Dataset Information

Once vs. twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected children.

ABSTRACT: To evaluate whether once daily (q.d.) lopinavir/ritonavir is noninferior to twice daily (b.i.d.) dosing in children.International, multicentre, phase II/III, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial (KONCERT/PENTA18/ANRS150).Clinical centres participating in the PENTA, HIV-NAT and PHPT networks.Children/adolescents with HIV-1 RNA viral load less than 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on lopinavir/ritonavir-containing antiretroviral therapy.Children were randomized to continue lopinavir/ritonavir b.i.d. or change to q.d.Confirmed viral load ?50 copies/ml by 48 weeks (12% noninferiority margin).One hundred seventy-three children were randomized in the KONCERT trial (86 q.d., 87 b.i.d.); 46% men, median (IQR) age 11 (9-14) years, CD4% 33 (27-38)%. By week 48, 97 and 98% of time was spent on q.d. and b.i.d., respectively (one q.d. child lost at week 4). Twelve q.d. vs. seven b.i.d. children had confirmed viral load ?50 copies/ml within 48 weeks; estimated difference in percentage with viral load rebound 6% [90% CI (-2, 14)]. Numbers of children with grade 3/4 adverse events (11 vs. 7) or major resistance mutations (3 vs. 2) were similar, q.d. vs. b.i.d. (both P > 0.3). Among 26 children in an intrasubject lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetic substudy, lower daily exposure (AUC0-24 161 h.mg/l vs. 224 h.mg/l) and lower Clast (1.03 mg/l vs. 5.69 mg/l) were observed with q.d. vs. b.i.d. dosing.Noninferiority for viral load suppression on q.d. vs. b.i.d. lopinavir/ritonavir was not demonstrated. Although results, therefore, do not support routine use of q.d. lopinavir/ritonavir, lack of safety concerns or resistance suggest that q.d. dosing remains an option in selected, adherent children, with close viral load monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Paediatric European Network for Treatment of AIDS (PENTA)

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4645961 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Once vs. twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected children.

AIDS (London, England) 20151101 18

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate whether once daily (q.d.) lopinavir/ritonavir is noninferior to twice daily (b.i.d.) dosing in children.<h4>Design</h4>International, multicentre, phase II/III, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial (KONCERT/PENTA18/ANRS150).<h4>Setting</h4>Clinical centres participating in the PENTA, HIV-NAT and PHPT networks.<h4>Participants</h4>Children/adolescents with HIV-1 RNA viral load less than 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on lopinavir/ritonavir-containing anti ...[more]

PMID: 26558544

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence is critical for successful HIV treatment outcomes. Once-daily dosing could improve adherence. Plasma concentrations of once-daily vs twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine are bioequivalent in children, but no randomized trial has compared virological outcomes.MethodsChildren taking abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line regimens twice daily for more than 36 weeks in the ARROW trial (NCT02028676, ISRCTN24791884) were randomized to continue twice-daily vs move to once-daily abacavir + lamivudine (open-label). Co-primary outcomes were viral load suppression at week 48 (12% noninferiority margin, measured retrospectively) and lamivudine or abacavir-related grade 3/4 adverse events.ResultsSix hundred and sixty-nine children (median 5 years, range 1-16) were randomized to twice daily (n = 333) vs once daily (n = 336) after median 1.8 years on twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line ART. Children were followed for median 114 weeks. At week 48, 242/331 (73%) twice daily vs 236/330 (72%) once daily had viral load less than 80 copies/ml [difference -1.6% (95% confidence interval -8.4,+5.2%) P = 0.65]; 79% twice daily vs 78% once daily had viral load less than 400 copies/ml (P = 0.76) (week 96 results similar). One grade 3/4 adverse event was judged uncertainly related to abacavir + lamivudine (hepatitis; once daily). At week 48, 9% twice daily vs 10% once daily reported missing one or more ART pills in the last 4 weeks (P = 0.74) and 8 vs 8% at week 96 (P = 0.90). Carers strongly preferred once-daily dosing. There was no difference between randomized groups in postbaseline drug-resistance mutations or drug-susceptibility; WHO 3/4 events; ART-modifying, grade 3/4 or serious adverse events; CD4% or weight-for-age/height-for-age (all P > 0.15).ConclusionOnce-daily abacavir + lamivudine was noninferior to twice daily in viral load suppression, with similar resistance, adherence, clinical, immunological and safety outcomes. Abacavir + lamivudine provides the first once-daily nucleoside backbone across childhood that can be used to simplify ART.

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.).

Dataset Information

Once vs. twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected children.

Publications

Once vs. twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected children.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets