Search

BACKGROUND: No trials have investigated routine laboratory monitoring for children with HIV, nor four-drug induction strategies to increase durability of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: In this open-label parallel-group trial, Ugandan and Zimbabwean children or adolescents with HIV, aged 3 months to 17 years and eligible for ART, were randomly assigned in a factorial design. Randomisation was to either clinically driven monitoring or routine laboratory and clinical monitoring for toxicity (haematology and biochemistry) and efficacy (CD4 cell counts; non-inferiority monitoring randomisation); and simultaneously to standard three-drug or to four-drug induction first-line ART, in three groups: three-drug treatment (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NNRTI], lamivudine, abacavir; group A) versus four-drug induction (NNRTI, lamivudine, abacavir, zidovudine; groups B and C), decreasing after week 36 to three-drug NNRTI, lamivudine, plus abacavir (group B) or lamivudine, abacavir, plus zidovudine (group C; superiority ART-strategy randomisation). For patients assigned to routine laboratory monitoring, results were returned every 12 weeks to clinicians; for clinically driven monitoring, toxicity results were only returned for requested clinical reasons or if grade 4. Children switched to second-line ART for WHO stage 3 or 4 events or (routine laboratory monitoring only) age-dependent WHO CD4 criteria. Randomisation used computer-generated sequentially numbered tables incorporated securely within the database. Primary efficacy endpoints were new WHO stage 4 events or death for monitoring and change in CD4 percentage at 72 and 144 weeks for ART-strategy randomisations; the co-primary toxicity endpoint was grade 3 or 4 adverse events. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, ISRCTN24791884. FINDINGS: 1206 children were randomly assigned to clinically driven (n=606) versus routine laboratory monitoring (n=600), and groups A (n=397), B (n=404), and C (n=405). 47 (8%) children on clinically driven monitoring versus 39 (7%) on routine laboratory monitoring had a new WHO stage 4 event or died (hazard ratio [HR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·73-1·73, p=0·59; non-inferiority criterion met). However, in years 2-5, rates were higher in children on clinically driven monitoring (1·3 vs 0·4 per 100 child-years, difference 0·99, 0·37-1·60, p=0·002). One or more grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 283 (47%) children on clinically driven versus 282 (47%) on routine laboratory monitoring (HR 0·98, 0·83-1·16, p=0·83). Mean CD4 percentage change did not differ between ART groups at week 72 (16·5% [SD 8·6] vs 17·1% [8·5] vs 17·3% [8·0], p=0·33) or week 144 (p=0·69), but four-drug groups (B, C) were superior to three-drug group A at week 36 (12·4% [7·2] vs 14·1% [7·1] vs 14·6% [7·3], p

BACKGROUND: HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) is often managed without routine laboratory monitoring in Africa; however, the effect of this approach is unknown. This trial investigated whether routine toxicity and efficacy monitoring of HIV-infected patients receiving ART had an important long-term effect on clinical outcomes in Africa. METHODS: In this open, non-inferiority trial in three centres in Uganda and one in Zimbabwe, 3321 symptomatic, ART-naive, HIV-infected adults with CD4 counts less than 200 cells per microL starting ART were randomly assigned to laboratory and clinical monitoring (LCM; n=1659) or clinically driven monitoring (CDM; n=1662) by a computer-generated list. Haematology, biochemistry, and CD4-cell counts were done every 12 weeks. In the LCM group, results were available to clinicians; in the CDM group, results (apart from CD4-cell count) could be requested if clinically indicated and grade 4 toxicities were available. Participants switched to second-line ART after new or recurrent WHO stage 4 events in both groups, or CD4 count less than 100 cells per microL (LCM only). Co-primary endpoints were new WHO stage 4 HIV events or death, and serious adverse events. Non-inferiority was defined as the upper 95% confidence limit for the hazard ratio (HR) for new WHO stage 4 events or death being no greater than 1.18. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN13968779. FINDINGS: Two participants assigned to CDM and three to LCM were excluded from analyses. 5-year survival was 87% (95% CI 85-88) in the CDM group and 90% (88-91) in the LCM group, and 122 (7%) and 112 (7%) participants, respectively, were lost to follow-up over median 4.9 years' follow-up. 459 (28%) participants receiving CDM versus 356 (21%) LCM had a new WHO stage 4 event or died (6.94 [95% CI 6.33-7.60] vs 5.24 [4.72-5.81] per 100 person-years; absolute difference 1.70 per 100 person-years [0.87-2.54]; HR 1.31 [1.14-1.51]; p=0.0001). Differences in disease progression occurred from the third year on ART, whereas higher rates of switch to second-line treatment occurred in LCM from the second year. 283 (17%) participants receiving CDM versus 260 (16%) LCM had a new serious adverse event (HR 1.12 [0.94-1.32]; p=0.19), with anaemia the most common (76 vs 61 cases). INTERPRETATION: ART can be delivered safely without routine laboratory monitoring for toxic effects, but differences in disease progression suggest a role for monitoring of CD4-cell count from the second year of ART to guide the switch to second-line treatment. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, the UK Department for International Development, the Rockefeller Foundation, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Boehringer-Ingelheim, and Abbott Laboratories.