Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Pediatric Response to Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in South Africa

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 3 , 3 , 4 , 1 , 3 , 5 , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          With improved access to pediatric antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings, more children could experience first-line ART treatment failure.

          Methods

          We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using electronic medical records from HIV-infected children who initiated ART at McCord Hospital's Sinikithemba Clinic in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, from August 2003 to December 2010. We analyzed all records from children who began second-line ART due to first-line treatment failure. We used logistic regression to compare viral outcomes in Protease Inhibitor (PI)-based versus Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NNRTI)-based second-line ART, controlling for time on first-line ART, sex, and whether HIV genotyping guided the regimen change.

          Results

          Of the 880 children who initiated ART during this time period, 80 (9.1%) switched to second-line ART due to therapeutic failure of first-line ART after a median of 95 weeks (IQR 65–147 weeks). Eight (10%) of the failures received NNRTI-based second-line ART, all of whom failed a PI-based first-line regimen. Seventy (87.5%) received PI-based second-line ART, all of whom failed a NNRTI-based first-line regimen. Two children (2.5%) received non-standard dual therapy as second-line ART. Six months after switching ART regimens, the viral suppression rate was significantly higher in the PI group (82%) than in the NNRTI group (29%; p = 0.003). Forty-one children (51%) were tested for genotypic resistance prior to switching to second-line ART. There was no significant difference in six month viral suppression (p = 0.38) between children with and without genotype testing.

          Conclusion: NNRTI-based second-line ART carries a high risk of virologic failure compared to PI-based second-line ART.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lopinavir/ritonavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection.

          Lopinavir is a novel protease inhibitor (PI) developed from ritonavir. Coadministration with low-dose ritonavir significantly improves the pharmacokinetic properties and hence the activity of lopinavir against HIV-1 protease. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir was developed for ease of administration and to ensure both drugs are taken together, as part of combination therapy with other antiretroviral agents. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens provide adequate and durable suppression of viral load and sustained improvements in CD4+ cell counts, as demonstrated in randomised trials in antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced adults and children. To date, development of primary resistance to lopinavir/ritonavir has not been observed in 470 antiretroviral therapy-naive patients treated for >48 weeks. The lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen was more effective than nelfinavir in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients in a phase III trial. The coformulation is also effective as 'salvage' therapy, as shown by low cross-resistance rates in patients who failed to respond to treatment with other PIs in phase II trials. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir was well tolerated in both antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected adults and children with low rates of study drug-related treatment discontinuations. The most common adverse event in adults associated with lopinavir/ritonavir was diarrhoea, followed by other gastrointestinal disturbances, asthenia, headache and skin rash. The incidence of moderate-to-severe adverse events in children was low, skin rash being the most common. Changes in body fat composition occurred with equal frequency in lopinavir/ritonavir- and nelfinavir-treated naive patients, through week 60 in a phase III study. Although laboratory abnormalities occurred with similar frequency in both treatment groups, triglycerides grade 3/4 elevations were significantly more frequent with lopinavir/ritonavir. Total cholesterol and triglycerides grade 3/4 elevations appear to occur more frequently in PI-experienced than in PI-naive lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients. A number of clinically important drug interactions have been reported with lopinavir/ritonavir necessitating dosage adjustments of lopinavir/ritonavir and/or the interacting drugs, and several other drugs are contraindicated in patients receiving the coformulation. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir is a novel PI that, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, suppresses plasma viral load and enhances immunological status in therapy-naive and -experienced patients with HIV-1 infection. Lopinavir/ritonavir appears more effective than nelfinavir in 'naive' patients and is also suitable for 'salvage' therapy, because of its high barrier to development of resistance. Given its clinical efficacy, a tolerability profile in keeping with this class of drugs, favourable resistance profile and easy-to-adhere-to administration regimen, coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir should be regarded as a first-line option when including a PI in the management of HIV-1 infection. Lopinavir/ritonavir is a coformulation of two structurally related protease inhibitor (PI) antiretroviral agents. Lopinavir is a highly potent and selective inhibitor of the HIV type 1 (HIV-1) protease, an essential enzyme for production of mature, infective virus. It acts by arresting maturation of HIV-1 thereby blocking its infectivity. Thus, the main antiviral action of lopinavir is to prevent subsequent infections of susceptible cells; it has no effect on cells with already integrated viral DNA. Lopinavir has an approximate, equals 10-fold higher in vitro activity against both wild-type and mutant HIV-1 proteases than ritonavir; however, its in vivo activity is greatly attenuated by a high first-pass hepatic metabolism. The low-dose ritonavir coadministered with lopinavir inhibits metabolic inactivation of lopinavir and acts only as its pharmacokinetic enhancer. Therefore, the antiretroviral activity of roviral activity of coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily is derived solely from lopinavir plasma concentrations. Combining lopinavir with low-dose ritonavir produces lopinavir concentrations far exceeding those needed to suppress 50% of in vitro and in vivo viral replication in CD4+ cells and monocyte/macrophages (main human reservoirs of HIV-1 infection). Thus far, no resistance to lopinavir has been detected in clinical trials in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients treated for up to 204 weeks and only 12% of HIV-1 strains from patients in whom prior treatment with multiple PIs have failed, have been observed to develop resistance to coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir. A strong negative correlation was found between the number of PI mutations at baseline and the viral response rates achieved with lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens in PI-experienced patients, indicating that resistance to lopinavir increases with increasing number of PI mutations and that five PI mutations represent the clinically relevant genotypic breakpoint for lopinavir. The absolute bioavailability of lopinavir coformulated with ritonavir in humans has not yet been established. Multiple-dosage absorption pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily (the mean peak [C(max)] and trough [C(trough)] plasma concentrations at steady-state and the 12-hour area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC(12)] of either drug) were stable in antiretroviral therapy-naive and single PI-experienced adult patients receiving therapy over a 24-week evaluation period. The C(trough) values of lopinavir, achieved with lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily, were median 84-fold higher than the protein binding-adjusted 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) of lopinavir against wild-type HIV-1 in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients in a phase II study. Bioavailability of lopinavir administered in either the capsule or the liquid lopinavir/ritonavir formulation can be increased substantially with concurrent ingestion of food with moderate-to-high fat content. At steady state, lopinavir is approximately 98-99% plasma protein bound and the percentage of its unbound (i.e. pharmacologically active) fraction is dependent on total drug plasma concentration. Both lopinavir and ritonavir penetrate poorly into the human genital tracts and the cerebrospinal fluid. Both agents undergo extensive and rapid first-pass metabolism by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 isoenzyme. However, ritonavir also potently inhibits this enzyme and acts as a pharmacokinetic enhancer of lopinavir. The elimination half-life and apparent oral clearance of lopinavir average approximately 4-6 hours and approximately 6-7 L/h, respectively, with lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily administration. Less than 3% and 20% of the lopinavir dose is excreted unchanged in the urine and faeces, respectively. Limited data show similar pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in children as in adults. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir has the potential to interact with wide variety of drugs via several mechanisms, mostly involving the CYP enzymes. Coadministration of lopinavir/ritonavir is contraindicated with certain drugs (i.e. flecainide, propafenone, astemizole, terfenadine, ergot derivatives, cisapride, pimozide, midazolam and triazolam) that are highly dependent on CYP3A or CYP2D6 for clearance and for which elevated plasma concentrations are associated with serious and/or life-threatening events. Coadministration with lopinavir/ritonavir is also not recommended for drugs or herbal products (i.e. rifampicin [rifampin] and St. John's wort [Hypericum perforatum]) that may substantially reduce lopinavir plasma concentrations, or drugs whose plasma concentrations elevated by the coformulation may lead to serious adverse reactions (i.e. simvastatin and lovastatin). However, a recent study in healthy volunteers suggests that adequate lopinavir concentrations may be achieved during rifampicin coadministration by increasing the twice-daily dosage of lopinavir/ritonavir in conjunction with therapeutic drug monitoring. The liquid (but not the capsule) formulation of lopinavir/ritonavir contains 42.4% ethanol (v/v) and should not be coadministered with drugs capable of producing disulfiram-like reactions (e.g. disulfiram, metronidazole). Coadministration with saquinavir or indinavir requires no dosage adjustment, whereas coadministration with amprenavir, nevirapine or efavirenz requires a dosage increase of the coformulation typically by 33%. As the oral bioavailability of both didanosine and lopinavir/ritonavir is significantly affected by concurrent food ingestion, didanosine should be administered 1 hour before or 2 hours after lopinavir/ritonavir has been taken with food. Interactions between lopinavir/ritonavir and other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are not expected. The coformulation is also likely to increase plasma concentrations of non-antiretroviral drugs metabolised through the CYP3A pathway. To reduce the risk of their toxicity when coadministered with lopinavir/ritonavir, the recommended actions include: (i) monitoring of the drug plasma concentration (antiarrhythmics and immunosuppressants) or the international normalised ratio (warfarin); (ii) the use of alternative treatment (atorvastatin) or birth control methods (ethinylestradiol); and (iii) dosage adjustment (clarithromycin [only in patients with renal failure], rifabutin, dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, atorvastatin, ketoconazole and itraconazole). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Antiretroviral treatment for children with peripartum nevirapine exposure.

            Single-dose nevirapine is the cornerstone of the regimen for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in resource-limited settings, but nevirapine frequently selects for resistant virus in mothers and children who become infected despite prophylaxis. The optimal antiretroviral treatment strategy for children who have had prior exposure to single-dose nevirapine is unknown. We conducted a randomized trial of initial therapy with zidovudine and lamivudine plus either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 6 to 36 months of age, in six African countries, who qualified for treatment according to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Results are reported for the cohort that included children exposed to single-dose nevirapine prophylaxis. The primary end point was virologic failure or discontinuation of treatment by study week 24. Enrollment in this cohort was terminated early on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board. A total of 164 children were enrolled. The median percentage of CD4+ lymphocytes was 19%; a total of 56% of the children had WHO stage 3 or 4 disease. More children in the nevirapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group reached a primary end point (39.6% vs. 21.7%; weighted difference, 18.6 percentage-points; 95% confidence interval, 3.7 to 33.6; nominal P=0.02). Baseline resistance to nevirapine was detected in 18 of 148 children (12%) and was predictive of treatment failure. No significant between-group differences were seen in the rate of adverse events. Among children with prior exposure to single-dose nevirapine for perinatal prevention of HIV transmission, antiretroviral treatment consisting of zidovudine and lamivudine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir resulted in better outcomes than did treatment with zidovudine and lamivudine plus nevirapine. Since nevirapine is used for both treatment and perinatal prevention of HIV infection in resource-limited settings, alternative strategies for the prevention of HIV transmission from mother to child, as well as for the treatment of HIV infection, are urgently required. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307151.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prevalence of resistance to nevirapine in mothers and children after single-dose exposure to prevent vertical transmission of HIV-1: a meta-analysis.

              Single-dose nevirapine (NVP) is the main option for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV-1 in countries with limited resources. However, the use of single-dose NVP results in HIV-1 viral resistance which could compromise the success of subsequent treatment of mother and child with antiretroviral combinations that include non-nucleosidic-reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. This systematic review and meta-analysis of summarized data aimed to estimate the proportion of mothers and children with NVP resistance mutations detected in plasma samples 4-8 weeks postpartum after single-dose NVP use for PMTCT. Systematic search of electronic databases (MEDLINE, PASCAL) and conference proceedings (1997 to February 2006). Inclusion of all studies, without design, place or language restrictions, meeting the following criteria: use of single-dose NVP; viral genotyping performed with standard sequence analyses, between 4 and 8 weeks postpartum, in plasma samples; available public report; report of mothers' median baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA levels. Data extraction by two independent reviewers using a standardized form created for this purpose. Logistic random effect models to obtain pooled estimates. Univariable and multivariable meta-regression to explore sources of heterogeneity. The pooled estimate of NVP resistance prevalence was 35.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 23.0-50.6] in women in 10 study arms using single-dose NVP +/- other antepartum antiretrovirals and 4.5% (CI 2.1-9.4) in three study arms providing also postpartum antiretrovirals (adjusted odds ratio 0.08; CI 0.04-0.16). The corresponding estimates in children were 52.6% (CI 37.7-67.0) in seven study arms using single-dose NVP only and 16.5% (CI 8.9-28.3) in eight study arms combining single-dose NVP with other antiretrovirals. Single-dose NVP is widely used for PMTCT in resource-poor settings, but the burden of viral resistance is high in both women and children. It is substantially lower in studies providing additional postpartum antiretrovirals. The clinical implications of these findings should be further investigated.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2012
                20 November 2012
                : 7
                : 11
                : e49591
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The Ragon Institute of Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard, Charlestown, Massachusetts, United States of America
                [2 ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America
                [3 ]Sinikithemba Clinic and Philani Program, McCord Hospital, Durban, South Africa
                [4 ]Infectious Diseases Unit, Nelson Mandela School of Medicine, Durban, South Africa
                [5 ]Division of Experimental Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
                University of Pittsburgh, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: BCZ MEF. Performed the experiments: BCZ HS. Analyzed the data: BCZ HS MEF. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: BCZ HS. Wrote the paper: BCZ.

                Article
                PONE-D-12-26761
                10.1371/journal.pone.0049591
                3502491
                23185373
                229989a6-8fc5-4a08-8b54-3e7791b2b8f8
                Copyright @ 2012

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 4 September 2012
                : 12 October 2012
                Page count
                Pages: 5
                Funding
                This work was generously supported by the Sullivan Family Foundation and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation (M.E.F.). M.E.F. is the recipient of the Jewelers for Children Elizabeth Glaser Scientist Award. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology
                Microbiology
                Virology
                Viral Classification
                Retroviruses
                Medicine
                Clinical Research Design
                Cohort Studies
                Retrospective Studies
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                HIV
                HIV diagnosis and management
                Retrovirology and HIV immunopathogenesis
                Pediatrics

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article