Impact of lopinavir-ritonavir exposure in HIV-1 infected children and adolescents in Madrid, Spain during 2000-2014.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The most-used protease-inhibitor in children is Lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), which provides durable suppression of viral load and increases CD4+T-counts. This study describes the virological outcome of the HIV-1-infected paediatric population exposed to LPV/r during 15 years in Spain. METHODOLOGY:Patients from the Madrid Cohort of HIV-1-infected-children and adolescents exposed to LPV/r as different line therapy during 2000-2014 were selected. The baseline epidemiological-clinical features, viral suppression, changes in CD4+T-CD8+T cell counts and drug susceptibility were recorded before and during LPV/r exposure. Drug resistance mutations (DRM) were identified in viruses from samples collected until 2011. We predicted drug susceptibility to 19 antiretrovirals among those carrying DRM using the Stanford's HIVdb Algorithm. RESULTS:A total of 199 (37.3%) of the 534 patients from the cohort were exposed to LPV/r during 2000-2014 in first (group 1), second (group 2) or more line-therapies (group 3). Patients were mainly Spaniards (81.9%), perinatally infected (96.5%) with subtype-B (65.3%) and HIV-diagnosed before year 2000 (67.8%). The mean age at first LPV/r exposure was 9.7 years. After protease-inhibitor exposure, viral suppression was higher in groups 1 and 2 than in group 3. Viral suppression occurred in 87.5%, 68.6% and 64.8% patients from groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Among the 64 patients with available resistance data during LPV/r treatment, 27(42.3%) carried DRM to protease-inhibitor, 28 (58.3%) to reverse-transcriptase-inhibitors and 21 (43.7%) to non-reverse-transcriptase-inhibitors. Darunavir/ritonavir, atazanavir-ritonavir and tipranavir/ritonavir presented the highest susceptibility and nelfinavir the lowest. CONCLUSIONS:A better lymphocyte recovering occurred when protease-inhibitor was taken as part of a first-line regimen and a higher number of patients reached viral suppression. The least compromised antiretrovirals for rescue antiretroviral regimens, according to DRM in the LPV/r-exposed-paediatric cohort, were mainly the new protease inhibitors.
Project description:High levels of adherence to antiretroviral therapy are considered necessary to achieve viral suppression. We analyzed data from a cohort of HIV-infected children who were <2 years of age receiving protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy to investigate associations between viral suppression and adherence ascertained using different methods.Data were from the prerandomization phase of a clinical trial in South Africa of HIV-infected children initiating either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) or ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy. At scheduled visits during the first 24 weeks of enrollment, study pharmacists measured quantities of medications returned to the clinic. Caregivers answered questionnaires on missed doses and adherence barriers. Associations between adherence and viral suppression (HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL) were investigated by regimen.By 24 weeks, 197 of the 269 (73%) children achieved viral suppression. There was no association between viral suppression and caregiver reported missed doses or adherence barriers. For children receiving the LPV/r-based regimen, medication return adherence to each of the 3 drugs in the regimen (LPV/r, lamivudine or stavudine) individually or together was associated with viral suppression at different adherence thresholds. For example, <85% adherence to any of the 3 medications significantly increased odds of lack of viral suppression (odds ratio: 2.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.30-4.07, P = 0.004). In contrast, for children receiving the ritonavir-based regimen, there was no consistent pattern of association between medication return and viral suppression.Caregiver reports of missed doses did not predict virologic response to treatment. Pharmacist medication reconciliation correlated strongly with virologic response for children taking a LPV/r-based regimen and appears to be a valid method for measuring pediatric adherence.
Project description:There is scant data on young children receiving protease inhibitor-based therapy in real-life resource-limited settings and on the optimal timing of therapy among children who survive infancy. Our aim was to evaluate outcomes at the Hospital del Niño, Panama, where children have been routinely treated with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based therapy since 2002.Retrospective cohort analysis of all HIV-infected children enrolled in care between January 1, 1991, and June 1, 2011. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate death, virologic suppression and virologic rebound.Of 399 children contributing 1944 person-years of follow-up, 254 (63.7%) were treated with LPV/r and 94 (23.6%) were never treated with antiretrovirals (ARVs). Among infants, improved survival was associated with male gender (hazard rate of death[HRdeath] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-0.92) and treatment with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HRdeath 0.32, 95% CI: 0.12-0.83), whereas residence outside of Panama City was associated with poorer survival (HRdeath 1.72, 95% CI: 1.01-2.94). Among children who survived to 1 year of age without exposure to ARVs, LPV/r-based therapy improved survival (HRdeath 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.33). Virologic suppression was achieved in 42.1%, 70.5% and 85.1% by 12, 24 and 60 months of follow-up among children treated with LPV/r. Virologic suppression was not associated with prior ARV exposure or age at initiation of therapy but was associated with residence outside of Panama City (HR suppression 1.93, 95% CI: 1.19-3.14). Patients with a baseline viral load >100,000 copies/mL were less likely to achieve suppression (HR suppression 0.37, 95% CI: 0.21-0.66). No children who achieved virologic suppression after initiating LPV/r died.LPV/r-based therapy improved survival not only in infants but also in children over 1 year of age. Age at initiation of LPV/r-based therapy or prior ARVs did not impact virologic outcomes.
Project description:Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children and adolescents who are failing antiretrovirals may have a better virologic response when drug exposures are increased, using higher protease inhibitor doses or ritonavir boosting. We studied the pharmacokinetics and safety of high-dose lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-experienced patients, using an LPV/r dose of 400/100 mg/m(2) orally every 12 h (p.o. q12h) (without nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NNRTI]), or 480/120 mg/m(2) p.o. q12h (with NNRTI). We calculated the LPV inhibitory quotient (IQ), and when the IQ was <15, saquinavir (SQV) 750 mg/m(2) p.o. q12h was added to the regimen. We studied 26 HIV-infected patients. The median age was 15 years (range, 7 to 17), with 11.5 prior antiretroviral medications, 197 CD4 cells/ml, viral load of 75,577 copies/ml, and a 133-fold change in LPV resistance. By treatment week 2, 14 patients had a viral-load decrease of >0.75 log(10), with a median maximal decrease in viral load of -1.57 log(10) copies/ml at week 8. At week 2, 19 subjects showed a median LPV area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 157.2 (range, 62.8 to 305.5) microg x h/ml and median LPV trough concentration (C(trough)) of 10.8 (range, 4.1 to 25.3) microg/ml. In 16 subjects with SQV added, the SQV median AUC was 33.7 (range, 4.4 to 76.5) microg x h/ml and the median SQV C(trough) was 2.1 (range, 0.2 to 4.1) microg/ml. At week 24, 18 of 26 (69%) subjects remained in the study. Between weeks 24 and 48, one subject withdrew for nonadherence and nine withdrew for persistently high virus load. In antiretroviral-experienced children and adolescents with HIV, high doses of LPV/r with or without SQV offer safe options for salvage therapy, but the modest virologic response and the challenge of adherence to a regimen with a high pill burden may limit the usefulness of this approach.
Project description:Nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing regimens may potentially minimize antiretroviral (ART) toxicities, but demonstrate mixed efficacy and toxicity results. The impact of an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) and protease inhibitor (PI) regimen on HIV viral dynamics and T cell kinetics remains underdescribed.To compare the effect of raltegravir + ritonavir boosted lopinavir (RAL + LPV/r) to efavirenz/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EFV/TDF/FTC) on HIV kinetics and T cell dynamics.Fifty participants naïve to ART underwent HIV viral kinetic sampling evaluated using biexponential mixed effects modeling. A subset of 28 subjects (with complete viral suppression) underwent flow cytometry and evaluation of soluble markers of inflammation at weeks 0, 4, and 48 of ART.RAL + LPV/r compared to EFV/TDF/FTC resulted in a prolonged first phase viral decay rate (18 vs. 13 days p < 0.01). From weeks 0 to 4, RAL + LPV/r was associated with a trend toward greater decreases in activated CD4+ T cells (-3.81 vs. -1.18 p = 0.09) and less decreases in activated effector memory CD4+ T cells (-0.63 vs. -2.69 p-0.07). These trends did not persist to week 48. No differences were noted at any time point for soluble markers of immune activation.The prolonged first phase viral decay observed with RAL + LPV/r in persons starting ART did not result in differences in viral suppression at week 48. We also observed trends in declines in certain cellular markers of immune activation but it remains unclear if this could translate to long-term immunologic benefits in persons on an INSTI + PI.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antiretroviral therapy (ART) management is challenging for individuals in resource-limited settings presenting for third-line treatment because of complex resistance patterns, partly due to reduced access to viral load monitoring. We aimed to evaluate use of newer antiretroviral drugs and contemporary management approaches, including population-based sequencing, to select appropriate antiretrovirals, plasma viral load monitoring, and interventions to improve adherence in individuals presenting with second-line viral failure. METHODS:A5288 was a phase 4, third-line ART strategy study done at 19 urban sites in ten countries that enrolled adult participants with confirmed plasma HIV-1 RNA (viral load) of 1000 copies per mL or more after more than 24 weeks of protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. The primary objective was to use antiretrovirals (raltegravir, etravirine, and ritonavir-boosted darunavir) and diagnostic monitoring technologies, including viral load, genotyping, and adherence support to achieve viral load suppression (defined as ?200 copies per mL) in 65% or more of participants. ART history and real-time drug resistance genotypes were used to assign participants to one of four cohorts: cohort A (no lopinavir resistance) stayed on second-line ART and cohorts B (B1, best available nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs] plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir; B2, ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir plus etravirine; B3, ritonavir-boosted darunavir, raltegravir, and either tenofovir plus emtricitabine or tenofovir plus lamivudine), C (ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir plus tenofovir-emtricitabine or tenofovir plus lamivudine), and D (best available NRTIs plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir) were defined by increasing levels of resistance and received appropriate regimens, including new antiretrovirals. Participants in Cohort B without detectable hepatitis B surface antigen were assigned by blocked randomisation to cohorts B1 and B2, and those with detectable hepatitis B surface antigen were assigned to cohort B3. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01641367. FINDINGS:From Jan 10, 2013, to Sept 10, 2015, 545 participants were enrolled. 287 (53%) were assigned to cohort A, 74 (14%) to B1, 72 (13%) to B2, eight (1%) to B3, 70 (13%) to C, and 34 (6%) to D. Overall, 349 (64%, 95% CI 60-68) participants achieved viral suppression at week 48, with proportions varying from 125 (44%) of 287 in cohort A to 65 (88%) of 74 in cohort B1, 63 (88%) of 72 in B2, eight (100%) of eight in B3, 63 (90%) of 70 in C, and 25 (74%) of 34 in D. Participants in cohort A remained on their second-line protease inhibitor, and had the most participants with grade 3 or higher adverse events (147 [51%]). INTERPRETATION:Targeted real-time genotyping to select third-line ART can appropriately allocate more costly antiretrovirals to those with greater levels of HIV drug resistance. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.
Project description:There are contradictory reports regarding the effects of protease inhibitors on the ECG measures of QT and PR interval durations. The effect of interrupting use of protease inhibitors on QT and PR progression is also unknown.This analysis included 3719 participants from the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (SMART) study, of whom 1879 were randomized to receive intermittent antiretroviral therapy (ART) (drug conservation group), whereas the rest received these drugs continuously (viral suppression group). Linear regression analysis was used to compare four ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (protease inhibitor/r) regimens [saquinavir (SQV/r), lopinavir (LPV/r), atazanavir (ATV/r), and other protease inhibitor/r], and nonboosted protease inhibitor regimens with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) regimens for Bazett's (QTcB) and Fredericia's (QTcF) heart rate corrected QT and PR. Changes in QTcB, QTcF, and PR after 12 and 24 months of randomization were compared in the drug conservation group and viral suppression group.Average levels of QTcB, QTcF, and PR duration at entry were 415, 406, and 158 ms. At study entry, 49% of participants were taking an NNRTI (no protease inhibitor)-based regimen and 31% were prescribed a boosted protease inhibitor, the most common being LPV/r. After adjustment for baseline factors, QTcB and QTcF levels did not vary by boosted protease inhibitor group (P = 0.26 and P = 0.34, respectively). For those given any of the boosted protease inhibitors, QTcB was 1.5 ms lower than the NNRTI group (P = 0.04). Both boosted and nonboosted protease inhibitor-containing regimens were significantly associated (P < 0.01 for each) with longer PR intervals compared to the NNRTI group. After adjustment, the difference between boosted protease inhibitors and the NNRTI group was 5.11 ms (P < 0.01); for nonboosted protease inhibitors, this difference was 3.00 ms (P < 0.01). Following ART interruption, PR duration declined for both the boosted and nonboosted protease inhibitor groups and compared to the viral suppression group, significant changes in PR interval were observed 24 months after ART interruption of boosted protease inhibitors (P < 0.01).Different protease inhibitor-based regimens have a similar, minimal effect on QT compared to NNRTI-based regimens. All protease inhibitor-based regimens (boosted and nonboosted) were associated with prolongation of PR, and interruption of protease inhibitor regimens reduced the prolonged PR duration. Further research is needed to confirm the findings of this study and assess the clinical relevance of the differences.
Project description:<b><i>Background.</i></b> ?The mechanism of virologic failure (VF) of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy is not well understood. We assessed sequence changes in human immunodeficiency virus-1 reverse-transcriptase (RT) and protease (PR) regions. <b><i>Methods.</i></b> ?Human immunodeficiency virus-1 <i>pol</i> sequences from 34 participants who failed second-line LPV/r monotherapy were obtained at study entry (SE) and VF. Sequence changes were evaluated using phylogenetic analysis and hamming distance. <b><i>Results.</i></b> ?Human immunodeficiency virus-1 sequence change was higher over drug resistance mutation (DRM) sites (median genetic distance, 2.2%; Q1 to Q3, 2.1%-2.5%) from SE to VF compared with non-DRM sites (median genetic distance, 1.3%; Q1 to Q3, 1.0%-1.4%; <i>P</i> < .0001). Evolution over DRM sites was mainly driven by changes in the RT (median genetic distance, 2.7%; Q1 to Q3, 2.2%-3.2%) compared with PR (median genetic distance, 1.1%; Q1 to Q3, 0.0%-1.1%; <i>P</i> < .0001). Most RT DRMs present at SE were lost at VF. At VF, 19 (56%) and 26 (76%) were susceptible to efavirenz/nevirapine and etravirine (ETV)/rilpivirine (RPV), respectively, compared with 1 (3%) and 12 (35%) at SE. Participants who retained nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) DRMs and those without evolution of LPV/r DRMs had significantly shorter time to VF. <b><i>Conclusions.</i></b> ?The selection of LPV/r DRMs in participants with longer time to VF suggests better adherence and more selective pressure. Fading NNRTI mutations and an increase in genotypic susceptibility to ETV and RPV could allow for the reuse of NNRTI. Further studies are warranted to understand mechanisms of PR failure.
Project description:To compare WHO first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI)-based regimen with a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) regimen in a resource-limited setting regarding treatment outcome and emergence of drug resistance mutations (DRMs).Treatment-naive adults were randomized to nevirapine (NVP) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimens each in combination with tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) or zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC). Primary endpoint was the incidence of therapeutical (clinical and/or virologic) failure at week 48 with follow-up till week 96.Four hundred and twenty-five patients (120 men; 305 women) received at least one dose of the study drug. mITT analysis showed no difference in proportion of therapeutical failure between treatment arms [67/209 (32%) in NVP vs. 63/216 (29%) LPV/r at week 48 (P?=?0.53); 88/209 (42%) in NVP vs. 83/216 (38%) in LPV/r at week 96 (P?=?0.49)]. Per-protocol analysis demonstrated significantly more virologic failure with NVP than with LPV/r regimens [at week 48: 19/167 (11%) vs. 7/166 (4%), P?=?0.014; at week 96: 27/158 (17%) vs. 13/159 (8%), P?=? 0.019)]. Drug resistance mutations to NNRTI were detected in 19 out of 22 (86.3%) and dual-class resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and NNRTI in 15 out of 27 (68.2%) of NVP failing patients. K65R mutation was present in seven out of 14 patients failing NVP-TDF/FTC regimen. No major protease inhibitor-DRM was detected among LPV/r failing patients. Discontinuation for adverse events was similar between treatment groups.In resource-limited settings, first-line NNRTI-NRTI regimen as compared with bPI-based regimen provides similar outcome but is associated with a significantly higher number of virologic failure and resistance mutations in both classes that jeopardize future options for second-line therapy.
Project description:Data on suppression of HIV replication in the CNS and on the subsequent risk of neurocognitive impairment using monotherapy with boosted protease inhibitors are limited.Ours was an exploratory cross-sectional study in patients on lopinavir/ritonavir-based monotherapy (LPV/r-MT) or standard triple therapy (LPV/r-ART) for at least 96 weeks who maintained a plasma viral load <50 copies/mL. HIV-1 RNA in CSF was determined by HIV-1 SuperLow assay (lower limit of detection, 1 copy/mL). Neurocognitive functioning was assessed using a recommended battery of neuropsychological tests covering 7 areas. Neurocognitive impairment (NCI) was determined and also a global deficit score (GDS) for study comparisons.Seventeen patients on LPV/r-MT and 17 on LPV/r-ART were included. Fourteen (82.4%) patients on LPV/r-MT and 16 (94.1%) on LPV/r-ART had HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL in CSF (p?=?0.601). NCI was observed in 7 patients on LPV/r-MT and in 10 on LPV/r-ART (41% vs 59%; p?=?0.494). Mean (SD) GDS was 0.22 (0.20) in patients on LPV/r-MT and 0.47 (0.34) in those on LPV/r-ART (p?=?0.012).Suppression of HIV in CSF is similar in individuals with durable plasma HIV-1 RNA suppression who are receiving LPV/r-MT or LPV/r-ART for at least 96 weeks. Findings for HIV-1 replication in CSF and neurocognitive status indicate that this strategy seems to be safe for CNS functioning.
Project description:It is unknown whether HIV-positive patients experiencing virologic failure (VF) on boosted-PI (PI/r) regimens without drug resistant mutations (DRM) by standard genotyping harbor low-level PI resistant variants. CASTLE compared the efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), each in combination with TVD in ARV-naïve subjects.To determine if VF on an initial PI/r-based regimen possess low-level resistant variants that may affect a subsequent PI-containing regimen.Patients experiencing VF on a Tenofovir/Emtricitabine+PI/r regimen were evaluated by ultra deep sequencing (UDS) for mutations classified/weighted by Stanford HIVdb. Samples were evaluated for variants to 0.4% levels. 36 VF subjects were evaluated by UDS; 24 had UDS for PI and RT DRMs. Of these 24, 19 (79.2%) had any DRM by UDS. The most common UDS-detected DRM were NRTI in 18 subjects: M184V/I (11), TAMs(7) & K65R(4); PI DRMs were detected in 9 subjects: M46I/V(5), F53L(2), I50V(1), D30N(1), and N88S(1). The remaining 12 subjects, all with VLs<10,000, had protease gene UDS, and 4 had low-level PI DRMs: F53L(2), L76V(1), I54S(1), G73S(1). Overall, 3/36(8.3%) subjects had DRMs identified with Stanford-HIVdb weights >12 for ATV or LPV: N88S (at 0.43% level-mutational load 1,828) in 1 subject on ATV; I50V (0.44%-mutational load 110) and L76V (0.52%-mutational load 20) in 1 subject each, both on LPV. All VF samples remained phenotypically susceptible to the treatment PI/r.Among persons experiencing VF without PI DRMs with standard genotyping on an initial PI/r regimen, low-level variants possessing major PI DRMs were present in a minority of cases, occurred in isolation, and did not result in phenotypic resistance. NRTI DRMs were detected in a high proportion of subjects. These data suggest that PIs may remain effective in subjects experiencing VF on a PI/r-based regimen when PI DRMs are not detected by standard or UDS genotyping.