A Bayesian averted infection framework for PrEP trials with low numbers of HIV infections: application to the results of the DISCOVER trial

HIV Prevention Among Men Who Have Sex With Men: Tenofovir Alafenamide Combination Preexposure Prophylaxis Versus Placebo

BACKGROUND

While noninferiority of tenofovir alafenamide and emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) as preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been shown, interest remains in its efficacy relative to placebo. We estimate the efficacy of TAF/FTC PrEP versus placebo for the prevention of HIV infection.

METHODS

We used data from the DISCOVER and iPrEx trials to compare TAF/FTC to placebo. DISCOVER was a noninferiority trial conducted from 2016 to 2017. iPrEx was a placebo-controlled trial conducted from 2007 to 2009. Inverse probability weights were used to standardize the iPrEx participants to the distribution of demographics and risk factors in the DISCOVER trial. To check the comparison, we evaluated whether risk of HIV infection in the shared tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) arms was similar.

RESULTS

Notable differences in demographics and risk factors occurred between trials. After standardization, the difference in risk of HIV infection between the TDF/FTC arms was near zero. The risk of HIV with TAF/FTC was 5.8 percentage points lower (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.0% to -9.6%) or 12.5-fold lower (95% CI, .02 to .31) than placebo standardized to the DISCOVER population.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a reduction in HIV infection with TAF/FTC versus placebo across 96 weeks of follow-up.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02842086 and NCT00458393.

Fusing trial data for treatment comparisons: Single vs multi-span bridging

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are critical for establishing the efficacy of new therapies, there are limitations regarding what comparisons can be made directly from trial data. RCTs are limited to a small number of comparator arms and often compare a new therapeutic to a standard of care which has already proven efficacious. It is sometimes of interest to estimate the efficacy of the new therapy relative to a treatment that was not evaluated in the same trial, such as a placebo or an alternative therapy that was evaluated in a different trial. Such dual-study comparisons are challenging because of potential differences between trial populations that can affect the outcome. In this article, two bridging estimators are considered that allow for comparisons of treatments evaluated in different trials, accounting for measured differences in trial populations. A "multi-span" estimator leverages a shared arm between two trials, while a "single-span" estimator does not require a shared arm. A diagnostic statistic that compares the outcome in the standardized shared arms is provided. The two estimators are compared in simulations, where both estimators demonstrate minimal empirical bias and nominal confidence interval coverage when the identification assumptions are met. The estimators are applied to data from the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 and 388 to compare the efficacy of two-drug vs four-drug antiretroviral therapy on CD4 cell counts among persons with advanced HIV. The single-span approach requires weaker identification assumptions and was more efficient in simulations and the application.

Estimating counterfactual placebo HIV incidence in HIV prevention trials without placebo arms based on markers of HIV exposure

INTRODUCTION

Developing alternative approaches to evaluating absolute efficacy of new HIV prevention interventions is a priority, as active-controlled designs, whereby individuals without HIV are randomized to the experimental intervention or an active control known to be effective, are increasing. With this design, however, the efficacy of the experimental intervention to prevent HIV acquisition relative to placebo cannot be evaluated directly.

METHODS

One proposed approach to estimate absolute prevention efficacy is to use an HIV exposure marker, such as incident rectal gonorrhea, to infer counterfactual placebo HIV incidence. We formalize a statistical framework for this approach, specify working regression and likelihood-based estimation approaches, lay out three assumptions under which valid inference can be achieved, evaluate finite-sample performance, and illustrate the approach using a recent active-controlled HIV prevention trial.

RESULTS

We find that in finite samples and under correctly specified assumptions accurate and precise estimates of counterfactual placebo incidence and prevention efficacy are produced. Based on data from the DISCOVER trial in men and transgender women who have sex with men, and assuming correctly specified assumptions, the estimated prevention efficacy for tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine is 98.1% (95% confidence interval: 96.4%-99.4%) using the working model approach and 98.1% (95% confidence interval: 96.4%-99.7%) using the likelihood-based approach.

CONCLUSION

Careful assessment of the underlying assumptions, study of their violation, evaluation of the approach in trials with placebo arms, and advancement of improved exposure markers are needed before the HIV exposure marker approach can be relied upon in practice.

Study design approaches for future active-controlled HIV prevention trials

Objectives

Vigorous discussions are ongoing about future efficacy trial designs of candidate human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention interventions. The study design challenges of HIV prevention interventions are considerable given rapid evolution of the prevention landscape and evidence of multiple modalities of highly effective products; future trials will likely be 'active-controlled', i.e., not include a placebo arm. Thus, novel design approaches are needed to accurately assess new interventions against these highly effective active controls.

Methods

To discuss active control design challenges and identify solutions, an initial virtual workshop series was hosted and supported by the International AIDS Enterprise (October 2020-March 2021). Subsequent symposia discussions continue to advance these efforts. As the non-inferiority design is an important conceptual reference design for guiding active control trials, we adopt several of its principles in our proposed design approaches.

Results

We discuss six potential study design approaches for formally evaluating absolute prevention efficacy given data from an active-controlled HIV prevention trial including using data from: 1) a registrational cohort, 2) recency assays, 3) an external trial placebo arm, 4) a biomarker of HIV incidence/exposure, 5) an anti-retroviral drug concentration as a mediator of prevention efficacy, and 6) immune biomarkers as a mediator of prevention efficacy.

Conclusions

Our understanding of these proposed novel approaches to future trial designs remains incomplete and there are many future statistical research needs. Yet, each of these approaches, within the context of an active-controlled trial, have the potential to yield reliable evidence of efficacy for future biomedical interventions.

Efficacy estimates of oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention in cisgender women with partial adherence

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir (TFV) disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine administered orally daily is effective in preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in both men and women with sufficient adherence; however, the adherence-efficacy relationship in cisgender women has not been well established. We calculated the adherence-efficacy curve for cisgender women by using HIV incidence and plasma TFV concentration data from three trials (FEM-PrEP, VOICE and Partners PrEP). We imputed TFV diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations, a measure of long-term adherence, from TFV quantification by using data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network 082 study, which measured both TFV-DP and TFV concentrations. Two, four and seven pills per week reduced HIV incidence by 59.3% (95% credible interval (CrI) 29.9-95.8%), 83.8% (95% CI 51.7-99.8%) and 95.9% (95% CI 72.6-100%), respectively. Our adherence-efficacy curve can be validated and updated by HIV prevention studies that directly measure TFV-DP concentrations. The curve suggests that high adherence confers high protection in cisgender women. However, the lower efficacy with partial adherence highlights the need for new PrEP products and interventions to increase adherence.

Interpretation of active-control randomised trials: the case for a new analytical perspective involving averted events

Active-control trials, where an experimental treatment is compared with an established treatment, are performed when the inclusion of a placebo control group is deemed to be unethical. For time-to-event outcomes, the primary estimand is usually the rate ratio, or the closely-related hazard ratio, comparing the experimental group with the control group. In this article we describe major problems in the interpretation of this estimand, using examples from COVID-19 vaccine and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. In particular, when the control treatment is highly effective, the rate ratio may indicate that the experimental treatment is clearly statistically inferior even when it is worthwhile from a public health perspective. We argue that it is crucially important to consider averted events as well as observed events in the interpretation of active-control trials. An alternative metric that incorporates this information, the averted events ratio, is proposed and exemplified. Its interpretation is simple and conceptually appealing, namely the proportion of events that would be averted by using the experimental treatment rather than the control treatment. The averted events ratio cannot be directly estimated from the active-control trial, and requires an additional assumption about either: (a) the incidence that would have been observed in a hypothetical placebo arm (the counterfactual incidence) or (b) the efficacy of the control treatment (relative to no treatment) that pertained in the active-control trial. Although estimation of these parameters is not straightforward, this must be attempted in order to draw rational inferences. To date, this method has been applied only within HIV prevention research, but has wider applicability to treatment trials and other disease areas.

Counterfactual estimation of efficacy against placebo for novel PrEP agents using external trial data: example of injectable cabotegravir and oral PrEP in women

INTRODUCTION

Multiple antiretroviral agents have demonstrated efficacy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). As a result, clinical trials of novel agents have transitioned from placebo- to active-controlled designs; however, active-controlled trials do not provide an estimate of efficacy versus no use of PrEP. Counterfactual placebo comparisons using other data sources could be employed to provide this information.

METHODS

We compared the active-controlled study (HPTN 084) of injectable cabotegravir (CAB-LA) versus daily oral emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) among women from seven countries in Africa to three external, contemporaneous randomized HIV prevention trials from which we constructed counterfactual placebo estimates. We used direct standardization via analysis weights to achieve the same distribution of person-years between the external study and HPTN 084, across strata predictive of HIV risk (country and selected risk covariates). We estimated prevention efficacy against a counterfactual placebo to provide information on the use of CAB-LA and FTC/TDF compared to no intervention. We compared the counterfactual placebo findings for FTC/TDF to previous placebo-controlled trials, adjusted for observed adherence to daily pills.

RESULTS

Distribution of age and baseline prevalence of gonorrhoea and chlamydia were similar among matched counterfactual placebo and observed HPTN 084 arms after standardization. Counterfactual estimates of CAB-LA versus placebo in all three settings showed a consistent risk reduction of 93%-94%, with lower bounds of the confidence intervals above 72%. Observed adherence (quantifiable tenofovir in plasma) in HPTN 084 was 54%-56%, and estimated efficacy of daily oral FTC/TDF against a counterfactual placebo was consistent with a predicted risk reduction of 39%-40% for this level of daily pill use.

CONCLUSIONS

Counterfactual placebo rates of HIV acquisition derived from external trial data in similar locations and time can be used to support estimates of placebo-based efficacy of a novel HIV prevention agent. External trial data must be standardized to be representative of the clinical trial cohort testing the novel HIV prevention agent, accounting for confounders.

Estimating HIV Incident Diagnoses Among Men Who Have Sex With Men Eligible for Pre-exposure Prophylaxis but Not Taking It: Protocol and Feasibility Assessment of Data Sources and Methods

BACKGROUND

HIV incidence estimates are published each year for all Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) counties, but they are not stratified by the demographic variables highly associated with risk of infection. Regularly updated estimates of HIV incident diagnoses available at local levels are required to monitor the epidemic in the United States over time and could contribute to background incidence rate estimates for alternative clinical trial designs for new HIV prevention products.

OBJECTIVE

We describe methods using existing, robust data sources within areas in the United States to reliably estimate longitudinal HIV incident diagnoses stratified by race and age categories among men who have sex with other men (MSM) eligible for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) but not taking it.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of existing data sources to develop new estimates of incident HIV diagnoses in MSM. We reviewed past methods used to estimate incident diagnoses and explored opportunities to improve these estimates. We will use existing surveillance data sources and population sizes of HIV PrEP-eligible MSM estimated from population-based data sources (eg, US Census data and pharmaceutical prescription databases) to develop metropolitan statistical area-level estimates of new HIV diagnoses among PrEP-eligible MSM. Required parameters are number of new diagnoses among MSM, estimates of MSM with an indication for PrEP, and prevalent PrEP use including median duration of use; these parameters will be stratified by jurisdiction and age group or race or ethnicity. Preliminary outputs will be available in 2023, and updated estimates will be produced annually thereafter.

RESULTS

Data to parameterize new HIV diagnoses among PrEP-eligible MSM are available with varying levels of public availability and timeliness. In early 2023, the most recent available data on new HIV diagnoses were from the 2020 HIV surveillance report, which reports 30,689 new HIV infections in 2020, and 24,724 of them occurred in an MSA with a population of ≥500,000. Updated estimates for PrEP coverage based on commercial pharmacy claims data through February 2023 will be generated. The rate of new HIV diagnoses among MSM can be estimated from new diagnoses within each demographic group (numerator) and the total person-time at risk of diagnosis for each group (denominator) by metropolitan statistical area and year. To estimate time at risk, the person-time of individuals on PrEP or person-time after incident HIV infection but before diagnosis should be removed from stratified population size estimates of the total number of person-years with indications for PrEP.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliable, serial, cross-sectional estimates for rates of new HIV diagnoses for MSM with PrEP indications can serve as benchmark community estimates of failures of HIV prevention and opportunities to improve services and will support public health epidemic monitoring and alternative clinical trial designs.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/42267.

Using the adherence-efficacy relationship of emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to calculate background hiv incidence: a secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Randomized trials of new agents for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) compare against emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF), without a placebo group. We used the well-characterized adherence-efficacy relationship for F/TDF to back-calculate the (non-PrEP) counterfactual background HIV incidence (bHIV) in a randomized trial of a novel PrEP agent and estimate comparative efficacy (to counterfactual bHIV).

METHODS

The DISCOVER trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02842086) randomized 5387 men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women who have sex with men and demonstrated non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) to F/TDF (HIV incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·47, 95% CI: 0·19 to 1.15). Tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) levels in dried blood spots (DBS) were assessed for all diagnosed with HIV and in a random 10% of the cohort. We used a Bayesian model with a diffuse prior distribution, derived from established data relating tenofovir diphosphate levels to HIV prevention efficacy. This prior, combined with the F/TDF seroconversion rate and tenofovir diphosphate levels in DISCOVER, yielded Bayesian inferences on the counterfactual bHIV.

RESULTS

There were six versus 11 postbaseline HIV infections (0.14 vs. 0.25/100 person-years [PY]) on F/TAF and F/TDF respectively. Of the 11 on F/TDF, 10 had low, none had medium and one had high tenofovir diphosphate levels; among HIV-negative controls, 5% of the person-time years had low, 9% had medium and 86% had high TFV-DP levels. A non-informative prior distribution for counterfactual bHIV, combined with the prior for TFV-DP level-efficacy relationship, yielded a posterior counterfactual bHIV of 3·4 infections/100 PY (0.80 Bayesian credible interval [CrI] 1·9 to 5·9), which suggests a median HIV efficacy of 96% (0.95 CrI [88% to 99%]) for F/TAF and 93% (0.95 CrI [87% to 96%]) for F/TDF compared to bHIV.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the established connection of drug concentrations to PrEP prevention efficacy, a Bayesian framework can be used to estimate a synthetic non-PrEP control group in randomized, active-controlled PrEP trials that include a F/TDF-comparator group.

Evaluating the combination of emtricitabine/ tenofovir alafenamide fumarate to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV-1-infection in at-risk adults

INTRODUCTION

Pre-exposure prophylaxis with a single daily pill of emtricitabine (F) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is highly efficacious at preventing HIV acquisition. Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is another tenofovir prodrug that delivers higher intracellular levels of active tenofovir diphosphate in blood cells and has an improved safety profile compared to TDF. Given the recent regulatory approval of the F/TAF combination for prophylaxis, it is important to review its safety and efficacy.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the author examines the safety and efficacy of F/TAF for pre-exposure prophylaxis. Both published manuscripts and conference papers are reviewed. F/TAF is non-inferior to F/TDF at preventing HIV acquisition in men and transgender women with a trend toward superiority. F/TAF has yet to be tested against HIV exposure via injection or vaginal intercourse.

EXPERT OPINION

Within these limitations, F/TAF may be particularly advantageous for older individuals thanks to improved kidney safety compared to F/TDF. F/TAF did not possess the hypolipidemic properties of F/TDF and was associated with weight gains.

Confidence limits for the averted infections ratio estimated via the counterfactual placebo incidence rate

Objectives

The averted infections ratio (AIR) is a novel measure for quantifying the preservation-of-effect in active-control non-inferiority clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. In the main formulation, the AIR requires an estimate of the counterfactual placebo incidence rate. We describe two approaches for calculating confidence limits for the AIR given a point estimate of this parameter, a closed-form solution based on a Taylor series expansion (delta method) and an iterative method based on the profile-likelihood.

Methods

For each approach, exact coverage probabilities for the lower and upper confidence limits were computed over a grid of values of (1) the true value of the AIR (2) the expected number of counterfactual events (3) the effectiveness of the active-control treatment.

Results

Focussing on the lower confidence limit, which determines whether non-inferiority can be declared, the coverage achieved by the delta method is either less than or greater than the nominal coverage, depending on the true value of the AIR. In contrast, the coverage achieved by the profile-likelihood method is consistently accurate.

Conclusions

The profile-likelihood method is preferred because of better coverage properties, but the simpler delta method is valid when the experimental treatment is no less effective than the control treatment. A complementary Bayesian approach, which can be applied when the counterfactual incidence rate can be represented as a prior distribution, is also outlined.