130 likes | 283 Vues
The Pros. Treatment As Prevention. The Paper that started the fire. Granich, RM, Gilks CF, Dye C, et al. Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: a mathematical model. Lancet. 2009; 373: 48-57.
E N D
The Pros Treatment As Prevention
The Paper that started the fire.. Granich, RM, Gilks CF, Dye C, et al. Universal voluntary HIV testing with immediate antiretroviral therapy as a strategy for elimination of HIV transmission: a mathematical model. Lancet. 2009; 373: 48-57.
Treatment as Prevention: The Theory • Transmission only occurs from persons with HIV • On an individual level, viral load is single greatest risk factor for HIV transmission • ART can lower viral load to undetectable levels • The “proof of concept”: ART in the prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) • Important key to the success of PMTCT (in the developed world) is the identification of the HIV positive individual • Observational evidence of transmission reduction among heterosexual couples • Growing body of evidence suggests benefits from earlier ART initiation significantly outweigh risks on an individual level.
<400 <400 <400 >50 000 >50 000 >50 000 400-3499 400-3499 400-3499 3500-9999 3500-9999 3500-9999 10 000-49 999 10 000-49 999 10 000-49 999 HIV Viral Load & Transmission 30 Female-to-Male Transmission Male-to-Female Transmission All subjects 25 20 15 Transmission rate per 100 Person-Years 10 5 0 HIV-1 Viral load (RNA copies/ml) in the HIV-Infected Partner Quinn et al. NEJM. 2009;342(13):921-929.
HIV Viral Load & Transmission (2) Attia S, et al. AIDS 2009 Jul 17;23(11):1397-404.
PACTG 076 & USPHS ZDV Recs CDC HIV Testing Recs • Important Caveats: • Transmission rates are higher for MTCT than sexual transmission • Pregnancy provides a defining event to encourage asymptomatic individuals to access testing.
So What is the Universal Test & Treat Model? The Granich Paper Short Review • Key Concept: R0 – The number of secondary infections resulting from one primary infection in an otherwise susceptible population • Key to getting HIV epidemic under control is to get R0<1 • Key Question:Under what conditions could R0 be reduced to <1? • Conclusions:To reduce R0<1, adults & adolescents would need to be tested approximately once yearly and start ART at CD4 counts >900 cells/mm3. • Mean CD4 after seroconversion in South Africa = 884 cells/mm3 • When testing once yearly and starting ART at: • 200 cells/mm3: Reduces R0 to 4 • 350 cells/mm3: Reduces R0 to 3 • 500 cells/mm3: Reduces R0 to 2.5
But before jumping “all in”… • There are concerns with the Granich model: • Assumes 40% effect from other prevention activities • Homogenous population • “Optimistic” cost assumptions • There are (obvious) concerns with implementation • Even under “optimistic” assumptions: Cost-prohibitive? • Concerns with resistance, behavioral disinhibition, human rights, etc…. • However, the purpose of the paper was to predict under which conditions “elimination” could be possible • Can realize these conditions? If so, how? Should Treatment play a larger role in Combination Prevention?
Why Should ART be part of a combination prevention strategy? Proven Efficacy with Measurable Effect. Partners-in-Prevention Study: • 102 of 103 cases of confirmed linked HIV transmission occurred in couples with HIV-infected partner not receiving ARV therapy • 92% lower HIV transmission risk when HIV-infected partner on ART • Transmissions do occur among people with low CD4 Donnell D, Baeten J, Kiarie J, et al. Heterosexual HIV-1 Transmission after initiation of ART: a prospective cohort analysis. Lancet; published online May 27, 2010.
Why Should ART be part of a combination prevention strategy? Additional Benefits Outside Prevention • Better CD4 Response, reduction in TB, other OIs, non-HIV related mortality and associated costs • While this by itself is not an effective argument to use treatment as prevention of HIV, it helps break down a longstanding barrier to wider use of ART. • Perhaps more importantly - everyone will need ART at some point: • Mean time to needing ART from seroconversion among those with CD>350 3 years3 • Why not start a year or two earlier? 1. When to start consortium.Lancet 2009 Apr 18;373(9672):1352-63 2. Severe P, Jean Juste MA, et al. Early vs Standard antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected adults in Haiti. NEJM 2010; 363: 257-265. 3. Wolbers M, et al. Pretreatment CD4 cell slope and progression to AIDS or death in HIV-infected patients initiating ART: The CASCADE Cohort. PLOS Medicine 2010; 7(2): e1000239.
Why Should ART be part of a combination prevention strategy? • Prospective cohort study of home-based ART in a rural community in Uganda (n=926)1: • Reduced median VL (122k to <50 copies/mL) and estimated HIV transmission rate (from 46 to 1 per 1000 PY) • Risky sex decreased by 70% (P=0.002) • Prospective study of discordant couples in Zambia2: • Infection rate (per 100) decreased from 3.4 to 0.7. • Sexual risk behaviors lower in those on ART (19% vs 25%, P<0.05); Both ART and change in behavior independently reduced HIV transmission Change in Number of New Partners following VCT in Zimbabwe.3 Ancillary prevention benefits. BunnellR, et al. AIDS. 2006;20(1):85. 2. Sullivan CROI 2009 3. Cremin I, et al. AIDS Beh. 2010; 14: 708-15.
The Question isn’t “Whether”, it’s “How”? • Know your Epidemic: There are different dynamics of transmission in different populations: • While we know ART is effective in prevention of HIV transmission, you need to prove that the specific intervention can be effective as implemented • However, this is true of all prevention interventions. • We do have a good track record of implementing treatment programs and ensuring good outcomes; and we have rigorous prospective data demonstrating a measurable prevention effect. Dodd P, Garnett G, Hallett T. Examining the Promise of HIV Elimination by ‘test & treat’ in hyperendemic settings. AIDS. 2010; 24(5): 729-735.
My Take • Treatment can be used as part of a combination prevention strategy. However – it can’t be the only strategy. • Cost is a significant barrier • Treatment strategies alone have limited impact on acute transmission • Not enough is known about effects on resistance and risk compensation • Focus should be on better implementation of existing programs rather than expansion of treatment to higher CD4 thresholds. • If we can’t instantly identify the acutely infected, the biggest impact of VL reduction through ART comes from those with low CD4 counts. • For consideration: • Modified “test & Treat” in certain communities (most likely communities with good coverage, high health-seeking behavior, and favorable population dynamics)? • CSWs? Some MSM communities? • Serodiscordantcouples?