Efficacy and biological safety of lopinavir/ritonavir based anti-retroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang X
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4336931 | biostudies-other | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLopinavir-ritonavir is a repurposed drug for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In this study, a pooled effect of lopinavir-ritonavir on mortality, virological cure, radiological improvement and safety profile in COVID-19 patients has been evaluated.MethodsThe databases were searched for comparative randomized controlled studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of lopinavir-ritonavir in COVID-19 patients. The mortality outcome was pooled as a risk difference (RD) with 95% CI. The virological cure, radiological improvement and adverse events were pooled as risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. All outcomes were pooled using the Mantle-Hanzle method random effect model. The heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test.ResultsOut of 82 full text assessed, seven studies were included in the analysis. The included studies had five different control interventions: supportive care (n=4), umifenovir (arbidol) (n=2), navaferon (recombinant anti-tumour and anti-virus protein) (n=1), lopinavir-ritonavir+novaferon (n=1) and lopinavir-ritonavir+interferon beta 1b+ribavirin (n=1). Lopinavir-ritonavir group did not show significant difference in mortality [RD: 0.00 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.02), I2=0], virological cure [RR: 1.06 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.31), I2=0%], radiological improvement [RR: 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05)] and adverse events [RR: 2.59 (95% CI: 0.17, 38.90), I2=75%] than supportive care. Similarly, no difference was observed for any efficacy outcomes between lopinavir-ritonavir and other control interventions. We observed significantly high risk of adverse events with lopinavir-ritonavir as compared to umifenovir [RR: 2.96 (95% CI: 1.42-6.18); I2=0%].ConclusionThere is no benefit of the addition of lopinavir-ritonavir to the standard care in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8056786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCombination antiretroviral therapy (ART) is now the global standard for HIV-infected pregnant and breastfeeding women at all CD4⁺ cell counts. We compared the efficacy and safety of an efavirenz versus lopinavir/ritonavir regimen for HIV-infected pregnant women initiating ART in rural Uganda.DesignRandomized clinical trial.MethodsWe performed a planned secondary analysis comparing viral load suppression (HIV-1 RNA ≤400 copies/ml), safety, and HIV transmission to infants in a trial designed to test the hypothesis that lopinavir/ritonavir versus efavirenz-based ART would reduce placental malaria (PROMOTE, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00993031). HIV-infected, ART-naive pregnant women at 12-28 weeks gestation and any CD4⁺ cell count were randomized. ART was provided and participants were counseled to breastfeed for 1 year postpartum.ResultsThe median age of the 389 study participants was 29 years; median CD4⁺ cell count was 370 cells/μl. At delivery, virologic suppression was 97.6% in the efavirenz arm and 86.0% in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (P < 0.001). At 48 weeks postpartum, 91.0% of women on efavirenz and 88.4% on lopinavir/ritonavir had viral suppression (P = 0.49). Grade 1 or 2 gastrointestinal adverse events were higher among women on lopinavir/ritonavir versus efavirenz. Only two infants acquired HIV (both in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm), and HIV-free infant survival was similar between study arms: 92.9% (lopinavir/ritonavir) versus 97.2% (efavirenz) (P = 0.10).ConclusionVirologic suppression at delivery was higher with an efavirenz versus lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen. However, women in both arms achieved high levels of virologic suppression through 1 year postpartum and the risk of transmission to infants was low.
| S-EPMC4428759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntiviral therapies against the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which has caused a global pandemic of respiratory illness called COVID-19, are still lacking.MethodsOur study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04252885, named ELACOI), was an exploratory randomized (2:2:1) controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or arbidol monotherapy for treating patients with mild/moderate COVID-19.FindingsThis study successfully enrolled 86 patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, with 34 randomly assigned to receive LPV/r, 35 to arbidol, and 17 with no antiviral medication as control. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were comparable. The primary endpoint, the rate of positive-to-negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid, was similar between groups (all p > 0.05). There were no differences between groups in the secondary endpoints, the rates of antipyresis, cough alleviation, or improvement of chest computed tomography (CT) at days 7 or 14 (all p > 0.05). At day 7, 8 (23.5%) patients in the LPV/r group, 3 (8.6%) in the arbidol group, and 2 (11.8%) in the control group showed a deterioration in clinical status from moderate to severe/critical (p = 0.206). Overall, 12 (35.3%) patients in the LPV/r group and 5 (14.3%) in the arbidol group experienced adverse events during the follow-up period. No apparent adverse event occurred in the control group.ConclusionsLPV/r or arbidol monotherapy present little benefit for improving the clinical outcome of patients hospitalized with mild/moderate COVID-19 over supportive care.FundingThis study was supported by project 2018ZX10302103-002, 2017ZX10202102-003-004, and Infectious Disease Specialty of Guangzhou High-level Clinical Key Specialty (2019-2021).
| S-EPMC7235585 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTreatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited by suboptimal efficacy.MethodsFrom January 30, 2020 to March 23, 2020, we conducted a non-randomised controlled trial, in which all adult patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were assigned to three groups non-randomly and given supportive treatments: Group A, Lopinavir-Ritonavir; Group B, Huashi Baidu Formula (a Chinese medicineformula made by the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences to treat COVID-19, which is now in the clinical trial period) and Lopinavir-Ritonavir; and Group C, Huashi Baidu Formula. The use of antibiotics, antiviruses, and corticosteroids was permitted in Group A and B. Traditional Chinese medicine injections were permitted in Group C. The primary outcomes were clinical remission time (interval from admission to the first time the patient tested negatively for novel coronavirus or an obvious improvement was observed from chest CT) and clinical remission rate (number of patients whose clinical time was within 16 days/total number of patients).ResultsA total of 60 adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled at sites in Wuhan, China, and the sample size of each group was 20. In Groups A, B and C, the clinical remission rates were 95.0%%(19/20), 100.0%%(20/20) and 100.0%%(20/20), respectively. Compared with Groups A and B, the clinical remission time of Group C was significantly shorter (5.9 days vs. 10.8 days, p < 0.05; 5.9 days vs. 9.7 days, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference among Groups A, B, and C in terms of the time taken to be released from quarantine. The clinical biochemical indicators and safety indexes showed no significant differences among the three groups.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that Lopinavir-Ritonavir has some efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19, and the Huashi Baidu Formula might enhance this effect to an extent. In addition, superiority was displayed in the treatment of COVID-19 through a combination of the Huashi Baidu Formula and traditional Chinese medicine injection. In future, well-designed prospective double-blinded randomised control trials are required to confirm our findings.
| S-EPMC7543765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesCo-treatment of HIV and TB in young children is complicated by limited treatment options and complex drug-drug interactions. Rifabutin is an alternative to rifampicin for adults receiving a ritonavir-boosted PI. We aimed to evaluate the short-term safety and pharmacokinetics of rifabutin when given with lopinavir/ritonavir in children.Patients and methodsWe conducted an open-label study of rifabutin dosed at 5 mg/kg three times a week in HIV-infected children≤5 years of age receiving lopinavir/ritonavir. Intensive steady-state pharmacokinetic sampling was conducted after six doses. The Division of AIDS 2004, clarification 2009, table for grading severity of adverse events was used to classify drug toxicities. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01259219.ResultsSix children completed the study prior to closure by institutional review boards. The median (range) AUC0-48 of rifabutin was 6.91 (3.52-8.67) μg · h/mL, the median (range) Cmax of rifabutin was 0.39 (0.19-0.46) μg/mL, the median (range) AUC0-48 of 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin was 5.73 (2.85-9.13) μg · h/mL and the median (range) Cmax of 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin was 0.17 (0.08-0.32) μg/mL. The neutrophil count declined in all children; two children experienced grade 4 neutropenia, which resolved rapidly without complications. There was strong correlation between AUC0-48 measures and neutrophil counts.ConclusionsRifabutin dosed at 5 mg/kg three times per week resulted in lower AUC0-48, AUC0-24 and Cmax values for rifabutin and 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin compared with adults receiving 150 mg of rifabutin daily, the current recommended dose. We observed high rates of severe transient neutropenia, possibly due to immaturity of CYP3A4 in young children. It remains unclear whether a safe and effective rifabutin dose exists for treatment of TB in children receiving lopinavir/ritonavir.
| S-EPMC4291235 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC3443859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diminished growth is highly prevalent among HIV-infected children and might be improved by antiretroviral therapy (ART). We examined growth recovery in a rural Ugandan cohort of HIV-infected children randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based ART.HIV-infected children 2 months to 6 years of age were randomized to LPV/r- or non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based ART. Changes in weight-for-age (WAZ), height-for-age (HAZ) and weight-for-height Z-scores for 24 months were evaluated using generalized linear repeated measures models. Recovery from being underweight (WAZ<-2), stunted (HAZ<-2) and wasted (weight-for-height <-2) to Z-scores greater than -2 was also compared by arm using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard modeling.A total of 129 children with median age of 3 years initiated therapy; 64 received LPV/r-based and 65 non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based ART (nevirapine: 36 and efavirenz: 29). The median (interquartile range) difference in growth measures between baseline and 24 months for LPV/r (n = 45) versus non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based therapy (n = 40) were as follows: WAZ, 0.47 (0.10, 1.62) versus 0.53 (0.03, 1.14) (P = 0.59) and HAZ, median 1.55 (0.78, 1.86) versus 1.19 (0.62, 1.65) (P = 0.23), respectively. ART regimen was not predictive of change in WAZ (?: -0.02, 95% confidence interval: -0.25, 0.20) or HAZ (?: 0.05, 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.19). The presence of confirmed virologic failure was not associated with growth.Most ART-naive children experienced recovery of both WAZ and HAZ over the 24 months after ART initiation, with no significant difference between those receiving LPV/r versus non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based ART. However, the persistence of median Z-scores below 0 underscores the need for additional strategies to improve growth outcomes in HIV+ African children.
| S-EPMC5106322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine whether the overall results of the CASTLE study pertain to both genders, we analysed the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in 277 female and 606 male patients in the open-label, multinational trial over 96 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779.MethodsTreatment-naive patients aged ≥ 18 years with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 5000 copies/mL were randomized to receive either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily.ResultsAt week 96, confirmed virological response rates (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat analysis) were higher in women and men receiving atazanavir/ritonavir than those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and lower in women than men in both treatment arms (67% of women and 77% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 63% of women and 71% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). These differences were not observed in the on-treatment analysis. Mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline to week 96 was 265 cells/mm(3) for women and 269 cells/mm(3) for men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 298 cells/mm(3) for women and 286 cells/mm(3) for men on lopinavir/ritonavir. Discontinuation rates were higher in women than men in each treatment arm (22% of women and 15% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 29% of women and 18% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). In women and men, grade 2-4 nausea and diarrhoea were more frequent in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; jaundice and hyperbilirubinaemia occurred more frequently in the atazanavir/ritonavir group.ConclusionsOnce-daily atazanavir/ritonavir is an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for women and men with HIV-1 infection. The sex-based differences in response may be due to higher discontinuation rates in women.
| S-EPMC3019087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe evaluated the clinical, virological and safety outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-interferon (IFN)-β-1a, hydroxychloroquine or remdesivir in comparison to standard of care (control) in coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) inpatients requiring oxygen and/or ventilatory support.MethodsWe conducted a phase III multicentre, open-label, randomized 1:1:1:1:1, adaptive, controlled trial (DisCoVeRy), an add-on to the Solidarity trial (NCT04315948, EudraCT2020-000936-23). The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15, measured by the WHO seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes included quantification of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in respiratory specimens and pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. We report the results for the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms and for the hydroxychloroquine arm, trials of which were stopped prematurely.ResultsThe intention-to-treat population included 583 participants-lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 145), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a (n = 145), hydroxychloroquine (n = 145), control (n = 148)-among whom 418 (71.7%) were male, the median age was 63 years (IQR 54-71), and 211 (36.2%) had a severe disease. The day-15 clinical status was not improved with the investigational treatments: lopinavir/ritonavir versus control, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.83, (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.26, p 0.39), lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a versus control, aOR 0.69 (95%CI 0.45-1.04, p 0.08), and hydroxychloroquine versus control, aOR 0.93 (95%CI 0.62-1.41, p 0.75). No significant effect of investigational treatment was observed on SARS-CoV-2 clearance. Trough plasma concentrations of lopinavir and ritonavir were higher than those expected, while those of hydroxychloroquine were those expected with the dosing regimen. The occurrence of serious adverse events was significantly higher in participants allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arms.ConclusionIn adults hospitalized for COVID-19, lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir-IFN-β-1a and hydroxychloroquine improved neither the clinical status at day 15 nor SARS-CoV-2 clearance in respiratory tract specimens.
| S-EPMC8149166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe outbreak of COVID-19 (caused by SARS-Cov-2) is very serious, and no effective antiviral treatment has yet been confirmed. The adage "old drug, new trick" in this context may suggest the important therapeutic potential of existing drugs. We found that the lopinavir/ritonavir treatment recommended in the fifth edition of the Treatment Plan of China can only help to improve a minority of throat-swab nucleic-acid results (3/15) in hospitals. Our previous use of chloroquine to treat patients with COVID-19 infection showed an improvement in more throat-swab nucleic-acid results (5/10) than the use of lopinavir/ritonavir.Methods/designThis is a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled, multicenter clinical study. The study consists of three phases: a screening period, a treatment period of no more than 10 days, and a follow-up period for each participant. Participants with COVID-19 infection who are eligible for selection for the study will be randomly allocated to the trial group or the control group. The control group will be given lopinavir/ritonavir treatment for no more than 10 days. The trial group will be given chloroquine phosphate treatment for no more than 10 days. The primary outcome is the clinical recovery time at no more than 28 days after the completion of therapy and follow-up. The secondary outcomes include the rate of treatment success after the completion of therapy and follow-up, the time of treatment success after no more than 28 days, the rate of serious adverse events during the completion of therapy and follow-up, and the time to return to normal temperature (calculated from the onset of illness) during the completion of therapy and follow-up. Comparisons will be performed using two-sided tests with a statistical significance level of 5%.DiscussionThis experiment should reveal the efficacy and safety of using chloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir for patients with mild/general COVID-19 infection. If the new treatment including chloroquine shows a higher rate of throat-swab SARS-CoV-2 real-time fluorescent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity and is safe, it could be tested as a future COVID-19 treatment.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ID: ChiCTR2000029741 . Registered on 11 February 2020.
| S-EPMC7341476 | biostudies-literature