Summary Background Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), with daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in combination with emtricitabine, has been shown to ...be efficacious for HIV-1 prevention. Although the use of more than one antiretroviral agent is essential for effective HIV-1 treatment, more than one agent might not be required for effective prophylaxis. We assessed the efficacy of single-agent tenofovir disoproxil fumarate relative to combination emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as PrEP. Methods We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled three-group phase 3 trial of daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate PrEP in HIV-1 uninfected individuals in heterosexual HIV-1 serodiscordant couples from Kenya and Uganda. After an interim review, the trial's placebo group was discontinued and thereafter the active groups were continued, and participants initially randomly assigned to placebo were offered rerandomisation in a 1:1 ratio to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate as PrEP. The primary endpoints were HIV-1 seroconversion and safety. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00557245. Findings 4410 (99·6%) of 4427 couples received tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and were followed up for HIV-1 acquisition. Of 52 incident HIV-1 infections, 31 occurred in individuals assigned tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (incidence 0·71 cases per 100 person-years) and 21 were in those assigned emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·48 cases per 100 person-years); HIV-1 incidence in the placebo group until discontinuation was two cases per 100 person-years. HIV-1 prevention efficacy with emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was not significantly different from that of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate alone (hazard ratio HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·39–1·17; p=0·16). Detection of tenofovir in plasma samples, compared with no detection and as measured in seroconverters and a subset of non-seroconverters, was associated with an 85% relative risk reduction in HIV-1 acquisition for the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (HR 0·15, 95% CI 0·06–0·37; p<0·0001) and 93% for the emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·07, 0·02–0·23; p<0·0001). No significant differences were noted in the frequency of deaths, serious adverse events, or serum creatinine and phosphorus abnormalities between the two groups. Interpretation These results do not rule out the potential for a slight difference in HIV-1 protection with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate compared with emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, but show that once-daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or emtricitabine plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimens both provide high protection against HIV-1 acquisition in heterosexual men and women. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and US National Institutes of Health.
Summary Background Co-infection with HIV and helminths is common in sub-Saharan Africa and findings from previous studies have suggested that anthelmintic treatment might delay immunosuppression in ...people with HIV. We aimed to assess the efficacy of empiric deworming of adults with HIV in delaying HIV disease progression. Methods In this non-blinded randomised trial, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV who did not meet criteria for the initiation of antiretroviral treatment from three sites in Kenya. Using a computer-generated sequence, we randomly assigned (1:1) eligible participants to either empiric albendazole every 3 months plus praziquantel annually (treatment group) or to standard care (control group). Participants were followed up for 24 months. We measured CD4 cell counts every 6 months and plasma HIV RNA annually. The primary endpoints were a CD4 count of less than 350 cells per μL and a composite endpoint consisting of the first occurrence of a CD4 count of less than 350 cells per μL, first reported use of antiretroviral treatment, and non-traumatic deaths. We compared these measures by use of Cox proportional hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses. Primary analysis was done by intention to treat. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00507221. Findings Between Feb 6, 2008, and June 21, 2011, we enrolled and followed-up 948 participants; 469 were allocated to the treatment group and 479 to the control group. All participants were provided with co-trimoxazole prophylaxis. Median baseline CD4 cell counts and HIV RNA concentrations did not differ between groups. We recorded no statistically significant difference between the treatment and control groups in the number of people reaching a CD4 count of fewer than 350 cells per μL (41·6 events per 100 person-years vs 46·2 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·75–1·06, p=0·2) or the composite endpoint (44·0 events per 100 person-years vs 49·8 events per 100 person-years; 0·88, 0·74–1·04, p=0·1). Serious adverse events, none of which thought to be treatment-related, occurred at a similar frequency in both groups. Interpretation Our findings do not suggest an effect of empiric deworming in the delaying of HIV disease progression in adults with HIV in an area where helminth infection is common. Alternative approaches are needed to delay HIV disease progression in areas where co-infections are common. Funding Presidents Emergency Fund for AIDS Relief and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
PDF
