Dataset Information

First-line antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine versus lopinavir-ritonavir based regimens in a resource-limited setting.

ABSTRACT: To compare WHO first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI)-based regimen with a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) regimen in a resource-limited setting regarding treatment outcome and emergence of drug resistance mutations (DRMs).Treatment-naive adults were randomized to nevirapine (NVP) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimens each in combination with tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) or zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC). Primary endpoint was the incidence of therapeutical (clinical and/or virologic) failure at week 48 with follow-up till week 96.Four hundred and twenty-five patients (120 men; 305 women) received at least one dose of the study drug. mITT analysis showed no difference in proportion of therapeutical failure between treatment arms [67/209 (32%) in NVP vs. 63/216 (29%) LPV/r at week 48 (P?=?0.53); 88/209 (42%) in NVP vs. 83/216 (38%) in LPV/r at week 96 (P?=?0.49)]. Per-protocol analysis demonstrated significantly more virologic failure with NVP than with LPV/r regimens [at week 48: 19/167 (11%) vs. 7/166 (4%), P?=?0.014; at week 96: 27/158 (17%) vs. 13/159 (8%), P?=? 0.019)]. Drug resistance mutations to NNRTI were detected in 19 out of 22 (86.3%) and dual-class resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and NNRTI in 15 out of 27 (68.2%) of NVP failing patients. K65R mutation was present in seven out of 14 patients failing NVP-TDF/FTC regimen. No major protease inhibitor-DRM was detected among LPV/r failing patients. Discontinuation for adverse events was similar between treatment groups.In resource-limited settings, first-line NNRTI-NRTI regimen as compared with bPI-based regimen provides similar outcome but is associated with a significantly higher number of virologic failure and resistance mutations in both classes that jeopardize future options for second-line therapy.

SUBMITTER: Clumeck N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4004638 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

First-line antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine versus lopinavir-ritonavir based regimens in a resource-limited setting.

Clumeck Nathan N Mwamba Claude C Kabeya Kabamba K Matanda Serge S Vaira Dolorès D Necsoi Coca C Kadiebwe David D Delforge Marc M Kasamba Eric E Milolo Chantal C Ilunga Joe J Kapend Liévin L

AIDS (London, England) 20140501 8

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare WHO first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI)-based regimen with a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) regimen in a resource-limited setting regarding treatment outcome and emergence of drug resistance mutations (DRMs).<h4>Methods</h4>Treatment-naive adults were randomized to nevirapine (NVP) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimens each in combination with tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) or zidovudine ...[more]

PMID: 25028911

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe use of some antiretroviral drugs has been associated with a higher risk of diabetes mellitus (DM) in HIV-infected patients, but the risk associated with antiretroviral drug combinations remains unclear. We investigated the association between first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens, recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016, and the risk of DM in adults.MethodWe selected all HIV-infected adults within the Thai National AIDS Program who started a first-line ART regimen consisting the following between October 2006 and September 2013: zidovudine+lamivudine+nevirapine; tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)+lamivudine+nevirapine; zidovudine+lamivudine+efavirenz; TDF+lamivudine/emtricitabine+efavirenz; zidovudine+lamivudine+ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r); or TDF+lamivudine+LPV/r. Diagnosis of DM was defined as having at least 2 of the following characteristics: fasting plasma glucose ≥126 mg/dl, 2010 WHO ICD-10 codes E11-E14, or prescription of antidiabetic drugs. To identify ART regimens associated with DM, we used competing risks regression models that considered mortality without DM as a competing event and adjusted for sex, age, pancreas disease, and stratified by groups defined by a score summarizing the propensity to receive a specific first-line ART regimen.ResultsData from 35 710 adults (49.1% male; median age, 35.0 years; median follow-up, 2.0 years) were included. In the multivariable analysis with zidovudine+lamivudine+nevirapine as the reference group, a higher risk of DM was observed with TDF+lamivudine/emtricitabine+efavirenz (adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR], 1.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-1.9), zidovudine+lamivudine+efavirenz (aSHR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3), and TDF+lamivudine+LPV/r (aSHR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.9-3.9).ConclusionsSeveral of the WHO recommended ART regimens, particularly tenofovir + lamivudine +LPV/r and regimens containing efavirenz, may be associated with an increased risk of DM.

Project description:BackgroundNevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy is the predominant (and often the only) regimen available for children in resource-limited settings. Nevirapine resistance after exposure to the drug for prevention of maternal-to-child human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission is common, a problem that has led to the recommendation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in such settings. Regardless of whether there has been prior exposure to nevirapine, the performance of nevirapine versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in young children has not been rigorously established.MethodsIn a randomized trial conducted in six African countries and India, we compared the initiation of HIV treatment with zidovudine, lamivudine, and either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 2 to 36 months of age who had no prior exposure to nevirapine. The primary end point was virologic failure or discontinuation of treatment by study week 24.ResultsA total of 288 children were enrolled; the median percentage of CD4+ T cells was 15%, and the median plasma HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level was 5.7 log(10) copies per milliliter. The percentage of children who reached the primary end point was significantly higher in the nevirapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (40.8% vs. 19.3%; P<0.001). Among the nevirapine-treated children with virologic failure for whom data on resistance were available, more than half (19 of 32) had resistance at the time of virologic failure. In addition, the time to a protocol-defined toxicity end point was shorter in the nevirapine group (P=0.04), as was the time to death (P=0.06).ConclusionsOutcomes were superior with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir among young children with no prior exposure to nevirapine. Factors that may have contributed to the suboptimal results with nevirapine include elevated viral load at baseline, selection for nevirapine resistance, background regimen of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, and the standard ramp-up dosing strategy. The results of this trial present policymakers with difficult choices. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; P1060 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307151.).

Project description:There is conflicting evidence of the impact of commonly used antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) on the pharmacokinetics of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine. We compared the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to 14 days (AUC0-14 days) of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-negative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults in two steps. In step 1, a half-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered as a safety check in four groups (n = 6/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) nevirapine-based ART, (iii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iv) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 2, a standard-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered to a different cohort in three groups (n = 10 to 15/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iii) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 1, lumefantrine's AUC0-14 days was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.82) lower in the efavirenz-based ART group than in the ART-naive group and was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.58 to 3.62) and 2.9(95% CI, 1.75 to 4.72) times higher in the nevirapine- and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir groups, respectively. In step 2, lumefantrine's AUC0-14 days was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.26 to 3.00) times higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and not significantly different between the efavirenz- and ART-naive groups (0.99 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.57]). Frequent cases of hematological abnormalities (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia) were observed in the nevirapine group in step 1, leading to a recommendation from the data and safety monitoring board not to include a nevirapine group in step 2. Artemether-lumefantrine was well tolerated in the other groups. The therapeutic implications of these findings need to be evaluated among HIV-malaria-coinfected adults. (This study has been registered at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry under numbers PACTR2010030001871293 and PACTR2010030001971409.).

Project description:While studies of HIV-infected adults on antiretroviral treatment (ART) report no sex differences in immune recovery and virologic response but more ART-associated complications in women, sex differences in disease progression and response to ART among children have not been well assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate for sex differences in response to ART in South African HIV-infected children who were randomized to continue ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r)-based ART or switch to nevirapine-based ART.ART outcomes in HIV-infected boys and girls in Johannesburg, South Africa from 2005-2010 were compared. Children initiated ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r)-based ART before 24 months of age and were randomized to remain on LPV/r or switch to nevirapine-based ART after achieving viral suppression. Children were followed for 76 weeks post-randomization and then long-term follow up continued for a minimum of 99 weeks and maximum of 245 weeks after randomization. Viral load, CD4 count, lipids, anthropometrics, drug concentrations, and adherence were measured at regular intervals. Outcomes were compared between sexes within treatment strata.A total of 323 children (median age 8.8 months, IQR 5.1-13.5), including 168 boys and 155 girls, initiated LPV/r-based ART and 195 children were randomized. No sex differences in risk of virological failure (confirmed viral load >1000 copies/mL) by 156 weeks post-randomization were observed within either treatment group. Girls switched to nevirapine had more robust CD4 count improvement relative to boys in this group through 112 weeks post-randomization. In addition, girls remaining on LPV/r had higher plasma concentrations of ritonavir than boys during post-randomization visits. After a mean of 3.4 years post-randomization, girls remaining on LPV/r also had a higher total cholesterol:HDL ratio and lower mean HDL than boys on LPV/r.Sex differences are noted in treated HIV-infected children even at a young age, and appear to depend on treatment regimen. Future studies are warranted to determine biological mechanisms and clinical significance of these differences.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00117728.

Dataset Information

First-line antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine versus lopinavir-ritonavir based regimens in a resource-limited setting.

Publications

First-line antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine versus lopinavir-ritonavir based regimens in a resource-limited setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets