An Adaptive Intervention Trial Design for Finding the Optimal Integrated Strategies for Malaria Control and Elimination in Africa: A Model Simulation Study

There are a number of available and emerging malaria intervention tools that require innovative trial designs to find the optimal combinations at given epidemiologic settings. We simulated intervention strategies based on adaptive interventions, which included long-lasting insecticidal nets (LLINs), piperonyl butoxide–treated LLINs (PBO-LLINs), indoor residual spraying (IRS), and long-lasting microbial larviciding (LLML). The aims were to determine if PBO-LLINs or LLIN+IRS combination is more effective for initial interventions than LLINs and to identify the most effective intervention. We used a clustered, randomized adaptive trial design with malaria infection prevalence (MIP) as the outcome variable. The results indicate that during the initial stage of interventions, compared with regular LLINs, PBO-LLINs (relative reduction [RR]: 29.3%) and LLIN plus IRS with alternative-insecticide (RR: 26.8%) significantly reduced MIP. In the subsequent interventions, adding alternative insecticide IRS (RR: 23.8%) or LLML (RR: 31.2%) to existing PBO-LLIN was effective in further reducing MIP. During the next stage of interventions, adding LLML on top of PBO-LLIN+IRS (with alternative insecticides) had a significant impact on MIP (RR: 39.2%). However, adding IRS (with alternative insecticides) on top of PBO-LLIN+LLML did not significantly reduce MIP (11.6%). Overall, in clusters initiated with PBO-LLIN, adding LLML would be the most effective strategy in reducing MIP; in clusters initiated with LLIN+IRS, replacing LLIN+IRS with PBO-LLIN and LLML would be the most effective in reducing MIP. This study provides a new pathway for informing the optimal integrated malaria vector interventions, and the new strategy can be tested in field trials.

A review of available software for adaptive clinical trial design

Background/aims: The increasing cost of the drug development process has seen interest in the use of adaptive trial designs grow substantially. Accordingly, much research has been conducted to identify barriers to increasing the use of adaptive designs in practice. Several articles have argued that the availability of user-friendly software will be an important step in making adaptive designs easier to implement. Therefore, we present a review of the current state of software availability for adaptive trial design. Methods: We review articles from 31 journals published in 2013–2017 that relate to methodology for adaptive trials to assess how often code and software for implementing novel adaptive designs is made available at the time of publication. We contrast our findings against these journals’ policies on code distribution. We also search popular code repositories, such as Comprehensive R Archive Network and GitHub, to identify further existing user-contributed software for adaptive designs. From this, we are able to direct interested parties toward solutions for their problem of interest. Results: Only 30% of included articles made their code available in some form. In many instances, articles published in journals that had mandatory requirements on code provision still did not make code available. There are several areas in which available software is currently limited or saturated. In particular, many packages are available to address group sequential design, but comparatively little code is present in the public domain to determine biomarker-guided adaptive designs. Conclusions: There is much room for improvement in the provision of software alongside adaptive design publications. In addition, while progress has been made, well-established software for various types of trial adaptation remains sparsely available.

OC 8491 PREPVACC: A PHASE III, MAMS ADAPTIVE PROPHYLACTIC HIV VACCINE TRIAL WITH A SECOND RANDOMISATION TO COMPARE F/TAF WITH TDF/FTC PREP

BackgroundThere remains an urgent need for a prophylactic HIV vaccine to control generalised epidemics. PrEP has demonstrated effectiveness of 86% and is recommended by WHO; uptake is generally high, but retention is disappointing in some settings. The EDCTP2 project PrEPVacc will assess the efficacy of two combination prophylactic vaccine regimens (DNA, MVA and Env protein/adjuvant) each compared to placebo and the proportion of infections averted by F/TAF in comparison to TDF/FTC. A Registration Cohort, recruiting HIV negative volunteers at risk of HIV will precede the trial.MethodsThe PrEPVacc partnership agreed that 70% vaccine efficacy had public health relevance. The trial uses nstage software for multi-arm, multi-stage designs (MAMS) and the averted infections ratio (AIR) methodology with participants randomised (i) 1:1:1 to active product or placebo (ii) 1:1 to TDF/FTC : F/TAF until week 26 (presumed peak immunogenicity). Access to PrEP in the Registration Cohort and after week 26 will be standard of care. HIV seroconversions occurring between weeks 0–26 will inform the PrEP analysis, incorporating HIV incidence amongst those who do not take up PrEP locally in the Registration Cohort. Seroconversions after week 26 will inform vaccine analyses.ResultsUp to 556 participants per group affords 92% power to detect vaccine efficacy of 70% at the final analysis, assuming incidence of 4/100-person years and 10% loss with 81% and 97% power to conclude that F/TAF can avert half or more of the infections prevented by TDF/FTC if effectiveness of TDF/FTC is 70% and 80%, respectively.ConclusionPrEPVacc adopts a pragmatic approach to uncertainties around HIV incidence in settings where PrEP is increasingly available. This innovative adaptive trial design uses validated software to determine vaccine efficacy and a novel methodology to evaluate a new PrEP agent, overcoming the challenge of demonstrating non-inferiority when adherence to TDF/FTC is high and the number of outcome events very low.