CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03500172Updated Jan 14, 2026Results posted

HIV Treatment Retention Interventions for Women Living With HIV (Siyaphambili Study)

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

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,391
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • HIV-1 Virologic Response

Keywords

  • HIV
  • Female Sex Workers
  • Viral Suppression
  • South Africa
  • Decentralized care
  • Antiretroviral therapy
  • Differentiated care
03

In context

Lead sponsor

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.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  1. Sells sex for goods or money as their main source of income
  2. Assigned female sex at birth
  3. ≥ 18 years of age
  4. Living with HIV; diagnosed ≥ 6 months prior
  5. Currently living in Durban
  6. If on ART, initiated ≥2 months prior

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Engagement in an ongoing HIV treatment research study
  2. Planning on leaving Durban for more than 3 months in the following 12 months
  3. Pregnant at time of enrollment
  4. On a second line or third ART regimen
  5. Participating in an adherence club
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Sequential assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
1,391 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    DTP, Continue DTP if Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    DTP, Standard of Care (SoC) if Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    DTP, Continue DTP if Non-Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    DTP, DTP+ICM if Non-Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    ICM, Continue ICM if Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    ICM, SoC if Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    ICM, Continue ICM if Non-Responsive

    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

  • Active comparator
    ICM, ICM+DTP if Non-Responsive

    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

  • No intervention
    Standard of Care (SoC)

    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

Interventions

  • BehavioralDTP

    Provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the community through a mobile-van DTP managed by a nurse capable of initiating and managing ART.

  • BehavioralICM

    Peer-led ICM through quarterly face-to-face meetings, monthly phone calls and biweekly text messages.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Adherence Assessment

    Self-reported adherence to assess adherence across arms

    Time frame: 18 months

  5. Viral Suppression of Retained

    Among those retained, comparison of viral suppression across arms

    Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment

  6. 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

  7. Intervention Acceptability

    Participant reported intervention acceptability

    Time frame: Acceptability of each intervention at 6 month timepoint

  8. 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

  9. ART Resistance

    Report and compare resistance across arms

    Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment

  10. 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

Other outcomes

  1. 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

  2. ICM Phone-Based Contacts

    Number of ICM phone-based contacts

    Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment

  3. ICM In-Person Meetings

    Percentage of face-to-face case manager sessions attended

    Time frame: Up to 18 months after enrollment

07

Results

Posted Sep 21, 2023
Limitations and caveats
A limitation to this study has been determining engagement in care and viral load status for those who were lost to follow up (LTFU) in the trial in order to inform the primary outcome. Given the high rates of LTFU, participants may have been seeking care elsewhere and achieved viral suppression during the follow up period without our knowledge. This has implications for our primary outcome which uses an intention to treat (ITT) analysis of engagement in care and viral suppression.

Participant flow

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.

Period 1: Baseline Randomization
Participant flow — Period 1: Baseline Randomization
MilestoneDTP, Continue DTP if ResponsiveDTP, Standard of Care (SoC) if ResponsiveDTP, Continue DTP if Non-ResponsiveDTP, DTP+ICM if Non-ResponsiveICM, Continue ICM if ResponsiveICM, SoC if ResponsiveICM, Continue ICM if Non-ResponsiveICM, ICM+DTP if Non-ResponsiveStandard of Care (SoC)Baseline Randomization: ICMBaseline Randomization: DTP
Started00000000614390387
Completed00000000614387387
Not completed00000000030
Withdrew: Death00000000020
Withdrew: Protocol violation00000000010
Period 2: Re-Randomization
Participant flow — Period 2: Re-Randomization
MilestoneDTP, Continue DTP if ResponsiveDTP, Standard of Care (SoC) if ResponsiveDTP, Continue DTP if Non-ResponsiveDTP, DTP+ICM if Non-ResponsiveICM, Continue ICM if ResponsiveICM, SoC if ResponsiveICM, Continue ICM if Non-ResponsiveICM, ICM+DTP if Non-ResponsiveStandard of Care (SoC)Baseline Randomization: ICMBaseline Randomization: DTP
Started2724171165202717716361400
Completed1918849314211098761400
Not completed868772666876000
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up868768466374000
Withdrew: Death00042052000

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercentage 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
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Retained and Virally Suppressed Among Those Receiving the DTP Versus ICM Arms
percentage of participantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
Percentage of Participants Retained and Virally Suppressed Among Those Receiving the DTP Versus ICM Arms16.0 (12.4 to 19.7)14.1 (10.6 to 17.6)
Statistical analysis
  • Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline vs Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline · Two sample test of proportions · p = 0.455 (Threshold for significance: 0.05)
SecondaryRetention 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
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Retention and Viral Suppression of Non-Responders
percentage of participantsRerandomized to Continue DTP or ICM if Non-responsiveRerandomized to Receive DTP+ICM if Non-responsive
Retention and Viral Suppression of Non-Responders11.4 (8.1 to 14.7)11.3 (7.9 to 14.7)
Statistical analysis
  • Rerandomized to Continue DTP or ICM if Non-responsive vs Rerandomized to Receive DTP+ICM if Non-responsive · Two sample test of proportions · p = 0.962 (Statistical significance threshold: 0.05)
SecondaryRisk 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
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Risk Factors of Loss to Follow-up
ParticipantsLost to Follow-upNot Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care)
Steady partner, living together8736
5 to 9 new clients in the past month15940
Marijuana use in the past 30 days22766
Experienced physical violence in the pasts 6 months338103
Experienced sexual violence in the past 6 months25073
Viral load of 50-1000 copies/mL at baseline13054
Viral load greater than 1000 copies/mL at baseline448145
Statistical analysis
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 0.78 · 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.60 · 95% CI 1.02 to 2.51
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.31 · 95% CI 1.09 to 1.57
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.24 · 95% CI 1.01 to 1.52
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 1.62 · 95% CI 1.31 to 2.00
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 2.33 · 95% CI 1.65 to 3.29
  • Lost to Follow-up vs Not Lost to Follow-up (Retained in Care) · Regression, Cox · p = <0.05 (Threshold for significance: 0.05) · Hazard ratio (hr): 2.47 · 95% CI 1.82 to 3.36
SecondaryDurability 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
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Durability of Retention and Viral Suppression of Responders
percentage of participantsDTP or ICM, Continue DTP or ICM if ResponsiveDTP or ICM, Standard of Care (SoC) if Responsive
Durability of Retention and Viral Suppression of Responders43.1 (29.5 to 56.7)40.0 (25.7 to 54.3)
Statistical analysis
  • DTP or ICM, Continue DTP or ICM if Responsive vs DTP or ICM, Standard of Care (SoC) if Responsive · Two sample test of proportions · p = 0.756 (Threshold of significance: 0.05)
SecondaryAdherence Assessment

Self-reported adherence to assess adherence across arms

Time frame:
18 months
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Adherence Assessment
percentage of participantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
Adherence Assessment46.5 (39.6 to 53.4)51.6 (45.0 to 58.2)
Statistical analysis
  • Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline vs Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline · Two sample test of proportions · p = 0.295 (Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05)
SecondaryViral Suppression of Retained

Among those retained, comparison of viral suppression across arms

Time frame:
Up to 18 months after enrollment
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Viral Suppression of Retained
percentage of participantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
Viral Suppression of Retained29.0 (22.9 to 35.1)23.0 (17.6 to 28.4)
Statistical analysis
  • Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline vs Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline · Two sample test of proportions · p = 0.149 (Threshold for statistical significance: 0.05)
SecondaryLoss-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
Reported as:
Number · percentage of participants
Loss-to-Follow-Up
percentage of participantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
Loss-to-Follow-Up45.0 (40.0 to 49.9)41.3 (36.4 to 46.2)
Statistical analysis
  • Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline vs Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline · Two sample test of proportions · p = 0.301 (Threshold of significance: 0.05)
SecondaryIntervention Acceptability

Participant reported intervention acceptability

Time frame:
Acceptability of each intervention at 6 month timepoint
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Intervention Acceptability
ParticipantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
Intervention Acceptability163156
Secondary2nd/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
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
2nd/3rd Line ART
ParticipantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
2nd/3rd Line ART3632
SecondaryART Resistance

Report and compare resistance across arms

Time frame:
Up to 18 months after enrollment
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
ART Resistance
ParticipantsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline
ART Resistance3734
Statistical analysis
  • Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline vs Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline · Chi-squared · p = 0.212 (Threshold of statistical significance: 0.05)
SecondaryParticipants' 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
Reported as:
Mean · ZAR
Participants' Costs South in African Rand (ZAR)
ZARDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP)Individualized Case Management (ICM)
Baseline186.8 (21.5 to 250)164.9 (12 to 233)
Follow-up up to 5 months127.7 (0 to 137.5)256.1 (34.3 to 361.8)
Other pre-specifiedDecentralized 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
Reported as:
Count of units · Total DTP pickups
Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) Pick-Ups
Total DTP pickupsDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline and/or 6 Months
Decentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) Pick-Ups3332
Other pre-specifiedICM Phone-Based Contacts

Number of ICM phone-based contacts

Time frame:
Up to 18 months after enrollment
Reported as:
Count of units · Planned phone-based contacts
ICM Phone-Based Contacts
Planned phone-based contactsIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline and/or 6 Months
ICM Phone-Based Contacts593
Other pre-specifiedICM In-Person Meetings

Percentage of face-to-face case manager sessions attended

Time frame:
Up to 18 months after enrollment
Reported as:
Count of units · Number of planned in-person ICM sessions
ICM In-Person Meetings
Number of planned in-person ICM sessionsIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline and/or 6 Months
ICM In-Person Meetings392

Adverse events

Collected over Up to 18 months. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Decentralize Treatment Provision (DTP) at Baseline4/387 (1%)8/387 (2.1%)0/387 (0%)
Individualized Case Management (ICM) at Baseline12/390 (3.1%)16/390 (4.1%)0/390 (0%)
Standard of Care (SoC) at Baseline1/523 (0.2%)1/523 (0.2%)0/523 (0%)
Enrolled But Not Randomized0/91 (0%)0/91 (0%)0/91 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventDecentralize Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineIndividualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineStandard of Care (SoC) at BaselineEnrolled But Not Randomized
Sexual violenceSocial circumstances1/3874/3900/5230/91
Imprisoned while enrolled in studySocial circumstances3/3873/3900/5230/91
HospitalizationSocial circumstances3/3873/3901/5230/91
Physical violenceSocial circumstances1/3873/3900/5230/91
Motor vehicle accidentSocial circumstances0/3871/3900/5230/91
StrokeNervous system disorders0/3871/3900/5230/91
Gallstones and swollen feetGastrointestinal disorders0/3871/3900/5230/91

Baseline characteristics

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
Age, Customized(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
Age — 18-24606478202
Age — 25-29135123119377
Age — 30-35113117172402
Age — 35+8282240404
Age — Missing0156
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
Female3903876141391
Male0000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
American Indian or Alaska Native0000
Asian0213
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander0000
Black or African American3753725941341
White0000
More than one race13121035
Unknown or Not Reported21912
Region of Enrollment
Region of Enrollment(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
South Africa3903876141391
Nationality
Nationality(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
South African3793805951354
Other (Incl. Lesotho, Eswatini, Zimbabwe, Botswana)1171937
Education
Education(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
Never attended461525
Complete/incomplete primary education292879136
Secondary school incomplete283278394955
Secondary school complete546798219
Any post-secondary education or technical training1871944
Missing21912
Currently enrolled in school
Currently enrolled in school(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
Currently enrolled in school21912
Not currently enrolled in school3883866051379
Can read and/or write in Zulu or English
Can read and/or write in Zulu or English(Participants)Individualized Case Management (ICM) at BaselineDecentralized Treatment Provision (DTP) at BaselineStandard of Care (Virally Suppressed at Baseline OR Lost to Follow up Before Baseline Randomization)Total
Count of participants3823795851346

23 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.

08

Study locations

1 site
  • TB HIV Care
    Durban, South Africa
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Comins CA, Genberg B, Mcingana M, Bandeen-Roche K, Phetlhu DR, Steingo J, Mishra S, Wang L, Baral S, Hausler H, Schwartz S. Longitudinal Trajectories of Engagement With HIV Treatment Support Strategies Among Female Sex Workers Living With HIV in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2025 Dec 1;100(4):323-330. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000003738. PubMed 40810449 ↗
  • Comins CA, Baral S, Mcingana M, Shipp L, Phetlhu DR, Young K, Guddera V, Hausler H, Schwartz S. ART coverage and viral suppression among female sex workers living with HIV in eThekwini, South Africa: Baseline findings from the Siyaphambili study. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024 May 22;4(5):e0002783. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002783. eCollection 2024. PubMed 38776334 ↗
  • Bhardwaj A, Comins CA, Guddera V, Mcingana M, Young K, Phetlhu R, Mulumba N, Mishra S, Hausler H, Baral S, Schwartz S. Prevalence of depression, syndemic factors and their impact on viral suppression among female sex workers living with HIV in eThekwini, South Africa. BMC Womens Health. 2023 May 5;23(1):232. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02392-2. PubMed 37147708 ↗
  • Chen C, Baral S, Comins CA, Mcingana M, Wang L, Phetlhu DR, Mulumba N, Guddera V, Young K, Mishra S, Hausler H, Schwartz SR. HIV- and sex work-related stigmas and quality of life of female sex workers living with HIV in South Africa: a cross-sectional study. BMC Infect Dis. 2022 Dec 6;22(1):910. doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07892-4. PubMed 36474210 ↗
  • Wang L, Dowdy DW, Comins CA, Young K, Mcingana M, Mulumba N, Mhlophe H, Chen C, Hausler H, Schwartz SR, Baral S, Mishra S; Siyaphambili Study team. Health-related quality of life of female sex workers living with HIV in South Africa: a cross-sectional study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2022 Feb;25(2):e25884. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25884. PubMed 35212470 ↗

Study documents

  • Protocol and statistical analysis plan · Apr 9, 2018
  • Informed consent form · Apr 4, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 14, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03500172
Lead sponsor
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Collaborators
University of the Western Cape, TB HIV Care, University of Toronto, University of California, San Francisco, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, South Africa
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Apr 17, 2018
Start date
Jun 22, 2018
Primary completion
Nov 24, 2021
Completion
Jan 5, 2022
Results posted
Sep 21, 2023
Last update
Jan 14, 2026

Study contacts

Stefan Baral, MD, MPH
principal investigator · Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Harry Hausler, MD, MPH
principal investigator · TB HIV Care

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions 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.

Start the discussion