Dataset Information

Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) uses a combination of drugs deemed essential to minimise treatment failure and drug resistance. Protease inhibitors are potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance, and have potential use as monotherapy after viral load suppression is achieved with combination treatment. We aimed to assess clinical risks and benefits of protease inhibitor monotherapy in long-term clinical use: in particular, the effect on drug resistance and future treatment options.

Methods

In this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years of age) positive for HIV attending 43 public sector treatment centres in the UK who had suppressed viral load (<50 copies per mL) for at least 24 weeks on combination ART with no change in the previous 12 weeks and a CD4 count of more than 100 cells per μL. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or to switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (PI-mono); we recommended ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted darunavir (800 mg) once daily or ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted lopinavir (400 mg) twice daily, with prompt return to combination treatment if viral load rebounded. All treatments were oral. Randomisation was with permuted blocks of varying size and stratified by centre and baseline ART; we used a computer-generated, sequentially numbered randomisation list. The primary outcome was loss of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-level or high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was deemed sensitive at trial entry (assessed at 3 years; non-inferiority margin of 10%). We estimated probability of rebound and resistance with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN04857074.

Findings

Between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010, we randomly allocated 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296). At 3 years, one or more future drug options had been lost in two participants (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·7%) in the OT group and six (2·1%) in the PI-mono group: difference 1·4% (-0·4 to 3·4); non-inferiority shown. 49 (16·8%) participants in the OT group and 65 (22·0%) in the PI-mono group had grade 3 or 4 clinical adverse events (difference 5·1% [95% CI -1·3 to 11·5]; p=0·12); 45 (six treatment related) and 56 (three treatment related) had serious adverse events.

Interpretation

Protease inhibitor monotherapy, with regular viral load monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment for rebound, preserved future treatment options and did not change overall clinical outcomes or frequency of toxic effects. Protease inhibitor monotherapy is an acceptable alternative for long-term clinical management of HIV infection.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Paton NI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4765553 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTreatment-simplification strategies are important tools for patient-centred management. We evaluated long-term outcomes from a PI monotherapy switch strategy.MethodsEligible participants attending 43 UK treatment centres had a viral load (VL) below 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on combination ART. Participants were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected PI monotherapy (PI-mono) with prompt return to combination therapy if VL rebounded. The primary outcome, previously reported, was loss of future drug options after 3 years, defined as new intermediate/high level resistance to at least one drug to which the participant's virus was considered sensitive at trial entry. Here we report resistance and disease outcomes after further extended follow-up in routine care. The study was registered as ISRCTN04857074.FindingsWe randomised 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296) between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010 and followed them for a median of more than 8 years (100 months) until 2018. At the end of this follow-up time, one or more future drug options had been lost in 7 participants in the OT group and 6 in the PI-mono group; estimated cumulative risk by 8 years of 2.7% and 2.1% respectively (difference -0.6%, 95% CI -3.2% to 2.0%). Only one PI-mono participant developed resistance to the protease inhibitor they were taking (atazanavir). Serious clinical events (death, serious AIDS, and serious non-AIDS) were infrequent; reported in a total of 12 (4.1%) participants in the OT group and 23 (7.8%) in the PI-mono group (P = 0.08) over the entire follow-up period.InterpretationA strategy of PI monotherapy, with regular VL monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment following rebound, preserved future treatment options. Findings confirm the high genetic barrier to resistance of the PI drug class that makes them well suited for creative, patient-centred, treatment-simplification approaches. The possibility of a small excess risk of serious clinical events with the PI monotherapy strategy cannot be excluded.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:IntroductionMedical treatment is a less invasive alternative to surgical management of missed miscarriage. Studies have shown that pretreatment with mifepristone can increase the complete abortion rate in management of first-trimester missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. Two studies have also shown that pretreatment with letrozole could increase the efficacy compared with misoprostol alone. So far, there is no trial comparing letrozole and mifepristone pretreatment for missed miscarriage. We designed this randomised controlled trial to test the hypothesis that for first-trimester missed miscarriage, letrozole pretreatment is non-inferior to mifepristone pretreatment followed by misoprostol in terms of complete abortion rate.Methods and analysisThis is a prospective open-label non-inferiority randomised controlled trial conducted in a single centre. In total, 294 women diagnosed with first-trimester missed miscarriage opting for medical treatment is recruited with informed consent. They are randomly assigned to receive mifepristone or letrozole pretreatment. In the mifepristone group, each woman takes 200 mg mifepristone orally followed 24-48 hours later by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally. In the letrozole group, each woman takes 10 mg letrozole orally per day for 3 days, followed by 800 µg misoprostol vaginally on the third day of letrozole administration. Follow-up is conducted on days 15 and 42 after misoprostol administration. The primary outcome is the overall complete abortion rate. Secondary outcomes include side effects and complications during the study period. Data will be analysed with both intention-to-treat and per protocol approaches. A p<0.05 will be considered as indicating statistical significance.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital with approval number: (2020)166. Findings will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and in national and/or international meetings to guide future practice.Trial registration numberChiCTR2000041480.

Project description:BackgroundProtease-inhibitor-based treatment is recommended as first-line for infants infected with HIV who have been previously exposed to nevirapine prophylaxis. However, long-term use poses adherence challenges, is associated with metabolic toxic effects, restricts second-line options, and is costly. We present the long-term outcomes of switching nevirapine-exposed children to nevirapine-based treatment after effective suppression of virus replication with a protease-inhibitor-based regimen.MethodsWe did a randomised trial to compare long-term viral suppression with nevirapine-based versus protease-inhibitor-based (ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) treatment in children who had achieved suppression with protease-inhibitor-based treatment. Randomisation (1:1) was by cohort blocks of variable size between eight and 12. Eligible children were younger than 24 months who were previously exposed to nevirapine for prevention of mother-to-child transmission, and achieved virological suppression of less than 400 copies per mL when treated with the regimen based on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in Johannesburg, South Africa. We gave all drugs as liquids and adjusted doses at each visit in accordance with growth. We continued follow-up for a minimum of 90 weeks and maximum of 232 weeks after randomisation. We quantified HIV RNA every 3 months. Our primary endpoint was any viraemia greater than 50 copies per mL. Our analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00117728.FindingsWe followed up the children for a median of 156 weeks and there were three deaths in each group. Children in the switch group (Kaplan-Meier probability 0·595) were less likely to experience non-suppression greater than 50 copies per mL than in the control group (0·687; p=0·01) and had better CD4 and growth responses initially after switching (52 children in the switch group vs 66 control group met this endpoint). By 156 weeks after randomisation, more children had virological failure--which we defined as confirmed viraemia of more than 1000 copies per mL--in the switch group (22 children) than in the control group (ten children; p=0·009). We detected all 22 failures in the switch group by 52 weeks compared with five in the control group. Virological failure was related to non-adherence and pretreatment drug resistance. In children without pretreatment drug resistance, we did not identify a significant difference in virological failure between the switch (Kaplan-Meier probability 0·140) and control (0·095) groups (p=0·34; seven failures in the switch group vs five in the control group). Children in the switch group were significantly more likely to develop grade 1-3 alanine aminotransferase abnormalities over the duration of follow-up.InterpretationViral-load testing through 52 weeks can identify all children likely to fail this protease-inhibitor-switch strategy. Switching children once suppressed to a nevirapine-based regimen might be a valuable treatment option if adequate viral-load monitoring can be done.FundingNational Institutes of Child Health and Human Development and Secure the Future Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16-55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659.FindingsOf 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0-3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0-8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1-3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging.InterpretationAmbulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research.

Project description:BackgroundFor HIV-1-infected young people facing lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART), short cycle therapy with long-acting drugs offers potential for drug-free weekends, less toxicity, and better quality-of-life. We aimed to compare short cycle therapy (5 days on, 2 days off ART) versus continuous therapy (continuous ART).MethodsIn this open-label, non-inferiority trial (BREATHER), eligible participants were aged 8-24 years, were stable on first-line efavirenz with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and had HIV-1 RNA viral load less than 50 copies per mL for 12 months or longer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to remain on continuous therapy or change to short cycle therapy according to a computer-generated randomisation list, with permuted blocks of varying size, stratified by age and African versus non-African sites; the list was prepared by the trial statistician and randomisation was done via a web service accessed by site clinician or one of the three coordinating trials units. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with confirmed viral load 50 copies per mL or higher at any time up to the 48 week assessment, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. The trial was powered to exclude a non-inferiority margin of 12%. Analyses were intention to treat. The trial was registered with EudraCT, number 2009-012947-40, ISRCTN, number 97755073, and CTA, number 27505/0005/001-0001.FindingsBetween April 1, 2011, and June 28, 2013, 199 participants from 11 countries worldwide were randomly assigned, 99 to the short cycle therapy and 100 to continuous therapy, and were followed up until the last patient reached 48 weeks. 105 (53%) were men, median age was 14 years (IQR 12-18), and median CD4 cell count was 735 cells per μL (IQR 576-968). Six (6%) patients assigned to the short cycle therapy versus seven (7%) assigned to continuous therapy had confirmed viral load 50 copies per mL or higher (difference -1·2%, 90% CI -7·3 to 4·9, non-inferiority shown). 13 grade 3 or 4 events occurred in the short cycle therapy group and 14 in the continuous therapy group (p=0·89). Two ART-related adverse events (one gynaecomastia and one spontaneous abortion) occurred in the short cycle therapy group compared with 14 (p=0·02) in the continuous therapy group (five lipodystrophy, two gynaecomastia, one suicidal ideation, one dizziness, one headache and syncope, one spontaneous abortion, one neutropenia, and two raised transaminases).InterpretationNon-inferiority of maintaining virological suppression in children, adolescents, and young adults was shown for short cycle therapy versus continous therapy at 48 weeks, with similar resistance and a better safety profile. This short cycle therapy strategy is a viable option for adherent HIV-infected young people who are stable on efavirenz-based ART.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment; UK Medical Research Council; European Commission; PENTA Foundation; INSERM SC10-US19, France.

Project description:BackgroundChildren with HIV will be on antiretroviral therapy (ART) longer than adults, and therefore the durability of first-line ART and timing of switch to second-line are key questions. We assess the long-term outcome of protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) first-line ART and viral load switch criteria in children.MethodsIn a randomised open-label factorial trial, we compared effectiveness of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus a protease inhibitor versus two NRTIs plus an NNRTI and of switch to second-line ART at a viral load of 1000 copies per mL versus 30,000 copies per mL in previously untreated children infected with HIV from Europe and North and South America. Random assignment was by computer-generated sequentially numbered lists stratified by age, region, and by exposure to perinatal ART. Primary outcome was change in viral load between baseline and 4 years. Analysis was by intention to treat, which we defined as all patients that started treatment. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN73318385.FindingsBetween Sept 25, 2002, and Sept 7, 2005, 266 children (median age 6.5 years; IQR 2.8-12.9) were randomly assigned treatment regimens: 66 to receive protease inhibitor and switch to second-line at 1000 copies per mL (PI-low), 65 protease inhibitor and switch at 30,000 copies per mL (PI-higher), 68 NNRTI and switch at 1000 copies per mL (NNRTI-low), and 67 NNRTI and switch at 30,000 copies per mL (NNRTI-higher). Median follow-up was 5.0 years (IQR 4.2-6.0) and 188 (71%) children were on first-line ART at trial end. At 4 years, mean reductions in viral load were -3.16 log(10) copies per mL for protease inhibitors versus -3.31 log(10) copies per mL for NNRTIs (difference -0.15 log(10) copies per mL, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.11; p=0.26), and -3.26 log(10) copies per mL for switching at the low versus -3.20 log(10) copies per mL for switching at the higher threshold (difference 0.06 log(10) copies per mL, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.32; p=0.56). Protease inhibitor resistance was uncommon and there was no increase in NRTI resistance in the PI-higher compared with the PI-low group. NNRTI resistance was selected early, and about 10% more children accumulated NRTI mutations in the NNRTI-higher than the NNRTI-low group. Nine children had new CDC stage-C events and 60 had grade 3/4 adverse events; both were balanced across randomised groups.InterpretationGood long-term outcomes were achieved with all treatments strategies. Delayed switching of protease-inhibitor-based ART might be reasonable where future drug options are limited, because the risk of selecting for NRTI and protease-inhibitor resistance is low.FundingPaediatric European Network for Treatment of AIDS (PENTA) and Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group (PACTG/IMPAACT).

Project description:BackgroundMonitoring HIV treatment with laboratory testing introduces delays for providing appropriate care in resource-limited settings. The aim of our study was to determine whether point-of-care HIV viral load testing with task shifting changed treatment and care outcomes for adults on antiretroviral therapy (ART) when compared with standard laboratory viral load testing.MethodsWe did an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial in a public clinic in Durban, South Africa. We enrolled HIV-positive adults (aged ≥18 years) who presented for their first routine HIV viral load test 6 months after ART initiation. Individuals were randomly assigned by a random number allocation sequence to receive either point-of-care viral load testing at enrolment and after 6 months with task shifting to enrolled nurses (intervention group), or laboratory viral load testing (standard-of-care group). The primary outcome was combined viral suppression (<200 copies per mL) and retention at 12 months after enrolment. A non-inferiority margin of 10% was used. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03066128.FindingsBetween Feb 24, 2017, and Aug 23, 2017, we screened 657 participants, and 390 were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=195) or standard-of-care group (n=195). 175 (90%) individuals in the intervention group and 148 (76%) individuals in the standard-of-care group had the primary outcome of retention with viral suppression, a difference of 13·9% (95% CI 6·4-21·2; p<0·00040). 182 participants (93%) in the intervention group had viral suppression compared with 162 (83%) in the standard-of-care group (difference 10·3%, 3·9-16·8; p=0·0025); 180 (92%) and 162 (85%) were retained in care (7·7%, 1·3-14·2; p=0·026). There were no adverse events related to point-of-care HIV viral load testing or task shifting.InterpretationPoint-of-care viral load testing combined with task shifting significantly improved viral suppression and retention in HIV care. Point-of-care testing can simplify treatment and improve outcomes for HIV-positive adults receiving ART in resource-limited settings.FundingNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:BackgroundTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Here, tofacitinib safety and efficacy data from a long-term extension study in Japanese patients are presented.MethodsStudy A3921041 was a multi-centre, open-label, long-term extension study that included Japanese patients who had participated in a prior Phase 2 or Phase 3 study of tofacitinib as monotherapy or with background methotrexate. Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) or tofacitinib 10 mg BID. Dose adjustment of tofacitinib during treatment period, and concomitant usage of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs including methotrexate after week 12 were permitted. Primary endpoints were adverse events, laboratory parameters and vital signs. Secondary efficacy endpoints included American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 response rates, Disease Activity Score (DAS)28-4(erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR))<2.6 response rate (DAS-defined remission) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. Safety and efficacy data were assessed throughout the study.ResultsA total of 486 patients were recruited and treated (1439.9 patient-years of exposure). 308 patients completed the study. Median (range) duration of treatment in this extension study was 1185 (5-2016) days. 476 patients (97.9 %) experienced adverse events; the majority of which (97.8 %) were of mild or moderate severity. The two most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nasopharyngitis (n = 293, 60.3 %) and herpes zoster (n = 94, 19.3 %). For all tofacitinib-treated patients, the incidence rate (patients with events per 100 patient-years) was 10.7 for serious adverse events, 3.3 for serious infections, 7.4 for herpes zoster (serious and non-serious) and 1.2 for malignancies (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer). Mean changes from baseline (start of the index study) in laboratory parameters were consistent with those seen in previously reported studies of tofacitinib. ACR20/50/70 response rates, DAS-defined remission rates and HAQ-DI scores were sustained through to study completion.ConclusionsTofacitinib (with or without background methotrexate) demonstrated a stable safety profile and sustained efficacy in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. The risk of herpes zoster appears to be higher in Japanese patients treated with tofacitinib than in the global population.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00661661 . Registered 7 February 2008.