ArticleEpidemics2020
Assessing the use of surveillance data to estimate the impact of prevention interventions on HIV incidence in cluster-randomized controlled trials.
Article in Epidemics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How Can Progress Toward Ending the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic in the United States Be Monitored?Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn cluster-randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs) of HIV prevention strategies, HIV incidence is expensive to measure directly. Surveillance data on HIV diagnoses or viral suppression could provide cheaper incidence estimates. We used mathematical modelling to evaluate whether these measures can replace HIV incidence measurement in C-RCTs.
methodsWe used a US HIV transmission model to simulate C-RCTs of expanded antiretroviral therapy(ART), pre-exposure prophylaxis(PrEP) and HIV testing, together or alone. We tested whether modelled reductions in total new HIV diagnoses, diagnoses with acute infection, diagnoses with early infection(CD4 > 500 cells/μl), diagnoses adjusted for testing volume, or the proportion virally non-suppressed, reflected HIV incidence reductions.
resultsOver a two-year trial expanding PrEP alone, modelled reductions in total diagnoses underestimated incidence reductions by a median six percentage points(pp), with acceptable variability(95 % credible interval -14,-2pp). For trials expanding HIV testing alone or alongside ART + PrEP, greater, highly variable bias was seen[-20pp(-128,-1) and -30pp(-134,-16), respectively]. Acceptable levels of bias were only seen over longer trial durations when levels of awareness of HIV-positive status were already high. Expanding ART alone, only acute and early diagnoses reductions reflected incidence reduction well, with some bias[-3pp(-6,-1) and -8pp(-16,-3), respectively]. Early and adjusted diagnoses also reliably reflected incidence when scaling up PrEP alone[bias -5pp(-11,1) and 10pp(3,18), respectively]. For trials expanding testing (alone or with ART + PrEP), bias for all measures explored was too variable for them to replace direct incidence measures, unless using diagnoses when HIV status awareness was already high.
conclusionsSurveillance measures based on HIV diagnoses may sometimes be adequate surrogates for HIV incidence reduction in C-RCTs expanding ART or PrEP only, if adjusted for bias. However, all surveillance measures explored failed to approximate HIV incidence reductions for C-RCTs expanding HIV testing, unless levels of awareness of HIV-positive status were already high.
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.