Switching HIV treatment in adults based on CD4 count versus viral load monitoring: a randomized, non-inferiority trial in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Viral load (VL) is recommended for monitoring the response to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) but is not routinely available in most low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a CD4-based monitoring and switching strategy would provide a similar clinical outcome compared to the standard VL-based strategy in Thailand. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Programs for HIV Prevention and Treatment (PHPT-3) non-inferiority randomized clinical trial compared a treatment switching strategy based on CD4-only (CD4) monitoring versus viral-load (VL). Consenting participants were antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected adults (CD4 count 50-250/mm(3)) initiating non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based therapy. Randomization, stratified by site (21 public hospitals), was performed centrally after enrollment. Clinicians were unaware of the VL values of patients randomized to the CD4 arm. Participants switched to second-line combination with confirmed CD4 decline >30% from peak (within 200 cells from baseline) in the CD4 arm, or confirmed VL >400 copies/ml in the VL arm. Primary endpoint was clinical failure at 3 years, defined as death, new AIDS-defining event, or CD4 <50 cells/mm(3). The 3-year Kaplan-Meier cumulative risks of clinical failure were compared for non-inferiority with a margin of 7.4%. In the intent to treat analysis, data were censored at the date of death or at last visit. The secondary endpoints were difference in future-drug-option (FDO) score, a measure of resistance profiles, virologic and immunologic responses, and the safety and tolerance of HAART. 716 participants were randomized, 356 to VL monitoring and 360 to CD4 monitoring. At 3 years, 319 participants (90%) in VL and 326 (91%) in CD4 were alive and on follow-up. The cumulative risk of clinical failure was 8.0% (95% CI 5.6-11.4) in VL versus 7.4% (5.1-10.7) in CD4, and the upper-limit of the one-sided 95% CI of the difference was 3.4%, meeting the pre-determined non-inferiority criterion. Probability of switch for study criteria was 5.2% (3.2-8.4) in VL versus 7.5% (5.0-11.1) in CD4 (p=0.097). Median time from treatment initiation to switch was 11.7 months (7.7-19.4) in VL and 24.7 months (15.9-35.0) in CD4 (p=0.001). The median duration of viremia >400 copies/ml at switch was 7.2 months (5.8-8.0) in VL versus 15.8 months (8.5-20.4) in CD4 (p=0.002). FDO scores were not significantly different at time of switch. No adverse events related to the monitoring strategy were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year rates of clinical failure and loss of treatment options did not differ between strategies although the longer-term consequences of CD4 monitoring would need to be investigated. These results provide reassurance to treatment programs currently based on CD4 monitoring as VL measurement becomes more affordable and feasible in resource-limited settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT00162682 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Efficacy and safety of 1-month postpartum zidovudine-didanosine to prevent HIV-resistance mutations after intrapartum single-dose nevirapine.

BACKGROUND: Intrapartum single-dose nevirapine plus third trimester maternal and infant zidovudine are essential components of programs to prevent mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in resource-limited settings. The persistence of nevirapine in the plasma for 3 weeks postpartum risks selection of resistance mutations to nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). We hypothesized that a 1-month zidovudine-didanosine course initiated at the same time as single-dose nevirapine (sdNVP) would prevent the selection of nevirapine-resistance mutations. METHODS: HIV-infected pregnant women in the PHPT-4 cohort with CD4 cell counts >250 cells/mm3 received antepartum zidovudine from the third trimester until delivery, sdNVP during labor, and a 1-month zidovudine-didanosine course after delivery. These women were matched on the basis of baseline HIV load, CD4 cell count, and duration of antepartum zidovudine to women who received sdNVP in the PHPT-2 trial (control subjects). Consensus sequencing and the more sensitive oligonucleotide ligation assay were performed on samples obtained on postpartum days 7-10, 37-45, and 120 (if the HIV load was >500 copies/mL) to detect K103N/Y181C/G190A mutations. RESULTS: The 222 PHPT-4 subjects did not differ from matched control subjects in baseline characteristics except for age. The combined group median CD4 cell count was 421 cells/mm3 (interquartile range [IQR], 322-549 cells/mm3), the median HIV load was 3.45 log10 copies/mL (IQR, 2.79-4.00 log10 copies/mL), and the median duration of zidovudine prophylaxis was 10.4 weeks (IQR, 9.1-11.4 weeks). Using consensus sequencing, major NNRTI resistance mutations were detected after delivery in 0% of PHPT-4 subjects and 10.4% of PHPT-2 controls. The oligonucleotide ligation assay detected resistance in 1.8% of PHPT-4 subjects and 18.9% of controls. Major NNRTI resistance mutations were detected by either method in 1.8% of PHPT-4 subjects and 20.7% of controls (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A 1-month postpartum course of zidovudine plus didanosine prevented the selection of the vast majority of NNRTI resistance mutations.

From research to practice: the example of antenatal care in Thailand.

The rationale for providing antenatal care is to screen predominantly healthy pregnant women to detect early signs of, or risk factors for, abnormal conditions or diseases and to follow this detection with effective and timely intervention. The recommended antenatal care programme in most developing countries is often the same as the programmes used in developed countries. However, in developing countries there is wide variation in the proportion of women who receive antenatal care. The WHO randomized trial of antenatal care and the WHO systematic review indicated that a model of care that provided fewer antenatal visits could be introduced into clinical practice without causing adverse consequences to the woman or the fetus. This new model of antenatal care is being implemented in Thailand. Action has been required at all levels of the health-care system, from consumers through to health professionals, the Ministry of Public Health and international organizations. The Thai experience is a good example of moving research findings into practice, and it should be replicated elsewhere to effectively manage other health problems.