Browsing by Author "Makola, Nozizwe"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effect of Universal Testing and Treatment on HIV Incidence — HPTN 071 (PopART)
    (Massachusetts Medical Society, 2019-07) Hayes, Richard J.; Donnell, Deborah; Floyd, Sian; Mandla, Nomtha; Bwalya, Justin; Sabapathy, Kalpana; Yang, Blia; Phiri, Mwelwa; Schaap, Ab; Eshleman, Susan H.; Piwowar-Manning, Estelle; Kosloff, Barry; James, Anelet; Skalland, Timothy; Wilson, Ethan; Emel, Lynda; Macleod, David; Dunbar, Rory; Simwinga, Musonda; Makola, Nozizwe; Bond, Virginia; Moore, Ayana; Griffith, Sam; Sista, Nirupama Deshmane; Vermund, Sten H.; El-Sadr, Wafaa; Burns, David N.; Hargreaves, James R.; Hauck, Katharina; Fraser, Christophe; Shanaube, Kwame; Bock, Peter; Beyers, Nulda; Ayles, Helen; Fidler, Sarah
    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, NCT01900977. opens in new tab.)
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How place matters for addressing the HIV epidemic : evidence from the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised controlled trial in Zambia and South Africa
    (BMC, 2021-04-06) Bond, Virginia; Hoddinott, Graeme; Viljoen, Lario; Ngwenya, Fredrick; Simuyaba, Melvin; Chiti, Bwalya; Ndubani, Rhoda; Makola, Nozizwe; Donnell, Deborah; Schaap, Ab; Floyd, Sian; Hargreaves, James; Shanaube, Kwame; Fidler, Sarah; Bock, Peter; Ayles, Helen; Hayes, Richard; Simwinga, Musonda; Seeley, Janet
    Background: In a cluster-randomised trial (CRT) of combination HIV prevention (HPTN 071 (PopART)) in 12 Zambian communities and nine South African communities, carried out from 2012 to 2018, the intervention arm A that offered HIV treatment irrespective of CD4 count did not have a significant impact on population level HIV incidence. Intervention arm B, where HIV incidence was reduced by 30%, followed national guidelines that mid trial (2016) changed from starting HIV treatment according to a CD4 threshold of 500 to universal treatment. Using social science data on the 21 communities, we consider how place (community context) might have influenced the primary outcome result. Methods: A social science component documented longitudinally the context of trial communities. Data were collected through rapid qualitative assessment, interviews, group discussions and observations. There were a total of 1547 participants and 1127 observations. Using these data, literature and a series of qualitative analysis steps, we identified key community characteristics of relevance to HIV and triangulated these with HIV community level incidence. Results: Two interdependent social factors were relevant to communities’ capability to manage HIV: stability/ instability and responsiveness/resistance. Key components of stability were social cohesion; limited social change; a vibrant local economy; better health, education and recreational services; strong institutional presence; established middle-class residents; predictable mobility; and less poverty and crime. Key components of responsiveness were community leadership being open to change, stronger history of HIV initiatives, willingness to take up HIV services, less HIV-related stigma and a supported and enterprising youth population. There was a clear pattern of social factors across arms. Intervention arm A communities were notably more resistant and unstable. Intervention arm B communities were overall more responsive and stable. Conclusions: In the specific case of the dissonant primary outcome results from the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, the chance allocation of less stable, less responsive communities to arm A compared to arm B may explain some of the apparently smaller impact of the intervention in arm A. Stability and responsiveness appear to be two key social factors that may be relevant to secular trends in HIV incidence. We advocate for a systematic approach, using these factors as a framework, to community context in CRTs and monitoring HIV prevention efforts.