Dataset Information

Point-of-care HIV viral load testing combined with task shifting to improve treatment outcomes (STREAM): findings from an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Monitoring HIV treatment with laboratory testing introduces delays for providing appropriate care in resource-limited settings. The aim of our study was to determine whether point-of-care HIV viral load testing with task shifting changed treatment and care outcomes for adults on antiretroviral therapy (ART) when compared with standard laboratory viral load testing.

Methods

We did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in a public clinic in Durban, South Africa. We enrolled HIV-positive adults (aged ≥18 years) who presented for their first routine HIV viral load test 6 months after ART initiation. Individuals were randomly assigned by a random number allocation sequence to receive either point-of-care viral load testing at enrolment and after 6 months with task shifting to enrolled nurses (intervention group), or laboratory viral load testing (standard-of-care group). The primary outcome was combined viral suppression (<200 copies per mL) and retention at 12 months after enrolment. A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03066128.

Findings

Between Feb 24, 2017, and Aug 23, 2017, we screened 657 participants, and 390 were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=195) or standard-of-care group (n=195). 175 (90%) individuals in the intervention group and 148 (76%) individuals in the standard-of-care group had the primary outcome of retention with viral suppression, a difference of 13·9% (95% CI 6·4-21·2; p<0·00040). 182 participants (93%) in the intervention group had viral suppression compared with 162 (83%) in the standard-of-care group (difference 10·3%, 3·9-16·8; p=0·0025); 180 (92%) and 162 (85%) were retained in care (7·7%, 1·3-14·2; p=0·026). There were no adverse events related to point-of-care HIV viral load testing or task shifting.

Interpretation

Point-of-care viral load testing combined with task shifting significantly improved viral suppression and retention in HIV care. Point-of-care testing can simplify treatment and improve outcomes for HIV-positive adults receiving ART in resource-limited settings.

Funding

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

SUBMITTER: Drain PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7183312 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAchieving the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS 90-90-90 targets requires models of HIV care that expand antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage without overburdening health systems. Point-of-care (POC) viral load (VL) testing has the potential to efficiently monitor ART treatment, while enrolled nurses may be able to provide safe and cost-effective chronic care for stable patients with HIV. This study aims to demonstrate whether POC VL testing combined with task shifting to enrolled nurses is non-inferior and cost-effective compared with laboratory-based VL monitoring and standard HIV care.Methods and analysisThe STREAM (Simplifying HIV TREAtment and Monitoring) study is an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled implementation trial. HIV-positive adults, clinically stable at 6 months after ART initiation, will be recruited in a large urban clinic in South Africa. Approximately 396 participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive POC HIV VL monitoring and potential task shifting to enrolled nurses, versus laboratory VL monitoring and standard South African HIV care. Initial clinic follow-up will be 2-monthly in both arms, with VL testing at enrolment, 6 months and 12 months. At 6 months (1 year after ART initiation), stable participants in both arms will qualify for a differentiated care model involving decentralised ART pickup at community-based pharmacies. The primary outcome is retention in care and virological suppression at 12 months from enrolment. Secondary outcomes include time to appropriate entry into the decentralised ART delivery programme, costs per virologically suppressed patient and cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared with standard care. Findings will inform the scale up of VL testing and differentiated care in HIV-endemic resource-limited settings.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BFC296/16) and University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00001466). Results will be presented at international conferences and published in academic peer-reviewed journals.Trial registrationNCT03066128; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe STREAM stage 1 trial showed that a 9-month regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis was non-inferior to the 20-month 2011 WHO-recommended regimen. In STREAM stage 2, we aimed to compare two bedaquiline-containing regimens with the 9-month STREAM stage 1 regimen.MethodsWe did a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial in 13 hospital clinics in seven countries, in individuals aged 15 years or older with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance. Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 to the 2011 WHO regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of second-line injectable. Randomisations were stratified by site, HIV status, and CD4 count. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome) at 76 weeks; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable outcomes. All comparisons used groups of participants randomly assigned concurrently. For non-inferiority to be shown, the upper boundary of the 95% CI should be less than 10% in both modified intention-to-treat (mITT) and per-protocol analyses, with prespecified tests for superiority done if non-inferiority was shown. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN18148631.FindingsBetween March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 1436 participants were screened and 588 were randomly assigned. Of 517 participants in the mITT population, 133 (71%) of 187 on the control regimen and 162 (83%) of 196 on the oral regimen had a favourable outcome: a difference of 11·0% (95% CI 2·9-19·0), adjusted for HIV status and randomisation protocol (p<0·0001 for non-inferiority). By 76 weeks, 108 (53%) of 202 participants on the control regimen and 106 (50%) of 211 allocated to the oral regimen had an adverse event of grade 3 or 4; five (2%) participants on the control regimen and seven (3%) on the oral regimen had died. Hearing loss (Brock grade 3 or 4) was more frequent in participants on the control regimen than in those on the oral regimen (18 [9%] vs four [2%], p=0·0015). Of 134 participants in the mITT population who were allocated to the 6-month regimen, 122 (91%) had a favourable outcome compared with 87 (69%) of 127 participants randomly assigned concurrently to the control regimen (adjusted difference 22·2%, 95% CI 13·1-31·2); six (4%) of 143 participants on the 6-month regimen had grade 3 or 4 hearing loss.InterpretationBoth bedaquiline-containing regimens, a 9-month oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of second-line injectable, had superior efficacy compared with a 9-month injectable-containing regimen, with fewer cases of hearing loss.FundingUSAID and Janssen Research & Development.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent health policy states that patients with osteoarthritis (OA) should mainly be managed in primary health care. Still, research shows that patients with hand OA have poor access to recommended treatment in primary care, and in Norway, they are increasingly referred to rheumatologist consultations in specialist care. In this randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, we will test if a new model, where patients referred to consultation in specialist health care receive their first consultation by an occupational therapy (OT) specialist, is as safe and effective as the traditional model, where they receive their first consultation by a rheumatologist. More specifically, we will answer the following questions: 1. What are the characteristics of patients with hand OA referred to specialist health care with regards to joint affection, disease activity, symptoms and function? 2. Is OT-led hand OA care as effective and safe as rheumatologist-led care with respect to treatment response, disease activity, symptoms, function and patient satisfaction? 3. Is OT-led hand OA care equal to, or more cost effective than rheumatologist-led care? 4. Which factors, regardless of hand OA care, predict improvement 6 and 12 months after baseline?MethodsParticipants will be patients with hand OA diagnosed by a general practitioner and referred for consultation at one of two Norwegian departments of rheumatology. Those who agree will attend a clinical assessment and report their symptoms and function in validated outcome measures, before they are randomly selected to receive their first consultation by an OT specialist (n = 200) or by a rheumatologist (n = 200). OTs may refer patients to a rheumatologist consultation and vice versa. The primary outcome will be the number of patients classified as OMERACT/OARSI-responders after six months. Secondary outcomes are pain, function and satisfaction with care over the twelve-month trial period. The analysis of the primary outcome will be done by logistic regression. A two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in response probability will be formed, and non-inferiority of OT-led care will be claimed if the upper endpoint of this interval does not exceed 15%.DiscussionThe findings will improve access to evidence-based management of people with hand OA.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102788. Registered April 6th, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03102788?term=Kjeken&draw=2&rank=1 Date and version identifier: December 17th, 2020. First version.

Project description:IntroductionSubstantial improvements in viral suppression among people living with HIV (PLHIV) are needed to end the HIV epidemic, requiring extensive scale-up of low-cost HIV monitoring services. Point-of-care (POC) tests for monitoring antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence and viral load (VL) may be efficient and effective tools for real-time clinical decision making. We aim to evaluate the effects of a combined intervention of POC ART adherence and VL testing compared with standard-of-care on ART adherence, viral suppression and retention at 6 and 18 months post-ART initiation among PLHIV.Methods and analysisSimplifying TREAtment and Monitoring for HIV (STREAM HIV) is a two-arm, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial of POC urine tenofovir (POC TFV) and VL monitoring in PLHIV. We aim to enrol 540 PLHIV initiating a first-line ART regimen at a public HIV clinic in South Africa. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention or control arm. Intervention arm participants will receive monthly POC TFV testing for the first 5 months and POC VL testing at months 6 and 12. Intervention arm participants will also receive reflex POC TFV testing if viraemic and reflex HIV drug resistance testing for those with viraemia and detectable TFV. Control arm participants will receive standard-of-care, including laboratory-based VL testing at months 6 and 12. Primary outcomes include ART adherence (TFV-diphosphate concentration) at 6 months and viral suppression and retention at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include viral suppression and retention at 6 months, TFV-diphosphate concentration at 18 months, cost and cost-effectiveness of the intervention and acceptability of the intervention among PLHIV and healthcare workers.Ethics and disseminationSTREAM HIV has received ethical approval from the University of Washington Institutional Review Board (STUDY00007544), University of KwaZulu-Natal Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC/00000833/2019) and Division of AIDS Regulatory Support Center (38509). Findings will be disseminated at international conferences and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT04341779.

Project description:IntroductionPeople suffering from leg muscle weakness caused by neuromuscular disorders (NMDs) are often provided with leg orthoses to reduce walking problems such as increased walking effort, diminished walking speed, reduced balance and falls. However, evidence for the effectiveness of leg orthoses to improve walking in this patient group is limited and there is an absence of standardised practice in orthotic prescription. In 2012 a Dutch multidisciplinary guideline was developed aimed to standardise the orthotic treatment process in NMD. Although application of the guideline in expert centres (specialised orthotic care) seems beneficial regarding clinical effectiveness, larger studies are necessary to confirm results and investigate cost-effectiveness. Therefore, this study aims to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of specialised orthotic care compared with usual orthotic care in adults with slowly progressive NMD.Methods and analysisA prospective randomised open-label blinded end-point study will be performed, in which 70 adults with slowly progressive NMD are randomly assigned to specialised orthotic care (intervention) or usual orthotic care (control). Outcome measures are assessed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months follow-up. The primary endpoints are gross walking energy cost (J/kg/m) assessed during a 6 min walk test and achievement of personal goals, measured with the Goal Attainment Scale. Secondary endpoints include walking speed, gait biomechanics, stability, physical functioning, falls and fear of falling, perceived fatigue and satisfaction. For the economic evaluation, societal costs and health-related quality of life will be assessed using cost questionnaires and the 5-Level version of EuroQol 5 Dimension, retrospectively.Ethics and disseminationThe study is registered in the Dutch trial register (NL 7511) and the protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam. Results will be presented at national and international scientific conferences and disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and media aimed at a broad audience including patients.

Project description:BackgroundLocalised prostate cancer is commonly treated with external-beam radiotherapy. Moderate hypofractionation has been shown to be non-inferior to conventional fractionation. Ultra-hypofractionated stereotactic body radiotherapy would allow shorter treatment courses but could increase acute toxicity compared with conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy. We report the acute toxicity findings from a randomised trial of standard-of-care conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy versus five-fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy for low-risk to intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer.MethodsPACE is an international, phase 3, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial. In PACE-B, eligible men aged 18 years and older, with WHO performance status 0-2, low-risk or intermediate-risk prostate adenocarcinoma (Gleason 4 + 3 excluded), and scheduled to receive radiotherapy were recruited from 37 centres in three countries (UK, Ireland, and Canada). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) by computerised central randomisation with permuted blocks (size four and six), stratified by centre and risk group, to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (78 Gy in 39 fractions over 7·8 weeks or 62 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks, respectively) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (36·25 Gy in five fractions over 1-2 weeks). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. Androgen deprivation was not permitted. The primary endpoint of PACE-B is freedom from biochemical or clinical failure. The coprimary outcomes for this acute toxicity substudy were worst grade 2 or more severe Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxic effects score up to 12 weeks after radiotherapy. Analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01584258. PACE-B recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing.FindingsBetween Aug 7, 2012, and Jan 4, 2018, we randomly assigned 874 men to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=441) or stereotactic body radiotherapy (n=433). 432 (98%) of 441 patients allocated to conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy and 415 (96%) of 433 patients allocated to stereotactic body radiotherapy received at least one fraction of allocated treatment. Worst acute RTOG gastrointestinal toxic effect proportions were as follows: grade 2 or more severe toxic events in 53 (12%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 43 (10%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -1·9 percentage points, 95% CI -6·2 to 2·4; p=0·38). Worst acute RTOG genitourinary toxicity proportions were as follows: grade 2 or worse toxicity in 118 (27%) of 432 patients in the conventionally fractionated or moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy group versus 96 (23%) of 415 patients in the stereotactic body radiotherapy group (difference -4·2 percentage points, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·7; p=0·16). No treatment-related deaths occurred.InterpretationPrevious evidence (from the HYPO-RT-PC trial) suggested higher patient-reported toxicity with ultrahypofractionation. By contrast, our results suggest that substantially shortening treatment courses with stereotactic body radiotherapy does not increase either gastrointestinal or genitourinary acute toxicity.FundingAccuray and National Institute of Health Research.