Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Jan;9(1):e13-e23.
doi: 10.1016/S2352-3018(21)00242-3. Epub 2021 Nov 26.

Rates of viral suppression in a cohort of people with stable HIV from two community models of ART delivery versus facility-based HIV care in Lusaka, Zambia: a cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial

Collaborators, Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Rates of viral suppression in a cohort of people with stable HIV from two community models of ART delivery versus facility-based HIV care in Lusaka, Zambia: a cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial nested in the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial

Mohammed Limbada et al. Lancet HIV. 2022 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Non-facility-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery for people with stable HIV might increase sustainable ART coverage in low-income and middle-income countries. Within the HPTN 071 (PopART) trial, two interventions, home-based delivery (HBD) and adherence clubs (AC), which included groups of 15-30 participants who met at a communal venue, were compared with standard of care (SoC). In this trial we looked at the effectiveness and feasibility of these alternative models of care. Specifically, this trial aimed to assess whether these models of care had similar virological suppression to that of SoC 12 months after enrolment.

Methods: This was a three-arm, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, done in two urban communities in Lusaka, Zambia included in the HPTN 071 trial. The two communities were split into zones, which were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to the three treatment strategies: 35 zones to the SoC group, 35 zones to the HBD group, and 34 zones to the AC group. ART and adherence support were delivered once every 3 months at home for the HBD group, in groups of 15-30 people in the AC group, or in the clinic for the SoC group. Adults with HIV who were receiving first-line ART for at least 6 months, virally suppressed using national HIV guidelines in the last 12 months, had no other health conditions requiring the clinicians attention, live in the study catchment area, and provided written informed consent, were eligible for inclusion. The primary endpoint was viral suppression at 12 months (with a 6 month final measurement window [ie, 9-15 months]), defined as less than 1000 HIV RNA copies per mL, with a non-inferiority margin of 5%.

Findings: Between May 5 and Dec 19, 2017, 9900 individuals were screened for inclusion, of whom 2489 (25·1%) participants were enrolled into the trial: 781 (31%) in the SoC group, 852 (34%) in the HBD group, and 856 (34%) in the AC group. A higher proportion of participants had viral load measurements in the primary outcome window in the HBD (581 [61%]of 852 participants) and AC (485 [57%] of 856 participants) groups than in the SoC (390 [50%] of 781 patients) group (p=0·0021). Of the 1096 missing observations, 152 (13·8%) were attributable to either deaths (25 [16%] participants), relocations (37 [24%] participants), or lost to follow-up (90 [59%]); 690 (63·0%) participants had viral load results outside the window period; and 254 (23·2%) did not have a viral load result. The prevalence of viral suppression was estimated to be 98·3% (95% CI 96·6 to 99·7) in the SoC group, 98·7% (97·5 to 99·6) in the HBD group, and 99·2% (98·4 to 99·8) in the AC group. This gave an estimated risk difference of 0·3% (95% CI -1·5 to 2·4) for the HBD group compared with the SoC group and 0·9% (-0·8 to 2·8) for the AC group compared with the SoC group. There was strong evidence (p<0·0001) that both community ART models were non-inferior to the SoC group (p<0·0001).

Interpretation: Community models of ART delivery were as effective as facility-based care in terms of viral suppression.

Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Mental Health, and President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03025165.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests HA reports grants from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), and the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) during the study; is a member of the technical review panel for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and reports honoraria payment from global fund outside the submitted work. SFi reports grants from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, NIAID, NIMH, NIDA, and 3ie during the study; is affiliated with the clinical trial HIVCORE006, St Marys Development Trust board, SHM Foundation charitable trust board; and SFi reports consulting fees from Immunocore, outside the submitted work. SFl and DM reports grants from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, NIAID, NIMH, NIDA, and 3ie during the study. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial profile Community one had 54 zones and community two had 50 Zones. *Based on crude estimates. †Treatment buddies are also known as treatment supporters; they support treatment (eg, by picking up drug refills if an individual with HIV cannot come to the clinic; treatment buddies were not included in our investigation. ‡Patients transferred out of the community and sought care in another health care facility.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of standard of care with home-based delivery and adherence clubs (A) Estimated viral suppression in the three treatment groups. (B) Risk difference of viral suppression between the standard of care group and the two intervention groups.

Comment in

References

    1. UNAIDS Fact Sheet 2021. 2021. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/UNAIDS_FactSheet_...
    1. Long L, Kuchukhidze S, Pascoe S, et al. Boston University and HE2RO; Boston, MA: 2020. Differentiated service delivery models for antiretroviral treatment of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a rapid systematic review. AMBIT Project Report Number 04.
    1. Kagee A, Remien RH, Berkman A, Hoffman S, Campos L, Swartz L. Structural barriers to ART adherence in Southern Africa: challenges and potential ways forward. Global Public Health. 2011;6:83–97. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chauke Patricia, et al. Lost to follow up rate in the first year of ART in adults initiated in a universal test and treat programme: a retrospective cohort study in Ekurhuleni District, South Africa. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;37:198. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alhaj M, Amberbir A, Singogo E, et al. Retention on antiretroviral therapy during Universal Test and Treat implementation in Zomba district, Malawi: a retrospective cohort study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

Associated data