Search

WHO guidelines recommend dolutegravir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for second-line HIV therapy, with NRTI switching from first-line tenofovir to zidovudine. We aimed to examine whether dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir, the best-in-class protease inhibitor drug, and whether maintaining tenofovir in second-line therapy is non-inferior to switching to zidovudine.In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial (NADIA), participants with confirmed HIV first-line treatment failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies per mL) were recruited at seven clinical sites in Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Following a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA concentration, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive a 96-week regimen containing either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg of darunavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir once daily) in combination with either tenofovir (300 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or zidovudine (300 mg twice daily) plus lamivudine (150 mg twice daily). The NRTI drugs allocated by randomisation were administered orally in fixed-dose combination pills; other drugs were administered orally as separate pills. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Here, we report the main secondary outcome: the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 96 weeks (non-inferiority margin 12%). We analysed this outcome and safety outcomes in the intention-to-treat population, which excluded only those who were randomly assigned in error and withdrawn before receiving trial drugs. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988452, and is complete.Between July 30 and Dec 18, 2019, we screened 783 patients and enrolled 465. One participant was randomly assigned in error and immediately withdrawn. The remaining 464 participants were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir (n=235) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=229) and to receive lamivudine plus either tenofovir (n=233) or zidovudine (n=231). At week 96, 211 (90%) of 235 participants in the dolutegravir group and 199 (87%) of 229 participants in the darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 2·9, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·7), indicating non-inferiority. Nine (4%) participants (all in the dolutegravir group) developed dolutegravir resistance; no participants developed darunavir resistance (p=0·0023). In the other randomised comparison, 214 (92%) of 233 patients in the tenofovir group and 196 (85%) of 231 patients in the zidovudine group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 7·0, 95% CI 1·2 to 12·8), showing non-inferiority and indicating the superiority of tenofovir (p=0·019). The proportions of participants with any grade 3-4 adverse event were similar between the dolutegravir (26 [11%]) and darunavir (28 [12%]) groups and between the tenofovir (22 [9%]) and zidovudine (32 [14%]) groups. There were no deaths related to study medication.Dolutegravir-based and darunavir-based regimens maintain good viral suppression during 96 weeks; dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir but is at greater risk of resistance in second-line therapy. Tenofovir should be continued in second-line therapy, rather than being switched to zidovudine.Janssen.

As national HIV programs across the world mature and continue to scale up towards UNAIDS' 90-90-90 targets, it is increasingly important to accurately estimate HIV treatment needs in pediatric patient populations to prepare for anticipated increases in demand. This is particularly vital in sub-Saharan Africa, where the bulk of the global pediatric HIV burden remains concentrated, and for treatment-experienced populations, for which data are severely limited. This article discusses the conceptual framework behind and application of a five-year country-level quantification and decision-making tool aimed at providing national HIV programs and their partners with a better understanding of their evolving national HIV treatment and programming needs for second-and third-line pediatric populations. The conceptual framework of the algorithm which undergirds the tool is the patient pathway, along which key influencing factors that determine whether pediatric HIV patients are linked to care, remain in treatment, and are appropriately switched to later lines of treatment are accounted for quantitatively. Excel-based and arithmetic, the algorithm is designed to use available national, regional, and global data for factors impacting patient estimates including treatment coverage; routine viral load testing; viral load non-suppression; confirmed treatment failure; and patient loss to follow up-outcomes for which data are generally very limited in this patient population. The ultimate output of the tool is an estimate of the aggregate annual number of patients by treatment line. Given the limitations in available data for pediatric HIV, particularly for patients on second- and third-line treatments, this tool may help fill a data gap by providing a mechanism for policymakers to scenario plan, thus aiding resource allocation decisions for pediatric HIV program scale-up. The tool may be used to streamline national antiretroviral procurement of later lines of treatment, especially in resource-limited settings, and may also be used to add value to broader HIV policy and planning processes at the national level.

Objectives Etravirine is a substrate and inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A and a substrate and inhibitor of CYP2C9 and CYPC2C19. Darunavir/ritonavir is a substrate and inhibitor of CYP3A. Artemether and lumefantrine are primarily metabolized by CYP3A; artemether is also metabolized to a lesser extent by CYP2B6, CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. Artemether has an active metabolite, dihydroartemisinin. The objective was to investigate pharmacokinetic interactions between darunavir/ritonavir or etravirine and arthemether/lumefrantrine. Methods This single-centre, randomized, two-way, two-period cross-over study included 33 healthy volunteers. In panel 1, 17 healthy volunteers received two treatments (A and B) in random order, with a washout period of 4 weeks between treatments: treatment A: artemether/lumefantrine 80/480 mg alone, in a 3-day course; treatment B: etravirine 200 mg twice a day (bid) for 21 days with artemether/lumefantrine 80/480 mg from day 8 (a 3-day treatment course). In panel 2, another 16 healthy volunteers received two treatments, similar to those in panel 1 but instead of etravirine, darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid was given. Results Overall, 28 of the 33 volunteers completed the study. Co-administration of etravirine reduced the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of artemether [by 38%; 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.80], dihydroartemisinin (by 15%; 90% CI 0.75-0.97) and lumefantrine (by 13%; 90% CI 0.77-0.98) at steady state. Co-administration of darunavir/ritonavir reduced the AUC of artemether (by 16%; 90% CI 0.69-1.02) and dihydroartemisinin (by 18%; 90% CI 0.74-0.91) but increased lumefantrine (2.75-fold; 90% CI 2.46-3.08) at steady state. Co-administration of artemether/lumefantrine had no effect on etravirine, darunavir or ritonavir AUC. No drug-related serious adverse events were reported during the study. Conclusions Co-administration of etravirine with artemether/lumefantrine may lower the antimalarial activity of artemether and should therefore be used with caution. Darunavir/ritonavir can be co-administered with artemether/lumefantrine without dose adjustment but should be used with caution.