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.

Abstract Background Limited viral load (VL) testing in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment programs in low-income countries often delays detection of treatment failure. The impact of remaining on failing protease inhibitor (PI)–containing regimens is unclear. Methods We retrospectively tested VL in 2164 stored plasma samples from 386 patients randomized to receive lopinavir monotherapy (after initial raltegravir induction) in the Europe–Africa Research Network for Evaluation of Second-line Therapy (EARNEST) trial. Protease genotypic resistance testing was performed when VL >1000 copies/mL. We assessed evolution of PI resistance mutations from virological failure (confirmed VL >1000 copies/mL) until PI monotherapy discontinuation and examined associations using mixed-effects models. Results Median post-failure follow-up (in 118 patients) was 68 (interquartile range, 48–88) weeks. At failure, 20% had intermediate/high-level resistance to lopinavir. At 40–48 weeks post-failure, 68% and 51% had intermediate/high-level resistance to lopinavir and atazanavir; 17% had intermediate-level resistance (none high) to darunavir. Common PI mutations were M46I, I54V, and V82A. On average, 1.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5–2.0) PI mutations developed per year; increasing after the first mutation; decreasing with subsequent mutations (P < .0001). VL changes were modest, mainly driven by nonadherence (P = .006) and PI mutation development (P = .0002); I47A was associated with a larger increase in VL than other mutations (P = .05). Conclusions Most patients develop intermediate/high-level lopinavir resistance within 1 year of ongoing viral replication on monotherapy but retain susceptibility to darunavir. Viral load increased slowly after failure, driven by non-adherence and PI mutation development. Clinical Trials Registration NCT00988039. In patients failing protease inhibitor (lopinavir) monotherapy, intermediate/high level lopinavir resistance increased from 19% at failure to 68% 48 weeks later. Most retained darunavir susceptibility. Viral load increased slowly after failure, driven by nonadherence and protease inhibitor mutation development (particularly I47A).

Background. Identifying determinants of morbidity and mortality may help target future interventions for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children. Methods. CD4⁺ T-cell count, HIV viral load, and levels of biomarkers (C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor 6 [TNF-6], interleukin 6 [IL-6], and soluble CD14) and interleukin 7 were measured at antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation in the ARROW trial (case-cohort design). Cases were individuals who died, had new or recurrent World Health Organization clinical stage 4 events, or had poor immunological response to ART. Results. There were 115 cases (54 died, 45 had World Health Organization clinical stage 4 events, and 49 had poor immunological response) and 485 controls. Before ART initiation, the median ages of cases and controls were 8.2 years (interquartile range [IQR], 4.4-11.4 years) and 5.8 years (IQR, 2.3-9.3 years), respectively, and the median percentages of lymphocytes expressing CD4 were 4% (IQR, l%-9%) and 13% (IQR, 8%-18%), respectively. In multivariable logistic regression, cases had lower age-associated CD4⁺ T-cell count ratio (calculated as the ratio of the subject's CD4⁺ T-cell count to the count expected in healthy individuals of the same age; P < .0001) and higher IL-6 level (P = .002) than controls. Clustering biomarkers and age-associated CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell count ratios identified 4 groups of children. Group 1 had the highest frequency of cases (41% cases; 16% died) and profound immunosuppression; group 2 had similar mortality (23% cases; 15% died), but children were younger, with less profound immunosuppression and high levels of inflammatory biomarkers and malnutrition; group 3 comprised young children with moderate immunosuppression, high TNF-α levels, and high age-associated CD8⁺ T-cell count ratios but lower frequencies of events (12% cases; 7% died); and group 4 comprised older children with low inflammatory biomarker levels, lower HIV viral loads, and good clinical outcomes (11% cases; 5% died). Conclusions. While immunosuppression is the major determinant of poor outcomes during ART, baseline inflammation is an additional important factor, identifying a subgroup of young children with similar mortality. Antiinflammatory interventions may help improve outcomes.