METHODS: In a regional HIV observational cohort in the Asia-Pacific region, patients with viral suppression (2 consecutive viral loads <400 copies/mL) and a CD4 count ≥200 cells per microliter who had CD4 testing 6 monthly were analyzed. Main study end points were occurrence of 1 CD4 count <200 cells per microliter (single CD4 <200) and 2 CD4 counts <200 cells per microliter within a 6-month period (confirmed CD4 <200). A comparison of time with single and confirmed CD4 <200 with biannual or annual CD4 assessment was performed by generating a hypothetical group comprising the same patients with annual CD4 testing by removing every second CD4 count.
RESULTS: Among 1538 patients, the rate of single CD4 <200 was 3.45/100 patient-years and of confirmed CD4 <200 was 0.77/100 patient-years. During 5 years of viral suppression, patients with baseline CD4 200-249 cells per microliter were significantly more likely to experience confirmed CD4 <200 compared with patients with higher baseline CD4 [hazard ratio, 55.47 (95% confidence interval: 7.36 to 418.20), P < 0.001 versus baseline CD4 ≥500 cells/μL]. Cumulative probabilities of confirmed CD4 <200 was also higher in patients with baseline CD4 200-249 cells per microliter compared with patients with higher baseline CD4. There was no significant difference in time to confirmed CD4 <200 between biannual and annual CD4 measurement (P = 0.336).
CONCLUSIONS: Annual CD4 monitoring in virally suppressed HIV patients with a baseline CD4 ≥250 cells per microliter may be sufficient for clinical management.
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.
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: Adults with HIV, who have been taking ART for more than 3 months were randomly assigned to receive either a pharmacist-led intervention or their usual care. Measures of adherence were collected at 1) baseline 2) just prior to delivery of intervention and 3) 8 weeks later. The primary outcomes were CD4 cell count and self-reported adherence measured with the AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG) questionnaire.
RESULTS: Post-intervention, the intervention group showed a statistically significant increase in CD4 cell counts as compared to the usual care group (p = 0.0054). In addition, adherence improved in the intervention group, with participants being 5.96 times more likely to report having not missed their medication for longer periods of time (p = 0.0086) while participants in the intervention group were 7.74 times more likely to report missing their ART less frequently (p HIV management.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12618001882213 ). Registered 20 November 2018.
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.