2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Computer-based alcohol reduction intervention for alcohol-using HIV/HCV co-infected Russian women in clinical care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Russia has a high prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections. In 2018, over one million persons were living with HIV (PLWH); over a third were women. A high proportion of HIV-infected women are co-infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), and many consume alcohol, which adversely affects HIV and HCV treatment and prognosis. Despite the triple epidemics of alcohol use, HIV and HCV, and the need for interventions to reduce alcohol use among HIV/HCV co-infected women, evidence-based alcohol reduction interventions for this vulnerable population are limited. To address this gap, we developed a clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of a computer-based intervention to reduce alcohol consumption among HIV/HCV co-infected women in clinical care.

          Methods

          In this two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial, we propose to evaluate the efficacy of a culturally adapted alcohol reduction intervention delivered via a computer for HIV/HCV co-infected Russian women. The study population consists of women 21–45 years old with confirmed HIV/HCV co-infection who currently use alcohol. Intervention efficacy is assessed by a novel alcohol biomarker, ethyl glucuronide (EtG), and biomarkers of HIV and HCV disease progression. Women are randomized to trial conditions in a 1:1 allocation ratio, using a computer-generated algorithm to develop the assignment sequence and concealment of allocation techniques to minimize assignment bias. Women are randomized to either (1) the computer-based alcohol reduction intervention or (2) the standard-of-care control condition. We will use an intent-to-treat analysis and logistic and linear generalized estimating equations to evaluate intervention efficacy, relative to the standard of care, in enhancing the proportion of women with a laboratory-confirmed negative EtG at each research study visit over the 9-month follow-up period. Additional analyses will evaluate intervention effects on HIV (viral load and CD4+ levels) and HCV markers of disease progression (FibroScan).

          Discussion

          The proposed trial design and analysis provides an appropriate conceptual and methodological framework to assess the efficacy of the computer-based intervention. We propose to recruit 200 participants.

          The intervention, if efficacious, may be an efficient and cost-effective alcohol reduction strategy that is scalable and can be readily disseminated and integrated into clinical care in Russia to reduce women’s alcohol consumption and enhance HIV/HCV prognosis.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03362476. Registered on 5 December 2017

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review

          Summary Background Sharing of equipment used for injecting drug use (IDU) is a substantial cause of disease burden and a contributor to blood-borne virus transmission. We did a global multistage systematic review to identify the prevalence of IDU among people aged 15–64 years; sociodemographic characteristics of and risk factors for people who inject drugs (PWID); and the prevalence of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) among PWID. Methods Consistent with the GATHER and PRISMA guidelines and without language restrictions, we systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO; articles published since 2008, latest searches in June, 2017), searched the grey literature (websites and databases, searches between April and August, 2016), and disseminated data requests to international experts and agencies (requests sent in October, 2016). We searched for data on IDU prevalence, characteristics of PWID, including gender, age, and sociodemographic and risk characteristics, and the prevalence of HIV, HCV, and HBV among PWID. Eligible data on prevalence of IDU, HIV antibody, HBsAg, and HCV antibody among PWID were selected and, where multiple estimates were available, pooled for each country via random effects meta-analysis. So too were eligible data on percentage of PWID who were female; younger than 25 years; recently homeless; ever arrested; ever incarcerated; who had recently engaged in sex work, sexual risk, or injecting risk; and whose main drugs injected were opioids or stimulants. We generated regional and global estimates in line with previous global reviews. Findings We reviewed 55 671 papers and reports, and extracted data from 1147 eligible records. Evidence of IDU was recorded in 179 of 206 countries or territories, which cover 99% of the population aged 15–64 years, an increase of 31 countries (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific Islands) since a review in 2008. IDU prevalence estimates were identified in 83 countries. We estimate that there are 15·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 10·2–23·7 million) PWID aged 15–64 years globally, with 3·2 million (1·6–5·1 million) women and 12·5 million (7·5–18·4 million) men. Gender composition varied by location: women were estimated to comprise 30·0% (95% UI 28·5–31·5) of PWID in North America and 33·4% (31·0–35·6) in Australasia, compared with 3·1% (2·1–4·1) in south Asia. Globally, we estimate that 17·8% (10·8–24·8) of PWID are living with HIV, 52·3% (42·4–62·1) are HCV-antibody positive, and 9·0% (5·1–13·2) are HBV surface antigen positive; there is substantial geographic variation in these levels. Globally, we estimate 82·9% (76·6–88·9) of PWID mainly inject opioids and 33·0% (24·3–42·0) mainly inject stimulants. We estimate that 27·9% (20·9–36·8) of PWID globally are younger than 25 years, 21·7% (15·8–27·9) had recently (within the past year) experienced homelessness or unstable housing, and 57·9% (50·5–65·2) had a history of incarceration. Interpretation We identified evidence of IDU in more countries than in 2008, with the new countries largely consisting of low-income and middle-income countries in Africa. Across all countries, a substantial number of PWID are living with HIV and HCV and are exposed to multiple adverse risk environments that increase health harms. Funding Australian National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, Open Society Foundation, World Health Organization, the Global Fund, and UNAIDS.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Blinding in randomised trials: hiding who got what.

            Blinding embodies a rich history spanning over two centuries. Most researchers worldwide understand blinding terminology, but confusion lurks beyond a general comprehension. Terms such as single blind, double blind, and triple blind mean different things to different people. Moreover, many medical researchers confuse blinding with allocation concealment. Such confusion indicates misunderstandings of both. The term blinding refers to keeping trial participants, investigators (usually health-care providers), or assessors (those collecting outcome data) unaware of the assigned intervention, so that they will not be influenced by that knowledge. Blinding usually reduces differential assessment of outcomes (information bias), but can also improve compliance and retention of trial participants while reducing biased supplemental care or treatment (sometimes called co-intervention). Many investigators and readers naïvely consider a randomised trial as high quality simply because it is double blind, as if double-blinding is the sine qua non of a randomised controlled trial. Although double blinding (blinding investigators, participants, and outcome assessors) indicates a strong design, trials that are not double blinded should not automatically be deemed inferior. Rather than solely relying on terminology like double blinding, researchers should explicitly state who was blinded, and how. We recommend placing greater credence in results when investigators at least blind outcome assessments, except with objective outcomes, such as death, which leave little room for bias. If investigators properly report their blinding efforts, readers can judge them. Unfortunately, many articles do not contain proper reporting. If an article claims blinding without any accompanying clarification, readers should remain sceptical about its effect on bias reduction.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of alcohol-related liver disease

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                rjd438@nyu.edu
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                17 February 2021
                17 February 2021
                2021
                : 22
                : 147
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.137628.9, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8753, School of Global Public Health, , New York University, ; New York, NY USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.24827.3b, ISNI 0000 0001 2179 9593, Department of Psychology, , University of Cincinnati, ; Cincinnati, OH USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.24827.3b, ISNI 0000 0001 2179 9593, Addiction Sciences Division, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioural Neuroscience, , University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, ; Cincinnati, OH USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.24827.3b, ISNI 0000 0001 2179 9593, Center for Addiction Research, , University of Cincinnati, ; Cincinnati, OH USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.189967.8, ISNI 0000 0001 0941 6502, Clinical Trials Compliance, Office for Clinical Research, School of Medicine, , Emory University, ; Atlanta, GA USA
                [6 ]GRID grid.189967.8, ISNI 0000 0001 0941 6502, Rollins School of Public Health, , Emory University, ; Atlanta, GA USA
                [7 ]GRID grid.412460.5, First Saint Petersburg State Pavlov Medical University, ; Saint Petersburg, Russia
                [8 ]GRID grid.419591.1, Saint Petersburg Pasteur Institute, ; Saint Petersburg, Russia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4374-4611
                Article
                5079
                10.1186/s13063-021-05079-x
                7887790
                33596972
                814a89ce-c92f-4038-8ab1-fbde1485596d
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 2 September 2020
                : 29 January 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000027, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism;
                Award ID: R01AA025882
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002261, Российский Фонд Фундаментальных Исследований (РФФИ);
                Award ID: 17-54-30014
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Medicine
                hiv,hepatitis c virus,hiv/hcv co-infection,russia,women,service integration,alcohol reduction intervention,computer-delivered alcohol intervention,randomized controlled trial

                Comments

                Comment on this article