Poor quality of life and incomplete self-reported adherence predict second-line ART virological failure in resource-limited settings.

We evaluated health-related quality of life (QoL) and self-reported incomplete adherence as predictors of early second-line antiretroviral (ART) virological failure (VF). ACTG A5273 study participants completed the ACTG SF-21 measure which has 8 QoL domains. We used exact logistic regression to assess the association of QoL at baseline and week 4 with early VF adjusted for self-reported adherence. Of 500 individuals (51% women, median age 39 years) in this analysis, 79% and 75% self-reported complete adherence (no missing doses in the past month) at weeks 4 and 24, respectively. Early VF was experienced by 7% and more common among those who self-reported incomplete adherence. Participants with low week 4 QoL scores had higher rates of early VF than participants with high scores. After adjusting for self-reported adherence at week 4, VL and CD4 at baseline, cognitive functioning, pain and mental health domains were significantly associated with subsequent early VF. In this post-hoc analysis, poorer QoL adds to self-reported incomplete adherence after 4 weeks of second-line ART in predicting VF at week 24. Evaluation is needed to assess whether individuals with poorer QoL might be targeted for greater support to reduce risk of VF.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01352715.

Raltegravir in second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings (SELECT): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: For second-line antiretroviral therapy, WHO recommends a boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, concerns about toxicity and cross-resistance motivated a search for regimens that do not contain NRTIs. We aimed to assess whether boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir would be non-inferior to boosted lopinavir plus NRTIs for virological suppression in resource-limited settings. METHODS: A5273 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) research sites in nine resource-limited countries (three sites each in India and South Africa, two each in Malawi and Peru, and one each in Brazil, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, and Zimbabwe). Adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL after at least 24 weeks on a regimen based on a non-NRTI inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400 mg raltegravir twice a day (raltegravir group) or to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NRTIs selected from an algorithm (eg, zidovudine after failure with tenofovir and vice versa; NRTI group). Randomised group assignment was done with a computer algorithm concealed to site personnel, and stratified by HIV-1 RNA viral load, CD4 cell count, and intention to use zidovudine, with the groups balanced by each site. The primary endpoint was time to confirmed virological failure (two measurements of HIV-1 RNA viral load >400 copies per mL) at or after week 24 in the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing the cumulative probability of virological failure by 48 weeks. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01352715. FINDINGS: Between March 13, 2012, and Oct 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 515 participants: 260 to the raltegravir group and 255 to the NRTI group; two participants in the raltegravir group and one in the NRTI group were excluded from analyses because of ineligibility. By the end of follow-up (October, 2014), 96 participants had virological failure (46 in the raltegravir group and 50 in the NRTI group). By 48 weeks, the cumulative probability of virological failure was 10·3% (95% CI 6·5-14·0) in the raltegravir group and 12·4% (8·3-16·5) in the NRTI group, with a weighted difference of -3·4% (-8·4 to 1·5), indicating that raltegravir was non-inferior, but not superior, to NRTIs. 62 (24%) participants in the raltegravir group and 81 (32%) in the NRTI group had grade 3 or higher adverse events; 19 (7%) and 29 (11%), respectively, had serious adverse events. Three participants in each group died, all from HIV-related causes. INTERPRETATION: In settings with extensive NRTI resistance but no available resistance testing, our data support WHO's recommendation for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus NRTI for second-line antiretroviral therapy. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir is an appropriate alternative, especially if NRTI use is limited by toxicity. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

HIV-1 drug resistance and second-line treatment in children randomized to switch at low versus higher RNA thresholds

BACKGROUND: The PENPACT-1 trial compared virologic thresholds to determine when to switch to second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). Using PENPACT-1 data, we aimed to describe HIV-1 drug resistance accumulation on first-line ART by virologic threshold. METHODS: PENPACT-1 had a 2 × 2 factorial design, randomizing HIV-infected children to start protease inhibitor (PI) versus nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART, and switch at a 1000 copies/mL versus 30,000 copies/mL threshold. Switch criteria were not achieving the threshold by week 24, confirmed rebound above the threshold thereafter, or Center for Disease Control and Prevention stage C event. Resistance tests were performed on samples ≥1000 copies/mL before switch, resuppression, and at 4-years/trial end. RESULTS: Sixty-seven children started PI-based ART and were randomized to switch at 1000 copies/mL (PI-1000), 64 PIs and 30,000 copies/mL (PI-30,000), 67 NNRTIs and 1000 copies/mL (NNRTI-1000), and 65 NNRTI and 30,000 copies/mL (NNRTI-30,000). Ninety-four (36%) children reached the 1000 copies/mL switch criteria during 5-year follow-up. In 30,000 copies/mL threshold arms, median time from 1000 to 30,000 copies/mL switch criteria was 58 (PI) versus 80 (NNRTI) weeks (P = 0.81). In NNRTI-30,000, more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance mutations accumulated than other groups. NNRTI mutations were selected before switching at 1000 copies/mL (23% NNRTI-1000, 27% NNRTI-30,000). Sixty-two children started abacavir + lamivudine, 166 lamivudine + zidovudine or stavudine, and 35 other NRTIs. The abacavir + lamivudine group acquired fewest NRTI mutations. Of 60 switched to second-line, 79% PI-1000, 63% PI-30,000, 64% NNRTI-1000, and 100% NNRTI-30,000 were <400 copies/mL 24 weeks later. CONCLUSIONS: Children on first-line NNRTI-based ART who were randomized to switch at a higher virologic threshold developed the most resistance, yet resuppressed on second-line. An abacavir + lamivudine NRTI combination seemed protective against development of NRTI resistance

First-line antiretroviral therapy with a protease inhibitor versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and switch at higher versus low viral load in HIV-infected children: an open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Children with HIV will be on antiretroviral therapy (ART) longer than adults, and therefore the durability of first-line ART and timing of switch to second-line are key questions. We assess the long-term outcome of protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) first-line ART and viral load switch criteria in children. METHODS: In a randomised open-label factorial trial, we compared effectiveness of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus a protease inhibitor versus two NRTIs plus an NNRTI and of switch to second-line ART at a viral load of 1000 copies per mL versus 30,000 copies per mL in previously untreated children infected with HIV from Europe and North and South America. Random assignment was by computer-generated sequentially numbered lists stratified by age, region, and by exposure to perinatal ART. Primary outcome was change in viral load between baseline and 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat, which we defined as all patients that started treatment. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN73318385. FINDINGS: Between Sept 25, 2002, and Sept 7, 2005, 266 children (median age 6.5 years; IQR 2.8-12.9) were randomly assigned treatment regimens: 66 to receive protease inhibitor and switch to second-line at 1000 copies per mL (PI-low), 65 protease inhibitor and switch at 30,000 copies per mL (PI-higher), 68 NNRTI and switch at 1000 copies per mL (NNRTI-low), and 67 NNRTI and switch at 30,000 copies per mL (NNRTI-higher). Median follow-up was 5.0 years (IQR 4.2-6.0) and 188 (71%) children were on first-line ART at trial end. At 4 years, mean reductions in viral load were -3.16 log(10) copies per mL for protease inhibitors versus -3.31 log(10) copies per mL for NNRTIs (difference -0.15 log(10) copies per mL, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.11; p=0.26), and -3.26 log(10) copies per mL for switching at the low versus -3.20 log(10) copies per mL for switching at the higher threshold (difference 0.06 log(10) copies per mL, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.32; p=0.56). Protease inhibitor resistance was uncommon and there was no increase in NRTI resistance in the PI-higher compared with the PI-low group. NNRTI resistance was selected early, and about 10% more children accumulated NRTI mutations in the NNRTI-higher than the NNRTI-low group. Nine children had new CDC stage-C events and 60 had grade 3/4 adverse events; both were balanced across randomised groups. INTERPRETATION: Good long-term outcomes were achieved with all treatments strategies. Delayed switching of protease-inhibitor-based ART might be reasonable where future drug options are limited, because the risk of selecting for NRTI and protease-inhibitor resistance is low. FUNDING: Paediatric European Network for Treatment of AIDS (PENTA) and Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group (PACTG/IMPAACT).