Predicted effects of the introduction of long-acting injectable cabotegravir pre-exposure prophylaxis in sub-Saharan Africa: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended by WHO as an additional option for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa, but there is concern that its introduction could lead to an increase in integrase-inhibitor resistance undermining treatment programmes that rely on dolutegravir. We aimed to project the health benefits and risks of cabotegravir-PrEP introduction in settings in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: With HIV Synthesis, an individual-based HIV model, we simulated 1000 setting-scenarios reflecting both variability and uncertainty about HIV epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa and compared outcomes for each with and without cabotegravir-PrEP introduction. PrEP use is assumed to be risk-informed and to be used only in 3-month periods (the time step for the model) when having condomless sex. We consider three groups at risk of integrase-inhibitor resistance emergence: people who start cabotegravir-PrEP after (unknowingly) being infected with HIV, those who seroconvert while on PrEP, and those with HIV who have residual cabotegravir drugs concentrations during the early tail period after recently stopping PrEP. We projected the outcomes of policies of cabotegravir-PrEP introduction and of no introduction in 2022 across 50 years. In 50% of setting-scenarios we considered that more sensitive nucleic-acid-based HIV diagnostic testing (NAT), rather than regular antibody-based HIV rapid testing, might be used to reduce resistance risk. For cost-effectiveness analysis we assumed in our base case a cost of cabotegravir-PrEP drug to be similar to oral PrEP, resulting in a total annual cost of USD$144 per year ($114 per year and $264 per year considered in sensitivity analyses), a cost-effectiveness threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life years averted, and a discount rate of 3% per year. FINDINGS: Reflecting our assumptions on the appeal of cabotegravir-PrEP, its introduction is predicted to lead to a substantial increase in PrEP use with approximately 2·6% of the adult population (and 46% of those with a current indication for PrEP) receiving PrEP compared with 1·5% (28%) without cabotegravir-PrEP introduction across 20 years. As a result, HIV incidence is expected to be lower by 29% (90% range across setting-scenarios 6-52%) across the same period compared with no introduction of cabotegravir-PrEP. In people initiating antiretroviral therapy, the proportion with integrase-inhibitor resistance after 20 years is projected to be 1·7% (0-6·4%) without cabotegravir-PrEP introduction but 13·1% (4·1-30·9%) with. Cabotegravir-PrEP introduction is predicted to lower the proportion of all people on antiretroviral therapy with viral loads less than 1000 copies per mL by 0·9% (-2·5% to 0·3%) at 20 years. For an adult population of 10 million an overall decrease in number of AIDS deaths of about 4540 per year (-13 000 to -300) across 50 years is predicted, with little discernible benefit with NAT when compared with standard antibody-based rapid testing. AIDS deaths are predicted to be averted with cabotegravir-PrEP introduction in 99% of setting-scenarios. Across the 50-year time horizon, overall HIV programme costs are predicted to be similar regardless of whether cabotegravir-PrEP is introduced (total mean discounted annual HIV programme costs per year across 50 years is $151·3 million vs $150·7 million), assuming the use of standard antibody testing. With antibody-based rapid HIV testing, the introduction of cabotegravir-PrEP is predicted to be cost-effective under an assumed threshold of $500 per disability-adjusted life year averted in 82% of setting-scenarios at the cost of $144 per year, in 52% at $264, and in 87% at $114. INTERPRETATION: Despite leading to increases in integrase-inhibitor drug resistance, cabotegravir-PrEP introduction is likely to reduce AIDS deaths in addition to HIV incidence. Long-acting cabotegravir-PrEP is predicted to be cost-effective if delivered at similar cost to oral PrEP with antibody-based rapid HIV testing. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health.

Updated assessment of risks and benefits of dolutegravir versus efavirenz in new antiretroviral treatment initiators in sub-Saharan Africa: modelling to inform treatment guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is being considered in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa instead of efavirenz for people initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) because of superior tolerability and a lower risk of resistance emergence. WHO requested updated modelling results for its 2019 Antiretroviral Guidelines update, which was restricted to the choice of dolutegravir or efavirenz in new ART initiators. In response to this request, we modelled the risks and benefits of alternative policies for initial first-line ART regimens. METHODS: We updated an existing individual-based model of HIV transmission and progression in adults to consider information on the risk of neural tube defects in women taking dolutegravir at time of conception, as well as the effects of dolutegravir on weight gain. The model accounted for drug resistance in determining viral suppression, with consequences for clinical outcomes and mother-to-child transmission. We sampled distributions of parameters to create various epidemic setting scenarios, which reflected the diversity of epidemic and programmatic situations in sub-Saharan Africa. For each setting scenario, we considered the situation in 2018 and compared ART initiation policies of an efavirenz-based regimen in women intending pregnancy, and a dolutegravir-based regimen in others, and a dolutegravir-based regimen, including in women intending pregnancy. We considered predicted outcomes over a 20-year period from 2019 to 2039, used a 3% discount rate, and a cost-effectiveness threshold of US$500 per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted. FINDINGS: Considering updated information on risks and benefits, a policy of ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen rather than an efavirenz-based regimen, including in women intending pregnancy, is predicted to bring population health benefits (10 990 DALYs averted per year) and to be cost-saving (by $2·9 million per year), leading to a reduction in the overall population burden of disease of 16 735 net DALYs per year for a country with an adult population size of 10 million. The policy involving ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen in women intending pregnancy was cost-effective in 87% of our setting scenarios and this finding was robust in various sensitivity analyses, including around the potential negative effects of weight gain. INTERPRETATION: In the context of a range of modelled setting scenarios in sub-Saharan Africa, we found that a policy of ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen, including in women intending pregnancy, was predicted to bring population health benefits and be cost-effective, supporting WHO's strong recommendation for dolutegravir as a preferred drug for ART initiators. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Emergence of HIV drug resistance during first- and second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings.

INTRODUCTION: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings has expanded in the last decade, reaching >8 million individuals and reducing AIDS mortality and morbidity. Continued success of ART programs will require understanding the emergence of HIV drug resistance patterns among individuals in whom treatment has failed and managing ART from both an individual and public health perspective. We review data on the emergence of HIV drug resistance among individuals in whom first-line therapy has failed and clinical and resistance outcomes of those receiving second-line therapy in resource-limited settings. RESULTS: Resistance surveys among patients initiating first-line nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based therapy suggest that 76%-90% of living patients achieve HIV RNA suppression by 12 months after ART initiation. Among patients with detectable HIV RNA at 12 months, HIV drug resistance, primarily due to M184V and NNRTI mutations, has been identified in 60%-72%, although the antiretroviral activity of proposed second-line regimens has been preserved. Complex mutation patterns, including thymidine-analog mutations, K65R, and multinucleoside mutations, are prevalent among cases of treatment failure identified by clinical or immunologic methods. Approximately 22% of patients receiving second-line therapy do not achieve HIV RNA suppression by 6 months, with poor adherence, rather than HIV drug resistance, driving most failures. Major protease inhibitor resistance at the time of second-line failure ranges from 0% to 50%, but studies are limited. CONCLUSIONS: Resistance of HIV to first-line therapy is predictable at 12 months when evaluated by means of HIV RNA monitoring and, when detected, largely preserves second-line therapy options. Optimizing adherence, performing resistance surveillance, and improving treatment monitoring are critical for long-term prevention of drug resistance.

Resistance at virological failure using boosted protease inhibitors versus nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as first-line antiretroviral therapy--implications for sustained efficacy of ART in resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Increases in the prevalence of resistance to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) have been observed among previously untreated individuals in all areas of sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to examine whether first-line use of 2 NRTIs plus a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) could protect against emergence of NRTI resistance mutations, compared to the use of 2 NRTIs plus 1 NNRTI. METHODS: We carried out a weighted meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing bPI- with NNRTI-based first-line antiretroviral therapy regimens using random effects modeling. RESULTS: In intention to treat analyses, there was no difference in the risk of viral failure at week 48 between NNRTI and bPI (P = .19). At week 48, the overall difference between NNRTI- and PI-based regimens in selection of any major NRTI resistance mutation (crude unweighted prevalence 3.3% vs 1.6%) was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], .4-3.0; P = .00927). There was a statistically significant difference in prevalence of K65R when comparing NNRTI (1.3%) with PI (0.67%); absolute weighted difference 1.0% (95% CI, .3-1.7; P = .00447). There was also a significant difference in prevalence of M184V/I between NNRTI and PI (crude unweighted prevalence 3.2% vs 1.4%); difference 1.6% (95% CI 0.1-3.1; P = .0368). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the equivalent efficacy and more favorable resistance implications of PI- versus NNRTI-based first line therapy, widespread use of PI-based first-line therapy is not warranted at this time, due to resource limitations and predicted increased risk of resistance-related failure of NNRTI/NRTI second-line regimens. PI-based first-line therapy could be reconsidered when antiretroviral agents from other classes become available for second-line regimens in resource-limited settings.

Bacterial pneumonia and pandemic influenza planning.

Pandemic influenza planning is well under way across the globe. Antiviral drugs and vaccines have dominated the therapeutic agenda. Far less work has been conducted on stockpiling and planning for deployment of antimicrobial drugs against secondary bacterial pneumonia, a cause of substantial illness and death in previous pandemics and epidemics. In the event of a pandemic, effective antimicrobial drug measures are expected to substantially benefit public health. We address issues regarding use of antimicrobial drugs as stocks of individual agents are diminished and the role of resistance surveillance in informing such policy. Furthermore, vaccination with polysaccharide and conjugate pneumococcal vaccines is considered as part of a pandemic strategy. Most illness and death from influenza are likely to occur in developing countries, where neuraminidase inhibitors and vaccines may be neither affordable nor available; thus, compared with industrialized countries, the benefits of treating bacterial complications in developing countries may be substantially greater.