Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Add filters

Document Type
Year range
BMJ Glob Health ; 6(9)2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504511


INTRODUCTION: Implementation data for digital unsupervised HIV self-testing (HIVST) are sparse. We evaluated the impact of an app-based, personalised, oral HIVST program offered by healthcare workers in Western Cape, South Africa. METHODS: In a quasirandomised study (n=3095), we recruited consenting adults with undiagnosed HIV infection from township clinics. To the HIVST arm participants (n=1535), we offered a choice of an offsite (home, office or kiosk based), unsupervised digital HIVST program (n=962), or an onsite, clinic-based, supervised digital HIVST program (n=573) with 24/7 linkages services.With propensity score analyses, we compared outcomes (ie, linkages, new HIV infections and test referrals) with conventional HIV testing (ConvHT) arm participants (n=1560), recruited randomly from geographically separated clinics. RESULTS: In both arms, participants were young (HIVST vs ConvHT) (mean age: 28.2 years vs 29.2 years), female (65.0% vs 76.0%) and had monthly income <3000 rand (80.8% vs 75%).Participants chose unsupervised HIVST (62.7%) versus supervised HIVST and reported multiple sex partners (10.88% vs 8.7%), exposure to sex workers (1.4% vs 0.2%) and fewer comorbidities (0.9% vs 1.9%). Almost all HIVST participants were linked (unsupervised HIVST (99.7%), supervised HIVST (99.8%) vs ConvHT (98.5%)) (adj RR 1.012; 95% CI 1.005 to 1.018) with new HIV infections: overall HIVST (9%); supervised HIVST (10.9%) and unsupervised HIVST (7.6%) versus ConvHT (6.79%) (adj RR 1.305; 95% CI 1.023 to 1.665); test referrals: 16.7% HIVST versus 3.1% ConvHT (adj RR 5.435; 95% CI 4.024 to 7.340). CONCLUSIONS: Our flexible, personalised, app-based HIVST program, offered by healthcare workers, successfully linked almost all HIV self-testers, detected new infections and increased referrals to self-test. Data are relevant for digital HIVST initiatives worldwide.

HIV Infections , Mobile Applications , Adult , Female , HIV Infections/diagnosis , HIV Infections/epidemiology , HIV Testing , Humans , Self-Testing , South Africa/epidemiology
N Engl J Med ; 384(20): 1885-1898, 2021 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1135713


BACKGROUND: Assessment of the safety and efficacy of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in different populations is essential, as is investigation of the efficacy of the vaccines against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern, including the B.1.351 (501Y.V2) variant first identified in South Africa. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial to assess the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) in people not infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in South Africa. Participants 18 to less than 65 years of age were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses of vaccine containing 5×1010 viral particles or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride solution) 21 to 35 days apart. Serum samples obtained from 25 participants after the second dose were tested by pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization assays against the original D614G virus and the B.1.351 variant. The primary end points were safety and efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed symptomatic coronavirus 2019 illness (Covid-19) more than 14 days after the second dose. RESULTS: Between June 24 and November 9, 2020, we enrolled 2026 HIV-negative adults (median age, 30 years); 1010 and 1011 participants received at least one dose of placebo or vaccine, respectively. Both the pseudovirus and the live-virus neutralization assays showed greater resistance to the B.1.351 variant in serum samples obtained from vaccine recipients than in samples from placebo recipients. In the primary end-point analysis, mild-to-moderate Covid-19 developed in 23 of 717 placebo recipients (3.2%) and in 19 of 750 vaccine recipients (2.5%), for an efficacy of 21.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -49.9 to 59.8). Among the 42 participants with Covid-19, 39 cases (95.1% of 41 with sequencing data) were caused by the B.1.351 variant; vaccine efficacy against this variant, analyzed as a secondary end point, was 10.4% (95% CI, -76.8 to 54.8). The incidence of serious adverse events was balanced between the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine did not show protection against mild-to-moderate Covid-19 due to the B.1.351 variant. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others; number, NCT04444674; Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR202006922165132).

Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adenoviridae , Adolescent , Adult , Antibodies, Neutralizing/physiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Middle Aged , South Africa , T-Lymphocytes/physiology , Treatment Failure , Vaccine Potency , Young Adult