4.8 Article

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

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 381, 期 3, 页码 207-218

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814556

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) [UM1-AI068619, UM1-AI068617, UM1-AI068613]
  2. U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  4. NIAID, National Institutes of Health
  5. National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health
  6. National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health
  7. U.K. Medical Research Council (MRC) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement, second program of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership - European Union [MR/R010161/1]
  8. U.K. Department for International Development (DFID) under the MRC/DFID Concordat agreement, second program of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership - European Union [MR/R010161/1]
  9. MRC [R/R015600/1]
  10. DFID, MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis [R/R015600/1]
  11. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit [HPRU-2012-10080]
  12. Public Health England [HPRU-2012-10080]
  13. NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
  14. MRC [MR/R010161/1, MR/R015600/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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, .) HIV treatment has benefits to the patient, but does it decrease community HIV transmission as well? In this community-randomized trial in Zambia and South Africa, universal HIV testing with linkage to care and antiretroviral treatment according to local guidelines decreased HIV incidence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据