Long-term efficacy and safety of a treatment strategy for HIV infection using protease inhibitor monotherapy: 8-year routine clinical care follow-up from a randomised, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial (PIVOT).

Background: Treatment-simplification strategies are important tools for patient-centred management. We evaluated long-term outcomes from a PI monotherapy switch strategy. Methods: Eligible participants attending 43 UK treatment centres had a viral load (VL) below 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on combination ART. Participants were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected PI monotherapy (PI-mono) with prompt return to combination therapy if VL rebounded. The primary outcome, previously reported, was loss of future drug options after 3 years, defined as new intermediate/high level resistance to at least one drug to which the participant's virus was considered sensitive at trial entry. Here we report resistance and disease outcomes after further extended follow-up in routine care. The study was registered as ISRCTN04857074. Findings: We randomised 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296) between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010 and followed them for a median of more than 8 years (100 months) until 2018. At the end of this follow-up time, one or more future drug options had been lost in 7 participants in the OT group and 6 in the PI-mono group; estimated cumulative risk by 8 years of 2.7% and 2.1% respectively (difference -0.6%, 95% CI -3.2% to 2.0%). Only one PI-mono participant developed resistance to the protease inhibitor they were taking (atazanavir). Serious clinical events (death, serious AIDS, and serious non-AIDS) were infrequent; reported in a total of 12 (4.1%) participants in the OT group and 23 (7.8%) in the PI-mono group (P = 0.08) over the entire follow-up period. Interpretation: A strategy of PI monotherapy, with regular VL monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment following rebound, preserved future treatment options. Findings confirm the high genetic barrier to resistance of the PI drug class that makes them well suited for creative, patient-centred, treatment-simplification approaches. The possibility of a small excess risk of serious clinical events with the PI monotherapy strategy cannot be excluded. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Licenced doses of approved COVID-19 vaccines may not be optimal: A review of the early-phase, dose-finding trials.

Although over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered globally, the issue of whether the optimal doses are being used has received little attention. To address this question we reviewed the reports of early-phase dose-finding trials of the nine COVID-19 vaccines approved by World Health Organization, extracting information on study design and findings on reactogenicity and early humoral immune response. The number of different doses evaluated for each vaccine varied widely (range 1-7), as did the number of subjects studied per dose (range 15-190). As expected, the frequency and severity of adverse reactions generally increased at higher doses, although most were clinically tolerable. Higher doses also tended to elicit better immune responses, but differences between the highest dose and the second-highest dose evaluated were small, typically less than 1.6-fold for both binding antibody concentration and neutralising antibody titre. All of the trials had at least one important design limitation - few doses evaluated, large gaps between adjacent doses, or an inadequate sample size - although this is not a criticism of the study investigators, who were working under intense time pressures at the start of the epidemic. It is therefore open to question whether the single dose taken into clinical efficacy trials, and subsequently authorised by regulatory agencies, was optimal. In particular, our analysis indicates that the recommended doses for some vaccines appear to be unnecessarily high. Although reduced dosing for booster injections is an active area of research, the priming dose also merits study. We conclude by suggesting improvements in the design of future vaccine trials, for both next-generation COVID-19 vaccines and for vaccines against other pathogens.

Interpretation of active-control randomised trials: the case for a new analytical perspective involving averted events.

Active-control trials, where an experimental treatment is compared with an established treatment, are performed when the inclusion of a placebo control group is deemed to be unethical. For time-to-event outcomes, the primary estimand is usually the rate ratio, or the closely-related hazard ratio, comparing the experimental group with the control group. In this article we describe major problems in the interpretation of this estimand, using examples from COVID-19 vaccine and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. In particular, when the control treatment is highly effective, the rate ratio may indicate that the experimental treatment is clearly statistically inferior even when it is worthwhile from a public health perspective. We argue that it is crucially important to consider averted events as well as observed events in the interpretation of active-control trials. An alternative metric that incorporates this information, the averted events ratio, is proposed and exemplified. Its interpretation is simple and conceptually appealing, namely the proportion of events that would be averted by using the experimental treatment rather than the control treatment. The averted events ratio cannot be directly estimated from the active-control trial, and requires an additional assumption about either: (a) the incidence that would have been observed in a hypothetical placebo arm (the counterfactual incidence) or (b) the efficacy of the control treatment (relative to no treatment) that pertained in the active-control trial. Although estimation of these parameters is not straightforward, this must be attempted in order to draw rational inferences. To date, this method has been applied only within HIV prevention research, but has wider applicability to treatment trials and other disease areas.

COVAC1 phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is well tolerated and immunogenic in SARS-CoV-2 seronegative and seropositive individuals aged 18-75. Methods: A phase 2a expanded safety and immunogenicity study of a saRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at participating centres in the UK between 10th August 2020 and 30th July 2021. Participants received 1 µg then 10 µg of LNP-nCoVsaRNA, ∼14 weeks apart. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week post-each vaccine, and unsolicited AEs throughout. Binding and neutralisating anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, and SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation assay. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20). Findings: 216 healthy individuals (median age 51 years) received 1.0 µg followed by 10.0 µg of the vaccine. 28/216 participants were either known to have previous SARS-CoV2 infection and/or were positive for anti-Spike (S) IgG at baseline. Reactogenicity was as expected based on the reactions following licensed COVID-19 vaccines, and there were no serious AEs related to vaccination. 80% of baseline SARS-CoV-2 naïve individuals (147/183) seroconverted two weeks post second immunization, irrespective of age (18-75); 56% (102/183) had detectable neutralising antibodies. Almost all (28/31) SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals had increased S IgG binding antibodies following their first 1.0 µg dose with a ≥0.5log10 increase in 71% (22/31). Interpretation: Encapsulated saRNA was well tolerated and immunogenic in adults aged 18-75 years. Seroconversion rates in antigen naïve were higher than those reported in our dose-ranging study. Further work is required to determine if this difference is related to a longer dosing interval (14 vs. 4 weeks) or dosing with 1.0 µg followed by 10.0 µg. Boosting of S IgG antibodies was observed with a single 1.0 µg injection in those with pre-existing immune responses. Funding: Grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076), the National Institute for Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, and Restore the Earth.

Safety and immunogenicity of a self-amplifying RNA vaccine against COVID-19: COVAC1, a phase I, dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) encapsulated self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) is a novel technology formulated as a low dose vaccine against COVID-19. METHODS: A phase I first-in-human dose-ranging trial of a saRNA COVID-19 vaccine candidate LNP-nCoVsaRNA, was conducted at Imperial Clinical Research Facility, and participating centres in London, UK, between 19th June to 28th October 2020. Participants received two intramuscular (IM) injections of LNP-nCoVsaRNA at six different dose levels, 0.1-10.0µg, given four weeks apart. An open-label dose escalation was followed by a dose evaluation. Solicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for one week from enrolment, with follow-up at regular intervals (1-8 weeks). The binding and neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody raised in participant sera was measured by means of an anti-Spike (S) IgG ELISA, immunoblot, SARS-CoV-2 pseudoneutralisation and wild type neutralisation assays. (The trial is registered: ISRCTN17072692, EudraCT 2020-001646-20). FINDINGS: 192 healthy individuals with no history or serological evidence of COVID-19, aged 18-45 years were enrolled. The vaccine was well tolerated with no serious adverse events related to vaccination. Seroconversion at week six whether measured by ELISA or immunoblot was related to dose (both p<0.001), ranging from 8% (3/39; 0.1µg) to 61% (14/23; 10.0µg) in ELISA and 46% (18/39; 0.3µg) to 87% (20/23; 5.0µg and 10.0µg) in a post-hoc immunoblot assay. Geometric mean (GM) anti-S IgG concentrations ranged from 74 (95% CI, 45-119) at 0.1µg to 1023 (468-2236) ng/mL at 5.0µg (p<0.001) and was not higher at 10.0µg. Neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 by participant sera was measurable in 15% (6/39; 0.1µg) to 48% (11/23; 5.0µg) depending on dose level received. INTERPRETATION: Encapsulated saRNA is safe for clinical development, is immunogenic at low dose levels but failed to induce 100% seroconversion. Modifications to optimise humoral responses are required to realise its potential as an effective vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. FUNDING: This study was co-funded by grants and gifts from the Medical Research Council UKRI (MC_PC_19076), and the National Institute Health Research/Vaccine Task Force, Partners of Citadel and Citadel Securities, Sir Joseph Hotung Charitable Settlement, Jon Moulton Charity Trust, Pierre Andurand, Restore the Earth.

Using the adherence-efficacy relationship of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to calculate background hiv incidence: a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized trials of new agents for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) compare against emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF), without a placebo group. We used the well-characterized adherence-efficacy relationship for F/TDF to back-calculate the (non-PrEP) counterfactual background HIV incidence (bHIV) in a randomized trial of a novel PrEP agent and estimate comparative efficacy (to counterfactual bHIV). METHODS: The DISCOVER trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02842086) randomized 5387 men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women who have sex with men and demonstrated non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) to F/TDF (HIV incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·47, 95% CI: 0·19 to 1.15). Tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) levels in dried blood spots (DBS) were assessed for all diagnosed with HIV and in a random 10% of the cohort. We used a Bayesian model with a diffuse prior distribution, derived from established data relating tenofovir diphosphate levels to HIV prevention efficacy. This prior, combined with the F/TDF seroconversion rate and tenofovir diphosphate levels in DISCOVER, yielded Bayesian inferences on the counterfactual bHIV. RESULTS: There were six versus 11 postbaseline HIV infections (0.14 vs. 0.25/100 person-years [PY]) on F/TAF and F/TDF respectively. Of the 11 on F/TDF, 10 had low, none had medium and one had high tenofovir diphosphate levels; among HIV-negative controls, 5% of the person-time years had low, 9% had medium and 86% had high TFV-DP levels. A non-informative prior distribution for counterfactual bHIV, combined with the prior for TFV-DP level-efficacy relationship, yielded a posterior counterfactual bHIV of 3·4 infections/100 PY (0.80 Bayesian credible interval [CrI] 1·9 to 5·9), which suggests a median HIV efficacy of 96% (0.95 CrI [88% to 99%]) for F/TAF and 93% (0.95 CrI [87% to 96%]) for F/TDF compared to bHIV. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the established connection of drug concentrations to PrEP prevention efficacy, a Bayesian framework can be used to estimate a synthetic non-PrEP control group in randomized, active-controlled PrEP trials that include a F/TDF-comparator group.

Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate.

Objectives: The averted infections ratio (AIR) is a novel measure for quantifying the preservation-of-effect in active-control non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. In the main formulation, the AIR requires an estimate of the counterfactual placebo incidence rate. We describe two approaches for calculating confidence limits for the AIR given a point estimate of this parameter, a closed-form solution based on a Taylor series expansion (delta method) and an iterative method based on the profile-likelihood. Methods: For each approach, exact coverage probabilities for the lower and upper confidence limits were computed over a grid of values of (1) the true value of the AIR (2) the expected number of counterfactual events (3) the effectiveness of the active-control treatment. Results: Focussing on the lower confidence limit, which determines whether non-inferiority can be declared, the coverage achieved by the delta method is either less than or greater than the nominal coverage, depending on the true value of the AIR. In contrast, the coverage achieved by the profile-likelihood method is consistently accurate. Conclusions: The profile-likelihood method is preferred because of better coverage properties, but the simpler delta method is valid when the experimental treatment is no less effective than the control treatment. A complementary Bayesian approach, which can be applied when the counterfactual incidence rate can be represented as a prior distribution, is also outlined.

A Bayesian averted infection framework for PrEP trials with low numbers of HIV infections: application to the results of the DISCOVER trial.

Trials of candidate agents for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) might randomly assign participants to be given a new PrEP agent or oral coformulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine. This design presents unique challenges in interpretation. First, with two active arms, HIV incidence might be low. Second, the effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine varies across populations; thus, similar HIV incidence between groups could be consistent with a wide range of effectiveness for the new PrEP. We propose a two-part approach to trial results. First, we use Bayesian methods to incorporate assumptions about the background incidence of HIV in the trial in the absence of PrEP, possibly augmented by external data. On the basis of the estimated background incidence, we estimate and compare the number of averted (or prevented) HIV infections in each of the two trial groups, calculating the averted infections ratio. We apply these methods to a completed trial of tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine for PrEP. Our framework shows that leveraging external information to estimate averted infections and the averted infections ratio enhances the efficiency and interpretation of active-controlled PrEP trials.

Surveillance of HIV-1 transmitted integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance in the UK.

BACKGROUND: HIV treatment guidelines have traditionally recommended that all HIV-positive individuals are tested for evidence of drug resistance prior to starting ART. Testing for resistance to reverse transcriptase inhibitors and PIs is well established in routine care. However, testing for integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI) resistance is less consistent. OBJECTIVES: To inform treatment guidelines by determining the prevalence of InSTI resistance in a national cohort of recently infected individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Recent (within 4 months) HIV-1 infections were identified using a Recent Infection Testing Algorithm of new HIV-1 diagnoses in the UK. Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in integrase, protease and reverse transcriptase were detected by ultradeep sequencing, which allows for the sensitive estimation of the frequency of each resistant variant in a sample. RESULTS: The analysis included 655 randomly selected individuals (median age = 33 years, 95% male, 83% MSM, 78% white) sampled in the period 2014 to 2016 and determined to have a recent infection. These comprised 320, 138 and 197 samples from 2014, 2015 and 2016, respectively. None of the samples had major InSTI RAMs occurring at high variant frequency (≥20%). A subset (25/640, 3.9%) had major InSTI RAMs occurring only as low-frequency variants (2%-20%). In contrast, 47/588 (8.0%) had major reverse transcriptase inhibitor and PI RAMs at high frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2014 and 2016, major InSTI RAMs were uncommon in adults with recent HIV-1 infection, only occurring as low-frequency variants of doubtful clinical significance. Continued surveillance of newly diagnosed patients for evidence of transmitted InSTI resistance is recommended to inform clinical practice.

First-line HIV treatment outcomes following the introduction of integrase inhibitors in UK guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the characteristics and outcomes of people who initiated different antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens during the era of integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). DESIGN: UK-based observational cohort study. METHODS: UK Collaborative HIV Cohort study participants were included if they had started ART between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2017. Virological failure was defined as the first of two consecutive plasma HIV RNA more than 50 copies/ml, at least 6 months after starting ART. Follow-up was censored at ART discontinuation, class switch or death. The risk of virological failure among those on INSTI, protease inhibitor or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) regimens was compared using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. RESULTS: Of 12 585 participants, 45.6% started a NNRTI, 29.0% a protease inhibitor and 25.4% an INSTI regimen. Over a median follow-up of 20.3 months (interquartile range 7.9-38.9), 7.5% of participants experienced virological failure. Compared with those starting an NNRTI regimen, people receiving INSTIs or protease inhibitors were more likely to experience virological failure: INSTI group adjusted hazard ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.19-1.95, P = 0.0009; protease inhibitor group adjusted hazard ratio 2.70, 95% confidence interval 2.27-3.21, P less than 0.0001, likelihood ratio test P less than 0.0001. CONCLUSION: First-line INSTI regimens were associated with a lower risk of virological failure than protease inhibitor regimens but both groups were more likely to experience virological failure than those initiating treatment with a NNRTI. There is likely to be residual channelling bias resulting from selected use of INSTIs and protease inhibitors in specific clinical contexts, including in those with a perceived risk of poor adherence.

Exploring Mechanisms of Action: Using a Testing Typology to Understand Intervention Performance in an HIV Self-Testing RCT in England and Wales.

SELPHI involves two interventions: (A) It provides one HIV self-testing (HIVST) kit; (B) It offers 3-monthly repeat HIVST kits if participants report ongoing risk. A logic model underpinned by the Behaviour Change Wheel informed the design of the intervention. SELPHI recruited 10,135 cis-men and trans people in England and Wales, all reporting anal sex with a man. This paper explores how the interventions were experienced and the pathways to impact for different groups of trial participants. In-depth interviews with 37 cis-men who have sex with men (MSM) were used to inductively categorise participants based on sexual and HIV testing histories. Themes relating to intervention experiences and impacts were mapped onto SELPHI-hypothesised intermediate outcomes to consider intervention impacts. Three groups were identified: 'Inexperienced testers' engaged with SELPHI to overcome motivational and social and physical opportunity testing barriers. For 'pro self-testers', testing frequency was constrained by psychological and social barriers and lack of opportunity. 'Opportunistic adopters' engaged in HIVST for novelty and convenience. Perceived impacts for inexperienced testers were most closely aligned with the logic model, but for opportunistic adopters there was little evidence of impact. Distinctive groups were discernible with divergent intervention experiences. Using COM-B as a model for understanding behaviour change in relation to HIVST, our results indicate how HIVST interventions could be adapted to respond to different needs based on the target population's demographic and behavioural features.

Chemsex is not a barrier to self-reported daily PrEP adherence among PROUD study participants.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a novel HIV prevention method whereby HIV-negative individuals take the drugs tenofovir and emtricitabine to prevent HIV acquisition. Optimal adherence is critical for PrEP efficacy. Chemsex describes sexual activity under the influence of psychoactive drugs, in the UK typically; crystal methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyrate(GHB) and/or mephedrone. Chemsex drug use has been associated with increased HIV transmission risk among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) and poor ART adherence among people living with HIV. This study assessed whether self-reported chemsex events affected self-reported daily PrEP adherence among PROUD study participants. METHODS: The PROUD study was an open-label, randomised controlled trial, conducted in thirteen English sexual health clinics, assessing effectiveness of TruvadaⓇ-PrEP among 544 HIV-negative GBM. The study reported an 86% risk-reduction of HIV from daily PrEP. Participants were asked about chemsex engagement at follow-up visits. Monthly self-reports of missed PrEP tablets were aggregated to assess adherence between visits. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to test for associations between chemsex and reporting less than seven out of seven intended doses(<7/7ID) in the 7 days before and/or after last condomless anal intercourse(CAI). RESULTS: 1479 follow-up visit forms and 2260 monthly adherence forms from 388 participants were included in the analyses, with 38.5% visit forms reporting chemsex since last visit and 29.9% follow-up periods reporting <7/7ID. No statistically significant associations were observed between reporting <7/7ID and chemsex (aOR=1.29 [95% CI 0.90-1.87], p = 0.168). Statistically significant associations were seen between reporting <7/7ID and participants perceiving that they would miss PrEP doses during the trial, Asian ethnicity, and reporting unemployment at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses suggest PrEP remains a feasible and effective HIV prevention method for GBM engaging in chemsex, a practise which is prevalent in this group and has been associated with increased HIV transmission risk.

Associations between baseline characteristics, CD4 cell count response and virological failure on first-line efavirenz + tenofovir + emtricitabine for HIV.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between baseline characteristics and CD4 cell count response on first-line antiretroviral therapy and risk of virological failure (VF) with or without drug resistance. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of UK Collaborative HIV Cohort data linked to the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database. Inclusion criteria were viral sequence showing no resistance prior to initiation of first-line efavirenz + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine and virological suppression within 6 months. Outcomes of VF (≥200 copies/mL) with or without drug resistance were assessed using a competing risks approach fitted jointly with a model for CD4 cell count recovery. Hazard ratios for each VF outcome were estimated for baseline CD4 cell count and viral load and characteristics of CD4 cell count response using latent variables on a standard normal scale. RESULTS: A total of 3640 people were included with 338 VF events; corresponding viral sequences were available in 134 with ≥1 resistance mutation in 36. VF with resistance was associated with lower baseline CD4 (0.30, 0.09-0.62), lower CD4 recovery (0.04, 0.00-0.17) and higher CD4 variability (4.40, 1.22-12.68). A different pattern of associations was observed for VF without resistance, but the strength of these results was less consistent across sensitivity analyses. Cumulative incidence of VF with resistance was estimated to be <2% at 3 years for baseline CD4 ≥350 cells/µL. CONCLUSION: Lower baseline CD4 cell count and suboptimal CD4 recovery are associated with VF with drug resistance. People with low CD4 cell count before ART or with suboptimal CD4 recovery on treatment should be a priority for regimens with high genetic barrier to resistance.

Mosaic effectiveness: measuring the impact of novel PrEP methods.

Various ongoing trials seek to evaluate long-acting pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) agents by showing that they are non-inferior to daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine. Trials comparing oral PrEP to new methods examine effectiveness in a setting where only one or the other is provided; however, a new product will probably be delivered in a context where oral PrEP is also available. The effectiveness of a new PrEP product is best measured by its potential effect in a context that also includes oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine as an option. We offer an alternative standard for long-acting products-a measure of the effectiveness of the new product in addition to oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine as compared with oral PrEP alone. We term this measure mosaic effectiveness. We illustrate scenarios where a novel product can fail to show non-inferiority but show substantial mosaic effectiveness, thus implying the public health value of the novel product even if it is less effective than oral PrEP. Regulatory standards should consider mosaic effectiveness, not just comparative effectiveness. We assert that measurements that combine rigor with public health relevance can accelerate progress against the HIV epidemic.

Pilot phase of an internet-based RCT of HIVST targeting MSM and transgender people in England and Wales: advertising strategies and acceptability of the intervention.

BACKGROUND: The SELPHI study (An HIV Self-Testing Public Health Intervention) is an online randomised controlled trial (RCT) of HIV self-testing (HIVST). The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting UK men who have sex with men (cis and trans) and trans women who have sex with men to the SELPHI pilot, and the acceptability of the HIVST intervention used among those randomised to receive a kit. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach to assessing trial feasibility and intervention acceptability was taken, using quantitative data from advertising sources and RCT surveys alongside qualitative data from a nested sub-study. RESULTS: Online recruitment and intervention delivery was feasible. The recruitment strategy led to the registration of 1370 participants of whom 76% (1035) successfully enrolled and were randomised 60/40 to baseline testing vs no baseline testing. Advertising platforms performed variably. Reported HIVST kit use increased from 83% at two weeks to 96% at three months. Acceptability was very high across all quantitative measures. Participants described the instructions as easy to use, and the testing process as simple. The support structures in SELPHI were felt to be adequate. Described emotional responses to HIVST varied. CONCLUSIONS: Recruiting to a modest sized HIVST pilot RCT is feasible, and the recruitment, intervention and HIVST kit were acceptable. Research on support needs of individuals with reactive results is warranted.

The Connection between the Averted Infections Ratio and the Rate Ratio in Active-control Trials of Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Agents.

The design and analysis of active-control trials to evaluate experimental HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) agents pose serious statistical challenges. We recently proposed a new outcome measure, the averted infections ratio (AIR) - the proportion of infections that would be averted by using the experimental agent rather than the control agent (compared to no intervention). The main aim of the current paper is to examine the mathematical connection between AIR and the HIV incidence rate ratio, the standard outcome measure. We also consider the sample size implications of the choice of primary outcome measure and explore the connection between effectiveness and efficacy under a simplified model of adherence.

Predictive factors for HIV infection among men who have sex with men and who are seeking PrEP: a secondary analysis of the PROUD trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a highly effective method of HIV prevention for men who have sex with men (MSM). However, uncertainty remains around the optimal eligibility criteria for PrEP, specifically whether there are subgroups at low risk of HIV for whom PrEP might not be warranted. METHODS: PROUD was an open-label waitlist trial design that randomised MSM attending participating sexual health centres in England to receive PrEP immediately (IMM) or after a deferral period of 1 year (DEF). This analysis is based on participants who were randomised to the deferred arm, when they did not have access to PrEP. HIV incidence was compared between subgroups defined by baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 21 participants acquired HIV infection over 239.3 person-years (PY) follow-up, yielding an incidence rate of 8.8/100 PY (95% CI 5.4 to 13.4). Two highly significant predictors for HIV acquisition were identified. Men with a self-reported diagnosis of syphilis, rectal chlamydia (CT) or rectal gonorrhoea (GC) in the previous 12 months had an incidence of 17.2/100 PY (95% CI 9.7 to 28.5); those reporting receptive anal intercourse without a condom (ncRAI) with two or more partners in the previous 3 months had an incidence of 13.6/100 PY (95% CI 7.9 to 21.7). The incidence rate among participants lacking both of these risk factors was 1.1/100 PY (1/87.6, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.4). CONCLUSIONS: The high HIV incidence in PROUD suggests that most participants appropriately judged their need for PrEP. Eligibility criteria for a PrEP programme can therefore be broad, as in the current guidelines. However, a recent history of syphilis or rectal CT/GC, or multiple ncRAI partners indicates a high imminent risk of HIV infection. MSM with any of these characteristics should be offered PrEP as a matter of urgency.

Virological outcomes of boosted protease inhibitor-based first-line ART in subjects harbouring thymidine analogue-associated mutations as the sole form of transmitted drug resistance.

OBJECTIVES: In subjects with transmitted thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs), boosted PIs (PI/b) are often chosen to overcome possible resistance to the NRTI backbone. However, data to guide treatment selection are limited. Our aim was to obtain firmer guidance for clinical practice using real-world cohort data. METHODS: We analysed 1710 subjects who started a PI/b in combination with tenofovir or abacavir plus emtricitabine or lamivudine, and compared their virological outcomes with those of 4889 patients who started an NNRTI (predominantly efavirenz), according to the presence of ≥1 TAM as the sole form of transmitted drug resistance. RESULTS: Participants with ≥1 TAM comprised predominantly MSM (213 of 269, 79.2%), subjects of white ethnicity (206 of 269, 76.6%) and HIV-1 subtype B infections (234 of 269, 87.0%). Most (203 of 269, 75.5%) had singleton TAMs, commonly a revertant of T215Y or T215F (112 of 269, 41.6%). Over a median of 2.5 years of follow-up, 834 of 6599 (12.6%) subjects experienced viraemia (HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/mL). The adjusted HR for viraemia was 2.17 with PI/b versus NNRTI-based therapy (95% CI 1.88-2.51; P < 0.001). Other independent predictors of viraemia included injecting drug use, black ethnicity, higher viral load and lower CD4 cell count at baseline, and receiving abacavir instead of tenofovir. Resistance showed no overall impact (adjusted HR 0.77 with ≥1 TAM versus no resistance; 95% CI 0.54-1.10; P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patients harbouring ≥1 TAM as the sole form of transmitted drug resistance gained no apparent virological advantage from starting first-line ART with a PI/b.