Search

Background: 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.Methods: 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.Findings: 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.Interpretation: 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.Funding: 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 FROM AUTHOR]

Background: WHO 2013 guidelines recommend universal treatment for HIV-infected children younger than 5 years. No paediatric trials have compared nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Africa, where most HIV-infected children live. We aimed to compare stavudine, zidovudine, or abacavir as dual or triple fixed-dose-combination paediatric tablets with lamivudine and nevirapine or efavirenz.Methods: In this open-label, parallel-group, randomised trial (CHAPAS-3), we enrolled children from one centre in Zambia and three in Uganda who were previously untreated (ART naive) or on stavudine for more than 2 years with viral load less than 50 copies per mL (ART experienced). Computer-generated randomisation tables were incorporated securely within the database. The primary endpoint was grade 2-4 clinical or grade 3/4 laboratory adverse events. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry number, 69078957.Findings: Between Nov 8, 2010, and Dec 28, 2011, 480 children were randomised: 156 to stavudine, 159 to zidovudine, and 165 to abacavir. After two were excluded due to randomisation error, 156 children were analysed in the stavudine group, 158 in the zidovudine group, and 164 in the abacavir group, and followed for median 2·3 years (5% lost to follow-up). 365 (76%) were ART naive (median age 2·6 years vs 6·2 years in ART experienced). 917 grade 2-4 clinical or grade 3/4 laboratory adverse events (835 clinical [634 grade 2]; 40 laboratory) occurred in 104 (67%) children on stavudine, 103 (65%) on zidovudine, and 105 (64%), on abacavir (p=0·63; zidovudine vs stavudine: hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·75-1·29]; abacavir vs stavudine: HR 0·88 [0·67-1·15]). At 48 weeks, 98 (85%), 81 (80%) and 95 (81%) ART-naive children in the stavudine, zidovudine, and abacavir groups, respectively, had viral load less than 400 copies per mL (p=0·58); most ART-experienced children maintained suppression (p=1·00).Interpretation: All NRTIs had low toxicity and good clinical, immunological, and virological responses. Clinical and subclinical lipodystrophy was not noted in those younger than 5 years and anaemia was no more frequent with zidovudine than with the other drugs. Absence of hypersensitivity reactions, superior resistance profile and once-daily dosing favours abacavir for African children, supporting WHO 2013 guidelines.Funding: European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]