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.
METHODS: HIV-positive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database who had used second-line ART for ≥6 months were included. ART use and rates and predictors of second-line treatment failure were evaluated.
RESULTS: There were 302 eligible patients. Most were male (76.5%) and exposed to HIV via heterosexual contact (71.5%). Median age at second-line initiation was 39.2 years, median CD4 cell count was 146 cells per cubic millimeter, and median HIV viral load was 16,224 copies per milliliter. Patients started second-line ART before 2007 (n = 105), 2007-2010 (n = 147) and after 2010 (n = 50). Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and atazanavir accounted for the majority of protease inhibitor use after 2006. Median follow-up time on second-line therapy was 2.3 years. The rates of treatment failure and mortality per 100 patient/years were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 7.1 to 10.9) and 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.6 to 1.9), respectively. Older age, high baseline viral load, and use of a protease inhibitor other than lopinavir or atazanavir were associated with a significantly shorter time to second-line failure.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to viral load monitoring to facilitate early detection of first-line ART failure and subsequent treatment switch is important for maximizing the durability of second-line therapy in Asia. Although second-line ART is highly effective in the region, the reported rate of failure emphasizes the need for third-line ART in a small portion of patients.