Long-term outcome of second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings.

There is limited information on efficacy and durability of second-line antiretroviral therapy (2NL) beyond 12 months in resource-limited settings. A total of 73 patients were enrolled into a prospective 2NL observational cohort in Nigeria. Second-line antiretroviral therapy consisted of lopinavir/ritonavir plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Time on 2NL ranged from 15 to 31 months. Genotypes were retrospectively done and not available to guide second-line regimen choice. At enrollment, median CD4 count was 121 cells/mm3, and median time on first-line antiretroviral therapy (ISL) was 24 months. At 6 to 9 months on 2NL, 72.6% (intention to treat [ITT]) and 88.3% (on treatment [OT]) had an undetectable viral load (UDVL). At 12 months, 65.8% (ITT) and 90.57% (OT) had UDVL. At >12 to 24 months and at >24 months, 57.5% (ITT) and 91.3% (OT) had UDVL. No statistically significant association was observed between CD4 at 2NL start, sex, genotypic sensitivity score of 2NL, or tenofovir (TDF) use in ISL and viral suppression. Two patients developed major protease inhibitor mutations while on 2NL. We observed a high degree of viral suppression at 12 months and little loss of viral suppression thereafter.

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to improve the evidence base for provision of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) following first-line virological failure. This is particularly the case in Sub-Saharan Africa where 70% of all people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) reside. The aim of this study was to simulate the potential risks and benefits of treatment simplification in second-line therapy compared to the current standard of care (SOC) in a lower-middle income and an upper-middle income country in Sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare outcomes associated with reducing treatment discontinuations between current SOC for second-line therapy in South Africa and Nigeria and an alternative regimen: ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) combined with raltegravir (RAL). We used published studies and collaborating sites to estimate efficacy, adverse effect and cost. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2011 USD per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained. RESULTS: Reducing treatment discontinuations with LPV/r+RAL resulted in an additional 0.4 discounted QALYs and increased the undiscounted life expectancy by 0.8 years per person compared to the current SOC. The average incremental cost was $6,525 per treated patient in Nigeria and $4,409 per treated patient in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,302/QALY gained and $11,085/QALY gained for Nigeria and South Africa, respectively. Our results were sensitive to the probability of ART discontinuation and the unit cost for RAL. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir was projected to be cost-effective in South Africa. However, at its current price, it is unlikely to be cost-effective in Nigeria.