Raltegravir-intensified initial antiretroviral therapy in advanced HIV disease in Africa: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In sub-Saharan Africa, individuals infected with HIV who are severely immunocompromised have high mortality (about 10%) shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). This group also has the greatest risk of morbidity and mortality associated with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS), a paradoxical response to successful ART. Integrase inhibitors lead to significantly more rapid declines in HIV viral load (VL) than all other ART classes. We hypothesised that intensifying standard triple-drug ART with the integrase inhibitor, raltegravir, would reduce HIV VL faster and hence reduce early mortality, although this strategy could also risk more IRIS events. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a 2×2×2 factorial open-label parallel-group trial, treatment-naive adults, adolescents, and children >5 years old infected with HIV, with cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) <100 cells/mm3, from eight urban/peri-urban HIV clinics at regional hospitals in Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, and Zimbabwe were randomised 1:1 to initiate standard triple-drug ART, with or without 12-week raltegravir intensification, and followed for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was 24-week mortality, analysed by intention to treat. Of 2,356 individuals screened for eligibility, 1,805 were randomised between 18 June 2013 and 10 April 2015. Of the 1,805 participants, 961 (53.2%) were male, 72 (4.0%) were children/adolescents, median age was 36 years, CD4 count was 37 cells/mm3, and plasma viraemia was 249,770 copies/mL. Fifty-six participants (3.1%) were lost to follow-up at 48 weeks. By 24 weeks, 97/902 (10.9%) raltegravir-intensified ART versus 91/903 (10.2%) standard ART participants had died (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 1.10 [95% CI 0.82-1.46], p = 0.53), with no evidence of interaction with other randomisations (pheterogeneity > 0.7) and despite significantly greater VL suppression with raltegravir-intensified ART at 4 weeks (343/836 [41.0%] versus 113/841 [13.4%] with standard ART, p < 0.001) and 12 weeks (567/789 [71.9%] versus 415/803 [51.7%] with standard ART, p < 0.001). Through 48 weeks, there was no evidence of differences in mortality (aHR = 0.98 [95% CI 0.76-1.28], p = 0.91); in serious (aHR = 0.99 [0.81-1.21], p = 0.88), grade-4 (aHR = 0.88 [0.71-1.09], p = 0.29), or ART-modifying (aHR = 0.90 [0.63-1.27], p = 0.54) adverse events (the latter occurring in 59 [6.5%] participants with raltegravir-intensified ART versus 66 [7.3%] with standard ART); in events judged compatible with IRIS (occurring in 89 [9.9%] participants with raltegravir-intensified ART versus 86 [9.5%] with standard ART, p = 0.79) or in hospitalisations (aHR = 0.94 [95% CI 0.76-1.17], p = 0.59). At 12 weeks, one and two raltegravir-intensified participants had predicted intermediate-level and high-level raltegravir resistance, respectively. At 48 weeks, the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mutation K219E/Q (p = 0.004) and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations K101E/P (p = 0.03) and P225H (p = 0.007) were less common in virus from participants with raltegravir-intensified ART, with weak evidence of less intermediate- or high-level resistance to tenofovir (p = 0.06), abacavir (p = 0.08), and rilpivirine (p = 0.07). Limitations of the study include limited clinical, radiological, and/or microbiological information for some participants, reflecting available services at the centres, and lack of baseline genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Although 12 weeks of raltegravir intensification was well tolerated and reduced HIV viraemia significantly faster than standard triple-drug ART during the time of greatest risk for early death, this strategy did not reduce mortality or clinical events in this group and is not warranted. There was no excess of IRIS-compatible events, suggesting that integrase inhibitors can be used safely as part of standard triple-drug first-line therapy in severely immunocompromised individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825031. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number ISRCTN 43622374.

Late Presentation With HIV in Africa: Phenotypes, Risk, and Risk Stratification in the REALITY Trial.

Background: Severely immunocompromised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals have high mortality shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We investigated predictors of early mortality and "late presenter" phenotypes. Methods: The Reduction of EArly MortaLITY (REALITY) trial enrolled ART-naive adults and children ≥5 years of age with CD4 counts <100 cells/µL initiating ART in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Kenya. Baseline predictors of mortality through 48 weeks were identified using Cox regression with backwards elimination (exit P > .1). Results: Among 1711 included participants, 203 (12%) died. Mortality was independently higher with older age; lower CD4 count, albumin, hemoglobin, and grip strength; presence of World Health Organization stage 3/4 weight loss, fever, or vomiting; and problems with mobility or self-care at baseline (all P < .04). Receiving enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis independently reduced mortality (P = .02). Of five late-presenter phenotypes, Group 1 (n = 355) had highest mortality (25%; median CD4 count, 28 cells/µL), with high symptom burden, weight loss, poor mobility, and low albumin and hemoglobin. Group 2 (n = 394; 11% mortality; 43 cells/µL) also had weight loss, with high white cell, platelet, and neutrophil counts suggesting underlying inflammation/infection. Group 3 (n = 218; 10% mortality) had low CD4 counts (27 cells/µL), but low symptom burden and maintained fat mass. The remaining groups had 4%-6% mortality. Conclusions: Clinical and laboratory features identified groups with highest mortality following ART initiation. A screening tool could identify patients with low CD4 counts for prioritizing same-day ART initiation, enhanced prophylaxis, and intensive follow-up. Clinical Trials Registration: ISRCTN43622374.

Neurocognitive Function at the First-Line Failure and on the Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Africa: Analyses From the EARNEST Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess neurocognitive function at the first-line antiretroviral therapy failure and change on the second-line therapy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial was conducted in 5 sub-Saharan African countries. METHODS: Patients failing the first-line therapy according to WHO criteria after >12 months on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-based regimens were randomized to the second-line therapy (open-label) with lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily) plus either 2-3 clinician-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, raltegravir, or as monotherapy after 12-week induction with raltegravir. Neurocognitive function was tested at baseline, weeks 48 and 96 using color trails tests 1 and 2, and the Grooved Pegboard test. Test results were converted to an average of the 3 individual test z-scores. RESULTS: A total of 1036 patients (90% of those >18 years enrolled at 13 evaluable sites) had valid baseline tests (58% women, median: 38 years, viral load: 65,000 copies per milliliter, CD4 count: 73 cells per cubic millimeter). Mean (SD) baseline z-score was -2.96 (1.74); lower baseline z-scores were independently associated with older age, lower body weight, higher viral load, lower hemoglobin, less education, fewer weekly working hours, previous central nervous system disease, and taking fluconazole (P < 0.05 in multivariable model). Z-score was increased by mean (SE) of +1.23 (0.04) after 96 weeks on the second-line therapy (P < 0.001; n = 915 evaluable), with no evidence of difference between the treatment arms (P = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Patients in sub-Saharan Africa failing the first-line therapy had low neurocognitive function test scores, but performance improved on the second-line therapy. Regimens with more central nervous system-penetrating drugs did not enhance neurocognitive recovery indicating this need not be a primary consideration in choosing a second-line regimen.