Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jan 20;18(1):e0279996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279996

Retention among transgender women treated with dolutegravir associated with tenofovir/lamivudine or emtricitabine in Argentina: TransViiV study

Claudia E Frola 1,2,*, Inés Aristegui 1,3, María I Figueroa 1, Pablo D Radusky 1,4, Nadir Cardozo 1,5, Virginia Zalazar 1, Carina Cesar 1, Patricia Patterson 1, Valeria Fink 1, Ana Gun 1, Pedro Cahn 1, Omar Sued 1
Editor: Patricia Evelyn Fast6
PMCID: PMC9858466  PMID: 36662723

Abstract

In Argentina, transgender women (TGW) have a high HIV prevalence (34%). However, this population shows lower levels of adherence, retention in HIV care and viral suppression than cisgender patients. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the transition to dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimens to reduce adverse events and improve adherence and retention. The purpose of this study was to determine retention, adherence and viral suppression in naïve TGW starting a DTG-based first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART) and to identify clinical and psychosocial factors associated with retention. We designed a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial among ART-naïve HIV positive TGW (Clinical Trial Number: NCT03033836). Participants were followed at weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48, in a trans-affirmative HIV care service that included peer navigators, between December, 2015 and May, 2019. Retention was defined as the proportion of TGW retained at week 48 and adherence was self-reported. Viral suppression at <50 copies/mL was evaluated using snapshot algorithm and as per protocol analysis. Of 75 TGW screened, 61 were enrolled. At baseline, median age was 28 y/o., HIV-1-RNA (pVL) 46,908 copies/mL and CD4+ T-cell count 383 cells/mm3. At week 48, 77% were retained and 72% had viral suppression (97% per protocol). The regimen was well tolerated and participants reported high adherence (about 95%). Eleven of the fourteen TGW who discontinued or were lost to follow-up had undetectable pVL at their last visit. Older age was associated with better retention. DTG-based treatment delivered by a trans-competent team in a trans-affirmative service was safe and well tolerated by TGW and associated with high retention, high adherence and high viral suppression at 48 weeks among those being retained.

Introduction

Transgender women (TGW) remain a key population within the global HIV pandemic, with estimates that suggest that their risk of acquiring HIV is almost 50 times higher than the rest of the population [1]. Argentina has a concentrated HIV epidemic among specific groups, with a prevalence estimated at 34% in TGW, compared to 0.4% in the general population [2]. In contrast, this population consistently shows low levels of adherence to antiretroviral treatment (ART) and retention in HIV care, in comparison with cisgender patients, and therefore, TGW are less likely to achieve viral suppression [36]. At the root of this adverse outcome, several factors can be identified, such as experiences of gender identity-related stigma and discrimination, particularly within the healthcare system, and high levels of psychosocial and economic vulnerability (e.g., high prevalence of mental health problems and substance use, barriers to access formal employment, among others) [5, 711].

Treatment-related factors may also affect the level of adherence to antiretroviral treatment (ART). Complexity of regimen (dosing frequency, pill burden) and presence of side effects are frequent correlates of treatment abandonment [12]. Transition to integrase inhibitors (INIs) based regimens is associated with lower discontinuation rate and higher efficacy to increase viral suppression and, potentially, higher retention in HIV care [13]. For this reason, currently the World Health Organization (WHO) [14] recommends dolutegravir (DTG) with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) as the preferred ART for naïve individuals based on its better efficacy and safety profile, in order to reduce adverse events, improve adherence and retention in HIV care and as a response to increments of the primary resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. As a possible disadvantage, only an increased risk of weight gain in the short term has been reported in those starting DTG-based regimens [15].

Increasing TGW’s ART adherence and retention is critical for this population’s quality of life and for public health. Evidence demonstrates that provision of HIV treatment, in addition to preventing disease progression and death, greatly reduces transmission to sex partners, an approach known as treatment as prevention (TasP) [16]. Furthermore, retention is fundamental for the timely identification of side effects, treatment abandonment or plasma viral load (pVL) rebound in order to adjust ART to ensure viral suppression [1719]. The scarce information about retention in HIV care among TGW reinforces the need to study all the steps of the HIV cascade in this population [20], especially regarding the use of DTG-based regimens.

We, therefore, hypothesized that a DTG-based treatment would be an effective regimen in ART-naïve, HIV-1-infected TGW. We conducted this 48-week study to determine retention, adherence and viral suppression of TGW treated with DTG plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) coformulated with either emtricitabine (FTC) or lamivudine (3TC) (DTG + TDF-XTC) and to identify clinical and psychosocial factors associated with retention.

Methods

Study setting

This study was conducted in a non-governmental organization that provides free-of-charge trans-competent and trans-affirmative HIV care in the context of clinical research in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Our trans-affirmative healthcare service includes a) use of patients’ preferred name and pronoun in interactions, clinical records and forms (which include sex assigned at birth and gender identity); b) an interdisciplinary trans-competent trained staff, aware of transgender people’s needs and accepting of their identities; c) integration of multiple services for this community (e.g., HIV, gender-affirming medical procedures, anal health) to simplify service delivery; d) adjustment to transgender populations’ social contexts (e.g., flexible scheduling and hours); and e) inclusion of transgender peer navigators. Peer navigators function as a bridge between the research site and the transgender community. Some of their main tasks are: a) to provide health information to their peers adapting it to their community and making it more accessible and comprehensible, b) to invite potential participants and to enroll them in the studies, c) to verify that they understood the informed consent correctly and to answer any concern about it, d) to assist transgender people in obtaining medical appointments and in navigating the healthcare service, e) to remind participants their upcoming visits, and f) to contact lost to follow-up participants to re-engage them in the study.

Study design

This was a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial of DTG-TDF/XTC. This study was designed in a national context of use of efavirenz-containing triple antiretroviral regimen with possible changes in sleep quality. This regimen could particularly affect a population with high proportions of engagement in nightly sex work, such as TGW [11], therefore negatively impacting adherence and retention. Eligible participants were ART-naïve, HIV-1-infected, self-identified as TGW, ≥18 years old, without evidence of genotypic viral resistance to 3TC, FTC or TDF as per IAS-USA 2013 resistance panel [21]. Exclusion criteria included severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh B or C), hepatitis C requiring treatment, creatinine clearance <50 ml/min and plans of moving out of the city within the next year. Study participants received one daily pill of open-label DTG 50 mg plus either one daily pill of TDF 300 mg /3TC 300 mg or /FTC 200 mg. Treatment was provided on site at the following visits: baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 y 48.

Participants were recruited by outreach efforts of peer navigators, through testing campaigns conducted in places were transgender people gather or live, and through collaboration with a local transgender community-based organization. Eligible participants started ART and were followed for 48 weeks according to study protocol and procedures, between December, 2015 and May, 2019 (Table 1). Participants with significant suicidal ideation were assessed for suicide risk by a mental healthcare provider, and referral to mental health services was facilitated to those who required it.

Table 1. Schedule of procedures.

Procedures SCR BSL Week 4 Week 8 Week 12 Week 24 Week 36 Week 48 Final Visit
Informed Consent X
Medical History X
Physical Exam X X X X X X X X X
Vital Signs X X X X X X X X X
Electrocardiogram X
Concomitant Drugs X X X X X X X X
Psychosocial Questionnaires a X X X
AEs and Adherence X X X X X X X X
HIV Genotype X
Serologies b X
HIV-1 RNA X X X X X X X
CD4 Cell Count X X X X X X
Complete Blood Count c X X X X X X X
Basic Chemistry d X X X X
Complete Chemistry e X X X

Abbreviations: SCR, screening; BSL, basal

a Socio-demographic questionnaire, suicidal ideation, AUDIT, DAST-10.

b HBV anti-core, HBVsAg, HCV IgG, VDRL.

c Hemoglobin, hematocrit, erythrocytes, leukocytes, thrombocytes, neutrophils, basophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, reticulocytes, MCV, MCH, MCHC, platelets, prothrombin time, activated thromboplastin time.

d ALT, AST, total bilirubin, creatinine.

e ALT, AST, alkaline phosphatase, amylase, gamma-GT, sodium, potassium, calcium, chloride, bicarbonate, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, indirect bilirubin, lactate, creatinine, urea, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, lactate dehydrogenase, total protein, albumin, urine dipstick.

According to local regulations, the registration of this study in the national registry of clinical trials (ReNIS—Registro Nacional de Investigaciones en Salud) was not required. However, we decided to register it as we were aware that it was a requirement for the publication of the study’s results. Consequently, it was registered after the enrollment of participants started, under Clinical Trial Number NCT03033836. The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered.

Measures

Main variables for this study were measured as follows:

  • Retention: this primary endpoint was defined as the proportion of TGW retained in the study at weeks 24 and 48.

  • Adherence to ART: self-reported medication adherence was assessed using the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group Adherence Questionnaire [22]. A visual analogue scale was also used, composed of a line with a range of possible quantitative scores (0–100%) and the TGWs were instructed to place a mark on a point on it that described their uptake of ART in the last four weeks. An average percentage calculation of the adherence of each participant was performed at each study visit, including weeks 24 and 48.

  • Viral suppression: proportion of individuals with pVL<50 copies/ml at week 48 using the FDA snapshot algorithm (missing, switch or discontinuation = failure) for the intention-to-treat (ITT) exposed population. Viral genotype was analyzed (TRUGENE® HIV-1 Genotyping Kit) at the screening visit and at the time of protocol-defined virological failure (PDVF), defined as pVL ≥1,000 copies/ml at week 24 or 36 or ≥50 copies/ml at week 48; or a confirmed viral rebound (>200 copies/ml) after pVL <50 copies/ml. Participants were required to withdraw from the study if PDVF was confirmed.

  • Safety and tolerability: it was assessed considering the frequency, type and severity of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and laboratory abnormalities graded according to the Division of AIDS (DAIDS) Table for Grading the Severity of Adults and Pediatric Adverse Events, version 2.0- November 2014. Likewise, its possible relationship with the study regimen was evaluated.

  • Clinical characteristics: these variables included a) immunological status related to HIV (CD4 and pVL count); b) syphilis basal prevalence and incidence along the study; c) co-infection with hepatitis B and/or C; d) concomitant medication (e.g., hormone therapy) at baseline, and e) presence of overweight or obesity according to the body mass index corresponding to ≥25 or ≥30, respectively.

  • Psychosocial variables: these variables were measured at baseline, 24 and 48 weeks with a questionnaire that included: a) sociodemographic variables (educational level, current engagement in sex work, housing stability, migration); b) 4-item suicidal ideation screener; c) Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT, 10 items, scores ≥ 8 indicate hazardous alcohol use), and d) Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10, 10 items, scores ≥ 6 indicate possible drug abuse or dependence problems) [2325].

Statistical analyses

Sample size was not determined in advance and a convenience sampling was conducted. All data were anonymized and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 24 software.

Descriptive statistics were presented for the primary and secondary outcomes, with median and interquartile ranges (IQRs) or frequencies and proportions (%), as appropriate. Comparisons between “retained” and “not retained” individuals were performed to identify baseline clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with loss of follow-up at week 48, using Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney’s U test for continuous variables when normality was not confirmed. Longitudinal differences between baseline and week 48 were assessed for CD4 count and weight, using Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as these variables showed non-normal distributions. A survival analysis of retained participants was performed with R (survival package). Time to event was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. For all the analyses, a p value < .05 was considered significant. However, alpha levels below 10% were considered as indicating a trend.

Ethics statement

TransViiV study was evaluated and approved by the institutional review board under the number FH-17. The study was carried out following the good clinical practices. All individuals provided a written informed consent before participation in any study procedure. Participation was voluntary. At each visit, participants received a $150 Argentine pesos compensation (approximately, 15 USD at the moment of the study) to cover transportation costs, and a coupon exchangeable for a basic breakfast or meal.

Results

Between December, 2015 and May, 2018, 75 TGW were screened. Of these, 61 were enrolled and received the study treatment. Fourteen TGW (18%) were considered screening failure, being the most frequent reasons non-amplification of the genotypic test and plans to move to another city in the following year (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Screening to week 48.

Fig 1

NOTE. (*) hyperamylasemia related to a prior history of alcohol abuse. (#) false-positive HIV test. LTFU, lost to follow-up. SAEs: suicide attempt (1) and death (1).

Baseline clinical and psychosocial characteristics

At enrollment, most patients were asymptomatic, with 96% CDC staged as class A. Main HIV route of transmission was unprotected sexual contact. Within the baseline clinical characteristics (Table 2), 20% of the TGW had a CD4 count <200 cells/mm3 and 40% had high pVL (>100,000 c/mL). With respect to other sexually transmitted infections, the baseline prevalence and incidence of syphilis was 36% (n = 22) and 29.5%, respectively. HIV co-infection with hepatitis B or C was ≤5%.

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of enrolled, retained, and virally suppressed HIV positive TGW.

Characteristic Enrolled patients (N = 61) Retained at week 48 (n = 47) Virally suppressed at week 48 (n = 44)
Age, median (IQR) 28 (25–32) 28 (26–33) 28 (26–33)
Foreign-born 18 (30%) 14 (30%) 13 (30%)
Incomplete high school education or less 37 (61%) 27 (57%) 25 (57%)
Unstable housing 32 (53%) 28 (60%) 26 (59%)
Sex work (current) 47 (77%) 35 (75%) 32 (73%)
pVL HIV, median copies/ml (IQR) 46,908 (12,627–275,316) 58,161 (13,230–308,994) 78,675 (12,928–300,282)
CD4 count, median (IQR) 383 (230–601) 389 (216–614) 391 (235–615)
pVL HIV >100,000 c/mL, n(%) 25 (41%) 22 (47%) 21 (48%)
CD4 count <200, n (%) 12 (20%) 9 (19%) 8 (18%)
Current syphilis 22 (36%) 19 (40%) 17 (39%)
Hepatitis B 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
Hepatitis C 3 (5%) 2 (4%) 2 (5%)
Use of gender-affirming hormone therapy 8 (13%) 8 (17%) 8 (18%)
Suicidal ideation 16 (26%) 13 (28%) 13 (30%)
Obesity/overweight 26 (44%) 19 (42%) 18 (43%)
Hazardous alcohol use 32 (53%) 24 (51%) 22 (50%)
Drug abuse 8 (13%) 6 (13%) 5 (11%)
Cocaine use (last year) 32 (53%) 24 (51%) 22 (50%)

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile; pVL, plasma viral load

Baseline psychosocial characteristics show high levels of social vulnerability (e.g., 53% [n = 32] reported unstable housing; 77% [n = 47], current engagement in sex work; 61% [n = 37], incomplete high school education). Regarding mental health indicators, 26% (n = 16) of these TGW reported significant suicidal ideation in the last 2 weeks. Moreover, 66% reported drug use in the last year (53% [n = 32] reported cocaine use), 13% [n = 8] evidenced possible drug abuse and 53% (n = 32) presented hazardous alcohol use.

Adherence, retention and viral suppression

Regarding adherence, the mean for week 24 was 86.9% and the median value was 95% (76.6–95). For week 48, the mean reported adherence was 86.3% and the median value was also 95% (76.6–95).

Regarding retention, 82% were retained in the study at week 24 and this proportion decreased to 77% at week 48. Of the 47 retained participants, 2 did not have a pVL at week 48 but, as they attended the clinic, they were considered as retained for the analyses. Although 14 (22%) participants were discontinued or lost to follow-up (Fig 1); 79% of them had undetectable pVL at their last visit. Of the retained TGW who performed the laboratory test at 48 weeks, 72% had viral suppression using snapshot algorithm ITT-exposed and 97% (44/45) did so in the per-protocol analysis. One patient had PDVF at week 48, but the pVL was <200 copies/ml and it could not be amplified for genotypic analysis.

In relation to the CD4 count, a statistically significant increase was recorded between baseline and week 48 (z = -4.679, p = 0.000). The median increase in CD4 count between baseline and week 48 was 276 (median CD4 count at baseline was 389 [216–614]; median at week 48 was 665 [493–815]). This is an increase of 71% on the median value for CD4 count.

Survival analysis

The starting point for this analysis is baseline visit when participants received the first treatment medication. Time between this visit and the next medication dispensed (next visit date) was calculated until the first event of no medication dispensed occurred. When this happened, the participant was considered “not retained in the study” for that time point. The survival analysis performed shows that the probability of retention in the study decreases with time (Fig 2). In the first month after enrollment (week 4), the mean retention probability is 92%. By month 2 (week 8) it descends to 87%; in month 3 (week 12) it descends to 81%; and in month 6 (week 24) it is 73%. The mean retention probability by month 9 (week 36) is 68% and by the end of the study (week 48) it is 65%. The greater decrease in retention probability occurred in the first to third month of treatment.

Fig 2. Time to last visit/medication dispensed curve.

Fig 2

Safety and tolerability

The study drugs were well tolerated. Nine clinical AEs (grade 1: 17% [8/47] and grade 2: 2% [1/47]) were classified as possibly related to study treatment. The most frequent laboratory abnormalities were elevated aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase (grade 2: 20% [9/45]) without an increase in bilirubin. Hypertriglyceridemia (grade 2) was observed in 13.3% (6/45) of the participants.

Five participants presented SAEs, although none were considered related to study treatment, and two resulted in the participant’s discontinuation from the study (one was a suicide attempt after 8 weeks of treatment and the other, a meningeal tuberculosis at week 4, leading to death). Although external factors were identified in the case of suicidal attempt, after discussing with the medical team, it was decided to discontinue ART. The other 3 SAEs included cryptococcal meningitis at day 5, intestinal tuberculosis at week 20, and appendicitis at week 24 that resulted in hospital admission. These three participants finalized the protocol.

Given that weight gain has been reported for DTG-based regimens, changes at week 48 were analyzed for exploratory reasons. Participants increased their weight, on average, by 2.6% compared to their weight at the baseline visit. In absolute terms, there was an increase of 1.5 kilos on average between baseline and week 48; this difference was not statistically significant (z = -1.934, p = 0.053), although it can be considered a trend (p value < 0.10).

Clinical and psychosocial factors associated with retention

As shown in Table 3, no statistically significant differences were observed for most baseline clinical and psychosocial variables between TGW retained and not retained in the study at week 48. Differences in age were significant (p = 0.016), participants retained in the study are older than not retained participants. Unstable housing was also significant (p = 0.041), participants retained in the study report unstable housing in a greater proportion than not retained participants.

Table 3. Baseline clinical and psychosocial characteristics by retention status among HIV positive TGW.

Retained (n = 47) Not Retained (n = 14) Mann-Whitney x 2 p
Age, median (IQR) 28 (26–33) 24 (23–29) 189.5 - 0.016*
Foreign-born 14 (30%) 4 (29%) - ** 1.000
Incomplete high school education or less 27 (57%) 10 (71%) - 0.884 0.347
Unstable housing 28 (60%) 4 (29%) - 3.395 0.041*
Sex work (current) 35 (75%) 12 (86%) - ** 0.488
pVL HIV, median copies/ml (IQR) 58,161 (13,230–308,994) 26.031 (9,610–71,135) 258.0 - 0.223
CD4 count, median (min/max) (IQR) 389 (20–1118) (216–614) 374 (82–116) (257–528) 318.0 - 0.850
pVL HIV >100,000 c/mL, n(%) 22 (47%) 3 (21%) - 2.873 0.090
CD4 count <200, n (%) 9 (19%) 3 (21%) - ** 1.000
Current syphilis 19 (40%) 3 (21%) - 1.688 0.194
Hepatitis B 1 (2%) 0 (0%) - ** 1.000
Hepatitis C 2 (4%) 1 (7%) - ** 0.549
Use of gender-affirming hormone therapy 8 (17%) 0 (0%) - ** 0.180
Suicidal ideation 13 (28%) 3 (21%) - ** 0.742
Obesity/overweight 19 (42%) 7 (50%) - 0.262 0.609
Hazardous alcohol use 24 (51%) 8 (57%) - 0.160 0.689
Drug abuse 6 (13%) 2 (14%) - ** 1.00
Cocaine use (last year) 24 (51%) 8 (57%) - 0.160 0.689

* p < 0.05

** Fisher’s exact test is recorded.

Discussion

This study with HIV-1-infected ART-naïve TGW showed that 77% met the protocol definition of retention (at week 48) after their initial prescription of drug regimen comprising DTG plus TDF-FTC or 3TC. Likewise, 72% and 97% of participants showed viral suppression at week 48 in ITT and per-protocol analyses, respectively. The regimen had low toxicity, good tolerance and high adherence (about 95%).

Although retention and viral suppression figures are below the UNAIDS recommended goals, they still represent an achievement in this challenging group of patients. In fact, studies from Latin America show lower rates of retention among TGW. A respondent-driven sampling study among TGW in Brazil that aimed to estimate the HIV cascade of continuum of care showed that 67.2% reported linkage to care [26]. In Peru, retention among men who have sex with men and TGW diagnosed with HIV was estimated in 65% [27]. Moreover, the results of the current study showed better retention than the estimate found in a retrospective study conducted by our research group in a public hospital in Buenos Aires, reporting a retention of 46.4% at 1 year of treatment initiation [28]. Likewise, the proportion found in this study was also higher than the one found in the general population of Buenos Aires (65.5%) [29]. It is worth noting that when these previous studies were conducted, ART combinations did not include DTG as the first-line, preferred treatment. It is possible that the study regimen exhibited a better tolerability than the standard first-line at the time of designing this protocol. Additionally, unlike these previous studies, in this trial, treatment was provided in the context of a trans-affirmative care service. This characteristic may have contributed to increased retention in the study.

Baseline characteristics of the sample show a high level of psychosocial vulnerability. One third of the participants (30%) were foreign-born, half of them reported unstable housing, and a high proportion was engaged in sex work for a living. These factors, among others, may increase mobility and, therefore, the risk of being lost to follow-up in HIV care [30]. Simplification of ART by preferring once-daily uptake regimens, such as the one including DTG, may contribute to compensate for this situation and to explain the proportion of participants retained in this study.

Age was one of the factors associated with retention in this sample of TGW. Older TGW are more likely to be retained in the study than younger ones. In relation to this, older TGW may have a history of approaching the healthcare system seeking gender-affirming medical procedures (e.g., hormone therapy), which then facilitates access to other healthcare services that they may need, such as HIV care [31, 32]. Participants in this study did not report high proportions of use of hormone therapy at baseline. Nonetheless, those who were retained were the ones who did report use of hormones for gender-affirmation, which constitutes the first contact or the entrance to the healthcare system. Additionally, older TGW could have more confidence in the healthcare team and a better and more trustworthy patient-provider relationship, which contribute to improved retention [33]. Even though substance use has been identified as a factor that negatively affects retention among TGW [34], in our study, the use of alcohol and cocaine in the last year was not significantly associated with retention. However, the high levels of substance use in this population, as shown in these results, is another factor to take into consideration when deciding to prescribe an ART regimen with less potential for interaction.

Adherence to ART is affected by a range of factors, among them, the AEs associated with chronic therapy [35]. This study supports the current WHO recommendations regarding the use of DTG-based therapies and, in line with other studies [3639] this regimen showed excellent safety and good tolerance with adherence percentages of 95%. Five patients presented SAEs, though they were unrelated to the study treatment and, on the contrary, the majority corresponded to opportunistic infections that reflected the low immunological level due to advanced HIV infection. Some of these infections, especially those associated with tuberculosis, may have emerged in the context of a possible immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome, due to initiation of ART with a potent combination of drugs, in a predisposing immunologic profile.

The absence of a control arm did not allow us to draw conclusions about efficacy of once-daily DTG-based ARV-naïve patients. However, in this single-arm study, this regimen achieved viral suppression in 72% of 45 patients by ITT analysis and 97% in the analysis per-protocol. Given that the number of “non-suppressed” participants was very small, an exploratory analysis of possible correlates of this condition could not be conducted, as required statistical parameters were not achieved.

In the course of DTG-based ART, an unexpected excess in weight gain has been reported [15, 40]. Although results showed an increase between the baseline visit and week 48 of treatment, it was non-significant, and less than that reported in other studies.

In Argentina, gender identity stigma from healthcare workers is associated with avoidance of TGW to attend healthcare services [7]. Our study was conducted by a trans-competent team in a trans-affirmative HIV care service, which, in addition to the proposed ART, may have contributed to the high retention rates among participants. The presence of transgender peer navigators may have also contributed to a better retention. As previous local research suggested, a trans-affirmative healthcare service can have not only a medical benefit, but also a psychosocial gender-affirming effect that positively impacts general health and wellbeing [11]. Future research should compare retention in different healthcare settings, considering the mediating role of a trans-affirmative approach in HIV care and the inclusion of peer navigators as part of the healthcare team.

Limitations

The present study has some limitations. Firstly, our findings cannot be generalized to all HIV positive TGW in Argentina. A small non-probability sample was enrolled, limiting generalizability of results. Still, the final sample showed sociodemographic characteristics that are similar to nationwide studies with non-clinical samples [41]. Secondly, ART adherence was measured through self-report and therefore, this measure may not be free of social desirability bias. Lack of drug dosage and lack of uniformity with other studies limited comparability of results across contexts.

Although our results seem favorable in the context of this specific population, they are still far from the achievement of the UNAIDS global 95-95-95 HIV goals by 2030 [42], especially in a population with such high exposure to HIV and engagement in sex work.

Conclusion

In this study, DTG-based treatment delivered by a trans-competent team in a trans-affirmative service was safe and well tolerated by TGW and associated with high retention, high adherence and high viral suppression at 48 weeks among those being retained. Thus, results support the use of DTG-based treatments in this population, as it is recommended by the WHO [14] in naïve patients in general.

Despite involving a small sample of TGW, this is the first longitudinal study of these characteristics in Argentina, contributing to the scarce information available in Latin America, on retention and adherence to ART among transgender people. It also supports the need for a more comprehensive approach in HIV care, integrating medical and psychosocial/behavioral factors, to address retention in this population. As these results suggest, a trans-affirmative approach in care and the inclusion of peer navigators may facilitate access to healthcare and favor greater retention. Thus, it is recommended to continue exploring the feasibility of the implementation of these strategies in public healthcare services.

Supporting information

S1 File. Original protocol Spanish version.

(PDF)

S2 File. Original protocol English version.

(PDF)

S3 File. Minimal anonymized data set.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants and organizations that work with us, and that collaborate in improving the health of the trans population: Asociación de Travestis, Transexuales y Transgéneros de Argentina (A.T.T.T.A), Asociación Civil Hotel Gondolin and Casa Trans.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript. We can provide access without limitations to all the dataset.

Funding Statement

The present study was funded by an Investigator Initiated Research Grant from ViiV Healthcare, GSK202037. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Baral SD, Poteat T, Strömdahl S, Wirtz AL, Guadamuz TE, Beyrer C. Worldwide burden of HIV in transgender women: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):214–22. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70315-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ministerio de Salud de la Nación. Boletín N° 38 Respuesta al VIH y las ITS en la Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina; 2021. Available from: https://bancos.salud.gob.ar/recurso/boletin-ndeg-38-respuesta-al-vih-y-las-its-en-la-argentina.
  • 3.Melendez RM, Exner TA, Ehrhardt AA, Dodge B, Remien RH, Rotheram-Borus M-J, et al. Health and health care among male-to-female transgender persons who are HIV positive. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(6):1034–7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.042010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sevelius JM, Carrico A, Johnson MO. Antiretroviral Therapy Adherence Among Transgender Women Living With HIV. J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2010;21(3):256–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jana.2010.01.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Radusky PD, Aristegui I, Mandell LN, Dell’Isola E, Zalazar V, Cardozo N, et al. Examining Factors Associated with Gender Identity Among Individuals Disengaged from HIV Care in Argentina. Int J Behav Med. 2022;29:69–77. doi: 10.1007/s12529-021-09998-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Baguso GN, Gay CL, Lee KA. Medication adherence among transgender women living with HIV. AIDS Care. 2016;28(8):976–81. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2016.1146401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Socías ME, Marshall BDL, Arístegui I, et al. Factors associated with healthcare avoidance among transgender women in Argentina. Int J Equity Health. 2014;13(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s12939-014-0081-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Reisner SL, Nemoto T, Gamarel KE, Operario D. Dyadic effects of gender minority stressors in substance use behaviors amongtransgender women and their non-transgender male partners. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2014;1(1):63–71. doi: 10.1037/0000013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yang MF, Manning D, Van Den Berg JJ, Operario D. Stigmatizationand mental health in a diverse sample of transgender women. LGBT Heal. 2015;2(4):306–12. doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2014.0106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Reisner SL, Poteat T, Keatley JA, et al. Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review. Lancet. 2016;388(10042):412–36. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00684-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Radusky PD, Zalazar V, Cardozo N, et al. Reduction of gender identity stigma and improvements in mental health among transgender women initiating HIV treatment in a trans-sensitive clinic in Argentina. Transgender Heal. 2020;00(00):1–9. doi: 10.1089/trgh.2020.0005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Schaecher KL. The importance of treatment adherence in HIV. Am J Manag Care. 2013;19(12 suppl.):s231–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mondi A, Cozzi-Lepri A, Tavelli A, Rusconi S, Vichi F, Ceccherini-Silberstein F, et al. Effectiveness of dolutegravir-based regimens as either first-line or switch antiretroviral therapy: data from the Icona cohort. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22:e25227. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.World Health Organization. Update of recommendations on first- and second-line antiretroviral regimens. 2019. Available from: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/arv/arv-update-2019-policy/en/%0Afile:///C:/Users/Harrison/Downloads/WHO-CDS-HIV-19.15-eng.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bourgi K, Rebeiro PF, Turner M, Castilho JL, Hulgan T, Raffanti SP, et al. Greater Weight Gain in Treatment-naive Persons Starting Dolutegravir-based Antiretroviral Therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(7):1267–74. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cohen MS, McCauley M, Gamble TR. HIV treatment as prevention and HPTN 052. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7(2):99–105. doi: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32834f5cf2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Park WB, Choe PG, Kim SH, Jo JH, Bang JH, Kim HB, et al. One-year adherence to clinic visits after highly active antiretroviral therapy: A predictor of clinical progress in HIV patients. J Intern Med. 2007;261(3):268–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2006.01762.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Geng EH, Nash D, Kambugu A, Zhang Y, Braitstein P, Christopoulos KA, et al. Retention in Care Among HIV-Infected Patients in Resource-Limited Settings: Emerging Insights and New Directions. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2010;7(4):234–44. doi: 10.1007/s11904-010-0061-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Viswanathan S, Detels R, Mehta SH, Macatangay BJC, Kirk GD, Jacobson LP. Level of Adherence and HIV RNA Suppression in the Current Era of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART). AIDS Behav. 2015;19(4):601–11. doi: 10.1007/s10461-014-0927-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Remien R, Bauman L, Mantell J, Tsoi B, Lopez-Rios J, Chhabra R, et al. Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement of Vulnerable Populations in HIV Primary Care in New York City. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;69(01):S16–24. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Johnson VA, Calvez V, Günthard HF, Paredes R, Pillay D, Shafer RW, et al. Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: March 2013. Top Antivir Med. 2013;21(1):6–14. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Chesney MA, Ickovics JR, Chambers DB, Gifford AL, Neidig J, Zwickl B, et al. Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: The AACTG Adherence Instruments. AIDS Care—Psychol Socio-medical Asp AIDS/HIV. 2000;12(3):255–66. doi: 10.1080/09540120050042891 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Skinner HA. The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addict Behav. 1982;7(4):363–71. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(82)90005-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yudko E, Lozhkina O, Fouts A. A comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the Drug Abuse Screening Test. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;32(2):189–98. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, De La Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 1993;88(6):791–804. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.1993.tb02093.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Jalil EM, Wilson EC, Luz PM, Velasque L, Moreira RI, Castro C V., et al. HIV testing and the care continuum among transgender women: Population estimates from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017;20(1):21873–21875. doi: 10.7448/IAS.20.1.21873 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chow JY, Konda KA, Borquez A, Caballero P, Silva-Santisteban A, Klausner JD, et al. Peru’s HIV care continuum among men who have sex with men and transgender women: opportunities to optimize treatment and prevention. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27(12):1039–48. doi: 10.1177/0956462416645727 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Socías ME, Sued O, Frola C, Iacchetti A, Kerr T, Arístegui I, et al. Engagement in the HIV Care Cascade among Transgender Women Enrolled in a Public HIV Clinic in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2000–2012. Oral Presentation Presented at the 20th International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2014); 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Cesar C, Blugerman G, Valiente JA, Rebeiro P, Sued O, Fink V, et al. The HIV care cascade in Buenos Aires, Argentina: Results in a tertiary referral hospital. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2016;40(6):448–54. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tanser F, Bärnighausen T, Vandormael A, Dobra A. HIV treatment cascade in migrants and mobile populations. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2015;10(6):430–8. doi: 10.1097/COH.0000000000000192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sevelius JM, Patouhas E, Keatley JG, Johnson M. Barriers and Facilitators to Engagement and Retention in Care among Transgender Women Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Ann Behav Med. 2014;47(1):5–16. doi: 10.1007/s12160-013-9565-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sevelius JM, Saberi P, Johnson MO. Correlates of Antiretroviral Adherence and Viral Load among Transgender Women Living with HIV. AIDS Care. 2014;26(8):976–82. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2014.896451 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wessinger MH, Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Mangal JP, Gokhale RH, Ruchin L, et al. Retention in HIV care depends on patients’ perceptions of the clinic experience. AIDS Care. 2017;29(10):1212–7. doi: 10.1080/09540121.2017.1308465 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Bockting W, MacCrate C, Israel H, Mantell JE, Remien RH. Engagement and Retention in HIV Care for Transgender Women: Perspectives of Medical and Social Service Providers in New York City. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2020;34(1):16–26. doi: 10.1089/apc.2019.0067 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hadaye RS, Jambhale VB, Shastri S. Assessment of adherence and factors contributing to non-adherence among patients on anti-retroviral therapy in a tertiary care hospital: A cross sectional study. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020;9(4):1921–6. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1138_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Walmsley SL, Antela A, Clumeck N, Duiculescu D, Eberhard A, Gutiérrez F, et al. Dolutegravir plus Abacavir–Lamivudine for the Treatment of HIV-1 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(19):1807–18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Patel DA, Snedecor SJ, Tang WY, Sudharshan L, Lim JW, Cuffe R, et al. 48-Week efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to commonly used third agents in treatment-naive HIV-1-Infected patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e105653. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105653 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Jiang J, Xu X, Guo W, Su J, Huang J, Liang B, et al. Dolutegravir(DTG, S/GSK1349572) combined with other ARTs is superior to RAL- or EFV-based regimens for treatment of HIV-1 infection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. AIDS Res Ther. 2016;13(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12981-016-0115-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Snedecor SJ, Radford M, Kratochvil D, Grove R, Punekar YS. Comparative efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to common core agents in treatment-naïve patients infected with HIV-1: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2019;19(1):484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Taramasso L, Bonfanti P, Ricci E, Orofino G, Squillace N, Menzaghi B, et al. Factors associated with weight gain in people treated with dolutegravir. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020;7(6):ofaa195. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fundación Huésped. Gender identity law and transgender people access to health care in Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina; 2014. Available from: https://www.huesped.org.ar/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Ley-de-Identidad-de-Genero-y-acceso-a-la-salud-de-personas-trans-ING.pdf.
  • 42.Heath K, Levi J, Hill A. The Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS 95–95–95 targets: worldwide clinical and cost benefits of generic manufacture. AIDS. 2021;35(Supplement 2):S197–203. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002983 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Patricia Evelyn Fast

12 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-15918Retention in care among transgender women treated with Dolutegravir associated with Tenofovir/Lamivudine or Emtricitabine in Argentina: TransViiV studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Frola,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Patricia Evelyn Fast, MD, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study. As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper: 1) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started); 2) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

3. Please mention the trial registration number of your clinical trial in the abstract of your manuscript.

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please carefully read the three reviews provided. Each of the reviewers has identified ways in which the presentation or interpretation can be made much clearer.  Although additional analyses are suggested, the criticism that must be addressed is that the paper is not always clear on what was done (these are generally minor comments), and that the interpretation may not always be supported by the data.  In particular, please clarify the difference between retention in care and retention in the study.

 I look forward to your response.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The authors present findings from a study of the HIV care and treatment continuum among transgender women in Buenos Aires, Argentina. While the overall purpose of the study appears to be to conduct a trial of a new treatment, they emphasize the significance of the longitudinal findings given that there is limited information about HIV care and treatment outcomes over time among trans women.

The findings of HIV care and treatment outcomes are indeed a great contribution of the paper; however, the limited information on the overall context of the study, services, and measures diminishes the interpretation and impact of the findings. There is some tension/confusion for me as to whether this is really being presenting as the results of a trial of the new treatment approach or as an observational study of trans women living with HIV in a trans-competent clinic. I suggest being more explicit about this and providing more context about the services and care that was offered beyond the new drug regimen. It would also be helpful to provide more commentary on how the landscape of HIV treatment has changed since this trial was completed in 2018, especially for non-clinical readers, and how these findings fit into current treatment practice.

Abstract:

Rather than focusing on just the disproportionate burden of HIV among trans women, given the focus of this paper on HIV care and treatment outcomes, it would be more relevant to discuss the gaps in retention, adherence, and viral suppression that trans women experience.

Suggest including the years of the study in the abstract.

Intro

I would strongly suggest editing the first paragraph to provide more structure. The first paragraph is nearly the entire first page and covers a huge range of information. Consider using shorter pargraphs to address the key points around: 1) the overall burden of HIV; 2) the importance of TASP and gaps among trans women; and 3) psychosocial and contextual factors to consider.

It is not clear why there is discussion of migrants in the first paragraph. Suggest focusing on the target population of trans women with HIV. The role of mobility can be picked up the discussion but it feels out of place in the intro.

Methods

In the study setting section, there is insufficient detail on what the trans-competent care entails and how it is delivered as well as the peer navigation. While the study is framed as a drug trial, these are interventions that were delivered, and they are being interpreted in the findings. We don’t really get a clear idea of whether it is the new drug regimen, the peer support, or the quality of care that is most important (or all of them together?) because there is very minimal discussion of how the care was provided in the methods section.

How did trans women self-identify as part of the recruitment and enrollment process? More detail on this would be helpful.

As worded (“treatment was provided on site”), it sounds like participants got daily treatment on site – every day. Suggest rewording to reflect the intervals between their study visits and other clinical care visits.

Overall, as described, it is not clear that HIV care and treatment variables were measured at 24 and 48 weeks since some of the definitions only refer to 48 weeks. Suggest reviewing descriptions of measures for clarity and consistency with the presentation of results.

Related to this, retention was defined as being “retained in care through 48 weeks”. This is really a measure of study retention, meaning participants came for the that study visit, but it does not fully reflect retention in HIV care, which is how it is being interpreted in the discussion. Additionally, this outcome is also reported for 24 weeks. It would be more informative to report on retention in HIV care based on a more standard def of attendance at clinic visits. If this information was not collected, the interpretation should be modified to be consistent with what was measured.

Were participants provided compensation? This is not included in the ethics section. It could be influential to retention and should be include as part of the ethical section of the paper.

Results

Results on suicidal ideation are in the table but not the text. What support was provided for participants who were found to have suicidal ideation?

Given small sample size, it would be helpful to consistently present the ns as well as % in the presentation of results.

For those lost to follow-up, it is not clear when their last visit was. How frequently were patients coming in?

Acronyms need to be spelled out (ex, PDVF, SAE). This is broadly focused journal with clinical and non-clinical readers, and these are not universally known acronyms, which limits the accessibility of the paper.

Discussion

As noted above, results are interpretated treating study retention as the same as HIV care retention. This needs to be addressed.

It would be helpful to situate these findings more explicitly in the context of current treatment practice.

Given the design, I do not consider the characteristics of the site to be a limitation. It seems that the argument of the paper is that integrated approaches are needed and this study is providing evidence to support that. Therefore, I would not call the site a limitation.

In order to fully appreciate the discussion of an integrated approach in the discussion, as noted above, we need to know more about what services were provided and how they were delivered.

Reviewer #2: Authors describe a pilot study was to determine retention in care, adherence and viral suppression in naïve Transgender women (TGW) starting a DTG-based first line antiretroviral treatment (ART) and to identify clinical and psychosocial factors associated with retention.

They designed a prospective, open-label, single-arm trial among ART-naïve HIV positive TGW. Participants were followed at weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48, in a trans-sensitive HIV service that included peer navigators. Retention was defined as the proportion of TGW retained at week-48 and adherence was self-reported.

Of 75 TGW screened, 61 were enrolled. At week 48, 77% were retained and 72% had viral suppression. Older age was associated with better retention. DTG-based treatment delivered by a trans-competent team in a trans-affirmative service was safe and well tolerated by TGW and associated with high retention.

While the WHO has recommended ART regimens for treatment naïve people with HIV to be Dolutegravir-based.

As a possible disadvantage, only an increased risk of weight gain in the short term has

been reported in those starting DTG-based regimens.

Authors describe a 48-week pilot study – and aim to identify clinical and psychosocial factors

associated with retention in care.

Comments:

This is a well written observational study of ART-naïve TGW who are initiated on ART by an experienced clinical trial team – sensitive to trans-challenges.

I have really very little to remark.

Why do authors call this a pilot study? Will they propose a large efficacy trial? I didn’t see the arguments for this in the discussion.

In lines 280-286 – authors present data on retention from other studies and show that retention in the present study is above that of other studies reported. I would have expected nothing less from an experienced trial team – supported by Trans peer mobilisors.

In fact, in the title of the manuscript – “retention in care” is emphasized. I wonder if retention is the main study outcome. Isn’t the study a description of care cascade indicators?

I suggest a title change, replacing “retention in care” with “Care cascade indicators” in…..

End.

Reviewer #3: General comments:

The analyses of this trial are pretty straightforward and I don't see any changes needed. Though, given the longitudinal data collection performed on this participants, it is disappointing that the authors did not perform and present longitudinal analyses of this cohort. Potentially a survival analysis would be interesting to determine how long participants were retained.

The more problematic parts of this study are related to the study design. The authors mention in lines 326-327 that this single-arm trial will not allow for conclusions about efficacy and that the study lacks generalizability (lines 344-345). Though it struck me that the first half of the discussion (approximately lines 273-299) were about the efficacy of the trial and comparing the results to other results. While I think it's important to compare the results with other studies, it behooves to provide some context as to why these are different. The retention and viral suppression results could be due to the intervention, but could also be due to differences in the population. For instance, take this statement (lines 284-285):

Moreover, the results of the current study showed better retention than the estimate found in a retrospective study conducted by our research group in a public hospital of Buenos Aires, reporting a retention of 46.4% at 1 year of treatment initiation [25].

As the authors note, the differences could be due to differences in the first line treatment, but could also be due to differences in the population. The authors should provide more information on where these results are coming from and why they might be different. For instance, the authors found an association with age in their data; what were the age distributions in other studies? Maybe worse outcomes would be expected in those studies given the age distributions.

Finally, given this is a pilot or proof of concept study, I think the authors should provide more information on how these results should be used. Are further studies warranted? If so, how should they be designed? Who should be the target population?

Specific comments:

1. (line 174) I am not sure what "independent samples" means in this statement.

2. (line 300) "The more significantly characteristic" does not make sense.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jan 20;18(1):e0279996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279996.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Nov 2022

Patricia Evelyn Fast, MD, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

We thank the Editorial Office of the PLOS ONE and the reviewers for their helpful comments. We feel that the manuscript has improved as a result of the comments we received.

Below we have outlined the changes made to the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments. Each response follows the comment it is meant to address, and any new text has been noted in bold font. All changes in the manuscript have been marked in the text, with track changes.

Journal Requirements

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We have thoroughly revised the manuscript so that it meets the journal’s style requirements.

2. Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study. As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper: 1) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started); 2) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

Response: Thank you for noting that our enrollment started before the registry in www.clinicaltrials.org. Please note that in Argentina, local regulations require to register trials in the national registry ReNIS (Registro Nacional de Investigaciones en Salud, https://www.argentina.gob.ar/salud/registroinvestigaciones) if:

a) the study is carried out with federal funding

b) the study is a phase I, II or III,

c) the study sought a new indication, or dose registration

d) the study involves bioequivalence

Although registration of this study was not required, we decided to register it as, at that time, we were aware that registration would become a requirement for publishing. Currently, all the studies with drugs or interventions are being registered.

As requested, we have included a paragraph in the Study design section (paragraph 3), clarifying the reasons for the delay in registering this study after enrollment of participants started, and incorporating a statement, confirming that all related trials are registered. This paragraph is reproduced below:

“According to local regulations, the registration of this study in the national registry of clinical trials (ReNIS - Registro Nacional de Investigaciones en Salud) was not required. However, we decided to register it as we were aware that it was a requirement for the publication of the study’s results. Consequently, it was registered after the enrollment of participants started, under Clinical Trial Number NCT03033836. The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered.”

3. Please mention the trial registration number of your clinical trial in the abstract of your manuscript.

Response: We have mentioned the registration number of our clinical trial in the Abstract (line 9).

4. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

Response: We apologize for our mistake when choosing the option “data set available upon request). There are no restrictions on sharing our de-identified data set. We uploaded the anonymized data set with this revision, as supporting information.

5. We note that the original protocol file you uploaded contains a confidentiality notice indicating that the protocol may not be shared publicly or be published. Please note, however, that the PLOS Editorial Policy requires that the original protocol be published alongside your manuscript in the event of acceptance. Please note that should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution.

Therefore, we ask that you please seek permission from the study sponsor or body imposing the restriction on sharing this document to publish this protocol under CC BY 4.0 if your work is accepted. We kindly ask that you upload a formal statement signed by an institutional representative clarifying whether you will be able to comply with this policy. Additionally, please upload a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice (and any copyrighted institutional logos or signatures) removed.

Response: We apologize for this, as well, as the confidentiality notice no longer applies and should have been removed before submission. There are no restrictions for publication of the protocol. We have removed the confidentiality notice and all institutional logos and signatures.

Editor Comments

Please carefully read the three reviews provided. Each of the reviewers has identified ways in which the presentation or interpretation can be made much clearer. Although additional analyses are suggested, the criticism that must be addressed is that the paper is not always clear on what was done (these are generally minor comments), and that the interpretation may not always be supported by the data. In particular, please clarify the difference between retention in care and retention in the study.

Response: We have carefully gone through each of the reviewers’ comments, in order to address them. We believe that these comments have greatly contributed to this manuscript’s improvement. Below you will find a detailed explanation on how each comment was addressed and responded.

Reviewer #1

The findings of HIV care and treatment outcomes are indeed a great contribution of the paper; however, the limited information on the overall context of the study, services, and measures diminishes the interpretation and impact of the findings. There is some tension/confusion for me as to whether this is really being presenting as the results of a trial of the new treatment approach or as an observational study of trans women living with HIV in a trans-competent clinic. I suggest being more explicit about this and providing more context about the services and care that was offered beyond the new drug regimen. It would also be helpful to provide more commentary on how the landscape of HIV treatment has changed since this trial was completed in 2018, especially for non-clinical readers, and how these findings fit into current treatment practice.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback and comments. We agree that the manuscript would benefit from greater explanation of the context of the study. We have explained the context in 2015, regarding HIV treatment, that led to the design of this study in the Study design section, paragraph 1, lines 2-5, including the following fragment:

“This study was designed in a national context of use of efavirenz-containing triple antiretroviral regimen with possible changes in sleep quality. This regimen could particularly affect a population with high proportions of engagement in nightly sex work, such as TGW, therefore negatively impacting adherence and retention.”

In the Introduction section, we describe the current practice in HIV treatment, in paragraph 2, in the following fragment:

“Transition to integrase inhibitors (INIs) based regimens is associated with lower discontinuation rate and higher efficacy to increase viral suppression and, potentially, higher retention in HIV care [18]. For this reason, currently the World Health Organization (WHO) [19] recommends dolutegravir (DTG) with two NRTIs as the preferred ART for naïve individuals based on its better efficacy and safety profile, in order to reduce adverse events, improve adherence and retention in HIV care and as a response to increments of the primary resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.”

In the Conclusion section, paragraph 1, lines 4-5, we suggest how these findings fit into current treatment practice:

“Thus, results support the use of DTG-based treatments in this population, as it is recommended by the WHO [19] in naïve patients in general.”

The rest of the points will be responded in the following in the response to the following comments.

Abstract: Rather than focusing on just the disproportionate burden of HIV among trans women, given the focus of this paper on HIV care and treatment outcomes, it would be more relevant to discuss the gaps in retention, adherence, and viral suppression that trans women experience.

Response: We agree with the reviewer, so we have modified the first two sentences of the abstract to emphasize the gaps in retention, adherence and viral suppression, as follows:

“In Argentina, transgender women (TGW) have a high HIV prevalence (34%). However, this population shows lower levels of adherence, retention in HIV care and viral suppression than cisgender patients.”

Suggest including the years of the study in the abstract.

Response: We have included the years of the study in the abstract, lines 10-11.

Introduction: I would strongly suggest editing the first paragraph to provide more structure. The first paragraph is nearly the entire first page and covers a huge range of information. Consider using shorter paragraphs to address the key points around: 1) the overall burden of HIV; 2) the importance of TASP and gaps among trans women; and 3) psychosocial and contextual factors to consider.

Response: We have reorganized the whole Introduction section with shorter paragraphs and a clearer order of the information, for greater focus and clarity. We have organized the section with the following order: burden of HIV among TGW and gaps in retention and adherence to ART (paragraph 1), treatment-related factors that impact retention and adherence and the benefit of a dolutegravir-based regimen (paragraph 2), importance of increasing retention and adherence among TGW (including TasP) (paragraph 3) and aims and hypotheses (paragraph 4). We aimed to maintain the Introduction section as concise as possible, while providing it with more focus.

It is not clear why there is discussion of migrants in the first paragraph. Suggest focusing on the target population of trans women with HIV. The role of mobility can be picked up the discussion but it feels out of place in the intro.

Response: We agree with the reviewer. Thus, we have removed the reference to mobility and migrants from the Introduction.

Methods: In the study setting section, there is insufficient detail on what the trans-competent care entails and how it is delivered as well as the peer navigation. While the study is framed as a drug trial, these are interventions that were delivered, and they are being interpreted in the findings. We don’t really get a clear idea of whether it is the new drug regimen, the peer support, or the quality of care that is most important (or all of them together?) because there is very minimal discussion of how the care was provided in the methods section.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have included a detailed description of what our trans-affirmative service entails and what the main role of the peer navigators is, including their primary tasks. We have listed the main components that make our healthcare service trans-affirmative. The fragment containing this information was included in the Study setting section, paragraph 1, and it is reproduced below:

“Our trans-affirmative healthcare service includes a) use of patients’ preferred name and pronoun in interactions, clinical records and forms (which include sex assigned at birth and gender identity); b) an interdisciplinary trans-competent trained staff, aware of transgender people’s needs and accepting of their identities; c) integration of multiple services for this community (e.g., HIV, gender-affirming medical procedures, anal health) to simplify service delivery; d) adjustment to transgender populations’ social contexts (e.g., flexible scheduling and hours); and e) inclusion of transgender peer navigators. Peer navigators function as a bridge between the research site and the transgender community. Some of their main tasks are: a) to provide health information to their peers adapting it to their community and making it more accessible and comprehensible, b) to invite potential participants and to enroll them in the studies, c) to verify that they understood the informed consent correctly and to answer any concern about it, d) to assist transgender people in obtaining medical appointments and in navigating the healthcare service, e) to remind participants their upcoming visits, and f) to contact lost to follow-up participants to re-engage them in the study.”

How did trans women self-identify as part of the recruitment and enrollment process? More detail on this would be helpful.

Response: We understand that the reviewer refers to how our team knew that participants were TGW. We have included greater specification and detail in the description of the recruitment and enrollment procedures, in the Study design section, paragraph 2. We highlight below the fragments that were added:

“Participants were recruited by outreach efforts of peer navigators, through testing campaigns conducted in places were transgender people gather or live, and through collaboration with a local transgender community-based organization.”

Primarily, participants were recruited in activities exclusively oriented to the transgender community or in places that are mostly exclusive for this population. Also, peer navigators were able to identify their peers and offer them to be a participant of the study.

As worded (“treatment was provided on site”), it sounds like participants got daily treatment on site – every day. Suggest rewording to reflect the intervals between their study visits and other clinical care visits.

Response: For greater clarity, we have reworded that fragment to explicitly detail the visits that the study entailed, in the following way:

“Treatment was provided on site at the following visits: baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 y 48.”

Overall, as described, it is not clear that HIV care and treatment variables were measured at 24 and 48 weeks since some of the definitions only refer to 48 weeks. Suggest reviewing descriptions of measures for clarity and consistency with the presentation of results.

Response: In the Measures section, we have revised that the description of each measure for the HIV care and treatment variables (retention, adherence and viral suppression), it was mentioned at which visit it was conducted (retention at weeks 24 and 48, adherence at each study visit –including weeks 24 and 48-, and viral suppression at week 48). This information was added where there was no mention or where it was incomplete. We have checked consistency between this information and the presentation of results.

Related to this, retention was defined as being “retained in care through 48 weeks”. This is really a measure of study retention, meaning participants came for the that study visit, but it does not fully reflect retention in HIV care, which is how it is being interpreted in the discussion. Additionally, this outcome is also reported for 24 weeks. It would be more informative to report on retention in HIV care based on a more standard def of attendance at clinic visits. If this information was not collected, the interpretation should be modified to be consistent with what was measured.

Response: We agree with the reviewer regarding this point. We have actually measured “retention in the study” and not “retention in HIV care”. Information on “retention in HIV care” was not collected, unfortunately. We have corrected the definition of the variable in the Measures section. We have also thoroughly revised the entire manuscript to remove any ambiguity regarding what was actually measured. We have revised the interpretation of this result in the Discussion section so that it is consistent with what was measured.

Were participants provided compensation? This is not included in the ethics section. It could be influential to retention and should be include as part of the ethical section of the paper.

Response: We have included a fragment clarifying this point in the Ethics statement section, as follows:

“Participation was voluntary. At each visit participants received a $150 Argentine pesos compensation (approximately, 15 USD at the moment of the study) to cover transportation costs, and coupon exchangeable for a basic breakfast or meal.”

Results: Results on suicidal ideation are in the table but not the text. What support was provided for participants who were found to have suicidal ideation?

Response: We have included results on suicidal ideation also in the text, in the Results section, paragraph 3, lines 3-4, in the following fragment:

“Regarding mental health indicators, 26% (n=16) of these TGW reported significant suicidal ideation in the last 2 weeks.”

Additionally, in the Study design section, paragraph 2, lines 5-7, we included a fragment describing the procedures that were followed with participants who reported significant suicidal ideation. It is reproduced below:

“Participants with significant suicidal ideation were assessed for suicide risk by a mental healthcare provider, and referral to mental health services was facilitated to those who required it.”

Given small sample size, it would be helpful to consistently present the ns as well as % in the presentation of results.

Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this. In the report of the baseline clinical and psychosocial characteristics, in the Results section, we have reported the n in text, next to the corresponding proportion.

For those lost to follow-up, it is not clear when their last visit was. How frequently were patients coming in?

Response: As mentioned before, we modified lines 10-11, paragraph 1, Study design section, to provide greater clarity about the visits, in the following way:

“Treatment was provided on site at the following visits: baseline and weeks 4, 8, 12, 24, 36 y 48.”

Acronyms need to be spelled out (ex, PDVF, SAE). This is broadly focused journal with clinical and non-clinical readers, and these are not universally known acronyms, which limits the accessibility of the paper.

Response: We have revised all acronyms to verify that they are spelled out at first mention.

Discussion: As noted above, results are interpretated treating study retention as the same as HIV care retention. This needs to be addressed.

Response: We have adjusted the Discussion, and particularly, paragraph 2 so that it is consistent with what was actually measured, that is, retention in the study. We have removed any interpretation of these results as “retention in HIV care”.

It would be helpful to situate these findings more explicitly in the context of current treatment practice.

Response: As previously mentioned, in the Conclusion section, paragraph 1, lines 4-5, we situate these findings in the current treatment practice:

“Thus, results support the use of DTG-based treatments in this population, as it is recommended by the WHO [19] in naïve patients in general.”

Given the design, I do not consider the characteristics of the site to be a limitation. It seems that the argument of the paper is that integrated approaches are needed and this study is providing evidence to support that. Therefore, I would not call the site a limitation.

Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this and from reframing the characteristics of the site from a more interesting and enriching perspective. We have removed the reference to the site characteristics from the limitations paragraph. We have relocated that fragment in the Discussion section, paragraph 7, lines 8-10, and in the Conclusion section, paragraph 2, lines 5-8, where we consider it will better support the argument of this manuscript.

In order to fully appreciate the discussion of an integrated approach in the discussion, as noted above, we need to know more about what services were provided and how they were delivered.

Response: We completely agree with the reviewer’s comment. We have added a detailed description of the characteristics and components of our trans-affirmative healthcare service, as we already explained in a previous response.

Reviewer #2

This is a well written observational study of ART-naïve TGW who are initiated on ART by an experienced clinical trial team – sensitive to trans-challenges. I have really very little to remark.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the positive comments.

Why do authors call this a pilot study? Will they propose a large efficacy trial? I didn’t see the arguments for this in the discussion.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comment. This study was not followed by a larger trial, later. Therefore, we removed the term “pilot” in reference to this study.

In lines 280-286 – authors present data on retention from other studies and show that retention in the present study is above that of other studies reported. I would have expected nothing less from an experienced trial team – supported by Trans peer mobilisors. In fact, in the title of the manuscript – “retention in care” is emphasized. I wonder if retention is the main study outcome. Isn’t the study a description of care cascade indicators? I suggest a title change, replacing “retention in care” with “Care cascade indicators” in…..

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, we are not completely sure that “care cascade indicators” would be the accurate term to include in the title. Generally, studies on the care cascade start with the all the diagnosed people in the general population, and then, calculate the proportion of those who initiated treatment, and so on. In contrast, we started with a convenience sample of 61 participants (i.e., selected intentionally and recruited by us), all of whom initiated ART as part of the study. These characteristics reduce the possibility of comparison of our results with those of studies on the care cascade indicators.

Reviewer #3

The analyses of this trial are pretty straightforward and I don't see any changes needed. Though, given the longitudinal data collection performed on this participants, it is disappointing that the authors did not perform and present longitudinal analyses of this cohort. Potentially a survival analysis would be interesting to determine how long participants were retained.

Response: As recommended by the reviewer, we have conducted and included a survival analysis. The analysis conducted is described in the Statistical analysis section, paragraph 2, lines 10-11, in the following fragment:

“A survival analysis of retained participants was performed with R (survival package). Time to event was calculated by Kaplan-Meier method.”

We describe the results of this analysis in the Results section, in the following fragment:

“The starting point for this analysis is baseline visit when participants received the first treatment medication. Time between this visit and the next medication dispensed (next visit date) was calculated until the first event of no medication dispensed occurred. When this happened, the participant was considered “not retained in the study” for that time point. The survival analysis performed shows that the probability of retention in the study decreases with time (Fig 2). In the first month after enrollment (week 4), the mean retention probability is 92%. By month 2 (week 8) it descends to 87%; in month 3 (week 12) it descends to 81%; and in month 6 (week 24) is 73%. The mean retention probability by month 9 (week 36) is 68% and by the end of the study (week 48) is 65%. The greater decrease in retention probability occurred in the first to third month of treatment.”

These results are also shown in Figure 2.

The more problematic parts of this study are related to the study design. The authors mention in lines 326-327 that this single-arm trial will not allow for conclusions about efficacy and that the study lacks generalizability (lines 344-345). Though it struck me that the first half of the discussion (approximately lines 273-299) were about the efficacy of the trial and comparing the results to other results. While I think it's important to compare the results with other studies, it behooves to provide some context as to why these are different. The retention and viral suppression results could be due to the intervention, but could also be due to differences in the population. For instance, take this statement (lines 284-285):

Moreover, the results of the current study showed better retention than the estimate found in a retrospective study conducted by our research group in a public hospital of Buenos Aires, reporting a retention of 46.4% at 1 year of treatment initiation [25].

As the authors note, the differences could be due to differences in the first line treatment, but could also be due to differences in the population. The authors should provide more information on where these results are coming from and why they might be different. For instance, the authors found an association with age in their data; what were the age distributions in other studies? Maybe worse outcomes would be expected in those studies given the age distributions.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s remark. We have removed the conclusions about the efficacy of the treatment, as they contradicted the limitation of a single-arm trial. However, comparisons with other studies were conducted in order to have external references or criteria to appraise the retention rate obtained in this study. There is no intention to generalize results, as the sampling method does not allow it.

Regarding these comparisons, we have reviewed the studies that are referenced in the Discussion. We found no significant differences between the characteristics of their sample and ours. That led us to conclude that differences in retention and viral suppression are not probably due to characteristics of the populations, including age, and may be more probably related to the treatment and the characteristics of our HIV care service (trans-affirmative). We have added a fragment in the Discussion section, paragraph 2, to make these possible explanations clearer:

It is worth noting that when these previous studies were conducted, ART combinations did not include DTG as the first line, preferred treatment. It is possible that the study regimen exhibited a better tolerability than the standard first-line at the time of designing this protocol. Additionally, unlike these previous studies, in this trial, treatment was provided in the context of a trans-affirmative care service. This characteristic may have contributed to increased retention in the study.

Finally, given this is a pilot or proof of concept study, I think the authors should provide more information on how these results should be used. Are further studies warranted? If so, how should they be designed? Who should be the target population?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer´s suggestion. Firstly, we have removed the term “pilot” from the description of this study. This study was finally not followed by a larger trial, later. The reason is that, since this study was designed and conducted, dolutegravir-based regimens have become the first line treatment for naïve patients. We mention this in the Discussion section, paragraph 5, lines 2-4: “This study supports the current WHO recommendations regarding the use of DTG-based therapies and, in line with other studies [32-33-34-35] this regimen showed excellent safety and good tolerance with adherence percentages of 95%.”

We highlight this in the Conclusion section, paragraph 1, lines 4-5: “Thus, results support the use of DTG-based treatments in this population, as it is recommended by the WHO [19] in naïve patients in general.” Therefore, the efficacy, safety and tolerance of these regimens in this population and other are well-established.

However, we do recommend that future studies continue to explore the impact on retention and other HIV-related outcomes of a more comprehensive, trans-affirmative approach in healthcare services for transgender people and the feasibility of its implementation. We have added this recommendation in the Conclusion section, paragraph 2, lines 5-8:

“As these results suggest, a trans-affirmative approach in care and the inclusion of peer navigators may facilitate access to healthcare and favor greater retention. Thus, it is recommended to continue exploring the feasibility of the implementation of these strategies in public health care services.”

Specific comments:

1. (line 174) I am not sure what "independent samples" means in this statement.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s remark. We have removed “independent samples”, as it was confusing.

2. (line 300) "The more significantly characteristic" does not make sense.

Response: We thank the reviewer for noting this. We have corrected that sentence.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Patricia Evelyn Fast

19 Dec 2022

Retention among transgender women treated with Dolutegravir associated with Tenofovir/Lamivudine or Emtricitabine in Argentina: TransViiV study

PONE-D-22-15918R1

Dear Dr. Frola,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Patricia Evelyn Fast, MD, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Please do carefully consider the suggestion from Reviewer #1 to add a proportion to the abstract, which will further strengthen the paper.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have provided a comprehensive revision and thoughtful responses to suggestions and questions. While they added recognition of gaps in HIV care and treatment outcomes, in addition to prevalence, they do not include any proportions to support their statement:

"In Argentina, transgender women (TGW) have a high HIV prevalence (34%). However, this population shows lower levels of adherence, retention in HIV care and viral suppression than cisgender patients".

Values are needed to support this second statement in the abstract; this content should also be added to the introduction of the paper.

Reviewer #2: I am satisfied with authors' responses and believe this manuscript makes a useful contribution.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Patricia Evelyn Fast

10 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-15918R1

Retention among transgender women treated with Dolutegravir associated with Tenofovir/Lamivudine or Emtricitabine in Argentina: TransViiV study

Dear Dr. Frola:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Patricia Evelyn Fast

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Original protocol Spanish version.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Original protocol English version.

    (PDF)

    S3 File. Minimal anonymized data set.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript. We can provide access without limitations to all the dataset.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES