and 73% completed at least one follow-up visit. Retention was lower in men (adj RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.88, 0.91) and higher among older participants (adj RR: 1.23; 95% CI 1.20, 1.26) when comparing ages 35-44 to 18-24 years. Retention was higher among individuals with high socioeconomic status (SES) (adj RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.14, 1.19) and medium SES (adj RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.09, 1.14) compared to low SES. The most common reasons for study withdrawal were study refusal (23%) and relocation outside the CRT catchment area (66%). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges, satisfactory retention outcomes were achieved in PopART with limited variability across study arms. In keeping with other studies, younger age, male sex, and lower SES were associated with lower levels of retention. Relocation outside of catchment area was the most common reason for non-retention in this CRT.

Uptake of medical male circumcision with household-based testing, and the association of traditional male circumcision and HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) is an important component of combination HIV prevention. Inclusion of traditionally circumcised HIV negative men in VMMC uptake campaigns may be important if traditional male circumcision is less protective against HIV acquisition than VMMC. METHODS: We used data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 071 (PopART) study. This cluster-randomized trial assessed the impact of a combination prevention package on population-level HIV incidence in 21 study communities in Zambia and South Africa. We evaluated uptake of VMMC, using a two-stage analysis approach and used discrete-time survival analysis to evaluate the association between the types of male circumcision and HIV incidence. RESULTS: A total of 10 803 HIV-negative men with self-reported circumcision status were included in this study. At baseline, 56% reported being uncircumcised, 26% traditionally circumcised and 18% were medically circumcised. During the PopART intervention, 11% of uncircumcised men reported uptake of medical male circumcision. We found no significant difference in the uptake of VMMC in communities receiving the PopART intervention package and standard of care {adj. rate ratio=1·10 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82, 1.50, P  = 0.48]}. The rate of HIV acquisition for medically circumcised men was 70% lower than for those who were uncircumcised adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) = 0.30 (95% CI 0.16-0.55; P  < 0.0001). There was no difference in rate of HIV acquisition for traditionally circumcised men compared to those uncircumcised adjHR = 0.84 (95% CI 0.54, 1.31; P  = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Household-based delivery of HIV testing followed by referral for medical male circumcision did not result in substantial VMMC uptake. Traditional circumcision is not associated with lower risk of HIV acquisition.

Impact of universal testing and treatment on sexual risk behaviour and herpes simplex virus type 2: a prespecified secondary outcomes analysis of the HPTN 071 (PopART) community-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive HIV prevention strategies have raised concerns that knowledge of interventions to reduce risk of HIV infection might mitigate an individual's perception of risk, resulting in riskier sexual behaviour. We investigated the prespecified secondary outcomes of the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial to determine whether a combination HIV prevention strategy, including universal HIV testing and treatment, changed sexual behaviour; specifically, we investigated whether there was evidence of sexual risk compensation. METHODS: HPTN 071 (PopART) was a cluster-randomised trial conducted during 2013-18, in which we randomly assigned 21 communities with high HIV prevalence in Zambia and South Africa (total population, approximately 1 million) to combination prevention intervention with universal antiretroviral therapy (ART; arm A), prevention intervention with ART provided according to local guidelines (universal since 2016; arm B), or standard of care (arm C). The trial included a population cohort of approximately 2000 randomly selected adults (aged 18-44 years) in each community (N=38 474 at baseline) who were followed up for 36 months. A prespecified secondary objective was to evaluate the impact of the PopART intervention compared with standard of care on herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) and sexual behaviour (N=20 422 completed final visit). Secondary endpoints included differences in sexual risk behaviour measures at 36 months and were assessed using a two-stage method for matched cluster-randomised trials. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT01900977. FINDINGS: The PopART intervention did not substantially change probability of self-reported multiple sex partners, sexual debut, or pregnancy in women at 36 months. Adjusted for baseline community prevalence, reported condomless sex was significantly lower in arm A versus arm C (adjusted prevalence ratio 0·80 [95% CI 0·64-0·99]; p=0·04) but not in arm B versus arm C (0·94 [0·76-1·17]; p=0·55). 3-year HSV-2 incidence was reduced in arm B versus arm C (adjusted risk ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·63-0·92]; p=0·010); no significant change was shown between arm A versus arm C (0·89 [0·73-1·08]; p=0·199). INTERPRETATION: We found little evidence of any change in sexual behaviour owing to the PopART interventions, and reassuringly for public health, we saw no evidence of sexual risk compensation. The findings do not help to explain the differences between the two intervention groups of the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institutes of Health, the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and the Medical Research Council UK.

Viral suppression and self-reported ART adherence after 3 years of universal testing and treatment in the HPTN 071 (PopART) community-randomised trial in Zambia and South Africa: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: In 2014, UNAIDS set the target that 90% of individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) be virally suppressed. Here, we use data from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial to report whether the introduction of universal testing and treatment has affected viral suppression or treatment adherence among individuals who self-reported they were taking ART, and identify risk factors for these outcomes. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study nested within the randomly selected population cohort of the PopART trial. The trial took place in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa. Analyses included 3570 HIV-positive participants who were seen at the second follow-up visit in 2016-17 and who self-reported that they were currently taking ART. Viral suppression was defined as HIV RNA of less than 400 copies per mL from a blood sample collected during the cohort visit, and ART adherence was measured using self-reporting (reported as no missed pills in last 7 days). Prevalences of these outcomes were compared across three trial arms using a two-stage approach suitable for clustered data. Each arm consisted of seven communities, with one arm receiving a combination HIV prevention package including immediate ART initiation, one receiving a combination HIV prevention package excluding immediate ART initiation and one arm receving standard of care. Risk factors for each of the outcomes were assessed using logistic regression. FINDINGS: Among the 3570 participants who self-reported that they were currently on ART, 416 (11·7%) of 3554 were not virally suppressed (16 were missing viral suppression status) and 345 (9·7%) of 3566 reported being non-adherent to ART (four were missing adherence status). The proportion not virally suppressed was higher in communities in South Africa (195 [16·4%] of 1191) than in Zambia (221 [9·4%] of 2363). There was no evidence that the prevalence of the outcomes differed between trial arms. There was evidence that men, younger individuals, individuals who reported participating in harmful alcohol use, and those who reported internalised stigma were more likely to be non-adherent, and not virally suppressed. INTERPRETATION: The results assuaged concerns that early ART initiation in a universal testing and treatment setting could lead to reduced adherence and viral suppression. FUNDING: US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which is a part of the National Institutes of Health), the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, and Medical Research Council UK.

Projected outcomes of universal testing and treatment in a generalised HIV epidemic in Zambia and South Africa (the HPTN 071 [PopART] trial): a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact of universal home-based testing and treatment as part of universal testing and treatment (UTT) on HIV incidence is unknown. We made projections using a detailed individual-based model of the effect of the intervention delivered in the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised trial. METHODS: In this modelling study, we fitted an individual-based model to the HIV epidemic and HIV care cascade in 21 high prevalence communities in Zambia and South Africa that were part of the PopART cluster-randomised trial (intervention period Nov 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2017). The model represents coverage of home-based testing and counselling by age and sex, delivered as part of the trial, antiretroviral therapy (ART) uptake, and any changes in national guidelines on ART eligibility. In PopART, communities were randomly assigned to one of three arms: arm A received the full PopART intervention for all individuals who tested positive for HIV, arm B received the intervention with ART provided in accordance with national guidelines, and arm C received standard of care. We fitted the model to trial data twice using Approximate Bayesian Computation, once before data unblinding and then again after data unblinding. We compared projections of intervention impact with observed effects, and for four different scenarios of UTT up to Jan 1, 2030 in the study communities. FINDINGS: Compared with standard of care, a 51% (95% credible interval 40-60) reduction in HIV incidence is projected if the trial intervention (arms A and B combined) is continued from 2020 to 2030, over and above a declining trend in HIV incidence under standard of care. INTERPRETATION: A widespread and continued commitment to UTT via home-based testing and counselling can have a substantial effect on HIV incidence in high prevalence communities. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institute of Mental Health.

Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation in settings with universal antiretroviral treatment.

BACKGROUND: Multi-assay algorithms (MAAs) are used to estimate population-level HIV incidence and identify individuals with recent infection. Many MAAs use low viral load (VL) as a biomarker for long-term infection. This could impact incidence estimates in settings with high rates of early HIV treatment initiation. We evaluated the performance of two MAAs that do not include VL. METHODS: Samples were collected from 219 seroconverters (infected < 1 year) and 4376 non-seroconverters (infected > 1 year) in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial; 28.8% of seroconverter samples and 73.2% of non-seroconverter samples had VLs ≤ 400 copies/mL. Samples were tested with the Limiting Antigen Avidity assay (LAg) and JHU BioRad-Avidity assays. Antibody reactivity to two HIV peptides was measured using the MSD U-PLEX assay. Two MAAs were evaluated that do not include VL: a MAA that includes the LAg-Avidity assay and BioRad-Avidity assay (LAg + BR) and a MAA that includes the LAg-Avidity assay and two peptide biomarkers (LAg + PepPair). Performance of these MAAs was compared to a widely used MAA that includes LAg and VL (LAg + VL). RESULTS: The incidence estimate for LAg + VL (1.29%, 95% CI: 0.97-1.62) was close to the observed longitudinal incidence (1.34% 95% CI: 1.17-1.53). The incidence estimates for the other two MAAs were higher (LAg + BR: 2.56%, 95% CI 2.01-3.11; LAg + PepPair: 2.84%, 95% CI: 1.36-4.32). LAg + BR and LAg + PepPair also misclassified more individuals infected > 2 years as recently infected than LAg + VL (1.2% [42/3483 and 1.5% [51/3483], respectively, vs. 0.2% [6/3483]). LAg + BR classified more seroconverters as recently infected than LAg + VL or LAg + PepPair (80 vs. 58 and 50, respectively) and identified ~ 25% of virally suppressed seroconverters as recently infected. CONCLUSIONS: The LAg + VL MAA produced a cross-sectional incidence estimate that was closer to the longitudinal estimate than two MAAs that did not include VL. The LAg + BR MAA classified the greatest number of individual seroconverters as recently infected but had a higher false recent rate.

The association between HIV stigma and HIV incidence in the context of universal testing and treatment: analysis of data from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the association between individual and community-level measures of HIV stigma and HIV incidence within the 21 communities participating in the HPTN (071) PopART trial in Zambia and South Africa. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a population-based cohort followed-up over 36 months between 2013 and 2018. The outcome was rate of incident HIV infection among individuals who were HIV negative at cohort entry. Individual-level exposures, measured in a random sample of all participants, were: (1) perception of stigma in the community, (2) perception of stigma in health settings and (3) fear and judgement towards people living with HIV. Individual-level analyses were conducted with adjusted, individual-level Poisson regression. Community-level HIV stigma exposures drew on data reported by people living with HIV, health workers and community members. We used linear regression to explore the association between HIV stigma and community-level HIV incidence. RESULTS: Among 8172 individuals who were HIV negative and answered individual-level stigma questions at enrolment to the cohort, there was no evidence of a statistically significant association between any domain of HIV stigma and risk of incident HIV infection. Among the full cohort of 26,110 individuals among whom HIV incidence was measured, there was no evidence that community-level HIV incidence was associated with any domain of HIV stigma. CONCLUSIONS: HIV stigma is often cited as a barrier to the effectiveness of HIV prevention programming. However, in the setting for the HPTN 071 "PopART trial," measured stigma alone was not associated with the risk of HIV infection.

Validation of population-level HIV-1 incidence estimation by cross-sectional incidence assays in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cross-sectional incidence testing is used to estimate population-level HIV incidence and measure the impact of prevention interventions. There are limited data evaluating the accuracy of estimates in settings where antiretroviral therapy coverage and levels of viral suppression are high. Understanding cross-sectional incidence estimates in these settings is important as viral suppression can lead to false recent test results. We compared the accuracy of multi-assay algorithms (MAA) for incidence estimation to that observed in the community-randomized HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, where the majority of participants with HIV infection were virally suppressed. METHODS: HIV incidence was assessed during the second year of the study, and included only individuals who were tested for HIV at visits 1 and 2 years after the start of the study (2016-2017). Incidence estimates from three MAAs were compared to the observed incidence between years 1 and 2 (MAA-C: LAg-Avidity <2.8 ODn + BioRad Avidity Index <95% + VL >400 copies/ml; LAg+VL MAA: LAg-Avidity <1.5 ODn + VL >1000 copies/ml; Rapid+VL MAA: Asanté recent rapid result + VL >1000 copies/ml). The mean duration of recent infection (MDRI) used for the three MAAs was 248, 130 and 180 days, respectively. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The study consisted of: 15,845 HIV-negative individuals; 4406 HIV positive at both visits; and 221 who seroconverted between visits. Viral load (VL) data were available for all HIV-positive participants at the 2-year visit. Sixty four (29%) of the seroconverters and 3227 (72%) prevelant positive participants were virally supressed (<400 copies/ml). Observed HIV incidence was 1.34% (95% CI: 1.17-1.53). Estimates of incidence were similar to observed incidence for MAA-C, 1.26% (95% CI: 1.02-1.51) and the LAg+VL MAA, 1.29 (95% CI: 0.97-1.62). Incidence estimated by the Rapid+VL MAA was significantly lower than observed incidence (0.92%, 95% CI: 0.69-1.15, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: MAA-C and the LAg+VL MAA provided accurate point estimates of incidence in this cohort with high levels of viral suppression. The Rapid+VL significantly underestimated incidence, suggesting that the MDRI recommended by the manufacturer is too long or the assay is not accurately detecting enough recent infections.

Evaluation of multi-assay algorithms for identifying individuals with recent HIV infection: HPTN 071 (PopART).

BACKGROUND: Assays and multi-assay algorithms (MAAs) have been developed for population-level cross-sectional HIV incidence estimation. These algorithms use a combination of serologic and/or non-serologic biomarkers to assess the duration of infection. We evaluated the performance of four MAAs for individual-level recency assessments. METHODS: Samples were obtained from 220 seroconverters (infected <1 year) and 4,396 non-seroconverters (infected >1 year) enrolled in an HIV prevention trial (HPTN 071 [PopART]); 28.6% of the seroconverters and 73.4% of the non-seroconverters had HIV viral loads ≤400 copies/mL. Samples were tested with two laboratory-based assays (LAg-Avidity, JHU BioRad-Avidity) and a point-of-care assay (rapid LAg). The four MAAs included different combinations of these assays and HIV viral load. Seroconverters on antiretroviral treatment (ART) were identified using a qualitative multi-drug assay. RESULTS: The MAAs identified between 54 and 100 (25% to 46%) of the seroconverters as recently-infected. The false recent rate of the MAAs for infections >2 years duration ranged from 0.2%-1.3%. The MAAs classified different overlapping groups of individuals as recent vs. non-recent. Only 32 (15%) of the 220 seroconverters were classified as recent by all four MAAs. Viral suppression impacted the performance of the two LAg-based assays. LAg-Avidity assay values were also lower for seroconverters who were virally suppressed on ART compared to those with natural viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: The four MAAs evaluated varied in sensitivity and specificity for identifying persons infected <1 year as recently infected and classified different groups of seroconverters as recently infected. Sensitivity was low for all four MAAs. These performance issues should be considered if these methods are used for individual-level recency assessments.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of a universal HIV testing and treatment intervention in Zambia and South Africa: evidence and projections from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.

BACKGROUND: The HPTN 071 (PopART) trial showed that a combination HIV prevention package including universal HIV testing and treatment (UTT) reduced population-level incidence of HIV compared with standard care. However, evidence is scarce on the costs and cost-effectiveness of such an intervention. METHODS: Using an individual-based model, we simulated the PopART intervention and standard care with antiretroviral therapy (ART) provided according to national guidelines for the 21 trial communities in Zambia and South Africa (for all individuals aged >14 years), with model parameters and primary cost data collected during the PopART trial and from published sources. Two intervention scenarios were modelled: annual rounds of PopART from 2014 to 2030 (PopART 2014-30; as the UNAIDS Fast-Track target year) and three rounds of PopART throughout the trial intervention period (PopART 2014-17). For each country, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) as the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) and cost per HIV infection averted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to indicate the probability of PopART being cost-effective compared with standard care at different thresholds of cost per DALY averted. We also assessed budget impact by projecting undiscounted costs of the intervention compared with standard care up to 2030. FINDINGS: During 2014-17, the mean cost per person per year of delivering home-based HIV counselling and testing, linkage to care, promotion of ART adherence, and voluntary medical male circumcision via community HIV care providers for the simulated population was US$6·53 (SD 0·29) in Zambia and US$7·93 (0·16) in South Africa. In the PopART 2014-30 scenario, median ICERs for PopART delivered annually until 2030 were $2111 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1827-2462) per HIV infection averted in Zambia and $3248 (2472-3963) per HIV infection averted in South Africa; and $593 (95% CrI 526-674) per DALY averted in Zambia and $645 (538-757) per DALY averted in South Africa. In the PopART 2014-17 scenario, PopART averted one infection at a cost of $1318 (1098-1591) in Zambia and $2236 (1601-2916) in South Africa, and averted one DALY at $258 (225-298) in Zambia and $326 (266-391) in South Africa, when outcomes were projected until 2030. The intervention had almost 100% probability of being cost-effective at thresholds greater than $700 per DALY averted in Zambia, and greater than $800 per DALY averted in South Africa, in the PopART 2014-30 scenario. Incremental programme costs for annual rounds until 2030 were $46·12 million (for a mean of 341 323 people) in Zambia and $30·24 million (for a mean of 165 852 people) in South Africa. INTERPRETATION: Combination prevention with universal home-based testing can be delivered at low annual cost per person but accumulates to a considerable amount when scaled for a growing population. Combination prevention including UTT is cost-effective at thresholds greater than $800 per DALY averted and can be an efficient strategy to reduce HIV incidence in high-prevalence settings. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The effect of universal testing and treatment on HIV stigma in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of a combination HIV prevention intervention including universal testing and treatment (UTT) on HIV stigma among people living with HIV, and among community members and health workers not living with HIV. DESIGN: This HIV stigma study was nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, a three-arm cluster randomised trial conducted between 2013 and 2018 in 21 urban/peri-urban communities (12 in Zambia and nine in South Africa). METHODS: Using an adjusted two-stage cluster-level analysis, controlling for baseline imbalances, we compared multiple domains of stigma between the trial arms at 36 months. Different domains of stigma were measured among three cohorts recruited across all study communities: 4178 randomly sampled adults aged 18-44 who were living with HIV, and 3487 randomly sampled adults and 1224 health workers who did not self-report living with HIV. RESULTS: Prevalence of any stigma reported by people living with HIV at 36 months was 20.2% in arm A, 26.1% in arm B, and 19.1% in arm C (adjusted prevalence ratio, A vs. C 1.01 95% CI 0.49-2.08, B vs. C 1.34 95% CI 0.65-2.75). There were no significant differences between arms in any other measures of stigma across all three cohorts. All measures of stigma reduced over time (0.2--4.1% reduction between rounds) with most reductions statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We found little evidence that UTT either increased or decreased HIV stigma measured among people living with HIV, or among community members or health workers not living with HIV. Stigma reduced over time, but slowly. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV NUMBER: NCT01900977.

Association between HIV stigma and antiretroviral therapy adherence among adults living with HIV: baseline findings from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: Adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) leads to viral suppression for people living with HIV (PLHIV) and is critical for both individual health and reducing onward HIV transmission. HIV stigma is a risk factor that can undermine adherence. We explored the association between HIV stigma and self-reported ART adherence among PLHIV in 21 communities in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and the Western Cape of South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data collected between 2013 and 2015, before the roll-out of trial interventions. Questionnaires were conducted, and consenting participants provided a blood sample for HIV testing. Poor adherence was defined as self-report of not currently taking ART, missing pills over the previous 7 days or stopping treatment in the previous 12 months. Stigma was categorised into three domains: community, health setting and internalised stigma. Multivariable logistic regression was used for analysis. RESULTS: Among 2020 PLHIV self-reporting ever taking ART, 1888 (93%) were included in multivariable analysis. Poor ART adherence was reported by 15.8% (n = 320) of participants, and 25.7% (n = 519) reported experiencing community stigma, 21.5% (n = 434) internalised stigma, and 5.7% (n = 152) health setting stigma. PLHIV who self-reported previous experiences of community and internalised stigma more commonly reported poor ART adherence than those who did not (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21 -2.19, P = 0.001 and aOR 1.31, 95% CI 0.96-1.79, P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: HIV stigma was associated with poor ART adherence. Roll-out of universal treatment will see an increasingly high proportion of PLHIV initiated on ART. Addressing HIV stigma could make an important contribution to supporting lifelong ART adherence.

OBJECTIFS: L'adhésion à la thérapie antirétrovirale (ART) conduit à la suppression virale pour les personnes vivant avec le VIH (PVVIH) et est essentielle à la fois pour la santé individuelle et pour réduire la transmission du VIH. La stigmatisation du VIH est un facteur de risque qui peut compromettre l'adhésion. Nous avons exploré l'association entre la stigmatisation du VIH et l'adhésion autodéclarée à l'ART chez les PVVIH dans 21 communautés dans l'essai HPTN 071 (PopART) en Zambie et dans le Western Cape en Afrique du Sud. MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectué une analyse transversale des données de base collectées entre 2013-2015, avant le déploiement des interventions d'essai. Des questionnaires ont été réalisés et les participants consentants ont fourni un échantillon de sang pour le dépistage du VIH. Une mauvaise adhésion a été définie comme l'autodéclaration de ne pas prendre actuellement l'ART, d'omettre des comprimés au cours des 7 jours précédents ou d'arrêter le traitement au cours des 12 mois précédents. La stigmatisation a été classée en trois domaines: communautaire, en milieu de santé et stigmatisation intériorisée. Une régression logistique multivariée a été utilisée pour l'analyse. RÉSULTATS: Parmi les 2.020 PVVIH autodéclarant avoir déjà pris un ART, 1.888 (93%) ont été inclus dans l'analyse multivariée. Une mauvaise adhésion à l'ART a été signalée par 15,8% (n = 320) des participants, 25,7% (n = 519) ont déclaré avoir subi une stigmatisation communautaire, 21,5% (n = 434) une stigmatisation internalisée et 5,7% (n = 152) une stigmatisation en milieu de santé. Les PVVIH qui ont auto-déclaré des expériences antérieures de stigmatisation communautaire et intériorisée ont plus souvent rapporté une mauvaise adhésion à l'ART que ceux qui ne l'ont pas fait (aOR 1,63 ; IC95%: 1,21-2,19 ; P = 0,001 et aOR 1,31 ; IC95%: 0,96-1,79 ; P = 0,09). CONCLUSIONS: La stigmatisation du VIH était associée à une mauvaise adhésion à l'ART. Le déploiement du traitement universel verra une proportion de plus en plus élevée de PVVIH initiées à l'ART. Lutter contre la stigmatisation du VIH pourrait apporter une contribution importante au soutien de l'adhésion à l'ART au cours de la vie. NUMÉRO D'ESSAI CLINIQUE: NCT01900977.

Effect of Universal Testing and Treatment on HIV Incidence - HPTN 071 (PopART).

BACKGROUND: A universal testing and treatment strategy is a potential approach to reduce the incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, yet previous trial results are inconsistent. METHODS: In the HPTN 071 (PopART) community-randomized trial conducted from 2013 through 2018, we randomly assigned 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa (total population, approximately 1 million) to group A (combination prevention intervention with universal antiretroviral therapy [ART]), group B (the prevention intervention with ART provided according to local guidelines [universal since 2016]), or group C (standard care). The prevention intervention included home-based HIV testing delivered by community workers, who also supported linkage to HIV care and ART adherence. The primary outcome, HIV incidence between months 12 and 36, was measured in a population cohort of approximately 2000 randomly sampled adults (18 to 44 years of age) per community. Viral suppression (<400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter) was assessed in all HIV-positive participants at 24 months. RESULTS: The population cohort included 48,301 participants. Baseline HIV prevalence was 21% or 22% in each group. Between months 12 and 36, a total of 553 new HIV infections were observed during 39,702 person-years (1.4 per 100 person-years; women, 1.7; men, 0.8). The adjusted rate ratio for group A as compared with group C was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.18; P = 0.51) and for group B as compared with group C was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = 0.006). The percentage of HIV-positive participants with viral suppression at 24 months was 71.9% in group A, 67.5% in group B, and 60.2% in group C. The estimated percentage of HIV-positive adults in the community who were receiving ART at 36 months was 81% in group A and 80% in group B. CONCLUSIONS: A combination prevention intervention with ART provided according to local guidelines resulted in a 30% lower incidence of HIV infection than standard care. The lack of effect with universal ART was unanticipated and not consistent with the data on viral suppression. In this trial setting, universal testing and treatment reduced the population-level incidence of HIV infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; HPTN 071 [PopArt] ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01900977.).

Work and home productivity of people living with HIV in Zambia and South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To compare number of days lost to illness or accessing healthcare for HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals working in the informal and formal sectors in South Africa and Zambia. DESIGN: As part of the HPTN 071 (PopART) study, data on adults aged 18-44 years were gathered from cross-sectional surveys of random general population samples in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa. Data on the number of productive days lost in the last 3 months, laboratory-confirmed HIV status, labour force status, age, ethnicity, education, and recreational drug use was collected. METHODS: Differences in productive days lost between HIV-negative and HIV-positive individuals ('excess productive days lost') were estimated with negative binomial models, and results disaggregated for HIV-positive individuals after various durations on antiretroviral treatment (ART). RESULTS: From samples of 19 330 respondents in Zambia and 18 004 respondents in South Africa, HIV-positive individuals lost more productive days to illness than HIV-negative individuals in both countries. HIV-positive individuals in Zambia lost 0.74 excess productive days [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-1.01; P < 0.001] to illness over a 3-month period. HIV-positive in South Africa lost 0.13 excess days (95% CI 0.04-0.23; P = 0.007). In Zambia, those on ART for less than 1 year lost most days, and those not on ART lost fewest days. In South Africa, results disaggregated by treatment duration were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is a loss of work and home productivity associated with HIV, but it is lower than existing estimates for HIV-positive formal sector workers. The findings support policy makers in building an accurate investment case for HIV interventions.

Sexually Transmitted Bedfellows: Exquisite Association Between HIV and Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 in 21 Communities in Southern Africa in the HIV Prevention Trials Network 071 (PopART) Study.

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV2) are strongly associated, although mechanisms are not fully understood. An HIV prevention trial allowed reexamination of this association at individual and community levels. Methods: The HIV Prevention Trials Network 071 (PopART) study evaluates a combination prevention intervention in 21 urban communities in Zambia and South Africa. To measure impact on HIV infection incidence, a cohort of approximately 2000 adults (age range, 18-44 years) was selected randomly from each community. Baseline data on sociodemographic characteristics, behavior, and HIV/HSV2 serologic findings were used to examine the association between HIV and HSV2. At the community level, HIV prevalence was plotted against HSV2 prevalence. Results: A total of 38691 adults participated. HSV2 prevalence among women and men was 50% and 22%, respectively, in Zambia and 60% and 27%, respectively, in South Africa. Estimated HSV2 infection incidence among those aged 18-24 years was 8.06 cases/100 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.76-9.35) and 1.76 cases/100 person-years (95% CI, 1.30-2.22) among women and men, respectively. A 6-fold higher odds of HIV infection was seen in HSV2-infected individuals in both sexes, after adjustment for confounders (odds ratio, 6.66 [95% CI, 6.07-7.31] among women and 6.57 [95% CI, 5.56-7.77] among men). At the community-level, there was a strong linear relationship between HIV and HSV2 prevalence (ρ = 0.92; P < .001). Conclusions: There was an exquisite association between these 2 infections, at the individual and community levels, likely due in part to a powerful cofactor effect of HSV2 on HIV transmission. HSV2 control could contribute to HIV prevention.

Individual and community-level risk factors for HIV stigma in 21 Zambian and South African communities: analysis of data from the HPTN071 (PopART) study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence and determinants of HIV stigma in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa. DESIGN: Analysis of baseline data from the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomized trial. HIV stigma data came from a random sample of 3859 people living with HIV. Community-level exposures reflecting HIV fears and judgements and perceptions of HIV stigma came from a random sample of community members not living with HIV (n = 5088), and from health workers (HW) (n = 851). METHODS: We calculated the prevalence of internalized stigma, and stigma experienced in the community or in a healthcare setting in the past year. We conducted risk-factor analyses using logistic regression, adjusting for clustering. RESULTS: Internalized stigma (868/3859, prevalence 22.5%) was not associated with sociodemographic characteristics but was less common among those with a longer period since diagnosis (P = 0.043). Stigma experienced in the community (853/3859, 22.1%) was more common among women (P = 0.016), older (P = 0.011) and unmarried (P = 0.009) individuals, those who had disclosed to others (P < 0.001), and those with more lifetime sexual partners (P < 0.001). Stigma experienced in a healthcare setting (280/3859, 7.3%) was more common among women (P = 0.019) and those reporting more lifetime sexual partners (P = 0.001) and higher wealth (P = 0.003). Experienced stigma was more common in clusters wherever community members perceived higher levels of stigma, but was not associated with the beliefs of community members or HW. CONCLUSION: HIV stigma remains unacceptably high in South Africa and Zambia and may act as barrier to HIV prevention and treatment. Further research is needed to understand its determinants.

Differences in health-related quality of life between HIV-positive and HIV-negative people in Zambia and South Africa: a cross-sectional baseline survey of the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial.

BACKGROUND: The life expectancy of HIV-positive individuals receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) is approaching that of HIV-negative people. However, little is known about how these populations compare in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aimed to compare HRQoL between HIV-positive and HIV-negative people in Zambia and South Africa. METHODS: As part of the HPTN 071 (PopART) study, data from adults aged 18-44 years were gathered between Nov 28, 2013, and March 31, 2015, in large cross-sectional surveys of random samples of the general population in 21 communities in Zambia and South Africa. HRQoL data were collected with a standardised generic measure of health across five domains. We used ß-distributed multivariable models to analyse differences in HRQoL scores between HIV-negative and HIV-positive individuals who were unaware of their status; aware, but not in HIV care; in HIV care, but who had not initiated ART; on ART for less than 5 years; and on ART for 5 years or more. We included controls for sociodemographic variables, herpes simplex virus type-2 status, and recreational drug use. FINDINGS: We obtained data for 19 750 respondents in Zambia and 18 941 respondents in South Africa. Laboratory-confirmed HIV status was available for 19 330 respondents in Zambia and 18 004 respondents in South Africa; 4128 (21%) of these 19 330 respondents in Zambia and 4012 (22%) of 18 004 respondents in South Africa had laboratory-confirmed HIV. We obtained complete HRQoL information for 19 637 respondents in Zambia and 18 429 respondents in South Africa. HRQoL scores did not differ significantly between individuals who had initiated ART more than 5 years previously and HIV-negative individuals, neither in Zambia (change in mean score -0·002, 95% CI -0·01 to 0·001; p=0·219) nor in South Africa (0·000, -0·002 to 0·003; p=0·939). However, scores did differ between HIV-positive individuals who had initiated ART less than 5 years previously and HIV-negative individuals in Zambia (-0·006, 95% CI -0·008 to -0·003; p<0·0001). A large proportion of people with clinically confirmed HIV were unaware of being HIV-positive (1768 [43%] of 4128 people in Zambia and 2026 [50%] of 4012 people in South Africa) and reported good HRQoL, with no significant differences from that of HIV-negative people (change in mean HRQoL score -0·001, 95% CI -0·003 to 0·001, p=0·216; and 0·001, -0·001 to 0·001, p=0·997, respectively). In South Africa, HRQoL scores were lower in HIV-positive individuals who were aware of their status but not enrolled in HIV care (change in mean HRQoL -0·004, 95% CI -0·01 to -0·001; p=0·010) and those in HIV care but not on ART (-0·008, -0·01 to -0·004; p=0·001) than in HIV-negative people, but the magnitudes of difference were small. INTERPRETATION: ART is successful in helping to reduce inequalities in HRQoL between HIV-positive and HIV-negative individuals in this general population sample. These findings highlight the importance of improving awareness of HIV status and expanding ART to prevent losses in HRQoL that occur with untreated HIV progression. The gains in HRQoL after individuals initiate ART could be substantial when scaled up to the population level. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Understanding low sensitivity of community-based HIV rapid testing: experiences from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial in Zambia and South Africa.

INTRODUCTION: Population-wide HIV testing services (HTS) must be delivered in order to achieve universal antiretroviral treatment (ART) coverage. To accurately deliver HTS at such scale, non-facility-based HIV point-of-care testing (HIV-POCT) is necessary but requires rigorous quality assurance (QA). This study assessed the performance of community-wide HTS in Zambia and South Africa (SA) as part of the HPTN 071 (PopART) study and explores the impact of quality improvement interventions on HTS performance. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, HIV-POCT was undertaken within households both as part of the randomly selected HPTN 071 research cohort (Population Cohort [PC]) and as part of the intervention provided by community HIV-care providers. HIV-POCT followed national algorithms in both countries. Consenting PC participants provided a venous blood sample in addition to being offered HIV-POCT. We compared results obtained in the PC using a laboratory-based gold standard (GS) testing algorithm and HIV-POCT. Comprehensive QA mechanisms were put in place to support the community-wide testing. Participants who were identified as having a false negative or false positive HIV rapid test were revisited and offered retesting. RESULTS: We initially observed poor sensitivity (45-54%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 31-69) of HIV-POCT in the PC in SA compared to sensitivity in Zambia for the same time period of 95.8% (95% CI 93-98). In both countries, specificity of HIV-POCT was >98%. With enhanced QA interventions and adoption of the same HIV-POCT algorithm, sensitivity in SA improved to a similar level as in Zambia. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first reports of HIV-POCT performance during wide-scale delivery of HTS compared to a GS laboratory algorithm. HIV-POCT in a real-world setting had a lower sensitivity than anticipated. Appropriate choice of HIV-POCT algorithms, intensive training and supervision, and robust QA mechanisms are necessary to optimize HIV-POCT test performance when testing is delivered at a community level. HIV-POCT in clients who did not disclose that they were on ART may have contributed to false negative HIV-POCT results and should be the topic of future research.