Search

Background Three phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized efficacy trials have tested recombinant Adenovirus serotype-5 (rAd5)-vector preventive HIV-1 vaccines: MRKAd5 HIV-1 gag/pol/nef in Step and Phambili, and DNA/rAd5 HIV-1 env/gag/pol in HVTN505. Due to efficacy futility observed at the first interim analysis in Step and HVTN505, participants of all three studies were unblinded to their vaccination assignments during the study but continued follow–up. Rigorous meta-analysis can provide crucial information to advise the future utility of rAd5-vector vaccines. Methods We included participant-level data from all three efficacy trials, and three Phase 1–2 trials evaluating the HVTN505 vaccine regimen. We predefined two co-primary analysis cohorts for assessing the vaccine effect on HIV-1 acquisition. The modified-intention-to-treat (MITT) cohort included all randomly assigned participants HIV-1 uninfected at study entry, who received at least the first vaccine/placebo, and the Ad5 cohort included MITT participants who received at least one dose of rAd5-HIV vaccine or rAd5-placebo. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of HIV-1 infection (vaccine vs. placebo) and evaluate HR variation across vaccine regimens, time since vaccination, and subgroups using interaction tests. Findings Results are similar for the MITT and Ad5 cohorts; we summarize MITT cohort results. Pooled across the efficacy trials, over all follow-up time 403 (n = 224 vaccine; n = 179 placebo) of 6266 MITT participants acquired HIV-1, with a non-significantly higher incidence in vaccine recipients (HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.99–1.48, P = 0.06). The HRs significantly differed by vaccine regimen (interaction P = 0.03; MRKAd5 HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.11–1.78, P = 0.005 vs. DNA/rAd5 HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61–1.26, P = 0.48). Results were similar when including the Phase 1–2 trials. Exploratory analyses based on the efficacy trials supported that the MRKAd5 vaccine-increased risk was concentrated in Ad5-positive or uncircumcised men early in follow-up, and in Ad5-negative or circumcised men later. Overall, MRKAd5 vaccine-increased risk was evident across subgroups except in circumcised Ad5-negative men (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58−1.63, P = 0.91); there was little evidence that the DNA/rAd5 vaccine, that was tested in this subgroup, increased risk (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61–1.26, P = 0.48). When restricting the analysis of Step and Phambili to follow-up time before unblinding, 114 (n = 65 vaccine; n = 49 placebo) of 3770 MITT participants acquired HIV-1, with a non-significantly higher incidence in MRKAd5 vaccine recipients (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89–1.14, P = 0.18). Interpretation and Significance The data support increased risk of HIV-1 infection by MRKAd5 over all follow-up time, but do not support increased risk of HIV-1 infection by DNA/rAd5. This study provides a rationale for including monitoring plans enabling detection of increased susceptibility to infection in HIV-1 at-risk populations.

Objective Prompt identification of newly HIV-infected persons, particularly those who are most at risk of extended high viremia (EHV), allows important clinical and transmission prevention benefits. We sought to determine whether EHV could be predicted during early HIV infection (EHI) from clinical, demographic, and laboratory indicators in a large HIV-1 incidence study in Africa. Design Adults acquiring HIV-1 infection were enrolled in an EHI study assessing acute retroviral syndrome (ARS) symptoms and viral dynamics. Methods Estimated date of infection (EDI) was based on a positive plasma viral load or p24 antigen test prior to seroconversion, or the mid-point between negative and positive serological tests. EHV was defined as mean untreated viral load ≥5 log10 copies/ml 130-330 days post-EDI. We used logistic regression to develop risk score algorithms for predicting EHV based on sex, age, number of ARS symptoms, and CD4 and viral load at diagnosis. Results Models based on the full set of five predictors had excellent performance both in the full population (c-statistic = 0.80) and when confined to persons with each of three HIV-1 subtypes(c-statistic = 0.80-0.83 within subtypes A, C, and D). Reduced models containing only 2-4 predictors performed similarly. In a risk score algorithm based on the final full-population model, predictor scores were one for male sex and enrollment CD44.9 log10 copies/ml. With a risk score cut-point of two, this algorithm was 85% sensitive (95% CI: 76%-91%) and 61% specific (55%-68%) in predicting EHV. Conclusions Simple risk score algorithms can reliably identify persons with EHI in sub-Saharan Africa who are likely to sustain high viral loads if treatment is delayed. These algorithms may be useful for prioritizing intensified efforts around care linkage and retention, treatment initiation,adherence support, and partner services to optimize clinical and prevention outcomes.

Symptoms of acute retroviral syndrome (ARS) may be used to identify patients with acute HIV-1 infection who seek care. ARS symptoms in African adults differ by region. We assessed whether reporting of ARS was associated with HIV-1 subtype in a multicentre African cohort study representing countries with predominant HIV-1 subtypes A, C, and D.

Introduction: Approximately 130 000 infants acquire HIV annually despite global maternal antiretroviral therapy scale-up. We evaluated the potential clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of offering long-acting, anti-HIV broadly neutralizing antibody (bNAb) prophylaxis to infants in three distinct settings., Methods: We simulated infants in Côte d'Ivoire, South Africa, and Zimbabwe using the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-Pediatric (CEPAC-P) model. We modeled strategies offering a three-bNAb combination in addition to WHO-recommended standard-of-care oral prophylaxis to infants: a) with known, WHO-defined high-risk HIV exposure at birth ( HR-HIVE ); b) with known HIV exposure at birth ( HIVE ); or c) with or without known HIV exposure ( ALL ). Modeled infants received 1-dose , 2-doses , or Extended (every 3 months through 18 months) bNAb dosing. Base case model inputs included 70% bNAb efficacy (sensitivity analysis range: 10-100%), 3-month efficacy duration/dosing interval (1-6 months), and $20/dose cost ($5-$100/dose). Outcomes included pediatric HIV infections, life expectancy, lifetime HIV-related costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, in US$/year-of-life-saved [YLS], assuming a ≤50% GDP per capita cost-effectiveness threshold)., Results: The base case model projects that bNAb strategies targeting HIVE and ALL infants would prevent 7-26% and 10-42% additional pediatric HIV infections, respectively, compared to standard-of-care alone, ranging by dosing approach. HIVE-Extended would be cost-effective (cost-saving compared to standard-of-care) in Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe; ALL-Extended would be cost-effective in South Africa (ICER: $882/YLS). BNAb strategies targeting HR-HIVE infants would result in greater lifetime costs and smaller life expectancy gains than HIVE-Extended . Throughout most bNAb efficacies and costs evaluated in sensitivity analyses, targeting HIVE infants would be cost-effective in Côte d'Ivoire and Zimbabwe, and targeting ALL infants would be cost-effective in South Africa., Discussion: Adding long-acting bNAbs to current standard-of-care prophylaxis would be cost-effective, assuming plausible efficacies and costs. The cost-effective target population would vary by setting, largely driven by maternal antenatal HIV prevalence and postpartum incidence., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: SP is a consultant for Merck, Moderna, Pfizer, Dynavax, Hoopika, and GSK, and has a sponsored research program with Moderna and Merck in the area of cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccines. AG is a co-PI on COVID-vaccine studies funded through the SAMRC by the HIV vaccine trials network, EDCTP, ANRS, ImmunityBio, Janssen, and Moderna. AB and EJF receive funding from IMPAACT and AB receives funding from Unitaid for trials evaluating non-bNAb approaches to maternal-infant HIV prophylaxis. CKC participated in a RSV advisory board for Sanofi and previously received grants from Gilead, paid to her University, for clinical research. SM, KC, PEF, DS, and VMK are employed by IAVI, a non-profit organization that is pursuing the development of a combination anti-HIV bNAb product. No other authors report conflicts of interest.