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.

Long-term hepatitis B virus (HBV) response to lamivudine-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-HBV co-infected patients in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4 million of people are co-infected with HIV and Hepatitis B virus (HBV). In resource-limited settings, the majority of HIV-infected patients initiate first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy containing lamivudine (3TC-containing-HAART) and long-term virological response of HBV to lamivudine-containing HAART in co-infected patients is not well known. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDING: HIV-HBV co-infected patients enrolled in the PHPT cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00433030) and initiating a 3TC-containing-HAART regimen were included. HBV-DNA, HIV-RNA, CD4+ T-cell counts and alanine transaminase were measured at baseline, 3 months, 12 months and then every 6 months up to 5 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the cumulative rates of patients who achieved and maintained HBV-DNA suppression. Of 30 co-infected patients, 19 were positive for HBe antigen (HBeAg). At initiation of 3TC-containing-HAART, median HBV DNA and HIV RNA levels were 7.35 log(10) IU/mL and 4.47 log(10) copies/mL, respectively. At 12 months, 67% of patients achieved HBV DNA suppression: 100% of HBeAg-negative patients and 47% of HBeAg-positive. Seventy-three percent of patients had HIV RNA below 50 copies/mL. The cumulative rates of maintained HBV-DNA suppression among the 23 patients who achieved HBV-DNA suppression were 91%, 87%, and 80% at 1, 2, and 4 years respectively. Of 17 patients who maintained HBV-DNA suppression while still on 3TC, 4 (24%) lost HBsAg and 7 of 8 (88%) HBeAg-positive patients lost HBeAg at their last visit (median duration, 59 months). HBV breakthrough was observed only in HBeAg-positive patients and 6 of 7 patients presenting HBV breakthrough had the rtM204I/V mutations associated with 3TC resistance along with rtL180M and/or rtV173L. CONCLUSIONS: All HBeAg-negative patients and 63% of HBeAg-positive HIV-HBV co-infected patients achieved long-term HBV DNA suppression while on 3TC-containing-HAART. This study provides information useful for the management of co-infected patients in resource-limited countries where the vast majority of co-infected patients are currently receiving 3TC.

Resistance patterns selected by nevirapine vs. efavirenz in HIV-infected patients failing first-line antiretroviral treatment: a bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends starting therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), i.e. nevirapine or efavirenz, with lamivudine or emtricitabine, plus zidovudine or tenofovir. Few studies have compared resistance patterns induced by efavirenz and nevirapine in patients infected with the CRF01_AE Southeast Asian HIV-subtype. We compared patterns of NNRTI- and NRTI-associated mutations in Thai adults failing first-line nevirapine- and efavirenz-based combinations, using bayesian statistics to optimize use of data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In a treatment cohort of HIV-infected adults on NNRTI-based regimens, 119 experienced virologic failure (>500 copies/mL), with resistance mutations detected by consensus sequencing. Mutations were analyzed in relation to demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables at time of genotyping. The Geno2Pheno system was used to evaluate second-line drug options. Eighty-nine subjects were on nevirapine and 30 on efavirenz. The NRTI backbone consisted of lamivudine or emtricitabine plus either zidovudine (37), stavudine (65), or tenofovir (19). The K103N mutation was detected in 83% of patients on efavirenz vs. 28% on nevirapine, whereas Y181C was detected in 56% on nevirapine vs. 20% efavirenz. M184V was more common with nevirapine (87%) than efavirenz (63%). Nevirapine favored TAM-2 resistance pathways whereas efavirenz selected both TAM-2 and TAM-1 pathways. Emergence of TAM-2 mutations increased with the duration of virologic replication (OR 1.25-1.87 per month increment). In zidovudine-containing regimens, the overall risk of resistance across all drugs was lower with nevirapine than with efavirenz, whereas in tenofovir-containing regimen the opposite was true. CONCLUSIONS: TAM-2 was the major NRTI resistance pathway for CRF01_AE, particularly with nevirapine; it appeared late after virological failure. In patients who failed, there appeared to be more second-line drug options when zidovudine was combined with nevirapine or tenofovir with efavirenz than with alternative combinations.