Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of three second-line antiretroviral regimens in HIV-infected patients in Africa.

ABSTRACT: WHO recommends ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in HIV-infected patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line treatment. Here, we aimed to provide more evidence for the choice of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and boosted protease inhibitor.ANRS 12169 is a 48-week, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial in three African cities, comparing efficacy and safety of three second-line regimens.Patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy with confirmed plasma HIV-1 viral load above 1000?copies/ml were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (control group as per WHO recommendations), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (ABC/ddI group) or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (DRV group) regimens. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma vral load below 50?copies/ml at week 48 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority was pre-specified with a 15% margin.Of the 454 randomized patients, 451 were included in the analysis. Globally, 294 (65.2%) and 375 (83.2%) patients had viral load below 50 and 200?copies/ml, respectively, at week 48. The primary endpoint was achieved in 105 (69.1%) control group patients versus 92 (63.4%) in the ABC/ddI (difference 5.6%, 95% confidence interval -5.1 to 16.4) and 97 (63.0%) in the DRV (difference 6.1%, 95% confidence interval -4.5 to 16.7) groups (non-inferiority not shown). Overall, less number of patients with baseline viral load at least 100?000?copies/ml (n?=?122) had a viral load below 50?copies/ml at week 48 (37.7 versus 75.4%; P?

SUBMITTER: Ciaffi L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4502989 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of three second-line antiretroviral regimens in HIV-infected patients in Africa.

Ciaffi Laura L Koulla-Shiro Sinata S Sawadogo Adrien A le Moing Vincent V Eymard-Duvernay Sabrina S Izard Susanne S Kouanfack Charles C Ngom Gueye Ndeye Fatou NF Fobang Avelin Aghokeng AA Reynes Jacques J Calmy Alexandra A Delaporte Eric E

AIDS (London, England) 20150701 12

<h4>Objective</h4>WHO recommends ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in HIV-infected patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line treatment. Here, we aimed to provide more evidence for the choice of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and boosted protease inhibitor.<h4>Design</h4>ANRS 12169 is a 48-week, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial in three African cities, comparing efficacy and saf ...[more]

PMID: 26244387

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile dolutegravir has been added by WHO as a preferred second-line option for the treatment of HIV infection, boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based regimens are still needed as alternative second-line options. Identifying optimal bPI-based second-line combinations is essential, given associated high costs and funding constraints in low- and middle-income countries. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of three alternative bPI-based second-line regimens in Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Senegal.MethodsWe used data collected over 2010-2015 in the 2LADY trial/post-trial cohort. Patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC LPV/r; arm A), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (arm B), or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (arm C). Costs (US dollars, 2016), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were computed for each country over 24 months of follow-up and extrapolated to 5 years using a simulated patient-level Markov model. We assessed uncertainty using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, scenarios and prices threshold analysis.ResultsIn each country, over 24 months, arm A was significantly less costly than arms B and C (incremental costs ranging from US$410-$US721 and US$468-US$546 for B and C vs A, respectively) and offered similar health benefits (incremental QALY: - 0.138 to 0.023 and - 0.179 to 0.028, respectively). Over 5 years, arm A remained the least costly, health benefits not being significantly different between arms. Compared with arms B and C, in each study country, Arm A had a ≥ 95% probability of being cost-effective for a large range of cost-effectiveness thresholds, irrespective of the scenario considered.ConclusionsUsing TDF/FTC LPV/r as a bPI-based second-line regimen provided the best economic value in the three study countries.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00928187.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study described the demographics, treatment information and identified characteristics associated with virological failure and being lost to follow-up (LTFU) for patients with HIV on first-line and second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in a large South African cohort.DesignA quantitative retrospective cohort study using secondary data analysis.SettingSeven Johannesburg inner city facilities.ParticipantsUnique records of 123 002 people with HIV receiving ART at any point in the period 1 April 2004 to 29 February 2020 were included.MeasuresDemographic characteristics, ART status, CD4 count information and retention status were collected and analysed as covariates of outcomes (viral load (VL) and LTFU).ResultsOf the total study patients, 95% (n=1 17 260) were on a first-line regimen and 5% (n=5742) were on a second-line regimen. Almost two-thirds were female (64%, n=79 226). Most patients (60%, n=72 430) were initiated on an efavirenz-based, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based and emtricitabine-based regimen (fixed-dose combination). 91% (n=76 737) achieved viral suppression at least once since initiating on ART and 60% (n=57 981) remained in care as at the end of February 2020. Patients from the community health centre and primary healthcare clinics were not only more likely to be virally suppressed but also more likely to be LTFU. Patients on second-line regimens were less likely to reach viral suppression (adjusted OR (aOR)=0.26, CI=0.23 to 0.28) and more likely to be LTFU (aOR=1.21, CI=1.09 to 1.35). Being older (≥25 years) and having a recent CD4 cell count≥100 cells/µL were predictors of viral suppression and retention in patients on ART.ConclusionPatients on first-line regimens had higher VL suppression rates and were more likely to remain in care than those on a second-line regimen. Being younger and having low CD4 cell counts were associated with poor outcomes, suggesting priority groups for ART adherence support.

Project description:BackgroundAntiretroviral regimens with simplified dosing and better safety are needed to maximize the efficiency of antiretroviral delivery in resource-limited settings. We investigated the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral regimens with once-daily compared to twice-daily dosing in diverse areas of the world.Methods and findings1,571 HIV-1-infected persons (47% women) from nine countries in four continents were assigned with equal probability to open-label antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz plus lamivudine-zidovudine (EFV+3TC-ZDV), atazanavir plus didanosine-EC plus emtricitabine (ATV+DDI+FTC), or efavirenz plus emtricitabine-tenofovir-disoproxil fumarate (DF) (EFV+FTC-TDF). ATV+DDI+FTC and EFV+FTC-TDF were hypothesized to be non-inferior to EFV+3TC-ZDV if the upper one-sided 95% confidence bound for the hazard ratio (HR) was ≤1.35 when 30% of participants had treatment failure. An independent monitoring board recommended stopping study follow-up prior to accumulation of 472 treatment failures. Comparing EFV+FTC-TDF to EFV+3TC-ZDV, during a median 184 wk of follow-up there were 95 treatment failures (18%) among 526 participants versus 98 failures among 519 participants (19%; HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.27; p = 0.74). Safety endpoints occurred in 243 (46%) participants assigned to EFV+FTC-TDF versus 313 (60%) assigned to EFV+3TC-ZDV (HR 0.64, CI 0.54-0.76; p<0.001) and there was a significant interaction between sex and regimen safety (HR 0.50, CI 0.39-0.64 for women; HR 0.79, CI 0.62-1.00 for men; p = 0.01). Comparing ATV+DDI+FTC to EFV+3TC-ZDV, during a median follow-up of 81 wk there were 108 failures (21%) among 526 participants assigned to ATV+DDI+FTC and 76 (15%) among 519 participants assigned to EFV+3TC-ZDV (HR 1.51, CI 1.12-2.04; p = 0.007).ConclusionEFV+FTC-TDF had similar high efficacy compared to EFV+3TC-ZDV in this trial population, recruited in diverse multinational settings. Superior safety, especially in HIV-1-infected women, and once-daily dosing of EFV+FTC-TDF are advantageous for use of this regimen for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection in resource-limited countries. ATV+DDI+FTC had inferior efficacy and is not recommended as an initial antiretroviral regimen.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00084136. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundThe safety and efficacy of adding antiretroviral drugs to standard zidovudine prophylaxis in infants of mothers with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who did not receive antenatal antiretroviral therapy (ART) because of late identification are unclear. We evaluated three ART regimens in such infants.MethodsWithin 48 hours after their birth, we randomly assigned formula-fed infants born to women with a peripartum diagnosis of HIV type 1 (HIV-1) infection to one of three regimens: zidovudine for 6 weeks (zidovudine-alone group), zidovudine for 6 weeks plus three doses of nevirapine during the first 8 days of life (two-drug group), or zidovudine for 6 weeks plus nelfinavir and lamivudine for 2 weeks (three-drug group). The primary outcome was HIV-1 infection at 3 months in infants uninfected at birth.ResultsA total of 1684 infants were enrolled in the Americas and South Africa (566 in the zidovudine-alone group, 562 in the two-drug group, and 556 in the three-drug group). The overall rate of in utero transmission of HIV-1 on the basis of Kaplan-Meier estimates was 5.7% (93 infants), with no significant differences among the groups. Intrapartum transmission occurred in 24 infants in the zidovudine-alone group (4.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 7.1), as compared with 11 infants in the two-drug group (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.9; P=0.046) and 12 in the three-drug group (2.4%; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.3; P=0.046). The overall transmission rate was 8.5% (140 infants), with an increased rate in the zidovudine-alone group (P=0.03 for the comparisons with the two- and three-drug groups). On multivariate analysis, zidovudine monotherapy, a higher maternal viral load, and maternal use of illegal substances were significantly associated with transmission. The rate of neutropenia was significantly increased in the three-drug group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with the other groups).ConclusionsIn neonates whose mothers did not receive ART during pregnancy, prophylaxis with a two- or three-drug ART regimen is superior to zidovudine alone for the prevention of intrapartum HIV transmission; the two-drug regimen has less toxicity than the three-drug regimen. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00099359.).

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of three second-line antiretroviral regimens in HIV-infected patients in Africa.

Publications

Efficacy and safety of three second-line antiretroviral regimens in HIV-infected patients in Africa.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets