Trial reportAIDS and behavior2024
Efficacy of the Dapivirine Vaginal Ring Accounting for Imperfect Adherence.
Trial report in AIDS and behavior, 2024. 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.
- Estimated adherence to the Dapivirine Vaginal Ring and its associated factors among African women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Product adherence is critical to obtaining objective estimates of efficacy of pre-exposure prophylactic interventions against HIV-1 infection. With imperfect adherence, intention-to-treat analyses assess the collective effects of complete, sub-optimal and non-adherence, providing a biased and attenuated estimate of the average causal effect of an intervention. Using data from the MTN-020/ASPIRE phase III trial evaluating HIV-1 efficacy of the dapivirine vaginal ring, we conducted per-protocol, and adherence-adjusted causal inference analyses using principal stratification and marginal structural models. We constructed two adherence cut offs of ≥ 0.9 mg (low cutoff) and > 4.0 mg (high cutoff) that represent drug released from the ring over a 28-day period. The HIV-1 efficacy estimate (95% CI) was 30.8% (3.6%, 50.3%) (P = 0.03) from the per-protocol analysis, and 53.6% (16.5%, 74.3%) (P = 0.01) among the highest predicted adherers from principal stratification analyses using the low cutoff. Marginal structural models produced efficacy estimates (95% CIs) ranging from 48.8 (21.8, 66.4) (P = 0.0019) to 56.5% (32.8%, 71.9%) (P = 0.0002). Application of adherence-adjusted causal inference methods are useful in interpreting HIV-1 efficacy in secondary analyses of PrEP clinical trials.
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.