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.).

Second-line HIV Treatment in Ugandan Children: Favorable Outcomes and No Protease Inhibitor Resistance.

Background: Data on pediatric second-line antiretroviral treatment (ART) outcomes are scarce, but essential to evaluate second-line and design third-line regimens. Methods: Children ≤12 years switching to second-line ART containing a protease inhibitor (PI) in Uganda were followed for 24 months. Viral load (VL) was determined at switch to second-line and every 6 months thereafter; genotypic resistance testing was done if VL ≥ 1000 cps/ml. Results: 60 children were included in the analysis; all had ≥1 drug resistance mutations at switch. Twelve children (20.0%) experienced treatment failure; no PI mutations were detected. Sub-optimal adherence and underweight were associated with treatment failure. Conclusions: No PI mutations occurred in children failing second-line ART, which is reassuring as pediatric third-line is not routinely available in these settings. Poor adherence rather than HIV drug resistance is likely to be the main mechanism for treatment failure and should receive close attention in children on second-line ART.

Nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor cross-resistance and outcomes from second-line antiretroviral therapy in the public health approach: an observational analysis within the randomised, open-label, EARNEST trial.

BACKGROUND: Cross-resistance after first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure is expected to impair activity of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in second-line therapy for patients with HIV, but evidence for the effect of cross-resistance on virological outcomes is limited. We aimed to assess the association between the activity, predicted by resistance testing, of the NRTIs used in second-line therapy and treatment outcomes for patients infected with HIV. METHODS: We did an observational analysis of additional data from a published open-label, randomised trial of second-line ART (EARNEST) in sub-Saharan Africa. 1277 adults or adolescents infected with HIV in whom first-line ART had failed (assessed by WHO criteria with virological confirmation) were randomly assigned to a boosted protease inhibitor (standardised to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) with two to three NRTIs (clinician-selected, without resistance testing); or with raltegravir; or alone as protease inhibitor monotherapy (discontinued after week 96). We tested genotypic resistance on stored baseline samples in patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group and calculated the predicted activity of prescribed second-line NRTIs. We measured viral load in stored samples for all patients obtained every 12-16 weeks. This trial is registered with Controlled-Trials.com (number ISRCTN 37737787) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00988039). FINDINGS: Baseline genotypes were available in 391 (92%) of 426 patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group. 176 (89%) of 198 patients prescribed a protease inhibitor with no predicted-active NRTIs had viral suppression (viral load <400 copies per mL) at week 144, compared with 312 (81%) of 383 patients in the protease inhibitor and raltegravir group at week 144 (p=0·02) and 233 (61%) of 280 patients in the protease inhibitor monotherapy group at week 96 (p<0·0001). Compared with results with no active NRTIs, 95 (85%) of 112 patients with one predicted-active NRTI had viral suppression (p=0·3) and 20 (77%) of 26 patients with two or three active NRTIs had viral suppression (p=0·08). Over all follow-up, greater predicted NRTI activity was associated with worse viral load suppression (global p=0·0004). INTERPRETATION: Genotypic resistance testing might not accurately predict NRTI activity in protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. Our results do not support the introduction of routine resistance testing in ART programmes in low-income settings for the purpose of selecting second-line NRTIs. FUNDING: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, UK Medical Research Council, Institito de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, WHO, Merck.

HIV Drug Resistance Among Children Initiating First-Line Antiretroviral Treatment in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on primary human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance (HIVDR) in pediatric populations. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of primary HIVDR and associated risk factors among children initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Uganda. METHODS: At three Ugandan clinics, children (age <12 years) requiring ART were recruited between January 2010 and August 2011. Before starting ART, blood was collected for viral load and pol gene sequencing. Drug resistance mutations were determined using the 2010 International AIDS Society-USA mutation list. Risk factors for HIVDR were assessed with multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: Three hundred nineteen HIV-infected children with a median age of 4.9 years were enrolled. Sequencing was successful in 279 children (87.5%). HIVDR was present in 10% of all children and 15.2% of children <3 years. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-NRTI (NNRTI), and dual-class resistance was present in 5.7%, 7.5%, and 3.2%, respectively. HIVDR occurred in 35.7% of prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT)-exposed children, 15.6% in children with unknown PMTCT history, and 7.7% among antiretroviral-naive children. History of PMTCT exposure [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 2.6, 95% CI: 1.3-5.1] or unknown PMTCT status (AOR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.1-13.5), low CD4 (AOR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.3-3.6), current breastfeeding (AOR: 7.4, 95% CI: 2.6-21), and current maternal ART use (AOR: 6.4, 95% CI: 3.4-11.9) emerged as risk factors for primary HIVDR in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment HIVDR is high, especially in children with PMTCT exposure. Protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens are advocated by the World Health Organization, but availability in children is limited. Children with (unknown) PMTCT exposure, low CD4 count, current breastfeeding, or maternal ART need to be prioritized to receive PI-based regimens.

Response to antiretroviral therapy of HIV type 1-infected children in urban and rural settings of Uganda.

From 2006 to 2011, a cohort study was conducted among 1000 children resident in urban and rural settings of Uganda to ascertain and compare the response to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among urban versus rural children and the factors associated with this response. Clinical, immunological, and virological parameters were ascertained at baseline and weeks 24, 48, 96, and 144 after ART initiation. Adherence to ART was assessed at enrollment by self-report (SR) and pill counts (PC). Overall, 499/948 (52.6%) children were resident in rural areas, 504/948 (53.1%) were male, and their mean age was 11.9±4.4 years (urban children) and 11.4±4.1 years (rural children). The urban children were more likely to switch to second-line ART at a rate of 39.9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI: 28.2-56.4) versus 14.9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI: 8.7-25.7), p=0.0038, develop any new WHO 3/4 events at 127/414 (30.7%) versus 108/466 (23.2%), p=0.012, and have a higher cumulative incidence of hospitalization of 54/449 (12.0%) versus 32/499 (6.4%), p=0.003, when compared to rural children. No differences were observed in mean changes in weight, height, CD4 count and percentage, and hemoglobin and viral load between urban and rural children. Adherence of ≥95% was observed in 88.2% of urban versus 91.3% of rural children by SR (p=0.130), and in 78.8% of urban versus 88.8% of rural children by PC (p<0.0001). In this study rural children had more favorable clinical outcomes and were more likely to adhere optimally to ART than urban children.