Search

Background: According to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines, which have also been adopted by the National AIDS Control Organization (NACO), India, Efavirenz-based Anti-Retroviral Therapy (ART) is better in Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus (HIV)-infected patients who are also being treated with Rifampicin-based Anti-Tuberculous Therapy (ATT). However, Efavirenz is much more expensive. We hypothesize that Nevirapine is a cheaper alternative that possesses equal efficacy as Efavirenz in HIV-Tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients.Methods: A parallel open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi and National AIDS Research Institute (NARI), Pune. Those who were ART-naïve and co-infected with TB were randomized to receive either Nevirapine (Group 1)- or Efavirenz (Group 2)-based ART along with Rifampicin-based ATT. ATT was begun first in ART-naïve patients according to the NACO guidelines, with a median of 27 days between ATT and ART in both groups. The primary endpoint was a composite unfavourable outcome (death and/or ART failure) at 96 weeks, and the secondary outcome was successful TB treatment at 48 weeks.Results: A total of 284 patients (mean age 36.7 ± 8.1 years) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either Nevirapine (n = 144)- or Efavirenz (n = 140)-based ART after a median ATT-ART gap of 27 days. The median CD4 count was 105 cells/μl, with a median viral load of 820,200 copies/μl and no significant difference between the groups. Composite unfavourable outcomes were reported in 49 patients in the Nevirapine group and 51 patients in the Efavirenz group (35.3% vs. 36.9%; hazard ratio, 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.63,1.43, adjusted). There was no difference in successful TB treatment outcome between the groups (71.5% vs. 65.6%, 95% CI -3.8,17.9, adjusted). The results were similar, showing no difference between the groups in the two centres of the study after adjusting for disease stage.Conclusions: Composite unfavourable outcome in HIV-TB co-infected patients who were ART-naïve showed no statistically significant difference in the Nevirapine or Efavirenz groups.. Therefore, Nevirapine-based ART is a reasonable alternative to Efavirenz in resource-limited settings. However, multi-centric studies with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these findings.Trial Registration: NCT01805258 (Retrospectively registered on March 6, 2013) Date of registration: March 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Administration of rifampicin along with nevirapine reduces the plasma concentration of nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus positive individuals with concomitant tuberculosis (HIV-TB patients). Nevirapine is a much cheaper drug than its alternative efavirenz, and might be beneficial in resource constrained settings. Methods A randomised open label trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. During the regimen of an antiretroviral therapy (ART), naive HIV-TB patients were randomly assigned to receive either nevirapine or efavirenz based ART with concomitant rifampicin based anti-tubercular therapy (ATT). Participants were followed for 24 months after starting ART. The end points were virological, immunological and clinical responses, and progression of HIV disease marked by failure of ART. Results Of the 135 HIV-TB patients, who were receiving rifampicin based ATT, 68 were selected randomly to receive efavirenz based ART and 67 to receive nevirapine based ART. The virological failure rates in the overall population, and the nevirapine and efavirenz groups were 14 ∙ 1% (19/135); 14.9% (10/67) and 13.2% (9/68), respectively (p = 0.94). No significant difference was found between the groups in the rate of clinical, immunological or virological failures. The overall mortality was 17% with no significant difference between the two groups. Except for the lead in period on day 14, the mean nevirapine concentration remained above 3 mg/L. No association was found between plasma levels of nevirapine and incidence of unfavourable outcomes in this group. Conclusions Outcome of ART in HIV-TB patients on rifampicin based ATT showed no significant difference, irrespective of whether efavirenz or nevirapine was used. Therefore, nevirapine based ART could be an alternative in the resource limited settings in patients with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection. Trial Registration Trial Registration: Clinical Trials NCT01805258. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For antiretroviral therapy (ART) naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected adults suffering from tuberculosis (TB), there is uncertainty about the optimal time to initiate highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) after starting antituberculosis treatment (ATT), in order to minimize mortality, HIV disease progression, and adverse events. Methods: In a randomized, open label trial at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India, eligible HIV positive individuals with a diagnosis of TB were randomly assigned to receive HAART after 2-4 or 8-12 weeks of starting ATT, and were followed for 12 months after HAART initiation. Participants received directly observed therapy short course (DOTS) for TB, and an antiretroviral regimen comprising stavudine or zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz. Primary end points were death from any cause, and progression of HIV disease marked by failure of ART. Findings: A total of 150 patients with HIV and TB were initiated on HAART: 88 received it after 2-4 weeks (early ART) and 62 after 8-12 weeks (delayed ART) of starting ATT. There was no significant difference in mortality between the groups after the introduction of HAART. However, incidence of ART failure was 31% in delayed versus 16% in early ART arm (p = 0.045). Kaplan Meier disease progression free survival at 12 months was 79% for early versus 64% for the delayed ART arm (p = 0.05). Rates of adverse events were similar. Interpretation: Early initiation of HAART for patients with HIV and TB significantly decreases incidence of HIV disease progression and has good tolerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Administration of rifampicin along with nevirapine reduces the plasma concentration of nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus positive individuals with concomitant tuberculosis (HIV-TB patients). Nevirapine is a much cheaper drug than its alternative efavirenz, and might be beneficial in resource constrained settings.Methods: A randomised open label trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. During the regimen of an antiretroviral therapy (ART), naive HIV-TB patients were randomly assigned to receive either nevirapine or efavirenz based ART with concomitant rifampicin based anti-tubercular therapy (ATT). Participants were followed for 24 months after starting ART. The end points were virological, immunological and clinical responses, and progression of HIV disease marked by failure of ART.Results: Of the 135 HIV-TB patients, who were receiving rifampicin based ATT, 68 were selected randomly to receive efavirenz based ART and 67 to receive nevirapine based ART. The virological failure rates in the overall population, and the nevirapine and efavirenz groups were 14.1% (19/135); 14.9% (10/67) and 13.2% (9/68), respectively (p =0.94). No significant difference was found between the groups in the rate of clinical, immunological or virological failures. The overall mortality was 17% with no significant difference between the two groups. Except for the lead in period on day 14, the mean nevirapine concentration remained above 3 mg/L. No association was found between plasma levels of nevirapine and incidence of unfavourable outcomes in this group.Conclusions: Outcome of ART in HIV-TB patients on rifampicin based ATT showed no significant difference, irrespective of whether efavirenz or nevirapine was used. Therefore, nevirapine based ART could be an alternative in the resource limited settings in patients with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection.Trial Registration: NCT No. 01805258. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ever since Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever [CCHF] discovered in India, several outbreaks of this disease have been recorded in Gujarat State, India. During the year 2011 to 2015 several districts of Gujarat and Rajasthan state (Sirohi) found to be affected with CCHF including the positivity among ticks and livestock. During these years many infected individuals succumbed to this disease; which subsequently led to nosocomial infections. Herein, we report CCHF cases recorded from Rajasthan state during January 2015. This has affected four individuals apparently associated with one suspected CCHF case admitted in a private hospital in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Case presentation: A 30-year-old male was hospitalized in a private hospital in Jodhpur, Rajasthan State, who subsequently had developed thrombocytopenia and showed hemorrhagic manifestations and died in the hospital. Later on, four nursing staff from the same hospital also developed the similar symptoms (Index case and Case A, B, C). Index case succumbed to the disease in the hospital at Jodhpur followed by the death of the case A that was shifted to AIIMS hospital, Delhi due to clinical deterioration. Blood samples of the index case and Case A, B, C were referred to the National institute of Virology, Pune, India for CCHF diagnosis from the different hospitals in Rajasthan, Delhi and Gujarat. However, a sample of deceased suspected CCHF case was not referred. Subsequently, blood samples of 5 nursing staff and 37 contacts (Case D was one of them) from Pokhran area, Jaisalmer district were referred to NIV, Pune. Conclusions: It clearly indicated that nursing staff acquired a nosocomial infection while attending the suspected CCHF case in an Intensive Care Unit of a private hospital in Jodhpur. However, one case was confirmed from the Pokhran area where the suspected CCHF case was residing. This case might have got the infection from suspected CCHF case or through other routes. CCHF strain associated with these nosocomial infections shares the highest identity with Afghanistan strain and its recent introduction from Afghanistan cannot be ruled out. However, lack of active surveillance, unawareness among health care workers leads to such nosocomial infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the latest World Health Organization guidelines advocating daily therapy in HIV-TB co-infected individuals, there are few recent studies comparing outcomes of thrice-weekly anti-tuberculosis treatment in HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with TB. The present study sets out to compare TB treatment outcomes in these two groups in the Indian national programme, which currently involves thrice-weekly therapy for all, regardless of HIV status. Methods: HIV-positive and HIV-negative were consecutively screened for enrolment into this prospective observational study, carried out at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences hospital, New Delhi, India, between 2006 and 2010. Patients were given short-course thrice-weekly rifampicin-based therapy, with all HIV-positive patients being started on highly active antiretroviral therapy at least 14 days after commencing TB treatment. Patients were regularly followed-up for 24 months after completion of treatment. Results: 150 HIV-positive, 155 HIV-negative patients were enrolled consecutively for the study. Significantly higher treatment success (93.5% vs. 76.7% at end of treatment, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (2.8% vs. 21.6% on follow up, p < 0.001) were observed in HIV-negative patients. No significant difference was found in treatment failure (p = 0.16), sputum smear (p = 0.58) and culture conversion (p = 0.55), and non-serious adverse event incidence (p = 0.851) between the two groups. Low baseline CD4 cell count (<100 cells/ mm3) was the only predictor of mortality in HIV-TB patients (odds ratio 8 · 43, p = 0 · 013). Conclusions: Thrice-weekly anti-tuberculosis therapy is more effective in HIV-negative than in HIV-positive patients. However, outcomes in this HIV co-infected cohort were found to be similar to those reported previously with daily therapy, with no safety concerns. This should prompt further study into whether intermittent or daily therapy should be used universally in resource-poor settings, using large well executed randomised controlled trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the latest World Health Organization guidelines advocating daily therapy in HIV-TB co-infected individuals, there are few recent studies comparing outcomes of thrice-weekly anti-tuberculosis treatment in HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with TB. The present study sets out to compare TB treatment outcomes in these two groups in the Indian national programme, which currently involves thrice-weekly therapy for all, regardless of HIV status.Methods: HIV-positive and HIV-negative were consecutively screened for enrolment into this prospective observational study, carried out at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences hospital, New Delhi, India, between 2006 and 2010. Patients were given short-course thrice-weekly rifampicin-based therapy, with all HIV-positive patients being started on highly active antiretroviral therapy at least 14 days after commencing TB treatment. Patients were regularly followed-up for 24 months after completion of treatment.Results: 150 HIV-positive, 155 HIV-negative patients were enrolled consecutively for the study. Significantly higher treatment success (93.5% vs. 76.7% at end of treatment, p < 0.001) and lower mortality (2.8% vs. 21.6% on follow up, p < 0.001) were observed in HIV-negative patients. No significant difference was found in treatment failure (p = 0.16), sputum smear (p = 0.58) and culture conversion (p = 0.55), and non-serious adverse event incidence (p = 0.851) between the two groups. Low baseline CD4 cell count (<100 cells/ mm3) was the only predictor of mortality in HIV-TB patients (odds ratio 8 · 43, p = 0 · 013).Conclusions: Thrice-weekly anti-tuberculosis therapy is more effective in HIV-negative than in HIV-positive patients. However, outcomes in this HIV co-infected cohort were found to be similar to those reported previously with daily therapy, with no safety concerns. This should prompt further study into whether intermittent or daily therapy should be used universally in resource-poor settings, using large well executed randomised controlled trials.Trial Registration: NCT No. 00698334. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]