Efficacy and safety of three second-line antiretroviral regimens in HIV-infected patients in Africa

Objective:WHO recommends ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in HIV-infected patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line treatment. Here, we aimed to provide more evidence for the choice of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and boosted protease inhibitor. Design:ANRS 12169 is a 48-week, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial in three African cities, comparing efficacy and safety of three second-line regimens. Methods:Patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy with confirmed plasma HIV-1 viral load above 1000 copies/ml were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (control group as per WHO recommendations), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (ABC/ddI group) or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (DRV group) regimens. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma vral load below 50 copies/ml at week 48 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority was pre-specified with a 15% margin. Results:Of the 454 randomized patients, 451 were included in the analysis. Globally, 294 (65.2%) and 375 (83.2%) patients had viral load below 50 and 200 copies/ml, respectively, at week 48. The primary endpoint was achieved in 105 (69.1%) control group patients versus 92 (63.4%) in the ABC/ddI (difference 5.6%, 95% confidence interval –5.1 to 16.4) and 97 (63.0%) in the DRV (difference 6.1%, 95% confidence interval –4.5 to 16.7) groups (non-inferiority not shown). Overall, less number of patients with baseline viral load at least 100 000 copies/ml (n = 122) had a viral load below 50 copies/ml at week 48 (37.7 versus 75.4%; P < 0.001). Conclusions:The three second-line regimens obtained similar and satisfactory virologic control and confirmed the WHO recommendation (TDF/FTC/LPVr) as a valid option. However, the suboptimal response for patients with high viral load warrants research for improved strategies.

[1]  Jatinder Singh.  International conference on harmonization of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use , 2015, Journal of pharmacology & pharmacotherapeutics.

[2]  P. Easterbrook,et al.  Assessment of second-line antiretroviral regimens for HIV therapy in Africa. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  A. Calmy,et al.  Persistent Difficulties in Switching to Second-Line ART in Sub-Saharan Africa — A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2013, PloS one.

[4]  A. Phillips,et al.  Viral Suppression Following Switch to Second-line Antiretroviral Therapy: Associations With Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Resistance and Subtherapeutic Drug Concentrations Prior to Switch , 2013, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[5]  P. Cahn,et al.  Subgroup analysis of virological response rates with once‐ and twice‐daily darunavir/ritonavir in treatment‐experienced patients without darunavir resistance‐associated mutations in the ODIN trial , 2013, HIV medicine.

[6]  D. Cooper,et al.  Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults with virological failure of a standard first-line ART regimen (SECOND-LINE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferio , 2013, The Lancet.

[7]  A. Wensing,et al.  Sustained Virological Response on Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy following Virological Failure in HIV-Infected Patients in Rural South Africa , 2013, PloS one.

[8]  A. Phillips,et al.  Second-Line Protease Inhibitor-Based Antiretroviral Therapy after Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Failure: The Effect of a Nucleoside Backbone , 2013, Antiviral therapy.

[9]  B. Hirschel,et al.  A Randomized Comparison of Second-Line Lopinavir/ Ritonavir Monotherapy versus Tenofovir/Lamivudine/ Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Patients Failing Nnrti Regimens: The HIV Star Study , 2012, Antiviral therapy.

[10]  N. Ford,et al.  Treatment outcomes of patients on second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2012, AIDS.

[11]  Beatriz Grinsztejn,et al.  Week 48 analysis of once-daily vs. twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients , 2011, AIDS.

[12]  L. Ferradini,et al.  High efficacy of lopinavir/r-based second-line antiretroviral treatment after 24 months of follow up at ESTHER/Calmette Hospital in Phnom Penh, Cambodia , 2011, Journal of the International AIDS Society.

[13]  A. Calmy,et al.  Treatment failure and mortality factors in patients receiving second-line HIV therapy in resource-limited countries. , 2010, JAMA.

[14]  D. Kuritzkes,et al.  Outcomes after virologic failure of first-line ART in South Africa , 2010, AIDS.

[15]  M. Fox,et al.  High Rates of Survival, Immune Reconstitution, and Virologic Suppression on Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in South Africa , 2010, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[16]  C. Orkin,et al.  Prospective epidemiological study of the prevalence of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)‐B*5701 in HIV‐1‐infected UK subjects , 2010, HIV medicine.

[17]  World Medical Association (WMA),et al.  Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects , 2009, Journal of the Indian Medical Association.

[18]  K. Ruxrungtham,et al.  Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week analysis , 2009, AIDS.

[19]  K. Ruxrungtham,et al.  Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir compared with that of lopinavir-ritonavir at 48 weeks in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients in TITAN: a randomised controlled phase III trial , 2007, The Lancet.

[20]  J. Moatti,et al.  The Dynamic of Adherence to Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: Results From the French National APROCO Cohort , 2001, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[21]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.