An observational study in an urban Ugandan clinic comparing virological outcomes of patients switched from first-line antiretroviral regimens to second-line regimens containing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation approved boosted atazanavir as a preferred second line protease inhibitor in 2010. This is as an alternative to the current boosted lopinavir. Atazanavir has a lower genetic barrier than lopinavir. We compared the virological outcomes of patients during the roll out of routine viral load monitoring, who had switched to boosted second- line regimens of either atazanavir or lopinavir. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving adult patients at the Infectious Diseases Institute Kampala, Uganda started on a standard WHO recommended second-line regimen containing either boosted atazanavir or boosted lopinavir between 1 Dec 2014 and 31 July 2015.. Mantel -Haenszel chi square was used to test for the statistical significance of the odds of being suppressed (VL < 400 copies/ml) when on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir after stratifying by duration on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Multivariate logistic regression analysis used to determine if the type of boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) was associated with virological outcome. RESULTS: Ninety (90) % on ATV/r and 83% on LPV/r had a VL less than 1000 copies/ml. The odds of being suppressed using the same viral load cut-off while on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir was not statistically significant after stratifying for duration on ART (p = 0.09). In a multivariate analysis the type of bPI used was not a predictor of virological outcome (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using the WHO recommended second-line of boosted atazanavir have comparable virological suppression to those on boosted lopinavir.

The Potential Teratogenicity Alert for Women Conceiving on Dolutegravir-Based Regimens: An Assessment of Risk Communication by an Urban HIV Clinic in Uganda and Choices made by Women.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: In May 2018, the World Health Organization and other regulatory authorities released a safety alert for dolutegravir related to a risk of neural tube defects among women exposed to dolutegravir at the time of conception. Models of how drug safety information can be shared effectively in the shortest time are necessary to prevent interruptions of public health programs. We sought to describe an implementation process to inform and support women already on dolutegravir-based regimens at the time of conception to make informed choices following the safety alert of a potential teratogenicity risk. We describe the choices made by women, as well as determine the factors associated with women's choices to switch off dolutegravir. METHODS: A clinic response plan was developed in the first week following the alert and clinic staff were trained on safety guidance. All women aged < 55 years taking dolutegravir were identified from the clinic database and contacted by phone for earlier appointments. Non-menopausal and non-surgically sterilized women were referred for urine pregnancy testing and evaluation of pregnancy intentions in the following 12 months and effective family planning was offered. We describe the coverage of women who received the communication as well as the fidelity to the outlined plan from 21 May to 12 September, 2018. We used modified a Poisson regression analysis to determine factors associated with switching off dolutegravir. RESULTS: Of all active patients in the clinic, 9% (690/7963) were identified as female aged < 55 years taking dolutegravir. Ninety-five percent (656/690) were reviewed by September 2018 and informed of the safety alert, implying a high level of uptake. Fidelity to standard operating procedures was also high at 72%. Twenty-two percent (146/656) of patients were menopausal or surgically sterilized. Five hundred and ten women were of reproductive potential with a median age (interquartile range) of 37 years (30-42 years). Five percent (23/510) were human chorionic gonadotrophin positive and all initial ultrasound reports revealed no deformities. Twenty-one percent (108/510) had intentions to conceive and opted to stop taking dolutegravir with 90% (97/108) switching to efavirenz. Seventy-nine percent (402/510) opted to remain taking dolutegravir. However, only 40% (160/402) chose effective contraceptive methods and 60% (242/402) opted for condoms only/no contraceptive method. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid well-coordinated response ensured prompt communication of the dolutegravir safety warning. The process developed by the clinic can act as a model for response during drug safety alerts. Women made informed decisions with most opting to remain taking dolutegravir; however, effective contraception uptake was low.