Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23075921›Full record

ArticleJournal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999)2013

Beating the placebo in HIV prevention efficacy trials: the role of the minimal efficacy bound.

Dobromir T Dimitrov, Benoît R Mâsse, Marie-Claude Boily

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Assessing the Public Health impact of HIV interventions: the critical role of demographics.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Dobromir T DimitrovVaccine and Infectious Disease Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA. dobromir@scharp.org
Benoît R Mâsse
Marie-Claude Boily
Cancer Research Center · USImperial College London · GBUniversité de Montréal · CA

Funding

Statistical and Data Management Center (SDMC): Microbicide Trials NetworkUM1AI068615 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BROWN, ELIZABETH RENATA · 2011 to 2021
$66.5M
Leadership for HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials Networks; Microbicide Trials NetworkU01AI068615 · NIAID · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI RICHARDSON, BARBRA A · 2006 to 2010
$20.4M
NIAID NIH HHS 5 U01 AI068615-03NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI068615NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068615
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo produce an effect on the HIV epidemic, preventive interventions need to achieve a minimum level of efficacy to offset potential indirect effects such as an increase in risky behavior. The current generation of HIV prevention trials on oral preexposure prophylaxis and on vaginal microbicides were designed using different set points for minimum individual-level efficacy (MIE). Some trials were designed not only to show superiority over placebo but also to rule out lower efficacies. The MIE has a substantial impact on the size and cost of a trial. Ideally, the MIE should be chosen to reduce uncertainty in the estimation of population-level effects. In this article, we investigate the effect of MIE on estimates of population-level impact to better inform trial design.

methodsWe used mathematical model simulations assuming various rates of efficacy obtained from trials and different MIEs to study the impact of wide-scale interventions on 2 public health indicators.

resultsImplementation factors were the main drivers of uncertainty in public health indicators for an intervention, although MIE also contributed. The level of uncertainty introduced by the MIE was substantially lower than that of the other factors.

conclusionsInvestigators in clinical trials have set the MIE solely on the basis of potential public health impact. However, the substantial increase in trial costs associated with a large MIE is unlikely to be justified. These additional funds would be better spent in evaluating more critical implementation factors that cannot be assessed in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicAdministration, IntravaginalAdministration, OralAnti-HIV AgentsBiomedical ResearchChemopreventionFemaleHIVHIV InfectionsHumansMaleModels, TheoreticalPlacebosTreatment OutcomeAnti-HIV AgentsPlacebos

Identifiers

PMID23075921
PMCPMC3529808
OpenAlexW2055013616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.