METHODS: We used data from the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration of cohort studies in Europe and the USA. We included 55,826 individuals aged 18 years or older who were diagnosed with HIV-1 infection between January, 2000, and September, 2013, had not started ART, did not have AIDS, and had CD4 count and HIV-RNA viral load measurements within 6 months of HIV diagnosis. We estimated relative risks of death and of death or AIDS-defining illness, mean survival time, the proportion of individuals in need of ART, and the proportion of individuals with HIV-RNA viral load less than 50 copies per mL, as would have been recorded under each ART initiation strategy after 7 years of HIV diagnosis. We used the parametric g-formula to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounders.
FINDINGS: Median CD4 count at diagnosis of HIV infection was 376 cells per μL (IQR 222-551). Compared with immediate initiation, the estimated relative risk of death was 1·02 (95% CI 1·01-1·02) when ART was started at a CD4 count less than 500 cells per μL, and 1·06 (1·04-1·08) with initiation at a CD4 count less than 350 cells per μL. Corresponding estimates for death or AIDS-defining illness were 1·06 (1·06-1·07) and 1·20 (1·17-1·23), respectively. Compared with immediate initiation, the mean survival time at 7 years with a strategy of initiation at a CD4 count less than 500 cells per μL was 2 days shorter (95% CI 1-2) and at a CD4 count less than 350 cells per μL was 5 days shorter (4-6). 7 years after diagnosis of HIV, 100%, 98·7% (95% CI 98·6-98·7), and 92·6% (92·2-92·9) of individuals would have been in need of ART with immediate initiation, initiation at a CD4 count less than 500 cells per μL, and initiation at a CD4 count less than 350 cells per μL, respectively. Corresponding proportions of individuals with HIV-RNA viral load less than 50 copies per mL at 7 years were 87·3% (87·3-88·6), 87·4% (87·4-88·6), and 83·8% (83·6-84·9).
INTERPRETATION: The benefits of immediate initiation of ART, such as prolonged survival and AIDS-free survival and increased virological suppression, were small in this high-income setting with relatively low CD4 count at HIV diagnosis. The estimated beneficial effect on AIDS is less than in recently reported randomised trials. Increasing rates of HIV testing might be as important as a policy of early initiation of ART.
FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.
METHODS: Prospectively collected longitudinal data from patients in Thailand, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea were provided for analysis. Covariates included demographics, hepatitis B and C coinfections, baseline CD4 T lymphocyte count, and plasma HIV-1 RNA levels. Clinical deterioration (a new diagnosis of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention category B/AIDS-defining illness or death) was assessed by proportional hazards models. Surrogate endpoints were 12-month change in CD4 cell count and virologic suppression post therapy, evaluated by linear and logistic regression, respectively.
RESULTS: Of 1105 patients, 1036 (93.8%) infected with CRF01_AE or subtype B were eligible for inclusion in clinical deterioration analyses and contributed 1546.7 person-years of follow-up (median: 413 days, interquartile range: 169-672 days). Patients >40 years demonstrated smaller immunological increases (P = 0.002) and higher risk of clinical deterioration (hazard ratio = 2.17; P = 0.008). Patients with baseline CD4 cell counts >200 cells per microliter had lower risk of clinical deterioration (hazard ratio = 0.373; P = 0.003). A total of 532 patients (48.1% of eligible) had CD4 counts available at baseline and 12 months post therapy for inclusion in immunolgic analyses. Patients infected with subtype B had larger increases in CD4 counts at 12 months (P = 0.024). A total of 530 patients (48.0% of eligible) were included in virological analyses with no differences in response found between genotypes.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients infected with CRF01_AE have reduced immunologic response to therapy at 12 months, compared with subtype B-infected counterparts. Clinical deterioration was associated with low baseline CD4 counts and older age. The lack of differences in virologic outcomes suggests that all patients have opportunities for virological suppression.
METHODS: Factors associated with survival and failure were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards and discrete time conditional logistic models.
RESULTS: TDR, found in 60 (4.1%) of 1471 Asian treatment-naive patients, was one of the significant predictors of failure. Patients with TDR to >1 drug in their regimen were >3 times as likely to fail compared to no TDR.
CONCLUSIONS: TDR was associated with failure in the context of non-fully sensitive regimens. Efforts are needed to incorporate resistance testing into national treatment programs.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed all GenBank submissions of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase sequences with or without protease and identified 287 studies published between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, with more than 25 recently or chronically infected ARV-naïve individuals. These studies comprised 50,870 individuals from 111 countries. Each set of study sequences was analyzed for phylogenetic clustering and the presence of 93 surveillance drug-resistance mutations (SDRMs). The median overall TDR prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), south/southeast Asia (SSEA), upper-income Asian countries, Latin America/Caribbean, Europe, and North America was 2.8%, 2.9%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 9.4%, and 11.5%, respectively. In SSA, there was a yearly 1.09-fold (95% CI: 1.05-1.14) increase in odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up attributable to an increase in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance. The odds of NNRTI-associated TDR also increased in Latin America/Caribbean (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.25), North America (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12-1.26), Europe (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), and upper-income Asian countries (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55). In SSEA, there was no significant change in the odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92-1.02). An analysis limited to sequences with mixtures at less than 0.5% of their nucleotide positions—a proxy for recent infection—yielded trends comparable to those obtained using the complete dataset. Four NNRTI SDRMs—K101E, K103N, Y181C, and G190A—accounted for >80% of NNRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. Sixteen nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) SDRMs accounted for >69% of NRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. In SSA and SSEA, 89% of NNRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to nevirapine or efavirenz, whereas only 27% of NRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, tenofovir, or abacavir. Of 763 viruses with TDR in SSA and SSEA, 725 (95%) were genetically dissimilar; 38 (5%) formed 19 sequence pairs. Inherent limitations of this study are that some cohorts may not represent the broader regional population and that studies were heterogeneous with respect to duration of infection prior to sampling.
CONCLUSIONS: Most TDR strains in SSA and SSEA arose independently, suggesting that ARV regimens with a high genetic barrier to resistance combined with improved patient adherence may mitigate TDR increases by reducing the generation of new ARV-resistant strains. A small number of NNRTI-resistance mutations were responsible for most cases of high-level resistance, suggesting that inexpensive point-mutation assays to detect these mutations may be useful for pre-therapy screening in regions with high levels of TDR. In the context of a public health approach to ARV therapy, a reliable point-of-care genotypic resistance test could identify which patients should receive standard first-line therapy and which should receive a protease-inhibitor-containing regimen.