Switch to long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine in virologically suppressed adults with HIV in Africa (CARES): week 48 results from a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine is licensed for individualised treatment of HIV-1 infection in resource-rich settings. Additional evidence is required to support use in African treatment programmes where demographic factors, viral subtypes, previous treatment, and delivery and monitoring approaches differ. The aim of this study was to determine whether switching to long-acting therapy with injections every 8 weeks is non-inferior to daily oral therapy in Africa. METHODS: CARES is a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial being conducted at eight sites in Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa. Participants with HIV viral load below 50 copies per mL on oral antiretroviral therapy and no history of virological failure were randomly assigned (1:1; web-based, permuted blocks) to receive cabotegravir (600 mg) and rilpivirine (900 mg) by intramuscular injection every 8 weeks, or to continue oral therapy. Viral load was monitored every 24 weeks. The primary outcome was week 48 viral load below 50 copies per mL, assessed with the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm (non-inferiority margin 10 percentage points) in the intention-to-treat exposed population. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (202104874490818) and is ongoing up to 96 weeks. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2021, and Aug 31, 2022, we enrolled 512 participants (295 [58%] female; 380 [74%] previous non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor exposure). Week 48 viral load was below 50 copies per mL in 246 (96%) of 255 participants in the long-acting therapy group and 250 (97%) of 257 in the oral therapy group (difference -0·8 percentage points; 95% CI -3·7 to 2·3), demonstrating non-inferiority (confirmed in per-protocol analysis). Two participants had virological failure in the long-acting therapy group, both with drug resistance; none had virological failure in the oral therapy group. Adverse events of grade 3 or greater severity occurred in 24 (9%) participants on long-acting therapy and ten (4%) on oral therapy; one participant discontinued long-acting therapy (for injection-site reaction). INTERPRETATION: Long-acting therapy had non-inferior efficacy compared with oral therapy, with a good safety profile, and can be considered for African treatment programmes. FUNDING: Janssen.

Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir or darunavir in combination with lamivudine plus either zidovudine or tenofovir for second-line treatment of HIV infection (NADIA): week 96 results from a prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: WHO guidelines recommend dolutegravir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for second-line HIV therapy, with NRTI switching from first-line tenofovir to zidovudine. We aimed to examine whether dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir, the best-in-class protease inhibitor drug, and whether maintaining tenofovir in second-line therapy is non-inferior to switching to zidovudine. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial (NADIA), participants with confirmed HIV first-line treatment failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies per mL) were recruited at seven clinical sites in Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Following a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA concentration, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive a 96-week regimen containing either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg of darunavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir once daily) in combination with either tenofovir (300 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or zidovudine (300 mg twice daily) plus lamivudine (150 mg twice daily). The NRTI drugs allocated by randomisation were administered orally in fixed-dose combination pills; other drugs were administered orally as separate pills. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Here, we report the main secondary outcome: the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 96 weeks (non-inferiority margin 12%). We analysed this outcome and safety outcomes in the intention-to-treat population, which excluded only those who were randomly assigned in error and withdrawn before receiving trial drugs. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 30 and Dec 18, 2019, we screened 783 patients and enrolled 465. One participant was randomly assigned in error and immediately withdrawn. The remaining 464 participants were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir (n=235) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=229) and to receive lamivudine plus either tenofovir (n=233) or zidovudine (n=231). At week 96, 211 (90%) of 235 participants in the dolutegravir group and 199 (87%) of 229 participants in the darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 2·9, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·7), indicating non-inferiority. Nine (4%) participants (all in the dolutegravir group) developed dolutegravir resistance; no participants developed darunavir resistance (p=0·0023). In the other randomised comparison, 214 (92%) of 233 patients in the tenofovir group and 196 (85%) of 231 patients in the zidovudine group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 7·0, 95% CI 1·2 to 12·8), showing non-inferiority and indicating the superiority of tenofovir (p=0·019). The proportions of participants with any grade 3-4 adverse event were similar between the dolutegravir (26 [11%]) and darunavir (28 [12%]) groups and between the tenofovir (22 [9%]) and zidovudine (32 [14%]) groups. There were no deaths related to study medication. INTERPRETATION: Dolutegravir-based and darunavir-based regimens maintain good viral suppression during 96 weeks; dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir but is at greater risk of resistance in second-line therapy. Tenofovir should be continued in second-line therapy, rather than being switched to zidovudine. FUNDING: Janssen.

Dolutegravir or Darunavir in Combination with Zidovudine or Tenofovir to Treat HIV.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends dolutegravir with two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for second-line treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. Evidence is limited for the efficacy of this regimen when NRTIs are predicted to lack activity because of drug resistance, as well as for the recommended switch of an NRTI from tenofovir to zidovudine. METHODS: In a two-by-two factorial, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients for whom first-line therapy was failing (HIV-1 viral load, ≥1000 copies per milliliter) to receive dolutegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir and to receive tenofovir or zidovudine; all patients received lamivudine. The primary outcome was a week 48 viral load of less than 400 copies per milliliter, assessed with the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm (noninferiority margin for the between-group difference in the percentage of patients with the primary outcome, 12 percentage points). RESULTS: We enrolled 464 patients at seven sub-Saharan African sites. A week 48 viral load of less than 400 copies per milliliter was observed in 90.2% of the patients in the dolutegravir group (212 of 235) and in 91.7% of those in the darunavir group (210 of 229) (difference, -1.5 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.7 to 3.7; P = 0.58; indicating noninferiority of dolutegravir, without superiority) and in 92.3% of the patients in the tenofovir group (215 of 233) and in 89.6% of those in the zidovudine group (207 of 231) (difference, 2.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.6 to 7.9; P = 0.32; indicating noninferiority of tenofovir, without superiority). In the subgroup of patients with no NRTIs that were predicted to have activity, a viral load of less than 400 copies per milliliter was observed in more than 90% of the patients in the dolutegravir group and the darunavir group. The incidence of adverse events did not differ substantially between the groups in either factorial comparison. CONCLUSIONS: Dolutegravir in combination with NRTIs was effective in treating patients with HIV-1 infection, including those with extensive NRTI resistance in whom no NRTIs were predicted to have activity. Tenofovir was noninferior to zidovudine as second-line therapy. (Funded by Janssen; NADIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03988452.).

Low bone mass in people living with HIV on long-term anti-retroviral therapy: A single center study in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: This study set out to determine the prevalence of low bone mass following long-term exposure to antiretroviral therapy in Ugandan people living with HIV. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 199 people living with HIV that had been on anti-retroviral therapy for at least 10 years. All participants had dual X-ray absorptiometry to determine their bone mineral density. The data collected included antiretroviral drug history and behavioral risk data Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Inferential statistics were analyzed using multilevel binomial longitudinal Markov chain Monte Carlo mixed multivariate regression modelling using the rstanarm package. RESULTS: One hundred ninety nine adults were enrolled with equal representation of males and females. The mean age was 39.5 (SD 8.5) years. Mean durations on anti-retroviral treatment was 12.1 (SD 1.44) years, CD4 cell count was 563.9 cells/mm3. 178 (89.5%) had viral suppression with <50 viral copies/ml. There were 4 (2.0%) and 36 (18%) participants with low bone mass of the hip and lumbar spine respectively. Each unit increase in body mass index was associated with a significant reduction in the odds for low bone mineral density of the hip and lumbar spine. The duration on and exposure to the various antiretroviral medications had no significant effect on the participant's odds for developing low bone mass. All the coefficients of the variables in a multivariable model for either hip or lumbar spine bone mass were not significant. CONCLUSION: These results provide additional evidence that patients on long term ART achieve bone mass stabilization. Maintaining adequate body weight is important in maintaining good bone health in people on antiretroviral therapy.

Calcaneal Quantitative Ultrasonography and Urinary Retinol-Binding Protein in Antiretroviral-Treated Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Uganda: A Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Data on bone health and renal impairment in people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in resource-limited settings are limited. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the potential role of calcaneal quantitative ultrasonography (QUS) in predicting bone mineral density (BMD) reduction in a population of Ugandan HIV-infected  individuals receiving long-term antiretroviral therapy; the secondary end point was to assess the prevalence of proximal tubular dysfunction and the correlation between elevated urinary retinol-binding protein-urinary creatinine ratio (uRBP/uCr) and reduced BMD. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study at the Infectious Diseases Institute, Kampala, Uganda. We included 101 HIV-infected adults who had been receiving continuous antiretroviral therapy for ≥10 years and had undergone dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) during the previous 12 months. All patients underwent calcaneal QUS evaluation and urine sample collection. RESULTS: DXA BMD measurements were significantly associated (P < .01) with calcaneal speed of sound, broadband ultrasound attenuation, and QUS index. Forty-seven individuals (47%) had abnormal uRBP/uCr values. A significant inverse correlation was observed between uRBP/uCr and DXA T scores (lumbar [P = .03], femoral neck [P < .001], and total hip [P = .002]). CONCLUSIONS: Calcaneal QUS results showed a moderate correlation with DXA outputs. The identified high prevalence of subclinical tubular impairment also highlights the importance of expanding access to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-sparing regimens in resource-limited settings.

An observational study in an urban Ugandan clinic comparing virological outcomes of patients switched from first-line antiretroviral regimens to second-line regimens containing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation approved boosted atazanavir as a preferred second line protease inhibitor in 2010. This is as an alternative to the current boosted lopinavir. Atazanavir has a lower genetic barrier than lopinavir. We compared the virological outcomes of patients during the roll out of routine viral load monitoring, who had switched to boosted second- line regimens of either atazanavir or lopinavir. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving adult patients at the Infectious Diseases Institute Kampala, Uganda started on a standard WHO recommended second-line regimen containing either boosted atazanavir or boosted lopinavir between 1 Dec 2014 and 31 July 2015.. Mantel -Haenszel chi square was used to test for the statistical significance of the odds of being suppressed (VL < 400 copies/ml) when on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir after stratifying by duration on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Multivariate logistic regression analysis used to determine if the type of boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) was associated with virological outcome. RESULTS: Ninety (90) % on ATV/r and 83% on LPV/r had a VL less than 1000 copies/ml. The odds of being suppressed using the same viral load cut-off while on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir was not statistically significant after stratifying for duration on ART (p = 0.09). In a multivariate analysis the type of bPI used was not a predictor of virological outcome (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using the WHO recommended second-line of boosted atazanavir have comparable virological suppression to those on boosted lopinavir.

Evaluation of the Management of Patients with Detectable Viral Load after the Implementation of Routine Viral Load Monitoring in an Urban HIV Clinic in Uganda.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical decisions taken for patients failing on treatment and possible implementation leakages within the monitoring cascade at a large urban HIV Centre in Kampala, Uganda. METHODS: As per internal clinic guidelines, VL results >1,000 copies/ml are flagged by a quality assurance officer and sent to the requesting clinician. The clinician fills a "decision form" choosing: (1) refer for adherence counselling, (2) repeat VL after 3 months, and (3) switch to second line. We performed data extraction on a random sample of 100 patients with VL test >1,000 copies/ml between January and August 2015. For each patient, we described the action taken by the clinicians. RESULTS: Of 6,438 patients with VL performed, 1,021 (16%) had >1,000 copies/ml. Of the 100 (10.1%) clinical files sampled, 61% were female, median age was 39 years (IQR: 32-47), 81% were on 1st-line ART, 19% on 2nd-line, median CD4 count was 249 cells/µL (IQR: 145-390), median log10 VL 4.42 (IQR: 3.98-4.92). Doctors' decisions were; refer for adherence counseling 49%, repeat VL for 25%, and switch to second line for 24% patients. Forty-one percent were not managed according to the guidelines. Of these, 29 (70.7%) were still active in care, 7 were tracked [5 (12.2%) lost to program, 2 (4.9%) dead] and 5 patients were not tracked. CONCLUSION: Despite the implementation of internal systems to manage patients failing ART, we found substantial leakages in the monitoring "cascade". Additional measures and stronger clinical supervision are needed to make every test count, and to ensure appropriate management of patients failing on ART.