ArticleEpidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.)2019
Estimating Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Prevention Effects in Low-incidence Settings.
Article in Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining representativeness of study samples in medical and population health research.BMJ medicine · 2023Article
- SIMULATION IN PRACTICE: THE BALANCING INTERCEPT.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Fusion designs and estimators for treatment effects.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) for determining efficacy of preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection have not been conducted among US women because their lower HIV incidence requires impractically large studies. Results from higher-incidence settings, like Sub-Saharan Africa, may not apply to US women owing to differences in age, sexual behavior, coinfections, and adherence.
methodsWe propose a novel strategy for evaluating PrEP efficacy in the United States using data from both settings to obtain four parameters: (1) intention-to-treat (ITT) and (2) per-protocol effects in the higher-incidence setting, (3) per-protocol effect generalized to the lower-incidence setting, and (4) back-calculated ITT effect using adherence data from the lower-incidence setting. To illustrate, we simulated two RCTs comparing PrEP against placebo: one in 4000 African women and another in 500 US women. We estimated all parameters using g-computation and report risk ratios averaged over 2000 simulations, alongside the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of the simulation results.
resultsTwelve months after randomization, the African ITT and per-protocol risk ratios were 0.65 (0.47, 0.88) and 0.20 (0.08, 0.34), respectively. The US ITT and per-protocol risk ratios were 0.42 (0.20, 0.62) and 0.17 (0.03, 0.38), respectively. These results matched well the simulated true effects.
conclusionsOur simple demonstration informs the design of future studies seeking to estimate the effectiveness of a treatment (like PrEP) in lower-incidence settings where a traditional RCT would not be feasible. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B506.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.