Search

Objective: WHO recommends ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in HIV-infected patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line treatment. Here, we aimed to provide more evidence for the choice of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and boosted protease inhibitor., Design: ANRS 12169 is a 48-week, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial in three African cities, comparing efficacy and safety of three second-line regimens., Methods: Patients failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy with confirmed plasma HIV-1 viral load above 1000 copies/ml were randomly assigned to tenofovir/emtricitabine + lopinavir/ritonavir (control group as per WHO recommendations), abacavir + didanosine + lopinavir/ritonavir (ABC/ddI group) or tenofovir/emtricitabine + darunavir/ritonavir (DRV group) regimens. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma vral load below 50 copies/ml at week 48 in the modified intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority was pre-specified with a 15% margin., Results: Of the 454 randomized patients, 451 were included in the analysis. Globally, 294 (65.2%) and 375 (83.2%) patients had viral load below 50 and 200 copies/ml, respectively, at week 48. The primary endpoint was achieved in 105 (69.1%) control group patients versus 92 (63.4%) in the ABC/ddI (difference 5.6%, 95% confidence interval -5.1 to 16.4) and 97 (63.0%) in the DRV (difference 6.1%, 95% confidence interval -4.5 to 16.7) groups (non-inferiority not shown). Overall, less number of patients with baseline viral load at least 100 000 copies/ml (n = 122) had a viral load below 50 copies/ml at week 48 (37.7 versus 75.4%; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The three second-line regimens obtained similar and satisfactory virologic control and confirmed the WHO recommendation (TDF/FTC/LPVr) as a valid option. However, the suboptimal response for patients with high viral load warrants research for improved strategies.

Introduction: In order to appreciate the antiretroviral drugs impact in the HIV positive patients with peripheral neuropathy, a clinical, electrophysiological and neurpathological study of nerve biopsies was performed., Patients and Methods: A group of 8 HIV seropositive patients with peripheral neuropathy was compared with an other group of 10 HIV seropositive patients treated with multiple antiretroviral drugs. Electrophysiological examination with motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV) mesure of the median and the sciatic popliteal nerve was followed by nerve biopsy. Nerve fragments carried out the neuropathological technics for morphological examination., Results: Eighteen seropositive HIV patients (16 HIV-1 and 2 HIV-2) were included in this study. Six patients among them had motor and sensitive neuropathy of the four limbs and 2 patients had sensitive neuropathy associated with pyramidal signs. In fine, 1 patient had sensitive neuropathy with distal amyotrophy of the four limbs. Slow MNCV was observed in all the patients and more severe in the lower limbs. Nerve were unexciting in the lower limbs in 2 patients. Nerve biopsy showed severe axonal loss in all the patients treated but one. They associated axonal lesion in 5 cases and myelinated lesions in 2 cases. Two patients non treated had normal nerve biopsy. Axonal loss was mild in 2 cases and very severe in one case associated with non inflammatory demyelinated lesions., Conclusion: we observed more severe and more frequent nerve lesions in treated patients than in no treated patients, as at the clinical, electrophysiological and neuropathological examination. Antiretroviral drugs cause more frequently pain motor and sensitive neuropathies at usual posologies. The occurence of recrudescence of pain peripheral neuropathy under antiretroviral treatment allows to reconsider drugs posologies.