Explore the vast range of titles available.

Millions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings. We analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787. Between April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification. Protease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings. European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO.

Severely immunocompromised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals have high mortality shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We investigated predictors of early mortality and \"late presenter\" phenotypes. The Reduction of EArly MortaLITY (REALITY) trial enrolled ART-naive adults and children ≥5 years of age with CD4 counts <100 cells/µL initiating ART in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Kenya. Baseline predictors of mortality through 48 weeks were identified using Cox regression with backwards elimination (exit P > .1). Among 1711 included participants, 203 (12%) died. Mortality was independently higher with older age; lower CD4 count, albumin, hemoglobin, and grip strength; presence of World Health Organization stage 3/4 weight loss, fever, or vomiting; and problems with mobility or self-care at baseline (all P < .04). Receiving enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis independently reduced mortality (P = .02). Of five late-presenter phenotypes, Group 1 (n = 355) had highest mortality (25%; median CD4 count, 28 cells/µL), with high symptom burden, weight loss, poor mobility, and low albumin and hemoglobin. Group 2 (n = 394; 11% mortality; 43 cells/µL) also had weight loss, with high white cell, platelet, and neutrophil counts suggesting underlying inflammation/infection. Group 3 (n = 218; 10% mortality) had low CD4 counts (27 cells/µL), but low symptom burden and maintained fat mass. The remaining groups had 4%-6% mortality. Clinical and laboratory features identified groups with highest mortality following ART initiation. A screening tool could identify patients with low CD4 counts for prioritizing same-day ART initiation, enhanced prophylaxis, and intensive follow-up. ISRCTN43622374.

Introduction Many HIV‐positive individuals in Africa have advanced disease when initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) so have high risks of opportunistic infections and death. The REALITY trial found that an enhanced‐prophylaxis package including fluconazole reduced mortality by 27% in individuals starting ART with CD4 <100 cells/mm3. We investigated the cost‐effectiveness of this enhanced‐prophylaxis package versus other strategies, including using cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing, in individuals with CD4 <200 cells/mm3 or <100 cells/mm3 at ART initiation and all individuals regardless of CD4 count. Methods The REALITY trial enrolled from June 2013 to April 2015. A decision‐analytic model was developed to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of six management strategies in individuals initiating ART in the REALITY trial countries. Strategies included standard‐prophylaxis, enhanced‐prophylaxis, standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole; and three CrAg testing strategies, the first stratifying individuals to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or standard‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐negative), the second to enhanced‐prophylaxis (CrAg‐positive) or enhanced‐prophylaxis without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative) and the third to standard‐prophylaxis with fluconazole (CrAg‐positive) or without fluconazole (CrAg‐negative). The model estimated costs, life‐years and quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALY) over 48 weeks using three competing mortality risks: cryptococcal meningitis; tuberculosis, serious bacterial infection or other known cause; and unknown cause. Results Enhanced‐prophylaxis was cost‐effective at cost‐effectiveness thresholds of US $300 and US$ 500 per QALY with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US $157 per QALY in the CD4 <200 cells/mm3 population providing enhanced‐prophylaxis components are sourced at lowest available prices. The ICER reduced in more severely immunosuppressed individuals (US$ 113 per QALY in the CD4 <100 cells/mm3 population) and increased in all individuals regardless of CD4 count (US $722 per QALY). Results were sensitive to prices of the enhanced‐prophylaxis components. Enhanced‐prophylaxis was more effective and less costly than all CrAg testing strategies as enhanced‐prophylaxis still conveyed health gains in CrAg‐negative patients and savings from targeting prophylaxis based on CrAg status did not compensate for costs of CrAg testing. CrAg testing strategies did not become cost‐effective unless the price of CrAg testing fell below US$ 2.30. Conclusions The REALITY enhanced‐prophylaxis package in individuals with advanced HIV starting ART reduces morbidity and mortality, is practical to administer and is cost‐effective. Efforts should continue to ensure that components are accessed at lowest available prices.

Many HIV?positive individuals in Africa have advanced disease when initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) so have high risks of opportunistic infections and death. The REALITY trial found that an enhanced?prophylaxis package including fluconazole reduced mortality by 27% in individuals starting ART with CD4 <100 cells/mm[sup.3] . We investigated the cost?effectiveness of this enhanced?prophylaxis package versus other strategies, including using cryptococcal antigen (CrAg) testing, in individuals with CD4 <200 cells/mm[sup.3] or <100 cells/mm[sup.3] at ART initiation and all individuals regardless of CD4 count. The REALITY trial enrolled from June 2013 to April 2015. A decision?analytic model was developed to estimate the cost?effectiveness of six management strategies in individuals initiating ART in the REALITY trial countries. Strategies included standard?prophylaxis, enhanced?prophylaxis, standard?prophylaxis with fluconazole; and three CrAg testing strategies, the first stratifying individuals to enhanced?prophylaxis (CrAg?positive) or standard?prophylaxis (CrAg?negative), the second to enhanced?prophylaxis (CrAg?positive) or enhanced?prophylaxis without fluconazole (CrAg?negative) and the third to standard?prophylaxis with fluconazole (CrAg?positive) or without fluconazole (CrAg?negative). The model estimated costs, life?years and quality?adjusted life?years (QALY) over 48 weeks using three competing mortality risks: cryptococcal meningitis; tuberculosis, serious bacterial infection or other known cause; and unknown cause. The REALITY enhanced?prophylaxis package in individuals with advanced HIV starting ART reduces morbidity and mortality, is practical to administer and is cost?effective. Efforts should continue to ensure that components are accessed at lowest available prices.