An interventional study of DTP and ICM in HIV-1 Virologic Response, sponsored by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Completed at 1 site in South Africa. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-01-14.
Sponsored by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
The Siyaphambili Study is a sequential multistage adaptive randomized trial (SMART) to compare the effectiveness and durability of two behavioral interventions on the HIV-1 virologic response among female sex workers (FSW) living with HIV in Durban, South Africa. The interventions are: 1) nurse-led decentralized treatment program (DTP) and 2) individualized case management (ICM). Viral suppression is defined as a viral load assessment \<50 RNA copies/mL. The design will also estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of study interventions and combinations of interventions compared with maintaining the South African standard of HIV care and treatment.
RATIONALE: Approximately 60% of the estimated 121,000 - 167,000 female sex workers (FSW) in South Africa are living with HIV. Research suggests only 39% of these women are currently on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and face individual, network and structural level barriers to ART initiation, retention and adherence. To prevent clinical treatment outcome disparities and reduce onward HIV transmission, understanding how best to adapt and implement, scalable and effective interventions to promote viral suppression among marginalized women is paramount. The overall goal of the Siyaphambili study is to inform South African HIV service delivery and scale up determining the most cost-effective package needed to achieve viral suppression among FSW and by characterizing the FSW most in need of these intensive HIV treatment interventions.
HYPOTHESIS: DTP and ICM will be equally effective at achieving viral suppression and will have a synergistic effect when combined and targeted at those who remain non-responsive to either isolated intervention. Additionally, an adaptive, graduated multicomponent intervention to achieve viral suppression would be preferred under standard thresholds for cost-effectiveness over single-intensity interventions or intensive multicomponent interventions for all FSW.
INTERVENTION: The Siyaphambili Study is a sequential multistage adaptive randomized trial (SMART) to compare the effectiveness and durability of two behavioral interventions on the HIV-1 virologic response among FSW living with HIV in Durban, South Africa. The interventions are: 1) nurse-led decentralized treatment program (DTP) and 2) individualized case management (ICM). The design will also estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of study interventions and combinations of interventions compared with maintaining the South African standard of HIV care and treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: A sequential multistage adaptive randomized study, embedded within the TB/HIV Care program in Durban, South Africa, will enroll 800 viremic FSW into the 18-month trial. Women will be randomized to either DTP or ICM at enrolment and rerandomized 6 months after enrolment based on their response to the initial intervention.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and durability of nurse-led DTP and ICM in isolation or in combination to achieve viral suppression.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental impact and cost-effectiveness associated with study interventions and combination of interventions.
OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of the study is retention and viral suppression among those initially randomized to the DTP verse ICM intervention. The secondary outcomes are retention and viral suppression of non-responders, retention and viral suppression among month 6 non-responders, retention and viral suppression at 18 months among month 6 non-responders randomized to continuation of either intervention verse combined DTP+ICM, risk stratification tool, durability of retention and viral suppression of responders, to assess adherence, to assess viral suppression of retained, loss-to-follow-up, intervention acceptability, switching to 2nd/3rd line ART, and ART resistance.
ANALYTIC PLAN:
Primary analysis for primary outcome:
Retention in ART care and viral suppression will be a combined outcome in an intention to treat (ITT) analysis at 18 months to compare participants initially randomized to the DTP verse ICM intervention. Viral suppression is defined as a viral load assessment \<50 RNA copies/mL and participants lost to follow up or who experience death during the trial duration will be grouped with non-virally suppressed participants.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is the lead sponsor of 364 studies on the registry; 41 are open to participants now.
Of its 5 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 3 (60%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
DTP: * Standard of care (SoC), minus clinic referrals for antiretroviral therapy (ART) treatment initiation and management. * Nurse initiated and managed ART within the community on mobile van at sites served by the mobile van which already provides SoC services Continues with DTP intervention if virally suppressed at 6 months.
Behavioral: DTP
DTP: * Standard of care, minus clinic referrals for ART treatment initiation and management. * Nurse initiated and managed ART within the community on mobile van at sites served by the mobile van which already provides SoC services SoC: * HIV counseling and testing (HTC) * Sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and treatment * Tuberculosis (TB) screening and referral * Health education through peer educators and peer supported follow-up related to linkages to care * Referrals to Department of Health (DoH) primary healthcare clinics or TB HIV Care (THC) drop-in center for ART treatment initiation and management Returns to SoC if virally suppressed at 6 months.
Behavioral: DTP
DTP: * Standard of care, minus clinic referrals for ART treatment initiation and management. * Nurse initiated and managed ART within the community on mobile van at sites served by the mobile van which already provides SoC services Continues with DTP intervention if not virally suppressed at 6 months.
Behavioral: DTP
DTP: * Standard of care, minus clinic referrals for ART treatment initiation and management. * Nurse initiated and managed ART within the community on mobile van at sites served by the mobile van which already provides SoC services ICM: * Standard of Care * Assignment of peer case manager * Face-to-face meeting to tailor ICM approach to FSW preference * Self-efficacy building in face-to-face sessions and bi-weekly text messages * Relational support through monthly calls, face-to-face meetings every three months, and additional support through female sex worker (FSW) initiated interaction Receives both interventions at 6 months if non-virally suppressed.
Behavioral: DTP · Behavioral: ICM
ICM: * Standard of Care * Assignment of peer case manager * Face-to-face meeting to tailor ICM approach to FSW preference * Self-efficacy building in face-to-face sessions and bi-weekly text messages * Relational support through monthly calls, face-to-face meetings every three months, and additional support through FSW initiated interaction Continues with ICM intervention at 6 months if virally suppressed.
Behavioral: ICM
ICM: * Standard of Care * Assignment of peer case manager * Face-to-face meeting to tailor ICM approach to FSW preference * Self-efficacy building in face-to-face sessions and bi-weekly text messages * Relational support through monthly calls, face-to-face meetings every three months, and additional support through FSW initiated interaction SoC: * HIV counseling and testing (HTC) * STI screening and treatment * TB screening and referral * Health education through peer educators and peer supported follow-up related to linkages to care * Referrals to DOH primary healthcare clinics or THC drop-in center for ART treatment initiation and management Returns to SoC if virally suppressed at 6 months.
Behavioral: ICM
ICM: * Standard of Care * Assignment of peer case manager * Face-to-face meeting to tailor ICM approach to FSW preference * Self-efficacy building in face-to-face sessions and bi-weekly text messages * Relational support through monthly calls, face-to-face meetings every three months, and additional support through FSW initiated interaction Continues with ICM intervention at 6 months if non-virally suppressed.
Behavioral: ICM
ICM: * Standard of Care * Assignment of peer case manager * Face-to-face meeting to tailor ICM approach to FSW preference * Self-efficacy building in face-to-face sessions and bi-weekly text messages * Relational support through monthly calls, face-to-face meetings every three months, and additional support through FSW initiated interaction DTP: * Standard of care, minus clinic referrals for ART treatment initiation and management. * Nurse initiated and managed ART within the community on mobile van at sites served by the mobile van which already provides SoC services Receives both interventions at 6 months if non-virally suppressed.
Behavioral: DTP · Behavioral: ICM
Standard of Care (SoC): * HIV counseling and testing (HTC) * Sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening and treatment * Tuberculosis (TB) screening and referral * Health education through peer educators and peer supported follow-up related to linkages to care * Referrals to Department of Health (DoH) primary healthcare clinics or TB HIV Care (THC) drop-in center for ART treatment initiation and management
Provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the community through a mobile-van DTP managed by a nurse capable of initiating and managing ART.
Peer-led ICM through quarterly face-to-face meetings, monthly phone calls and biweekly text messages.
Percentage of Participants Retained and Virally Suppressed Among Those Receiving the DTP Versus ICM Arms
Retention and viral suppression at 18 months in those initially randomized to DTP vs. ICM. Participants are considered to be retained in care if they attended their 18-month final study visit and were engaged in care at 18-months. Viral suppression is defined as having less than 50 viral copies per milliliter.
Time frame: 18 months after enrollment
Retention and Viral Suppression of Non-Responders
Retention and viral suppression at 18 months among month 6 non-responders randomized to continuation of either intervention vs. combined DTP+ICM
Time frame: 18 months after enrollment
Risk Factors of Loss to Follow-up
Risk stratification to identify FSW at highest risk for loss to follow-up.
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
Durability of Retention and Viral Suppression of Responders
Durability of retention and viral suppression among 6 month responders continuing on DTP or ICM vs. those randomized to revert to standard of care (SoC)
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
Adherence Assessment
Self-reported adherence to assess adherence across arms
Time frame: 18 months
Viral Suppression of Retained
Among those retained, comparison of viral suppression across arms
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
Loss-to-Follow-Up
Loss-to-follow-up across arms (DTP vs. ICM). This outcome is presented as an intention to treat analysis based on baseline randomization (DTP vs. ICM). All 777 participants randomized at baseline are included here. Loss to follow-up is defined as having missed the 18-month final study visit.
Time frame: 18 months after study enrollment
Intervention Acceptability
Participant reported intervention acceptability
Time frame: Acceptability of each intervention at 6 month timepoint
2nd/3rd Line ART
Number of participants who were tested and identified as resistant to first line therapy and were referred to a Department of Health facility for second line therapy across arms
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
ART Resistance
Report and compare resistance across arms
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
Participants' Costs South in African Rand (ZAR)
Participants' cost data were collected by opportunity cost questionnaire for the intervention arms in the trial and are summarized descriptively to support potential future modeling. Participants' costs are defined as costs associated with attending each visit for HIV care (transportation, food, child-care and other; and money that would have been earned from clients (opportunity cost). Follow-up costs were for attending each DTP/ICM and HIV care clinic visit.
Time frame: Baseline, Follow-up up to 5 months
Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) Pick-Ups
Number and percentage of DTP pick-ups attended among participants randomized to received DTP.
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
ICM Phone-Based Contacts
Number of ICM phone-based contacts
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
ICM In-Person Meetings
Percentage of face-to-face case manager sessions attended
Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment
Recruitment took place at sex work venues and the TB HIV Care drop-in center in Durban, South Africa from June 2018 to March 2020. The first participant was enrolled on June 22, 2018 and the last participant was enrolled on March 23, 2020.
| Milestone | DTP, Continue DTP if Responsive | DTP, Standard of Care (SoC) if Responsive | DTP, Continue DTP if Non-Responsive | DTP, DTP+ICM if Non-Responsive | ICM, Continue ICM if Responsive | ICM, SoC if Responsive | ICM, Continue ICM if Non-Responsive | ICM, ICM+DTP if Non-Responsive | Standard of Care (SoC) | Baseline Randomization: ICM | Baseline Randomization: DTP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 614 | 390 | 387 |
| Completed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 614 | 387 | 387 |
| Not completed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Withdrew: Death | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Withdrew: Protocol violation | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Milestone | DTP, Continue DTP if Responsive | DTP, Standard of Care (SoC) if Responsive | DTP, Continue DTP if Non-Responsive | DTP, DTP+ICM if Non-Responsive | ICM, Continue ICM if Responsive | ICM, SoC if Responsive | ICM, Continue ICM if Non-Responsive | ICM, ICM+DTP if Non-Responsive | Standard of Care (SoC) | Baseline Randomization: ICM | Baseline Randomization: DTP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Started | 27 | 24 | 171 | 165 | 20 | 27 | 177 | 163 | 614 | 0 | 0 |
| Completed | 19 | 18 | 84 | 93 | 14 | 21 | 109 | 87 | 614 | 0 | 0 |
| Not completed | 8 | 6 | 87 | 72 | 6 | 6 | 68 | 76 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Withdrew: Lost to follow-up | 8 | 6 | 87 | 68 | 4 | 6 | 63 | 74 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Withdrew: Death | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Retention and viral suppression at 18 months in those initially randomized to DTP vs. ICM. Participants are considered to be retained in care if they attended their 18-month final study visit and were engaged in care at 18-months. Viral suppression is defined as having less than 50 viral copies per milliliter.
| percentage of participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Percentage of Participants Retained and Virally Suppressed Among Those Receiving the DTP Versus ICM Arms | 16.0 (12.4 to 19.7) | 14.1 (10.6 to 17.6) |
Retention and viral suppression at 18 months among month 6 non-responders randomized to continuation of either intervention vs. combined DTP+ICM
| percentage of participants | Rerandomized to Continue DTP or ICM if Non-responsive | Rerandomized to Receive DTP+ICM if Non-responsive |
|---|---|---|
| Retention and Viral Suppression of Non-Responders | 11.4 (8.1 to 14.7) | 11.3 (7.9 to 14.7) |
Risk stratification to identify FSW at highest risk for loss to follow-up.
| Participants | Lost to Follow-up | Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) |
|---|---|---|
| Steady partner, living together | 87 | 36 |
| 5 to 9 new clients in the past month | 159 | 40 |
| Marijuana use in the past 30 days | 227 | 66 |
| Experienced physical violence in the pasts 6 months | 338 | 103 |
| Experienced sexual violence in the past 6 months | 250 | 73 |
| Viral load of 50-1000 copies/mL at baseline | 130 | 54 |
| Viral load greater than 1000 copies/mL at baseline | 448 | 145 |
Durability of retention and viral suppression among 6 month responders continuing on DTP or ICM vs. those randomized to revert to standard of care (SoC)
| percentage of participants | DTP or ICM, Continue DTP or ICM if Responsive | DTP or ICM, Standard of Care (SoC) if Responsive |
|---|---|---|
| Durability of Retention and Viral Suppression of Responders | 43.1 (29.5 to 56.7) | 40.0 (25.7 to 54.3) |
Self-reported adherence to assess adherence across arms
| percentage of participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Adherence Assessment | 46.5 (39.6 to 53.4) | 51.6 (45.0 to 58.2) |
Among those retained, comparison of viral suppression across arms
| percentage of participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Viral Suppression of Retained | 29.0 (22.9 to 35.1) | 23.0 (17.6 to 28.4) |
Loss-to-follow-up across arms (DTP vs. ICM). This outcome is presented as an intention to treat analysis based on baseline randomization (DTP vs. ICM). All 777 participants randomized at baseline are included here. Loss to follow-up is defined as having missed the 18-month final study visit.
| percentage of participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Loss-to-Follow-Up | 45.0 (40.0 to 49.9) | 41.3 (36.4 to 46.2) |
Participant reported intervention acceptability
| Participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention Acceptability | 163 | 156 |
Number of participants who were tested and identified as resistant to first line therapy and were referred to a Department of Health facility for second line therapy across arms
| Participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| 2nd/3rd Line ART | 36 | 32 |
Report and compare resistance across arms
| Participants | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline |
|---|---|---|
| ART Resistance | 37 | 34 |
Participants' cost data were collected by opportunity cost questionnaire for the intervention arms in the trial and are summarized descriptively to support potential future modeling. Participants' costs are defined as costs associated with attending each visit for HIV care (transportation, food, child-care and other; and money that would have been earned from clients (opportunity cost). Follow-up costs were for attending each DTP/ICM and HIV care clinic visit.
| ZAR | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) |
|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 186.8 (21.5 to 250) | 164.9 (12 to 233) |
| Follow-up up to 5 months | 127.7 (0 to 137.5) | 256.1 (34.3 to 361.8) |
Number and percentage of DTP pick-ups attended among participants randomized to received DTP.
| Total DTP pickups | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline and/or 6 Months |
|---|---|
| Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) Pick-Ups | 3332 |
Number of ICM phone-based contacts
| Planned phone-based contacts | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline and/or 6 Months |
|---|---|
| ICM Phone-Based Contacts | 593 |
Percentage of face-to-face case manager sessions attended
| Number of planned in-person ICM sessions | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline and/or 6 Months |
|---|---|
| ICM In-Person Meetings | 392 |
Collected over Up to 18 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Decentralize Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | 4/387 (1%) | 8/387 (2.1%) | 0/387 (0%) |
| Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | 12/390 (3.1%) | 16/390 (4.1%) | 0/390 (0%) |
| Standard of Care (SoC) at Baseline | 1/523 (0.2%) | 1/523 (0.2%) | 0/523 (0%) |
| Enrolled But Not Randomized | 0/91 (0%) | 0/91 (0%) | 0/91 (0%) |
| Event | Decentralize Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Standard of Care (SoC) at Baseline | Enrolled But Not Randomized |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sexual violenceSocial circumstances | 1/387 | 4/390 | 0/523 | 0/91 |
| Imprisoned while enrolled in studySocial circumstances | 3/387 | 3/390 | 0/523 | 0/91 |
| HospitalizationSocial circumstances | 3/387 | 3/390 | 1/523 | 0/91 |
| Physical violenceSocial circumstances | 1/387 | 3/390 | 0/523 | 0/91 |
| Motor vehicle accidentSocial circumstances | 0/387 | 1/390 | 0/523 | 0/91 |
| StrokeNervous system disorders | 0/387 | 1/390 | 0/523 | 0/91 |
| Gallstones and swollen feetGastrointestinal disorders | 0/387 | 1/390 | 0/523 | 0/91 |
Non-virally suppressed participants who not lost to follow up prior to baseline randomization were randomized into two arms at baseline, DTP or ICM, presented here. Virally suppressed at baseline participants and non-virally suppressed participants who were lost to follow up prior to baseline randomization received standard of care.
| Age, Customized(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age — 18-24 | 60 | 64 | 78 | 202 |
| Age — 25-29 | 135 | 123 | 119 | 377 |
| Age — 30-35 | 113 | 117 | 172 | 402 |
| Age — 35+ | 82 | 82 | 240 | 404 |
| Age — Missing | 0 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Sex: Female, Male(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | 390 | 387 | 614 | 1391 |
| Male | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asian | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Black or African American | 375 | 372 | 594 | 1341 |
| White | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| More than one race | 13 | 12 | 10 | 35 |
| Unknown or Not Reported | 2 | 1 | 9 | 12 |
| Region of Enrollment(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 390 | 387 | 614 | 1391 |
| Nationality(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South African | 379 | 380 | 595 | 1354 |
| Other (Incl. Lesotho, Eswatini, Zimbabwe, Botswana) | 11 | 7 | 19 | 37 |
| Education(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Never attended | 4 | 6 | 15 | 25 |
| Complete/incomplete primary education | 29 | 28 | 79 | 136 |
| Secondary school incomplete | 283 | 278 | 394 | 955 |
| Secondary school complete | 54 | 67 | 98 | 219 |
| Any post-secondary education or technical training | 18 | 7 | 19 | 44 |
| Missing | 2 | 1 | 9 | 12 |
| Currently enrolled in school(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Currently enrolled in school | 2 | 1 | 9 | 12 |
| Not currently enrolled in school | 388 | 386 | 605 | 1379 |
| Can read and/or write in Zulu or English(Participants) | Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline | Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline | Standard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count of participants | 382 | 379 | 585 | 1346 |
23 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health