METHODS: Surveys were conducted in April 2009. Analysis data from the Asia cohort were collected in March 2009 from 12 centres in Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Data from the IeDEA Southern Africa cohort were finalized in February 2008 from 10 centres in Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe.
RESULTS: Survey responses reflected inter-regional variations in drug access and national guidelines. A total of 1301 children in the TREAT Asia and 4561 children in the IeDEA Southern Africa cohorts met inclusion criteria for the cross-sectional analysis. Ten percent of Asian and 3.3% of African children were on second-line ART at the time of data transfer. Median age (interquartile range) in months at second-line initiation was 120 (78-145) months in the Asian cohort and 66 (29-112) months in the southern African cohort. Regimens varied, and the then current World Health Organization-recommended nucleoside reverse transcriptase combination of abacavir and didanosine was used in less than 5% of children in each region.
CONCLUSIONS: In order to provide life-long ART for children, better use of current first-line regimens and broader access to heat-stable, paediatric second-line and salvage formulations are needed. There will be limited benefit to earlier diagnosis of treatment failure unless providers and patients have access to appropriate drugs for children to switch to.
METHODS: Children enrolled in the TREAT Asia Pediatric HIV Observational Database who had SM (weight-for-height or body mass index-for-age Z score less than -3) at ART initiation were analyzed. Generalized estimating equations were used to investigate poor weight recovery (weight-for-age Z score less than -3) and poor CD4% recovery (CD4% <25), and competing risk regression was used to analyze mortality and toxicity-associated treatment modification.
RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-five (11.9%) of 2993 children starting ART had SM. Their median weight-for-age Z score increased from -5.6 at ART initiation to -2.3 after 36 months. Not using trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis at baseline was associated with poor weight recovery [odds ratio: 2.49 vs. using; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.66-3.74; P < 0.001]. Median CD4% increased from 3.0 at ART initiation to 27.2 after 36 months, and 56 (15.3%) children died during follow-up. More profound SM was associated with poor CD4% recovery (odds ratio: 1.78 for Z score less than -4.5 vs. -3.5 to less than -3.0; 95% CI: 1.08-2.92; P = 0.023) and mortality (hazard ratio: 2.57 for Z score less than -4.5 vs. -3.5 to less than -3.0; 95% CI: 1.24-5.33; P = 0.011). Twenty-two toxicity-associated ART modifications occurred at a rate of 2.4 per 100 patient-years, and rates did not differ by malnutrition severity.
CONCLUSION: Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis is important for the recovery of weight-for-age in severely malnourished children starting ART. The extent of SM does not impede weight-for-age recovery or antiretroviral tolerability, but CD4% response is compromised in children with a very low weight-for-height/body mass index-for-age Z score, which may contribute to their high rate of mortality.
METHODS: Of the 37 sites that participated in the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study, eight sites from five countries (Argentina, India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand) participated in the body composition substudy. All sites had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and all participants enrolled in SECOND-LINE were eligible for inclusion in the substudy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three N(t)RTIs (N[t]RTI group). Randomisation was stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA. Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment, but allocation was concealed until after interventions were assigned. DXA scans were done at weeks 0, 48, and 96. The primary endpoint was mean percentage and absolute change in peripheral limb fat from baseline to week 96. We did intention-to-treat analyses of available data. This substudy is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01513122.
FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2010, and July 10, 2011, we recruited 211 participants into the substudy. The intention-to-treat population comprised 102 participants in the N(t)RTI group and 108 participants in the raltegravir group, of whom 91 and 105 participants, respectively, reached 96 weeks. Mean percentage change in limb fat from baseline to week 96 was 16·8% (SD 32·6) in the N(t)RTI group and 28·0% (37·6) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 10·2%, 95% CI 0·1-20·4; p=0·048). Mean absolute change was 1·04 kg (SD 2·29) in the N(t)RTI group and 1·81 kg (2·50) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 0·6, 95% CI -0·1 to 1·3; p=0·10).
INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that for people with virological failure of a first-line regimen containing efavirenz plus tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine, the WHO-recommended switch to a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus zidovudine (a thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) and lamivudine might come at the cost of peripheral lipoatrophy. Further study could help to define specific groups of people who might benefit from a switch to an N(t)RTI-sparing second-line ART regimen.
FUNDING: The Kirby Institute and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.
METHODS: We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/µL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone.
CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a greater 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens.
METHODS: HIV+ patients from the Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD) and the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD) meeting specific criteria were included. In these analyses Asian and Caucasian status were defined by cohort. Factors associated with a low CD4:CD8 ratio (cutoff <0.2) prior to ART commencement, and with achieving a normal CD4:CD8 ratio (>1) at 12 and 24 months post ART commencement were assessed using logistic regression.
RESULTS: There were 591 patients from AHOD and 2,620 patients from TAHOD who met the inclusion criteria. TAHOD patients had a significantly (P<0.001) lower odds of having a baseline (prior to ART initiation) CD4:CD8 ratio greater than 0.2. After 12 months of ART, AHOD patients were more than twice as likely to achieve a normal CD4:CD8 ratio compared to TAHOD patients (15% versus 6%). However, after adjustment for confounding factors there was no significant difference between cohorts in the odds of achieving a CD4:CD8 ratio >1 (P=0.475).
CONCLUSIONS: We found a significantly lower CD4:CD8 ratio prior to commencing ART in TAHOD compared to AHOD even after adjusting for confounders. However, after adjustment, there was no significant difference between the cohorts in odds of achieving normal ratio. Baseline CD4+ and CD8+ counts seem to be the main driver for this difference between these two populations.