Abstract
Introduction
Unhealthy alcohol use significantly contributes to viral non‐suppression among persons with HIV (PWH). It is unknown whether brief behavioural interventions to reduce alcohol use can improve viral suppression among PWH with unhealthy alcohol use in sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA).
Methods
As part of the SEARCH study (NCT04810650), we conducted an individually randomized trial in Kenya and Uganda of a brief, skills‐based alcohol intervention among PWH with self‐reported unhealthy alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption [AUDIT‐C], prior 3 months, ≥3/female; ≥4/male) and at risk of viral non‐suppression, defined as either recent HIV viral non‐suppression (≥400 copies/ml), missed visits, out of care or new diagnosis. The intervention included baseline and 3‐month in‐person counselling sessions with interim booster phone calls every 3 weeks. The primary outcome was HIV viral suppression (<400 copies/ml) at 24 weeks, and the secondary outcome was unhealthy alcohol use, defined by AUDIT‐C or phosphatidylethanol (PEth), an alcohol biomarker, ≥50 ng/ml at 24 weeks.
Results
Between April and September 2021, 401 persons (198 intervention, 203 control) were enrolled from HIV clinics in Uganda (58%) and Kenya (27%) and alcohol‐serving venues in Kenya (15%). At baseline, 60% were virally suppressed. Viral suppression did not differ between arms at 24 weeks: suppression was 83% in intervention and 82% in control arms (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.93–1.1). Among PWH with baseline viral non‐suppression, 24‐week suppression was 73% in intervention and 64% in control arms (RR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.93–1.43). Unhealthy alcohol use declined from 98% at baseline to 73% in intervention and 84% in control arms at 24 weeks (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79–0.94). Effects on unhealthy alcohol use were stronger among women (RR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56–0.88) than men (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85–1.01) and among participants with a baseline PEth⩽200 ng/ml (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53–0.87) versus >200 ng/ml (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92–1.02).
Conclusions
In a randomized trial of 401 PWH with unhealthy alcohol use and risk for viral non‐suppression, a brief alcohol intervention reduced unhealthy alcohol use but did not affect viral suppression at 24 weeks. Brief alcohol interventions have the potential to improve the health of PWH in SSA by reducing alcohol use, a significant driver of HIV‐associated co‐morbidities.
Keywords: HIV, viral suppression, alcohol use, brief counselling intervention, sub‐Saharan Africa, randomized controlled trial
1. INTRODUCTION
Unhealthy alcohol use is common among persons with HIV (PWH) [1]. Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA) is home to 68% of the 34 million PWH worldwide [2] and has the highest global prevalence of heavy episodic drinking [3]. Unhealthy alcohol use, defined as drinking above recommended limits [4], has been associated with lower antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence [5, 6], lower HIV viral suppression [7, 8, 9] and increased sexual risk behaviours [10, 11], contributing to onward HIV transmission. Scalable interventions to reduce alcohol use and improve viral suppression among PWH in SSA are critically needed.
Health services addressing alcohol consumption are limited in SSA [12, 13]. Only a few studies of scalable, brief behavioural interventions for alcohol use reduction specific to PWH in SSA have been conducted [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19]. A global meta‐analysis of alcohol counselling interventions for PWH found small but significant reductions in alcohol consumption and increases in HIV viral suppression [20], but a subsequent systematic review did not find effects on either [21]. It remains unknown whether brief behavioural interventions can impact viral suppression and alcohol use among PWH in SSA.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare the effectiveness of a brief, culturally adapted [17, 22] skills‐based alcohol counselling intervention with standard care for PWH with unhealthy alcohol use and risk for viral non‐suppression. Our primary outcome was viral suppression at 24 weeks after enrolment. Our secondary outcome was changes in unhealthy alcohol use at 24 weeks, assessed by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test‐Consumption (AUDIT‐C) and phosphatidylethanol (PEth), an alcohol biomarker. We hypothesized that the intervention would increase viral suppression and reduce unhealthy alcohol use compared to standard care.
2. METHODS
2.1. Trial design
During the pilot phase (Phase A) of the SEARCH‐SAPPHIRE trial (NCT04810650), we conducted a two‐arm, individual RCT of the impact of a brief, culturally adapted skills‐based alcohol counselling intervention on HIV viral suppression among PWH with heavy alcohol use and at risk for viral non‐suppression.
2.2. Study setting
Between April and September 2021, we screened participants at rural government‐run health centres in three communities in southwestern Uganda and five communities in Western Kenya and at alcohol‐serving venues in the Kenyan study communities. In Uganda, COVID‐19 restrictions closed all bars and nightclubs from March 2020 until January 2022, precluded recruitment at these sites.
2.3. Recruitment
For clinic‐based recruitment, the study team performed chart and registry reviews and met with clinic staff to pre‐identify adults potentially eligible for the study. Venue‐based recruitment used methods developed previously [23]. Briefly, study staff met with community representatives to identify alcohol‐serving venues, and distributed recruitment cards at venues that invited patrons and staff to local government‐run clinics for free screening for hypertension, diabetes, malaria and HIV, with reimbursement for transportation paid at screening (500KSH, approximately US$5). Adults not known to have HIV underwent testing per country guidelines. We linked adults who tested positive to HIV care and invited all PWH (new or prior diagnosis) to study screening.
2.4. Participants
The study inclusion criteria were ≥18 years of age, AUDIT‐C (modified to prior 3 months) [24] positive for unhealthy alcohol use (≥4 for men, ≥3 for women) [25], HIV positive and one of the following risk factors for non‐suppression: HIV RNA non‐suppression (>400 copies/ml) in the prior 12 months, missed clinic visit (>2 weeks to ≤90 days from the last scheduled visit) in the past 6 months, out of care (>90 days from last scheduled visit) in the past 6 months or new HIV diagnosis (not yet on ART or ART start <4 weeks). Exclusion criteria were plans to move out of the study area within 6 months, enrolment in other SEARCH SAPPHIRE trials or inability to give informed consent. Given the shortage of mental health professionals in Africa [26], persons with a screening AUDIT‐C score of ≥8, indicative of high risk for severe alcohol use disorder, were enrolled and additionally offered referral to their physician for further care outside of the intervention.
2.5. Enrolment and randomization
We randomized participants 1:1 to the alcohol counselling intervention or standard‐of‐care (control) using stratified block randomization (block size = 2 and 4), computer‐generated and stratified by country. Participants were not masked to the randomization arm, but the study statistician (LBB) was masked until trial completion.
2.6. Study procedures
At baseline, we administered a structured questionnaire which included demographics, AUDIT‐C adapted to the prior 3 months, ART use, and current tobacco and other substance use assessments. We completed baseline study visits within 14 days of enrolment. After 24 weeks from baseline, study staff administered the AUDIT‐C for the prior 3 months.
Laboratory assessments included HIV‐1 RNA viral load, CD4 cell count and PEth level, a quantitative biomarker of recent alcohol consumption, at baseline, and viral load and PEth at week 24. We prepared dried blood spots onto Whatman 903 cards, and shipped them in batches to a commercial laboratory, the United States Drug Testing Laboratory (USDTL, Des Plaines, IL), for quantification of PEth (16:0/18:1 homologue), with an 8 ng/ml lower limit of quantification [27]. PEth correlates with the total volume of alcohol consumed over the past 2–4 weeks and forms only in the presence of alcohol, thus is highly specific [28]. PEth ≥50 ng/ml is consistent with unhealthy drinking [29] and PEth>200 ng/ml is consistent with chronic excessive drinking [30].
Participants received a transport reimbursement (500KSH or 20,000UGX, approximately US$5 in 2021) for in‐person study visits at baseline, week 12 (intervention only) and week 24.
2.7. Intervention
The intervention was a multi‐session brief alcohol counselling intervention based on the Information, Motivation, and Behavioral skills (IMB) model [31] and implemented in a prior intervention shown to be efficacious for reducing alcohol use among women in the United States [32]. The intervention was adapted for East Africa using iterative cultural adaptation to modify key intervention characteristics for cultural relevance and saliency, as previously described [22].
The intervention included two in‐person counselling sessions, performed at baseline and week 12, with brief “booster” phone‐based counselling session performed every 3 weeks between in‐person sessions. The in‐person sessions were workbook‐guided and designed to reflect on the consequences of alcohol use on one's health and HIV treatment, identify risky moods and situations that precede alcohol use, build skills for alternative behaviours and set individualized goals to decrease alcohol intake. Booster calls were tailored to participants’ goals and designed to check progress and provide positive reinforcement and encouragement as appropriate. Intervention participants received viral load and adherence counselling based on results from the baseline study visit by study staff at the 3‐week phone call and by clinic staff at their post‐baseline regular clinic visit.
Counselling was conducted by lay counsellors trained by a licensed clinical psychologist (SWK) on the basic Motivational Interviewing skills and implementation of the manualized intervention. SWK provided ongoing group supervision for the counsellors.
2.8. Control arm
Participants randomized to the control arm received brief advice on the harmful effects of alcohol and safe levels of drinking at the baseline visit in line with the country standard of care, viral load feedback and adherence counselling at their post‐baseline regular clinic visit, and an invitation to receive the intervention counselling and materials after 48 weeks.
Participants in both study arms had access to a toll‐free hotline to reach study staff with questions or problems during the study.
2.9. Fidelity
Trained qualitative researchers assessed intervention fidelity using an adapted checklist to rate counsellors’ content inclusion and counselling skills during observation of randomly selected in‐person sessions (n = 5/counsellor) [17, 33]. Performance was discussed in group supervision sessions.
2.10. Outcomes
The primary outcome was viral suppression at 24 weeks defined by HIV‐1 RNA<400 copies/ml, based on available assays in country and to avoid misclassification of low‐level viral blips as non‐suppression. A 24‐week endpoint was selected to align with participants’ standard HIV care visits to minimize inconvenience, travel time and cost to participants, as well as a burden on clinic study sites and to allow time for effect of the 12‐week counselling visit. In primary analyses, participants without an endpoint viral load were assumed to be disengaged from care and unsuppressed. Individuals who moved out of the study region, died or withdrew were excluded. A secondary outcome was unhealthy alcohol use, defined as a composite of AUDIT‐C positive (score ≥3 for women, ≥4 for men) or PEth ≥50 ng/ml at 24 weeks. This composite was used to increase the overall sensitivity by combining two measures with high specificity.
2.11. Statistical analyses
Based on a two‐sample test for proportions, a sample size of 200 participants/arm would provide 80% power to detect a 14% absolute increase [34] in viral suppression at 24 weeks from 40% in the control group.
Primary and secondary outcomes were compared by trial arms using targeted minimum loss‐based estimation to adaptively adjust for baseline predictors for improved efficiency while preserving nominal type‐I error control under the null [35, 36]. Baseline predictors were specified a priori and included sex, age, country, baseline HIV‐1 RNA >400 copies/ml, baseline PEth (log10 transformed) and baseline AUDIT‐C. Effect estimates were on the relative scale; thus, we reported as risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals to test the null hypothesis that the intervention did not improve outcomes. To explore the heterogeneity of intervention effects, we repeated analyses within prespecified subgroups of country, sex, age (18–30 vs. >30 years), baseline viral suppression status and baseline PEth (⩽200 ng/ml vs. PEth>200 ng/ml). The statistical analysis plan was fully pre‐specified (Text S1). The supporting CONSORT checklist is available as supplemental information (Text S2).
2.12. Ethical approval
This trial was approved by the ethical review boards of Makerere University (Uganda), Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kenya) and the University of California San Francisco (USA). All participants provided written informed consent at enrolment.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Enrolment
We screened 852 adults; 401 (47%) met eligibility criteria, were enrolled and randomized: 203 control, 198 intervention (Figure 1). One intervention participant was erroneously dis‐enrolled at baseline and excluded from the analyses.
Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram. Abbreviation: AUDIT‐C, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption.
Among study participants, 131 (33%) were female, median age was 37 (interquartile range [IQR] 31–43) years and 286 (71%) had completed primary education or less (Table 1). Sixty (15%) participants were recruited from alcohol‐serving venues in Kenya, 110 (27%) from HIV clinics in Kenya and 230 (58%) from HIV clinics in Uganda. Participants met eligibility criteria for risk of HIV viral non‐suppression for recent unsuppressed viral load (n = 141, 35%), missed clinic visit(s) (n = 111, 28%), new HIV diagnosis (n = 109, 27%) and re‐engaging in care (n = 39, 10%). At baseline, 321 (80%) participants were on ART, including those with a new HIV diagnosis. Among those with a prior HIV diagnosis, 279 (96%) were on ART. Overall, 239 (60%) participants were virally suppressed (HIV viral load ≤400 copies/ml) at baseline.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics
| Intervention | Control | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 197 | N = 203 | N = 400 | |
| Female, n (%) | 60 (30) | 71 (35) | 131 (33) |
| Age, median [Q1,Q3] | 37 [31,45] | 37 [30,42] | 37 [31,43] |
| Age 18–30, n (%) | 42 (21) | 52 (26) | 94 (24) |
| Country, n (%) | |||
| Kenya | 84 (43) | 86 (42) | 170 (42) |
| Uganda | 113 (57) | 117 (58) | 230 (57) |
| Marital status, n (%) | |||
| Married | 116 (59) | 124 (61) | 240 (60) |
| Widowed/divorced/separated | 60 (30) | 59 (29) | 119 (30) |
| Never married | 21 (11) | 19 (9) | 40 (10) |
| Education, n (%) | |||
| Less than primary | 8 (4) | 9 (4) | 17 (4) |
| Primary | 131 (66) | 138 (68) | 269 (67) |
| Secondary | 47 (24) | 46 (23) | 93 (23) |
| Post‐secondary | 11 (6) | 10 (5) | 21 (5) |
| Literacy level, n (%) | |||
| Cannot read at all | 28 (14) | 29 (14) | 57 (14) |
| Can read parts of a sentence | 38 (19) | 40 (20) | 78 (20) |
| Can read whole sentence | 129 (65) | 131 (65) | 260 (65) |
| Alcohol‐related exposures in job, n (%) | 18 (9) | 26 (13) | 44 (11) |
| Recruitment site, n (%) | |||
| Alcohol‐serving venue | 32 (16) | 28 (14) | 60 (15) |
| HIV clinic | 165 (84) | 175 (86) | 340 (85) |
| Enrolment criteria, n (%) | |||
| Unsuppressed viral load | 70 (36) | 71 (35) | 141 (35) |
| Missed visit | 52 (26) | 59 (29) | 111 (28) |
| New to care | 50 (25) | 59 (29) | 109 (27) |
| Re‐engaging in care | 25 (13) | 14 (7) | 39 (10) |
| On ART with prior HIV diagnosis, n (%) | 141 (96%) | 138 (96%) | 279 (96%) |
| On ART at baseline, n (%) | 159 (81) | 162 (80) | 321 (80) |
| INSTI‐based regimen | 113 (71) | 115 (71) | 228 (71) |
| NNRTI‐based regimen | 6 (4) | 8 (5) | 14 (4) |
| PI‐based regimen | 22 (14) | 18 (11) | 40 (12) |
| On ART, regimen unknown | 18 (11) | 21 (13) | 39 (12) |
| Baseline viral load > 400 copies/ml, n (%) | 79 (40) | 82 (40) | 161 (40) |
| Baseline AUDIT‐C score, median [Q1,Q3] | 6 [4,8] | 6 [4,8] | 6 [4,8] |
| Baseline PEth (ng/ml), mean [95% CI] | 492 [398–585] | 481 [396–566] | 486 [423–550] |
| Baseline PEth, n (%) | |||
| PEth ⩽ 200 ng/ml | 90 (45) | 90 (44) | 180 (45) |
| PEth >200 ng/ml | 107 (54) | 113 (56) | 220 (55) |
Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; AUDIT‐C, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test—Consumption; NNRTI, non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; NSTI, integrase strand transfer inhibitor; PEth, phosphatidylethanol; PI, protease inhibitor: Q1, quartile 1; Q3, quartile 3.
The median baseline AUDIT‐C score was 6 (IQR 4–8). The mean baseline PEth was 486.7 ng/ml (95% CI: 423.9–549.6), which is above the recommended cutoff for chronic excessive alcohol use (200 ng/ml) [30]. In 283 (71%) participants, PEth was ≥50 ng/ml, consistent with unhealthy drinking [29]. At baseline, 98% (n = 391) of participants met the definition for unhealthy alcohol use; a subset of participants (n = 9, 2%) reported lower AUDIT‐C scores after enrolment and had baseline PEth <50 ng/ml.
3.2. Follow‐up
Over 24 weeks, 22/400 (6%) participants moved out of study communities (12/197 intervention and 10/203 in control); additionally, one control participant died. Endpoint viral loads were obtained on 371/377 (98%) of the remaining participants: 181/185 (98%) intervention and 190/192 (99%) control. Endpoint PEth was obtained in 181/185 (98%) intervention and 188/192 (98%) control participants.
3.3. Intervention adherence and fidelity
Among the 197 intervention arm participants, 196 (99%) completed the baseline in‐person counselling session and 184 (93%) completed session 2. Booster calls were completed for 160 (81%), 148 (75%) and 151 (77%) at 3, 6 and 9 weeks, respectively. Median intervention content fidelity and counselling skills scores (n = 29 sessions observed) were 93% (IQR 82–94%) and 83% (IQR 79–92%), respectively.
3.4. Primary outcome: viral suppression
From 60% at baseline in both arms, viral suppression increased to 83% (95% CI: 78–89%) in the intervention and 82% (95% CI: 78–87%) in the control arm at 24 weeks (Table 2), yielding a non‐statistically significant improvement of 1% (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.93–1.1). The findings were similar across subgroups defined by age, sex, country, baseline alcohol use, baseline non‐suppression risk factor and baseline HIV viral suppression status. There was a stronger intervention effect among those with baseline unsuppressed viral loads, with higher suppression in the intervention (73%, 95% CI: 64–83) versus control arm (64%, 95% CI: 53–75), yielding a relative improvement of 15% (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.93–1.43, not statistically significant). Results were robust to analytic choice.
Table 2.
Comparison of HIV viral suppression (<400 copies/ml) between arms at 24 weeks, overall and by subgroups
| Intervention, % (95% CI) | Control, % (95% CI) | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 83 (78−89) | 82 (77−87) | 1.01 (0.93−1.1) |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 93 (86−100) | 93 (88−98) | 1 (0.91−1.1) |
| Male | 79 (72−86) | 78 (71−84) | 1.02 (0.91−1.16) |
| Age | |||
| 18–30 years old | 89 (79−98) | 83 (73−92) | 1.07 (0.91−1.25) |
| 31 years or older | 83 (77−88) | 82 (76−87) | 1.01 (0.91−1.12) |
| Country | |||
| Uganda | 88 (82−94) | 82 (75−88) | 1.08 (0.97−1.2) |
| Kenya | 78 (68−86) | 83 (76−91) | 0.93 (0.8−1.07) |
| Baseline viral suppression | |||
| Viral load suppressed (≤400 copies/ml) | 91 (85−96) | 95 (91−99) | 0.96 (0.89−1.03) |
| Viral load non‐suppressed (>400 copies/ml) | 73 (64−83) | 64 (53−75) | 1.15 (0.93−1.43) |
| Baseline Peth | |||
| PEth ⩽ 200 ng/ml | 87 (80−94) | 84 (77−91) | 1.03 (0.92−1.16) |
| PEth >200 ng/ml | 81 (73−89) | 80 (74−87) | 1.01 (0.89−1.14) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; PEth, phosphatidylethanol.
3.5. Secondary outcomes
We found significant reductions in unhealthy alcohol use (AUDIT‐C positive or PEth≥50 ng/ml) at 24 weeks in the intervention compared to control. Unhealthy alcohol use declined from 98% at baseline in both arms to 73% (95% CI: 68–78%) in the intervention and 84% (95% CI: 80–89%) in the control, yielding a relative reduction of 14% (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79–0.94; Table 3).
Table 3.
Comparison of unhealthy alcohol use (drinking above recommended limits) [4] at 24 weeks, overall and by key subgroups
| Intervention, % (95% CI) | Control, % (95% CI) | RR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 73 (68−78) | 84 (80−89) | 0.86 (0.79−0.94) |
| Sex | |||
| Female | 53 (42.5−62.5) | 75 (66−84) | 0.7 (0.56−0.88) |
| Male | 82 (77−88) | 89 (84−94) | 0.93 (0.85−1.01) |
| Age | |||
| 18–30 years old | 58 (47−68) | 79 (69−90) | 0.72 (0.58−0.91) |
| 31 years or older | 77 (71−82) | 86 (82−91) | 0.89 (0.81−0.97) |
| Country | |||
| Uganda | 77 (70−83) | 89 (84−95) | 0.86 (0.77−0.96) |
| Kenya | 68 (60−76) | 77 (70−85) | 0.87 (0.75−1.02) |
| Baseline viral suppression | |||
| Viral load suppressed (≤400 copies/ml) | 74 (67−80) | 82 (77−88) | 0.89 (0.80−0.99) |
| Viral load non‐suppressed (>400 copies/ml) | 72 (65−80) | 88 (82−95) | 0.82 (0.72−0.93) |
| Baseline Peth | |||
| PEth 200 ng/ml | 46 (37−56) | 68 (59−77) | 0.68 (0.53−0.87) |
| PEth>200 ng/ml | 95 (90−99) | 98 (95−100) | 0.97 (0.92−1.02) |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; PEth, phosphatidylethanol; RR, risk ratio.
Significant reductions in unhealthy alcohol use were seen in most subgroups (Table 3). The effects were stronger among women (RR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56–0.88) than men (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85–1.01) and for persons 18–30 years (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.91) versus those over 31 years (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.81–0.97). There was a relative reduction in 24‐week unhealthy alcohol use of 32% (RR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53–0.87) among participants with a baseline PEth⩽200 ng/ml, but no difference between arms among participants with a baseline PEth >200 ng/ml (RR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.92–1.02).
4. DISCUSSION
In this RCT, a brief culturally adapted alcohol counselling intervention over 12 weeks did not increase the likelihood of viral suppression at 24 weeks among adult PWH with unhealthy alcohol use and a high risk of HIV viraemia. Viral suppression at 24 weeks increased from 60% to over 80% in both intervention and control participants. Unhealthy alcohol use declined in both study arms with a significant 14% relative reduction in the intervention arm compared to the control arm.
There are several potential explanations for our main findings. First, a 14% reduction in unhealthy alcohol use may have been insufficient to drive differences in viral suppression among intervention participants. Alcohol use has been linked to decreased viral suppression among PWH [8, 37], especially at higher use levels [8, 9, 37]. However, it is unknown what degree of reduction in alcohol use is needed to translate to viral suppression changes. Recent studies on behavioural alcohol interventions impacting viral suppression among PWH have shown mixed results. A recent RCT in Uganda of a similar intervention for PWH and unhealthy alcohol use found viral suppression was 93–95% across trial arms at follow‐up, despite a significant reduction in self‐reported number of drinking days in intervention participants [17]. However, baseline viral suppression was >85% and endpoint PEth did not change between arms. In contrast, an RCT of an intervention delivered over 8 weeks to men with HIV in Vietnam showed increases in self‐reported alcohol abstinence and viral suppression at 12 months. The latter was not detected at 3‐ or 6‐month timepoints, potentially suggesting our 24‐week follow‐up was too short to detect long‐term impacts on viral suppression [34]. A 2017 meta‐analysis of alcohol counselling interventions among PWH found small but significant reductions in alcohol consumption and increases in viral suppression [20], though a 2019 systematic review found no effect on either [21].
Second, the lack of effect on viral suppression may be because modern ART regimens containing integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are robust and may yield viral suppression even with suboptimal adherence [38] due to active alcohol use. Furthermore, INSTI‐containing regimens exhibit faster times to viral suppression than other backbone regimens [39], which may result in suppression soon after restarting ART, such as shortly before clinic/study visits. Alcohol use has been shown to lower rates of viral suppression via decreased ART adherence [37]; however, this has not been demonstrated in the era of INSTIs. In our trial, 71% of participants on baseline ART were on an INSTI. While the alcohol reduction demonstrated in intervention participants may have translated to ART adherence improvements, it may not have been enough to produce differences in viral suppression.
Third, factors outside of the alcohol counselling intervention may have driven the high viral suppression in both arms. Our study procedures, which identified unhealthy alcohol use through screening, provided brief alcohol counselling in the control, gave viral load feedback and gave transportation reimbursements, coupled with universal ART eligibility may have been sufficient to increase engagement in care and adherence, yielding the increase in viral suppression from 60% to >82% in both arms. Additionally, adaptations to HIV care provision due to COVID‐19 pandemic restrictions and increased provision of differentiated care models [40], including spaced visits and longer refills, may have improved care engagement and viral suppression for persons with alcohol use [41].
Our trial resulted in a significant reduction in unhealthy alcohol use among intervention participants compared to control. This is one of the first alcohol intervention trials, to our knowledge, to incorporate PEth into the alcohol outcome measure. The composite measure of unhealthy alcohol, comprised of self‐report and an alcohol biomarker (i.e. AUDIT‐C ≥3 for women, ≥4 for men or PEth ≥50 ng/ml), helps to overcome limitations in the sensitivity of either measure alone and to reduce bias introduced by potential discrepancies in self‐report and PEth that have been demonstrated in PWH in observational studies in Uganda [29, 42, 43, 44] and intervention trials in Kenya [45] and Uganda [17]. We found that the reductions in unhealthy alcohol use were most pronounced among participants with lower PEth levels at baseline, consistent with previous studies of brief counselling‐based interventions [32]. Of note, unhealthy alcohol use rates remained high at 24 weeks, suggesting that additional strategies are needed, especially for those with higher levels of use. Potential strategies that may be combined with brief intervention and adapted to low‐resource settings include pharmacologic interventions [46], incentive‐based interventions, such as contingency management [47], and prevention efforts [48].
Our trial has several limitations. In this individual RCT, there was potential for contamination between trial arms if participants discussed or shared counselling resources [49], which may have impacted alcohol reduction or viral suppression among control participants. Secondly, COVID‐19 pandemic‐related government restrictions on movement, commerce and alcohol‐serving venue closures during the trial may have affected alcohol use [50], care engagement and medication adherence [51] in manners that were not measured, biasing results towards the null. Thirdly, the potential impact of reduced alcohol use among intervention participants on the burden of HIV‐ and alcohol‐associated co‐morbidities [52], financial wellbeing [22] and intimate partner violence [22] was not measured and should be considered in future trials. Lastly, control arm participants with baseline viral non‐suppression received viral load counselling based on laboratory testing done for the trial, potentially accelerating adherence interventions compared to usual care and improving viral suppression, affecting the generalizability of our findings. Our trial had two unique strengths. First, using a composite measure of an objective alcohol biomarker and self‐report helped to eliminate the risk of social desirability bias that may occur with self‐report alone and was a novel approach compared to other studies [42, 53, 54]. Second, our heterogeneous study population, including several risk groups for non‐suppression, a range of unhealthy alcohol use and many female participants, allowed for subgroup analyses to better understand our findings and hone future interventions.
5. CONCLUSIONS
In summary, a brief, skill‐based alcohol counselling intervention offered over 3 months had no effect compared to the control condition on 24‐week viral suppression among PWH engaged in unhealthy alcohol use, despite reducing levels of unhealthy alcohol use. Our findings highlight that PWH with unhealthy alcohol use in SSA can achieve high levels of viral suppression and, with a brief alcohol intervention, can reduce alcohol use, potentially decreasing associated co‐morbidities and improving health overall.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors report no competing interests.
AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS
SBP, GC, MLP, DVH, MK and JAH contributed to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, literature search and writing of the manuscript. LBB contributed to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and writing of the manuscript. FM, FO, JK, JA, AO, EK, GA, EB, SK, DO, MB, JS and SW‐K contributed to the study design, data interpretation and writing of the manuscript. The authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
FUNDING
The study was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health NIAID/NHLBI/NIMH U01 AI150510 (DVH, MK and MLP), NIAAA K23 AA029045 (SBP) and NIAAA K24 AA022586 (JAH).
Supporting information
Supporting Information file 2: SEARCH‐Alcohol_SAP_v1.0. Format: Word document. Pre‐specified statistical analysis plan.
Text S1: Pre‐specified SAPPHIRE Alcohol Statistical Analysis Plan
Supporting Information file 1: CONSORT 2010 Checklist_JIAS. Format: Word document. Standardized CONSORT checklist for randomized controlled trials.
Text S2: CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomized trial.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the alcohol counsellor team (Frank Kitakule, David Mugumya, Francis Musinguzi, Jacqueline Mwango, Charles Obutinda and Mathews Ochido), the Republic of Kenya Ministry of Health, the Republic of Uganda Ministry of Health, our sponsors, the entire SEARCH Sapphire study team, and especially the study participants and communities.
Clinical Trial Number: NCT #04810650
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Duko B, Ayalew M, Ayano G. The prevalence of alcohol use disorders among people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2019;14:52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. UNAIDS . UNAIDS data 2020. 2020.
- 3. World Health Organization . Global status report on alcohol and health. Geneva; 2018. [Google Scholar]
- 4. Saitz R, Miller SC, Fiellin DA, Rosenthal RN. Recommended use of terminology in addiction medicine. J Addict Med. 2021;15(1):3–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Azar MM, Springer SA, Meyer JP, Altice FL. A systematic review of the impact of alcohol use disorders on HIV treatment outcomes, adherence to antiretroviral therapy and health care utilization. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;112(3):178–193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Hendershot CS, Stoner SA, Pantalone DW, Simoni JM. Alcohol use and antiretroviral adherence: review and meta‐analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;52(2):180–202. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Chander G, Lau B, Moore RD. Hazardous alcohol use: a risk factor for non‐adherence and lack of suppression in HIV infection. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43(4):411–417. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Puryear SB, Balzer LB, Ayieko J, Kwarisiima D, Hahn JA, Charlebois ED, et al. Associations between alcohol use and HIV care cascade outcomes among adults undergoing population‐based HIV testing in East Africa. AIDS. 2020;34(3):405–413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Williams EC, McGinnis KA, Edelman EJ, Matson TE, Gordon AJ, Marshall BDL, et al. Level of alcohol use associated with HIV care continuum targets in a national U.S. sample of persons living with HIV receiving healthcare. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(1):140–151. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Lucas GM, Gebo KA, Chaisson RE, Moore RD. Longitudinal assessment of the effects of drug and alcohol abuse on HIV‐1 treatment outcomes in an urban clinic. AIDS. 2002;16(5):767–774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kalichman SC, Simbayi LC, Kaufman M, Cain D, Jooste S. Alcohol use and sexual risks for HIV/AIDS in sub‐Saharan Africa: systematic review of empirical findings. Prev Sci. 2007;8(2):141–151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Hahn JA, Woolf‐King SE, Muyindike W. Adding fuel to the fire: alcohol's effect on the HIV epidemic in sub‐Saharan Africa. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2011;8(3):172–180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Mushi D, Francis JM, Moshiro C, Hanlon C, Teferra S. Integration of alcohol use disorder interventions in general health care settings in sub‐Saharan Africa: a scoping review. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:822791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Papas RK, Sidle JE, Gakinya BN, Baliddawa JB, Martino S, Mwaniki MM, et al. Treatment outcomes of a stage 1 cognitive‐behavioral trial to reduce alcohol use among human immunodeficiency virus‐infected out‐patients in western Kenya. Addiction. 2011;106(12):2156–2166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Wandera B, Tumwesigye NM, Nankabirwa JI, Mafigiri DK, Parkes‐Ratanshi RM, Kapiga S, et al. Efficacy of a single, brief alcohol reduction intervention among men and women living with HIV/AIDS and using alcohol in Kampala, Uganda: a randomized trial. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care. 2017;16(3):276–285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Zule W, Myers B, Carney T, Novak SP, McCormick K, Wechsberg WM. Alcohol and drug use outcomes among vulnerable women living with HIV: results from the Western Cape Women's Health CoOp. AIDS Care. 2014;26(12):1494–1499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Hahn JA, Fatch R, Emenyonu NI, Sanyu N, Katusiime A, Levine B, et al. Effect of two counseling interventions on self‐reported alcohol consumption, alcohol biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth), and viral suppression among persons living with HIV (PWH) with unhealthy alcohol use in Uganda: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2023;244:109783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Huis in ‘t Veld D, Ensoy‐Musoro C, Pengpid S, Peltzer K, Colebunders R. The efficacy of a brief intervention to reduce alcohol use in persons with HIV in South Africa, a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Madhombiro M, Kidd M, Dube B, Dube M, Mutsvuke W, Muronzie T, et al. Effectiveness of a psychological intervention delivered by general nurses for alcohol use disorders in people living with HIV in Zimbabwe: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(12):e25641. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Scott‐Sheldon LAJ, Carey KB, Johnson BT, Carey MP. Behavioral interventions targeting alcohol use among people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. AIDS Behav. 2017;21(Suppl 2):126–143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Madhombiro M, Musekiwa A, January J, Chingono A, Abas M, Seedat S. Psychological interventions for alcohol use disorders in people living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Leddy AM, Hahn JA, Getahun M, Emenyonu NI, Woolf‐King SE, Sanyu N, et al. Cultural adaptation of an intervention to reduce hazardous alcohol use among people living with HIV in southwestern Uganda. AIDS Behav. 2021;25(3):237–250. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Marson K, Ndyabakira A, Kwarisiima D, Camlin CS, Kamya MR, Havlir D, et al. HIV retesting and risk behaviors among high‐risk, HIV‐uninfected adults in Uganda. AIDS Care. 2021;33(5):675–681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Hahn JA, Cheng DM, Emenyonu NI, Lloyd‐Travaglini C, Fatch R, Shade SB, et al. Alcohol use and HIV disease progression in an antiretroviral naive cohort. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2018;77(5):492–501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Bradley KA, DeBenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Frank D, Kivlahan DR. AUDIT‐C as a brief screen for alcohol misuse in primary care. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007;31(7):1208–1217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Sankoh O, Sevalie S, Weston M. Mental health in Africa. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6(9):e954–e955. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Jones J, Jones M, Plate C, Lewis D. The detection of 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐oleoyl‐sn‐glycero‐3‐phosphoethanol in human dried blood spots. Anal Methods. 2011;3(5):1101–1106. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Ulwelling W, Smith K. The PEth blood test in the security environment: what it is; why it is important; and interpretative guidelines. J Forensic Sci. 2018;63(6):1634–1640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Hahn JA, Emenyonu NI, Fatch R, Muyindike WR, Kekiibina A, Carrico AW, et al. Declining and rebounding unhealthy alcohol consumption during the first year of HIV care in rural Uganda, using phosphatidylethanol to augment self‐report. Addiction. 2016;111(2):272–279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Luginbühl M, Wurst FM, Stöth F, Weinmann W, Stove CP, Van Uytfanghe K. Consensus for the use of the alcohol biomarker phosphatidylethanol (PEth) for the assessment of abstinence and alcohol consumption in clinical and forensic practice (2022 Consensus of Basel). Drug Test Anal. 2022;14(10):1800–1802. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Fisher JD, Fisher WA. Changing AIDS‐risk behavior. Psychol Bull. 1992;111(3):455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Chander G, Hutton HE, Lau B, Xu X, McCaul ME. Brief intervention decreases drinking frequency in HIV‐infected, heavy drinking women: results of a randomized controlled trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;70(2):137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Singla DR, Weobong B, Nadkarni A, Chowdhary N, Shinde S, Anand A, et al. Improving the scalability of psychological treatments in developing countries: an evaluation of peer‐led therapy quality assessment in Goa, India. Behav Res Ther. 2014;60:53–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Go VF, Hutton HE, Ha TV, Chander G, Latkin CA, Mai NVT, et al. Effect of 2 integrated interventions on alcohol abstinence and viral suppression among Vietnamese adults with hazardous alcohol use and HIV: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2017115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Balzer LB, van der Laan MJ, Petersen ML. Adaptive pre‐specification in randomized trials with and without pair‐matching. Stat Med. 2016;35(25):4528–4545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. van der Laan MJ, Rose S. Targeted learning: causal inference for observational and experimental data. New York: Springer; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 37. Velloza J, Kemp CG, Aunon FM, Ramaiya MK, Creegan E, Simoni JM. Alcohol use and antiretroviral therapy non‐adherence among adults living with HIV/AIDS in sub‐Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. AIDS Behav. 2020;24(6):1727–1742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Parienti J‐J, Fournier AL, Cotte L, Schneider M‐P, Etienne M, Unal G, et al. Forgiveness of dolutegravir‐based triple therapy compared with older antiretroviral regimens: a prospective multicenter cohort of adherence patterns and HIV‐RNA replication. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8(7):ofab316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Jacobson K, Ogbuagu O. Integrase inhibitor‐based regimens result in more rapid virologic suppression rates among treatment‐naïve human immunodeficiency virus‐infected patients compared to non‐nucleoside and protease inhibitor‐based regimens in a real‐world clinical setting: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine. 2018;97(43):e13016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Grimsrud A, Wilkinson L. Acceleration of differentiated service delivery for HIV treatment in sub‐Saharan Africa during COVID‐19. J Int AIDS Soc. 2021;24(6):e25704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Grimsrud A, Barnabas RV, Ehrenkranz P, Ford N. Evidence for scale up: the differentiated care research agenda. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(Suppl 4):22024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Adong J, Fatch R, Emenyonu NI, Cheng DM, Muyindike WR, Ngabirano C, et al. Social desirability bias impacts self‐reported alcohol use among persons with HIV in Uganda. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2019;43(12):2591–2598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Muyindike WR, Lloyd‐Travaglini C, Fatch R, Emenyonu NI, Adong J, Ngabirano C, et al. Phosphatidylethanol confirmed alcohol use among ART‐naïve HIV‐infected persons who denied consumption in rural Uganda. AIDS Care. 2017;29(11):1442–1447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Magidson JF, Fatch R, Orrell C, Amanyire G, Haberer JE, Hahn JA. Biomarker‐measured unhealthy alcohol use in relation to CD4 count among individuals starting ART in sub‐Saharan Africa. AIDS Behav. 2019;23(6):1656–1667. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Papas RK, Gakinya BN, Mwaniki MM, Keter AK, Lee H, Loxley MP, et al. Associations between the phosphatidylethanol alcohol biomarker and self‐reported alcohol use in a sample of HIV‐infected outpatient drinkers in western Kenya. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016;40(8):1779–1787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Farhadian N, Moradi S, Zamanian MH, Farnia V, Rezaeian S, Farhadian M, et al. Effectiveness of naltrexone treatment for alcohol use disorders in HIV: a systematic review. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2020. Mar 18;15(1):24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Chamie GH, Judith A, Kekibiina A, Emenyonu N, Beesiga B, Marson K, et al. RCT of economic incentives for reduced alcohol use and INH adherence among PWH. CROI. Seattle, WA; 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 48. Karnell AP, Cupp PK, Zimmerman RS, Feist‐Price S, Bennie T. Efficacy of an American alcohol and HIV prevention curriculum adapted for use in South Africa: results of a pilot study in five township schools. AIDS Educ Prev. 2006;18(4):295–310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Magill N, Knight R, McCrone P, Ismail K, Landau S. A scoping review of the problems and solutions associated with contamination in trials of complex interventions in mental health. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019. Jan 7;19(1):4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Asiimwe C, Fatch R, Cheng DM, Emenyonu NI, Ngabirano C, Muyindike WR, et al. Bar attendance and alcohol use before and after COVID‐19 related restrictions among HIV‐infected adults in south‐western Uganda. AIDS Behav. 2022;27:2005–2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Jewell BL, Mudimu E, Stover J, Ten Brink D, Phillips AN, Smith JA, et al. Potential effects of disruption to HIV programmes in sub‐Saharan Africa caused by COVID‐19: results from multiple mathematical models. Lancet HIV. 2020;7(9):e629–e640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Williams EC, Hahn JA, Saitz R, Bryant K, Lira MC, Samet JH. Alcohol use and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection: current knowledge, implications, and future directions. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2016;40(10):2056–2072. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Asiimwe SB, Fatch R, Emenyonu NI, Muyindike WR, Kekibiina A, Santos GM, et al. Comparison of traditional and novel self‐report measures to an alcohol biomarker for quantifying alcohol consumption among HIV‐infected adults in sub‐Saharan Africa. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(8):1518–1527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Bajunirwe F, Haberer JE, Boum Y, 2nd , Hunt P, Mocello R, Martin JN, et al. Comparison of self‐reported alcohol consumption to phosphatidylethanol measurement among HIV‐infected patients initiating antiretroviral treatment in southwestern Uganda. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e113152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supporting Information file 2: SEARCH‐Alcohol_SAP_v1.0. Format: Word document. Pre‐specified statistical analysis plan.
Text S1: Pre‐specified SAPPHIRE Alcohol Statistical Analysis Plan
Supporting Information file 1: CONSORT 2010 Checklist_JIAS. Format: Word document. Standardized CONSORT checklist for randomized controlled trials.
Text S2: CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomized trial.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.