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).