142
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of HIV-1 infection (PROUD): effectiveness results from the pilot phase of a pragmatic open-label randomised trial

      research-article
      , Prof, MSc a , o , * , , , Prof, PhD a , , , MPH a , b , , MSc a , , PhD a , , MD c , r , , MD d , , BM e , , MBChB f , , MBBS g , , MD h , , BM i , , Prof, MD j , , MPH k , , BM l , , MD m , , PhD n , , PhD o , , Prof, MD q , , MD p , , PhD b , , Prof, FRCP e , , MBBS o , , Prof, PhD r , , Prof, PhD r , , Prof, MD d , , Prof, MB b
      Lancet (London, England)
      Elsevier

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Randomised placebo-controlled trials have shown that daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir–emtricitabine reduces the risk of HIV infection. However, this benefit could be counteracted by risk compensation in users of PrEP. We did the PROUD study to assess this effect.

          Methods

          PROUD is an open-label randomised trial done at 13 sexual health clinics in England. We enrolled HIV-negative gay and other men who have sex with men who had had anal intercourse without a condom in the previous 90 days. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive daily combined tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (245 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg) either immediately or after a deferral period of 1 year. Randomisation was done via web-based access to a central computer-generated list with variable block sizes (stratified by clinical site). Follow-up was quarterly. The primary outcomes for the pilot phase were time to accrue 500 participants and retention; secondary outcomes included incident HIV infection during the deferral period, safety, adherence, and risk compensation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN94465371) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02065986).

          Findings

          We enrolled 544 participants (275 in the immediate group, 269 in the deferred group) between Nov 29, 2012, and April 30, 2014. Based on early evidence of effectiveness, the trial steering committee recommended on Oct 13, 2014, that all deferred participants be offered PrEP. Follow-up for HIV incidence was complete for 243 (94%) of 259 patient-years in the immediate group versus 222 (90%) of 245 patient-years in the deferred group. Three HIV infections occurred in the immediate group (1·2/100 person-years) versus 20 in the deferred group (9·0/100 person-years) despite 174 prescriptions of post-exposure prophylaxis in the deferred group (relative reduction 86%, 90% CI 64–96, p=0·0001; absolute difference 7·8/100 person-years, 90% CI 4·3–11·3). 13 men (90% CI 9–23) in a similar population would need access to 1 year of PrEP to avert one HIV infection. We recorded no serious adverse drug reactions; 28 adverse events, most commonly nausea, headache, and arthralgia, resulted in interruption of PrEp. We detected no difference in the occurrence of sexually transmitted infections, including rectal gonorrhoea and chlamydia, between groups, despite a suggestion of risk compensation among some PrEP recipients.

          Interpretation

          In this high incidence population, daily tenofovir–emtricitabine conferred even higher protection against HIV than in placebo-controlled trials, refuting concerns that effectiveness would be less in a real-world setting. There was no evidence of an increase in other sexually transmitted infections. Our findings strongly support the addition of PrEP to the standard of prevention for men who have sex with men at risk of HIV infection.

          Funding

          MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Public Health England, and Gilead Sciences.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men

          Antiretroviral chemoprophylaxis before exposure is a promising approach for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition. We randomly assigned 2499 HIV-seronegative men or transgender women who have sex with men to receive a combination of two oral antiretroviral drugs, emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC-TDF), or placebo once daily. All subjects received HIV testing, risk-reduction counseling, condoms, and management of sexually transmitted infections. The study subjects were followed for 3324 person-years (median, 1.2 years; maximum, 2.8 years). Of these subjects, 10 were found to have been infected with HIV at enrollment, and 100 became infected during follow-up (36 in the FTC-TDF group and 64 in the placebo group), indicating a 44% reduction in the incidence of HIV (95% confidence interval, 15 to 63; P=0.005). In the FTC-TDF group, the study drug was detected in 22 of 43 of seronegative subjects (51%) and in 3 of 34 HIV-infected subjects (9%) (P<0.001). Nausea was reported more frequently during the first 4 weeks in the FTC-TDF group than in the placebo group (P<0.001). The two groups had similar rates of serious adverse events (P=0.57). Oral FTC-TDF provided protection against the acquisition of HIV infection among the subjects. Detectable blood levels strongly correlated with the prophylactic effect. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00458393.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Antiretroviral Prophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Heterosexual Men and Women

            New England Journal of Medicine, 367(5), 399-410
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana.

              Preexposure prophylaxis with antiretroviral agents has been shown to reduce the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) among men who have sex with men; however, the efficacy among heterosexuals is uncertain. We randomly assigned HIV-seronegative men and women to receive either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) or matching placebo once daily. Monthly study visits were scheduled, and participants received a comprehensive package of prevention services, including HIV testing, counseling on adherence to medication, management of sexually transmitted infections, monitoring for adverse events, and individualized counseling on risk reduction; bone mineral density testing was performed semiannually in a subgroup of participants. A total of 1219 men and women underwent randomization (45.7% women) and were followed for 1563 person-years (median, 1.1 years; maximum, 3.7 years). Because of low retention and logistic limitations, we concluded the study early and followed enrolled participants through an orderly study closure rather than expanding enrollment. The TDF-FTC group had higher rates of nausea (18.5% vs. 7.1%, P<0.001), vomiting (11.3% vs. 7.1%, P=0.008), and dizziness (15.1% vs. 11.0%, P=0.03) than the placebo group, but the rates of serious adverse events were similar (P=0.90). Participants who received TDF-FTC, as compared with those who received placebo, had a significant decline in bone mineral density. K65R, M184V, and A62V resistance mutations developed in 1 participant in the TDF-FTC group who had had an unrecognized acute HIV infection at enrollment. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included the 33 participants who became infected during the study (9 in the TDF-FTC group and 24 in the placebo group; 1.2 and 3.1 infections per 100 person-years, respectively), the efficacy of TDF-FTC was 62.2% (95% confidence interval, 21.5 to 83.4; P=0.03). Daily TDF-FTC prophylaxis prevented HIV infection in sexually active heterosexual adults. The long-term safety of daily TDF-FTC prophylaxis, including the effect on bone mineral density, remains unknown. (Funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health; TDF2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00448669.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                02 January 2016
                02 January 2016
                : 387
                : 10013
                : 53-60
                Affiliations
                [a ]MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, UK
                [b ]HIV & STI Department, Public Health England Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control, London, UK
                [c ]The Mortimer Market Centre, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [d ]St Stephen's Centre, Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [e ]Claude Nicol Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, UK
                [f ]Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [g ]Manchester Centre for Sexual Health, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
                [h ]St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [i ]Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
                [j ]York Teaching Hospital and Hull York Medical School, University of York, York, UK
                [k ]Ambrose King Centre and Barts Sexual Health Centre, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK
                [l ]King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [m ]Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [n ]Birmingham Heartlands Hospital, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
                [o ]56 Dean Street, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
                [p ]Gilead Sciences Foster City, CA, USA
                [q ]University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
                [r ]Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Sheena McCormack, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Aviation House, London WC2B 6NH, UKCorrespondence to: Prof Sheena McCormackMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCLAviation HouseLondonWC2B 6NHUK s.mccormack@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                [†]

                Equal contribution

                Article
                S0140-6736(15)00056-2
                10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00056-2
                4700047
                26364263
                c7332fa5-f551-467b-9ab3-1d1710b7ffed
                © 2016 McCormack et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article