Dataset Information

Pregnancy rates in HIV-positive women using contraceptives and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT: Concerns have been raised about efavirenz reducing the effectiveness of contraceptive implants. We aimed to establish whether pregnancy rates differ between HIV-positive women who use various contraceptive methods and either efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens.We did this retrospective cohort study of HIV-positive women aged 15-45 years enrolled in 19 HIV care facilities supported by Family AIDS Care and Education Services in western Kenya between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2013. Our primary outcome was incident pregnancy diagnosed clinically. The primary exposure was a combination of contraceptive method and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based ART regimen. We used Poisson models, adjusting for repeated measures, and demographic, behavioural, and clinical factors, to compare pregnancy rates among women receiving different contraceptive and ART combinations.24,560 women contributed 37,635 years of follow-up with 3337 incident pregnancies. In women using implants, adjusted pregnancy incidence was 1.1 per 100 person-years (95% CI 0.72-1.5) for nevirapine-based ART users and 3.3 per 100 person-years (1.8-4.8) for efavirenz-based ART users (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 3.0, 95% CI 1.3-4.6). In women using depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, adjusted pregnancy incidence was 4.5 per 100 person-years (95% CI 3.7-5.2) for nevirapine-based ART users and 5.4 per 100 person-years (4.0-6.8) for efavirenz-based ART users (adjusted IRR 1.2, 95% CI 0.91-1.5). Women using other contraceptive methods, except for intrauterine devices and permanent methods, had 3.1-4.1 higher rates of pregnancy than did those using implants, with 1.6-2.8 higher rates in women using efavirenz-based ART.Although HIV-positive women using implants and efavirenz-based ART had a three-times higher risk of contraceptive failure than did those using nevirapine-based ART, these women still had lower contraceptive failure rates than did those receiving all other contraceptive methods except for intrauterine devices and permanent methods. Guidelines for contraceptive and ART combinations should balance the failure rates for each contraceptive method and ART regimen combination against the high effectiveness of implants.None.

SUBMITTER: Patel RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4632202 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pregnancy rates in HIV-positive women using contraceptives and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study.

Patel Rena C RC Onono Maricianah M Gandhi Monica M Blat Cinthia C Hagey Jill J Shade Starley B SB Vittinghoff Eric E Bukusi Elizabeth A EA Newmann Sara J SJ Cohen Craig R CR

The lancet. HIV 20151022 11

<h4>Background</h4>Concerns have been raised about efavirenz reducing the effectiveness of contraceptive implants. We aimed to establish whether pregnancy rates differ between HIV-positive women who use various contraceptive methods and either efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens.<h4>Methods</h4>We did this retrospective cohort study of HIV-positive women aged 15-45 years enrolled in 19 HIV care facilities supported by Family AIDS Care and Education Services ...[more]

PMID: 26520927

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWorldwide, the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) efavirenz and nevirapine are commonly used in first-line antiretroviral regimens in both adults and children with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Data on the comparative effectiveness of these medications in children are limited.ObjectiveTo investigate whether virological failure is more likely among children who initiated 1 or the other NNRTI-based HIV treatment.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cohort study of children (aged 3-16 years) who initiated efavirenz-based (n = 421) or nevirapine-based (n = 383) treatment between April 2002 and January 2011 at a large pediatric HIV care setting in Botswana.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was time from initiation of therapy to virological failure. Virological failure was defined as lack of plasma HIV RNA suppression to less than 400 copies/mL by 6 months or confirmed HIV RNA of 400 copies/mL or greater after suppression. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis compared time to virological failure by regimen. Multivariable Cox regression controlled for age, sex, baseline immunologic category, baseline clinical category, baseline viral load, nutritional status, NRTIs used, receipt of single-dose nevirapine, and treatment for tuberculosis.ResultsWith a median follow-up time of 69 months (range, 6-112 months; interquartile range, 23-87 months), 57 children (13.5%; 95% CI, 10.4%-17.2%) initiating treatment with efavirenz and 101 children (26.4%; 95% CI, 22.0%-31.1%) initiating treatment with nevirapine had virological failure. There were 11 children (2.6%; 95% CI, 1.3%-4.6%) receiving efavirenz and 20 children (5.2%; 95% CI, 3.2%-7.9%) receiving nevirapine who never achieved virological suppression. The Cox proportional hazard ratio for the combined virological failure end point was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4-2.7; log rank P < .001, favoring efavirenz). None of the measured covariates affected the estimated hazard ratio in the multivariable analyses.Conclusions and relevanceAmong children aged 3 to 16 years infected with HIV and treated at a clinic in Botswana, the use of efavirenz compared with nevirapine as initial antiretroviral treatment was associated with less virological failure. These findings may warrant additional research evaluating the use of efavirenz and nevirapine for pediatric patients.

Project description:ImportanceAdvantages of using efavirenz as part of treatment for children infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) include once-daily dosing, simplification of co-treatment for tuberculosis, preservation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir for second-line treatment, and harmonization of adult and pediatric treatment regimens. However, there have been concerns about possible reduced viral efficacy of efavirenz in children exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether nevirapine-exposed children achieving initial viral suppression with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy can transition to efavirenz-based therapy without risk of viral failure.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, open-label noninferiority trial conducted at Rahima Moosa Mother and Child Hospital, Johannesburg, South Africa, from June 2010 to December 2013, enrolling 300 HIV-infected children exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission who were aged 3 years or older and had plasma HIV RNA of less than 50 copies/mL during ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy; 298 were randomized and 292 (98%) were followed up to 48 weeks after randomization.InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned to switch to efavirenz-based therapy (n = 150) or continue ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy (n = 148).Main outcomes and measuresRisk difference between groups in (1) viral rebound (ie, ≥1 HIV RNA measurement of >50 copies/mL) and (2) viral failure (ie, confirmed HIV RNA >1000 copies/mL) with a noninferiority bound of -0.10. Immunologic and clinical responses were secondary end points.ResultsThe Kaplan-Meier probability of viral rebound by 48 weeks was 0.176 (n = 26) in the efavirenz group and 0.284 (n = 42) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group. Probabilities of viral failure were 0.027 (n = 4) in the efavirenz group and 0.020 (n = 3) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group. The risk difference for viral rebound was 0.107 (1-sided 95% CI, 0.028 to ∞) and for viral failure was -0.007 (1-sided 95% CI, -0.036 to ∞). We rejected the null hypothesis that efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (P < .001) for both end points. By 48 weeks, CD4 cell percentage was 2.88% (95% CI, 1.26%-4.49%) higher in the efavirenz group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong HIV-infected children exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission and with initial viral suppression with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy, switching to efavirenz-based therapy compared with continuing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy did not result in significantly higher rates of viral rebound or viral failure. This therapeutic approach may offer advantages in children such as these.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01146873.

Project description:This is a substudy of the Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida et les Hépatites Virales (ANRS) Comparison of Nevirapine and Efavirenz for the Treatment of HIV-TB Co-infected Patients (ANRS 12146-CARINEMO) trial, which assessed the pharmacokinetics of rifampin or isoniazid with or without the coadministration of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based HIV antiretroviral therapy in HIV-tuberculosis-coinfected patients in Mozambique. Thirty-eight patients on antituberculosis therapy based on rifampin and isoniazid participated in the substudy (57.9% males; median age, 33 years; median weight, 51.9 kg; median CD4(+) T cell count, 104 cells/μl; median HIV-1 RNA load, 5.5 log copies/ml). The daily doses of rifampin and isoniazid were 10 and 5 mg/kg of body weight, respectively. Twenty-one patients received 200 mg of nevirapine twice a day (b.i.d.), and 17 patients received 600 mg of efavirenz once a day (q.d.) in combination with lamivudine and stavudine from day 1 until the end of the study. Blood samples were collected at regular time-dosing intervals after morning administration of a fixed-dose combination of rifampin and isoniazid. When rifampin was administered alone, the median maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) at steady state were 6.59 mg/liter (range, 2.70 to 14.07 mg/liter) and 27.69 mg · h/liter (range, 11.41 to 109.75 mg · h/liter), respectively. Concentrations remained unchanged when rifampin was coadministered with nevirapine or efavirenz. When isoniazid was administered alone, the median isoniazid Cmax and AUC at steady state were 5.08 mg/liter (range, 1.26 to 11.51 mg/liter) and 20.92 mg · h/liter (range, 7.73 to 56.95 mg · h/liter), respectively. Concentrations remained unchanged when isoniazid was coadministered with nevirapine; however, a 29% decrease in the isoniazid AUC was observed when isoniazid was combined with efavirenz. The pharmacokinetic parameters of rifampin and isoniazid when coadministered with nevirapine or efavirenz were not altered to a clinically significant extent in these severely immunosuppressed HIV-infected patients. Patients experienced favorable clinical outcomes. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00495326.).

Project description:BackgroundAccording to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which have also been adopted by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), India, Efavirenz-based Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) is better in Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus (HIV)-infected patients who are also being treated with Rifampicin-based Anti-Tuberculous Therapy (ATT). However, Efavirenz is much more expensive. We hypothesize that Nevirapine is a cheaper alternative that possesses equal efficacy as Efavirenz in HIV-Tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients.MethodsA parallel open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and National AIDS Research Institute (NARI), Pune. Those who were ART-naïve and co-infected with TB were randomized to receive either Nevirapine (Group 1)- or Efavirenz (Group 2)-based ART along with Rifampicin-based ATT. ATT was begun first in ART-naïve patients according to the NACO guidelines, with a median of 27 days between ATT and ART in both groups. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavourable outcome (death and/or ART failure) at 96 weeks, and the secondary outcome was successful TB treatment at 48 weeks.ResultsA total of 284 patients (mean age 36.7 ± 8.1 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Nevirapine (n = 144)- or Efavirenz (n = 140)-based ART after a median ATT-ART gap of 27 days. The median CD4 count was 105 cells/μl, with a median viral load of 820,200 copies/μl and no significant difference between the groups. Composite unfavourable outcomes were reported in 49 patients in the Nevirapine group and 51 patients in the Efavirenz group (35.3% vs. 36.9%; hazard ratio, 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63,1.43, adjusted). There was no difference in successful TB treatment outcome between the groups (71.5% vs. 65.6%, 95% CI -3.8,17.9, adjusted). The results were similar, showing no difference between the groups in the two centres of the study after adjusting for disease stage.ConclusionsComposite unfavourable outcome in HIV-TB co-infected patients who were ART-naïve showed no statistically significant difference in the Nevirapine or Efavirenz groups.. Therefore, Nevirapine-based ART is a reasonable alternative to Efavirenz in resource-limited settings. However, multi-centric studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings.Trial registrationNCT01805258 (Retrospectively registered on March 6, 2013) Date of registration: March 2013.

Project description:HIV-related stigma, lack of disclosure and social support are still hindrances to HIV testing, care, and prevention. We assessed the association of these social-psychological statuses with nevirapine (NVP) and efavirenz (EFV) plasma concentrations among HIV patients in Kenya. Blood samples were obtained from 254 and 312 consenting HIV patients on NVP- and EFV-based first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), respectively, and a detailed structured questionnaire was administered. The ARV plasma concentration was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). There were 68.1% and 65.4% of the patients on NVP and EFV, respectively, who did not feel guilty for being HIV positive. The disclosure rates were approximately 96.1% and 94.6% of patients on NVP and EFV, respectively. Approximately 85% and 78.2% of patients on NVP and EFV, respectively, received social support as much as needed. There were 54.3% and 14.2% compared to 31.7% and 4.5% patients on NVP and EFV, respectively, with supratherapeutic and suboptimal plasma concentrations. Multivariate quantile regression analysis showed that feeling guilty for being HIV positive was associated with increased 954 ng/mL NVP plasma concentrations (95% CI 192.7 to 2156.6; p = 0.014) but not associated with EFV plasma concentrations (adjusted β = 347.7, 95% CI = - 153.4 to 848.7; p = 0.173). Feeling worthless for being HIV positive was associated with increased NVP plasma concentrations (adjusted β = 852, 95% CI = 64.3 to 1639.7; p = 0.034) and not with EFV plasma concentrations (adjusted β = - 143.3, 95% CI = - 759.2 to 472.5; p = 0.647). Being certain of telling the primary sexual partner about HIV-positive status was associated with increased EFV plasma concentrations (adjusted β 363, 95% CI, 97.9 to 628.1; p = 0.007) but not with NVP plasma concentrations (adjusted β = 341.5, 95% CI = - 1357 to 2040; p = 0.692). Disclosing HIV status to neighbors was associated with increased NVP plasma concentrations (adjusted β = 1731, 95% CI = 376 to 3086; p = 0.012) but not with EFV plasma concentrations (adjusted β = - 251, 95% CI = - 1714.1 to 1212.1; p = 0.736). Obtaining transportation to the hospital whenever needed was associated with a reduction in NVP plasma concentrations (adjusted β = - 1143.3, 95% CI = - 1914.3 to - 372.4; p = 0.004) but not with EFV plasma concentrations (adjusted β = - 6.6, 95% CI = - 377.8 to 364.7; p = 0.972). HIV stigma, lack disclosure and inadequate social support are still experienced by HIV-infected patients in Kenya. A significant proportion of patients receiving the NVP-based regimen had supra- and subtherapeutic plasma concentrations compared to EFV. Social-psychological factors negatively impact adherence and are associated with increased NVP plasma concentration compared to EFV.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Global rollout of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been hampered in part by insufficient safety data in pregnancy. We compared birth outcomes among women initiating dolutegravir-based ART with those among women initiating efavirenz-based ART in pregnancy in Botswana. METHODS:In this observational study, we captured birth outcome data at eight government hospitals throughout Botswana (~45% of all deliveries in the country) in an ongoing study that started on Aug 15, 2014. In 2016, Botswana changed first-line ART from efavirenz-tenofovir-emtricitabine to dolutegravir-tenofovir-emtricitabine, including for pregnant women. This analysis includes women starting either efavirenz-based ART or dolutegravir-based ART during singleton pregnancy (regimen started and delivery occurring between Aug 15, 2014, and Aug 15, 2016, for efavirenz-based ART and between Nov 1, 2016, and Sept 30, 2017, for dolutegravir-based ART). We excluded births to mothers who had switched regimen or stopped ART. The primary outcomes were the combined endpoints of any adverse outcome (stillbirth, preterm birth [<37 weeks' gestation], small for gestational age [SGA; less than the tenth percentile of birthweight by gestational age], or neonatal death [within 28 days of age]) and severe adverse outcomes (stillbirth, neonatal death, very preterm birth [<32 weeks' gestation], and very SGA [less than the third percentile of birthweight by gestational age]). We fitted log-binomial regression models, controlling for maternal age, gravidity, and education, to estimate adjusted risk ratios (aRRs). FINDINGS:Our analysis included 1729 pregnant women who initiated dolutegravir-based ART and 4593 who initiated efavirenz-based ART. The risk for any adverse birth outcome among women on dolutegravir versus efavirenz was similar (33·2% vs 35·0%; aRR 0·95, 95% CI 0·88-1·03), as was the risk of any severe birth outcome (10·7% vs 11·3%; 0·94, 0·81-1·11). We found no significant differences by regimen in the individual outcomes of stillbirth, neonatal death, preterm birth, very preterm birth, SGA, or very SGA. INTERPRETATION:Adverse birth outcomes were similar among pregnant women who initiated dolutegravir-based and efavirenz-based ART. Dolutegravir-based ART can be safely initiated in pregnancy. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.

Dataset Information

Pregnancy rates in HIV-positive women using contraceptives and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study.

Publications

Pregnancy rates in HIV-positive women using contraceptives and efavirenz-based or nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in Kenya: a retrospective cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets