Dataset Information

Nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor cross-resistance and outcomes from second-line antiretroviral therapy in the public health approach: an observational analysis within the randomised, open-label, EARNEST trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cross-resistance after first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure is expected to impair activity of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in second-line therapy for patients with HIV, but evidence for the effect of cross-resistance on virological outcomes is limited. We aimed to assess the association between the activity, predicted by resistance testing, of the NRTIs used in second-line therapy and treatment outcomes for patients infected with HIV.

Methods

We did an observational analysis of additional data from a published open-label, randomised trial of second-line ART (EARNEST) in sub-Saharan Africa. 1277 adults or adolescents infected with HIV in whom first-line ART had failed (assessed by WHO criteria with virological confirmation) were randomly assigned to a boosted protease inhibitor (standardised to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) with two to three NRTIs (clinician-selected, without resistance testing); or with raltegravir; or alone as protease inhibitor monotherapy (discontinued after week 96). We tested genotypic resistance on stored baseline samples in patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group and calculated the predicted activity of prescribed second-line NRTIs. We measured viral load in stored samples for all patients obtained every 12-16 weeks. This trial is registered with Controlled-Trials.com (number ISRCTN 37737787) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00988039).

Findings

Baseline genotypes were available in 391 (92%) of 426 patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group. 176 (89%) of 198 patients prescribed a protease inhibitor with no predicted-active NRTIs had viral suppression (viral load <400 copies per mL) at week 144, compared with 312 (81%) of 383 patients in the protease inhibitor and raltegravir group at week 144 (p=0·02) and 233 (61%) of 280 patients in the protease inhibitor monotherapy group at week 96 (p<0·0001). Compared with results with no active NRTIs, 95 (85%) of 112 patients with one predicted-active NRTI had viral suppression (p=0·3) and 20 (77%) of 26 patients with two or three active NRTIs had viral suppression (p=0·08). Over all follow-up, greater predicted NRTI activity was associated with worse viral load suppression (global p=0·0004).

Interpretation

Genotypic resistance testing might not accurately predict NRTI activity in protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. Our results do not support the introduction of routine resistance testing in ART programmes in low-income settings for the purpose of selecting second-line NRTIs.

Funding

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, UK Medical Research Council, Institito de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, WHO, Merck.

SUBMITTER: Paton NI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5555436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMillions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings.MethodsWe analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787.FindingsBetween April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification.InterpretationProtease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings.FundingEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO.

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:ObjectivesTwo nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus 1 non-NRTI (nNRTI) remain the preferred or alternative combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) for antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive patients in Taiwan. The three most commonly used nNRTIs are nevirapine (NVP), efavirenz (EFV) and rilpivirine (RPV). This study aimed to determine the incidences of hepatotoxicity and skin rashes within 4 weeks of initiation of cART containing 1 nNRTI plus 2 NRTIs.MethodsBetween June, 2012 and November, 2015, all antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive adult patients initiating nNRTI-containing cART at 8 designated hospitals for HIV care were included in this retrospective observational study. According to the national HIV treatment guidelines, patients were assessed at baseline, 2 and 4 weeks of cART initiation, and subsequently every 8 to 12 weeks. Plasma HIV RNA load, CD4 cell count and aminotransferases were determined. The toxicity grading scale of the Division of AIDS (DAIDS) 2014 was used for reporting clinical and laboratory adverse events.ResultsDuring the 3.5-year study period, 2,341 patients initiated nNRTI-containing cART: NVP in 629 patients, EFV 1,363 patients, and RPV 349 patients. Rash of any grade occurred in 14.1% (n = 331) of the patients. In multiple logistic regression analysis, baseline CD4 cell counts (per 100-cell/μl increase, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.125; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.031-1.228) and use of NVP (AOR, 2.443; 95% CI, 1.816-3.286) (compared with efavirenz) were independently associated with the development of skin rashes. Among the 1,455 patients (62.2%) with aminotransferase data both at baseline and week 4, 72 (4.9%) developed grade 2 or greater hepatotoxicity. In multiple logistic regression analysis, presence of antibody for hepatitis C virus (HCV) (AOR, 2.865; 95% CI, 1.439-5.704) or hepatitis B surface antigen (AOR, 2.397; 95% CI, 1.150-4.997), and development of skin rashes (AOR, 2.811; 95% CI, 1.051-7.521) were independently associated with the development of hepatotoxicity.ConclusionsThe baseline CD4 cell counts and use of NVP were associated with increased risk of skin rashes, while hepatotoxicity was independently associated with HCV or hepatitis B virus coinfection, and development of skin rashes in antiretroviral-naïve HIV-positive Taiwanese patients within 4 weeks of initiation of nNRTI-containing regimens.

Project description:BackgroundDolutegravir (DTG) is a once-daily unboosted second-generation integrase-inhibitor that along with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors is one of several regimens recommended by the United States, United Kingdom and European Union for first-line antiretroviral treatment of people with HIV infection. Our objective was to review the evidence for the efficacy and safety of DTG-based first-line regimens compared to efavirenz (EFV)-based regimens.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review. We comprehensively searched a range of databases as well as conference abstracts and a trials registry. We used Cochrane methods in screening and data collection and assessed each study's risk of bias with the Cochrane tool. We meta-analyzed data using a fixed-effects model. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality.ResultsFrom 492 search results, we identified two randomized controlled trials, reported in five peer-reviewed articles and one conference abstract. One trial tested two DTG-based regimens (DTG + abacavir (ABC) + lamivudine (3TC) or DTG + tenofovir + emtricitabine) against an EFV-based regimen (EFV+ ABC+3TC). The other trial tested DTG+ABC+3TC against EFV+ABC+3TC. In meta-analysis, DTG-containing regimens were superior to EFV-containing regimens at 48 weeks and at 96 weeks (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.16; and RR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.21, respectively). In one trial, the DTG-containing regimen was superior at 144 weeks (RR = 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.24). DTG-containing regimens were superior in reducing treatment discontinuation compared to those containing EFV at 96 weeks and at 144 weeks (RR = 0.27, 95% CI 0.15-0.50; and RR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.16-0.48, respectively). Risk of serious adverse events was similar in each regimen at 96 weeks (RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.63) and 144 weeks (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.29). Risk of bias was moderate overall, as was GRADE evidence quality.ConclusionsDTG-based regimens should be considered in future World Health Organization guidelines for initial HIV treatment.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare changes over 48 weeks in body fat, lipids, Metabolic Syndrome and cardiovascular disease risk between patients randomised 1:1 to lopinavir/ritonavir (r/LPV) plus raltegravir (RAL) compared to r/LPV plus 2-3 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N(t)RTIs) as second-line therapy.MethodsParticipants were HIV-1 positive (>16 years) failing first-line treatment (2 consecutive HIV RNA >500 copies/mL) of NNRTI +2N(t)RTI. Whole body dual energy x-ray absorptiometry was performed at baseline and week 48. Data were obtained to calculate the Metabolic Syndrome and Framingham cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk score. Linear regression was used to compare mean differences between arms. Logistic regression compared incidence of metabolic syndrome. Associations between percent limb fat changes at 48 weeks with baseline variables were assessed by backward stepwise multivariate linear regression. Analyses were adjusted for gender, body mass index and smoking status.Results210 participants were randomised. The mean (95% CI) increase in limb fat over 48 weeks was 15.7% (5.3, 25.9) or 0.9 kg (0.2, 1.5) in the r/LPV+N(t)RTI arm and 21.1% (11.1, 31,1) or 1.3 kg (0.7, 1.9) in the r/LPV+RAL arm, with no significant difference between treatment arms (-5.4% [-0.4 kg], p>0.1). Increases in total body fat mass (kg) and trunk fat mass (kg) were also similar between groups. Total:HDL cholesterol ratio was significantly higher in the RAL arm (mean difference -0.4 (1.4); p = 0.03), there were no other differences in lipid parameters between treatment arms. There were no statistically significant differences in CVD risk or incidence of Metabolic Syndrome between the two treatment arms. The baseline predictors of increased limb fat were high viral load, high insulin and participant's not taking lipid lowering treatment.ConclusionIn patients switching to second line therapy, r/LPV combined with RAL demonstrated similar improvements in limb fat as an N(t)RTI + r/LPV regimen, but a worse total:HDL cholesterol ratio over 48 weeks.Trial registrationThis clinical trial is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, registry number NCT00931463 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT00931463?term = NCT00931463&rank = 1.