Skip to content

Strategies to Improve the HIV Care Continuum Among Key Populations in India

Strategies to Improve the HIV Care Continuum Among Key Populations in India

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02969915
Enrollment
2314
Registered
2016-11-21
Start date
2017-10-30
Completion date
2024-05-30
Last updated
2025-12-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

HIV Infections

Keywords

people who inject drugs, men who have sex with men, HIV, India

Brief summary

This clinical trial will compare the effectiveness of integrated care centers vs. integrated care centers plus HIV patient treatment incentives for achieving HIV treatment targets among people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men in India. The investigators will also assess cost-effectiveness and barriers and facilitators to implementation through targeted mixed-methods approaches. This study is a model for improving HIV treatment outcomes in key populations in low to middle-income countries.

Detailed description

The trajectory of the HIV epidemic in coming decades will be determined by the degree to which we can identify infected persons and engage them in care - a point implicit in the ambitious UNAIDS 90-90-90 target, which sets 90% goals for HIV diagnosis, linkage of infected persons to sustained antiretroviral therapy (ART), and viral suppression in those treated. Meeting this target requires successful engagement of difficult to reach populations, such as people who inject drugs (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM), who bear a disproportionate share of the epidemic, particularly in low to middle income countries. Our team is nearing completion of a multi-site cluster-randomized trial in India to assess the effectiveness of integrated care centers (ICCs) for PWID and MSM compared to usual care. ICC process measures from the first year show robust uptake of HIV counseling and testing, the primary outcome for that trial, but slower than anticipated ART uptake. Demand-side interventions in public health (such as treatment incentives) can be particularly effective when paired with optimized treatment accessibility (i.e., supply). Consequently, the investigators propose to examine whether provision of HIV care and treatment incentives to ICC clients will improve overall utilization of the clinics and downstream HIV care continuum outcomes. The investigators propose a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design. This will include a 16-site, pair-matched cluster randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of adding of HIV care incentives to ICCs (ICC+) versus standard ICCs on HIV care continuum outcomes, including ART initiation, adherence and viral suppression. Effectiveness will be compared at the ICC level (from a cohort of HIV-infected ART-eligible clients followed in each ICC and process measures deriving from all ICC clients) and at the community-level through a cross-sectional sample accrued via respondent-driven sampling (RDS) 2 years after initiation of the intervention. Because PWID and MSM will be sampled independently from the ICCs in the RDS, it provides an opportunity to characterize outcomes like community viral load and HIV incidence, reflecting impact within the broader PWID/MSM communities. As an exploratory sub-aim, we will use a rigorous scientific design to assess the effects of withdrawing (vs. continuing) incentives beyond the initial intervention phase. Additionally, the investigators will determine the cost-effectiveness of the ICC+ intervention.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALIncentives

Treatment incentives are offered to HIV-positive participants for reaching treatment targets, including retention to medical follow-up, initiating antiretroviral therapy, and maintaining high adherence with antiretroviral therapy.

ICCs offer key-population-oriented, vertically-integrated harm reduction, HIV testing, and HIV treatment services

Sponsors

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
CollaboratorNIH
YR Gaitonde Centre for AIDS Research and Education
CollaboratorOTHER
Elton John AIDS Foundation
CollaboratorOTHER
Johns Hopkins University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Intervention model description

Matched-pair cluster-randomized trial

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Speaks Hindi, English, or local language * HIV-positive * Antiretroviral therapy (ART) naive or has used ART less than 12 months * Registered client at the local integrated care center (ICC), which serves either people who inject drugs (PWID) or men who have sex with men (MSM).

Exclusion criteria

* Not competent to provide informed consent or participate in the study. * Receives HIV care in the private sector * Plans to migrate in next 12 months

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression12 monthsViral Suppression defined as HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of Participants With Viral Suppression at One or More Follow-up Visits24 monthsProportion with viral suppression (HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL) at one or more follow-up visits
Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Initiation12 monthsRate of ART initiation among those naive to ART at baseline. This is reported as the proportion of participants who initiated ART.
Proportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression6 monthsViral suppression defined as HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL
ART Adherence12 monthsProportion of participants who had a medication possession ratio of 0.9 or higher after starting ART
Mortality12 monthsAll-cause mortality
Retention to HIV Care12 monthsProportion of participants who attended one or more visits to a government ART clinic in both the 0 to 6 month period and the 6 to 12 month period.

Countries

India

Participant flow

Pre-assignment details

22 sites were considered for the trial and 16 were selected on the basis of high HIV prevalence. The 16 study sites were matched into pairs and randomized to incentives or usual care. Sites were matched according to key population (people who inject drugs or men who have sex with men) and HIV burden.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
PWID [Usual Care]
People who inject drugs (PWID) in 4 sites assigned to usual care
600
PWID [Incentives]
People who inject drugs (PWID) in 4 sites assigned to the incentives intervention
600
MSM [Usual Care]
Men who have sex with men (MSM) in 4 sites assigned to usual care
600
MSM [Incentives]
Men who have sex with men (MSM) in 4 sites assigned to the incentives intervention
514
Total2,314

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyCensored due to COVID-19481471
Overall StudyDeath104125
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up108112

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPWID [Usual Care]PWID [Incentives]MSM [Usual Care]MSM [Incentives]Total
Age, Continuous28 years30 years30 years32 years30 years
CD4 cell count391 cells/microliter384 cells/microliter314 cells/microliter276 cells/microliter347 cells/microliter
HIV RNA <150 copies/mL61 Participants153 Participants108 Participants138 Participants460 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
600 Participants600 Participants600 Participants514 Participants2314 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Secondary school education or beyond336 Participants381 Participants375 Participants352 Participants1444 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
2 Participants152 Participants0 Participants0 Participants154 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
598 Participants448 Participants600 Participants514 Participants2160 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
104 / 1,114125 / 1,200
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 1,1140 / 1,200
serious
Total, serious adverse events
104 / 1,114125 / 1,200

Outcome results

Primary

Proportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression

Viral Suppression defined as HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL

Time frame: 12 months

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.494 proportion of participants
Usual CareProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.353 proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.64, 2.26]
Secondary

Antiretroviral Therapy (ART) Initiation

Rate of ART initiation among those naive to ART at baseline. This is reported as the proportion of participants who initiated ART.

Time frame: 12 months

Population: This analysis includes only participants who had never started ART previously

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesAntiretroviral Therapy (ART) Initiation0.721 Proportion of participants
Usual CareAntiretroviral Therapy (ART) Initiation0.708 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.38, 5.76]
Secondary

ART Adherence

Proportion of participants who had a medication possession ratio of 0.9 or higher after starting ART

Time frame: 12 months

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesART Adherence0.645 proportion of participants
Usual CareART Adherence0.463 proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.77, 2.46]
Secondary

Mortality

All-cause mortality

Time frame: 12 months

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesMortality0.051 Proportion of participants
Usual CareMortality0.068 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.09, 1.8]
Secondary

Proportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression

Viral suppression defined as HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL

Time frame: 24 months

Population: Overall number of participants analyzed is equal to enrolled cohort minus participants who were censored at the 24-month visit due to COVID-related stoppage.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.471 Proportion of participants
Usual CareProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.325 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.85, 1.95]
Secondary

Proportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression

Viral suppression defined as HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL

Time frame: 18 months

Population: Overall number of participants analyzed is equal to enrolled cohort minus participants who were censored at the 18-month visit due to COVID-related stoppage.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.497 Proportion of participants
Usual CareProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.358 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.7, 1.95]
Secondary

Proportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression

Viral suppression defined as HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL

Time frame: 6 months

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.509 Proportion of participants
Usual CareProportion of Participants Surviving With Viral Suppression0.365 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.91, 1.9]
Secondary

Proportion of Participants With Viral Suppression at One or More Follow-up Visits

Proportion with viral suppression (HIV RNA \<150 copies/mL) at one or more follow-up visits

Time frame: 24 months

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesProportion of Participants With Viral Suppression at One or More Follow-up Visits0.640 Proportion of participants
Usual CareProportion of Participants With Viral Suppression at One or More Follow-up Visits0.498 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.79, 1.75]
Secondary

Retention to HIV Care

Proportion of participants who attended one or more visits to a government ART clinic in both the 0 to 6 month period and the 6 to 12 month period.

Time frame: 12 months

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
IncentivesRetention to HIV Care0.702 Proportion of participants
Usual CareRetention to HIV Care0.664 Proportion of participants
95% CI: [0.68, 1.36]

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 8, 2026