Two-drug regimens for the treatment of HIV in Africa.

Two-drug regimens for the treatment of HIV are increasingly available. The oral regimen of dolutegravir plus lamivudine is recommended as a preferred option in multiple national guidelines but is not currently included in WHO HIV treatment guidelines nor widely used in Africa. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine is being rolled out in the USA, Europe, and Australia but its use in sub-Saharan Africa is currently restricted to clinical trials. Given the increasing life expectancy, rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases, and resulting polypharmacy among people living with HIV, there are potential advantages to the use of two-drug regimens, particularly in African women, adolescents, and older adults. This Viewpoint reviews existing evidence and highlights the risks, benefits, and key knowledge gaps for the use of two-drug regimens in settings using the public health approach in Africa. We suggest that a two-drug regimen of dolutegravir and lamivudine can be safely used as a switch option for virologically suppressed individuals in settings using the public health approach once chronic hepatitis B has been excluded. Individuals with HIV who are switched to two-drug regimens should receive a full course of hepatitis B vaccinations. More efficacy data is needed to support dolutegravir plus lamivudine combination in the test and treat approach, and long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in the public health system in sub-Saharan Africa.

Assessment of second-line antiretroviral regimens for HIV therapy in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and toxic effects of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are uncertain when these agents are used with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in resource-limited settings. Removing the NRTIs or replacing them with raltegravir may provide a benefit. METHODS: In this open-label trial in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 1277 adults and adolescents with HIV infection and first-line treatment failure to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI group, 426 patients), a protease inhibitor plus raltegravir in a superiority comparison (raltegravir group, 433 patients), or protease-inhibitor monotherapy after 12 weeks of induction therapy with raltegravir in a noninferiority comparison (monotherapy group, 418 patients). The primary composite end point, good HIV disease control, was defined as survival with no new World Health Organization stage 4 events, a CD4+ count of more than 250 cells per cubic millimeter, and a viral load of less than 10,000 copies per milliliter or 10,000 copies or more with no protease resistance mutations at week 96 and was analyzed with the use of imputation of data (≤4%). RESULTS: Good HIV disease control was achieved in 60% of the patients (mean, 255 patients) in the NRTI group, 64% of the patients (mean, 277) in the raltegravir group (P=0.21 for the comparison with the NRTI group; superiority of raltegravir not shown), and 55% of the patients (mean, 232) in the monotherapy group (noninferiority of monotherapy not shown, based on a 10-percentage-point margin). There was no significant difference in rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events among the three groups (P=0.82). The viral load was less than 400 copies per milliliter in 86% of patients in the NRTI group, 86% in the raltegravir group (P=0.97), and 61% in the monotherapy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: When given with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy, NRTIs retained substantial virologic activity without evidence of increased toxicity, and there was no advantage to replacing them with raltegravir. Virologic control was inferior with protease-inhibitor monotherapy. (Funded by European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; EARNEST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN37737787, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988039.).

Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy after 24 weeks of second-line antiretroviral therapy in Africa: a randomized controlled trial (SARA).

BACKGROUND: Boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) monotherapy (bPImono) potentially has substantial cost, safety and operational benefits. It has never been evaluated as second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Africa. METHODS: After 24 weeks of lopinavir/ritonavir-containing second-line therapy, DART participants were randomized to remain on combination therapy (CT), or change to bPImono maintenance (SARA trial; ISRCTN53817258). Joint primary end points were CD4(+) T-cell changes 24 weeks later and serious adverse events (SAEs); retrospectively assayed viral load (VL) was a secondary end point. Analyses were intention-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 192 participants were randomized to CT (n=95) or bPImono (n=97) and followed for median 60 weeks (IQR 45-84). Participants received median 4.0 years (IQR 3.5-4.4) first-line ART. Median CD4(+) T-cell count at first-line failure was 86 cells/mm(3) (47-136), increasing to 245 cells/mm(3) (173-325) after 24-week induction when 77% had VL<50 copies/ml. Overall, 44 (23%) were receiving second-line therapy with bPI and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) only, and 148 (77%) with bPI plus non-NRTI (NNRTI) with or without NRTI. At 24 weeks after randomization to CT versus bPImono, mean CD4(+) T-cell increase was 42 (CT, n=85) versus 49 cells/mm(3) (bPImono, n=88; adjusted difference 13 [95% CI -15, 43], P=0.37; non-inferior compared with predetermined non-inferiority margin [-33]). Virological suppression was greater for CT versus bPImono (trend P=0.009): 77% (70/91) versus 60% (56/94) were <50 copies/ml, and 5% (5) versus 14% (13) were ≥1,000 copies/ml, respectively. A total of 0 (0%) versus 5 (5%) participants had major protease inhibitor mutations and 3 (3%) versus 0 (0%) new NNRTI/NRTI mutations were detected during follow-up. Two participants (1 CT and 1 bPImono) died >24 weeks after randomization, and 5 (2 CT and 3 bPImono) experienced SAEs (P=0.51). CONCLUSIONS: bPImono following a 24-week second-line induction was associated with similar CD4(+) T-cell response, but increased low-level viraemia, generally without protease inhibitor resistance. Longer-term trials are needed to provide definitive evidence about effectiveness in Africa.