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

Abstract

IntroductionRandomized 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).MethodsThe 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsBased 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.