Search

One-third of people with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa start antiretroviral therapy (ART) with advanced disease. We investigated associations between immune biomarkers and mortality in participants with advanced HIV randomised to cotrimoxazole or enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis in the Reduction of Early Mortality in HIV-Infected Adults and Children Starting Antiretroviral Therapy (REALITY) trial (ISRCTN43622374). Biomarkers were assayed using ELISA and Luminex. Associations between baseline values and all-cause 24-week mortality were analysed using Cox models, and for cause-specific mortality used Fine & Gray models, including prophylaxis randomisation, viral load, CD4, WHO stage, age, BMI, and site as covariates; and weighted according to inverse probability of selection into the substudy. Higher baseline CRP, IFN-γ, IL-6 and IP-10 were associated with higher all-cause mortality; and higher IL-23, IL-2 and RANTES with lower all-cause mortality. Associations varied by cause of death: tuberculosis-associated mortality was most strongly associated with higher CRP and sST2, and cryptococcosis-associated mortality with higher IL-4 and lower IL-8. Changes in I-FABP (p = 0.002), faecal alpha-1 antitrypsin (p = 0.01) and faecal myeloperoxidase (p = 0.005) between baseline and 4 weeks post-ART were greater in those receiving enhanced versus cotrimoxazole prophylaxis. Our findings highlight how the immune milieu shapes outcomes following ART initiation, and how adjunctive antimicrobials can modulate the gut environment in advanced HIV., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Differentiated care delivery aims to simplify care of people living with HIV, reflect their preferences, reduce burdens on the healthcare system, maintain care quality and preserve resources. However, assessing program effectiveness using observational data is difficult due to confounding by indication and randomized trials may be infeasible. Also, benefits can reach patients directly, through enrollment in the program, and indirectly, by increasing quality of and accessibility to care. Low-risk express care (LREC), the program under evaluation, is a nurse-centered model which assigns patients stable on ART to a nurse every two months and a clinician every third visit, reducing annual clinician visits by two thirds. Study population is comprised of 16,832 subjects from 15 clinics in Kenya. We focus on patient retention in care based on whether the LREC program is available at a clinic and whether the patient is enrolled in LREC. We use G-estimation to assess the effect on retention of two "strategies": (i) program availability but no enrollment; (ii) enrollment at an available program; versus no program availability. Compared to no availability, LREC results in a non-significant increase in patient retention, among patients not enrolled in the program (indirect effect), while enrollment in LREC is associated with a significant extension of the time retained in care (direct effect). G-estimation provides an analytical framework useful to the assessment of similar programs using observational data., (© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Background: Severely immunocompromised human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals have high mortality shortly after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We investigated predictors of early mortality and "late presenter" phenotypes., Methods: The Reduction of EArly MortaLITY (REALITY) trial enrolled ART-naive adults and children ≥5 years of age with CD4 counts <100 cells/µL initiating ART in Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, and Kenya. Baseline predictors of mortality through 48 weeks were identified using Cox regression with backwards elimination (exit P > .1)., Results: Among 1711 included participants, 203 (12%) died. Mortality was independently higher with older age; lower CD4 count, albumin, hemoglobin, and grip strength; presence of World Health Organization stage 3/4 weight loss, fever, or vomiting; and problems with mobility or self-care at baseline (all P < .04). Receiving enhanced antimicrobial prophylaxis independently reduced mortality (P = .02). Of five late-presenter phenotypes, Group 1 (n = 355) had highest mortality (25%; median CD4 count, 28 cells/µL), with high symptom burden, weight loss, poor mobility, and low albumin and hemoglobin. Group 2 (n = 394; 11% mortality; 43 cells/µL) also had weight loss, with high white cell, platelet, and neutrophil counts suggesting underlying inflammation/infection. Group 3 (n = 218; 10% mortality) had low CD4 counts (27 cells/µL), but low symptom burden and maintained fat mass. The remaining groups had 4%-6% mortality., Conclusions: Clinical and laboratory features identified groups with highest mortality following ART initiation. A screening tool could identify patients with low CD4 counts for prioritizing same-day ART initiation, enhanced prophylaxis, and intensive follow-up., Clinical Trials Registration: ISRCTN43622374.

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., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The efficacy and toxic effects of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are uncertain when these agents are used with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in resource-limited settings. Removing the NRTIs or replacing them with raltegravir may provide a benefit., Methods: In this open-label trial in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 1277 adults and adolescents with HIV infection and first-line treatment failure to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI group, 426 patients), a protease inhibitor plus raltegravir in a superiority comparison (raltegravir group, 433 patients), or protease-inhibitor monotherapy after 12 weeks of induction therapy with raltegravir in a noninferiority comparison (monotherapy group, 418 patients). The primary composite end point, good HIV disease control, was defined as survival with no new World Health Organization stage 4 events, a CD4+ count of more than 250 cells per cubic millimeter, and a viral load of less than 10,000 copies per milliliter or 10,000 copies or more with no protease resistance mutations at week 96 and was analyzed with the use of imputation of data (≤4%)., Results: Good HIV disease control was achieved in 60% of the patients (mean, 255 patients) in the NRTI group, 64% of the patients (mean, 277) in the raltegravir group (P=0.21 for the comparison with the NRTI group; superiority of raltegravir not shown), and 55% of the patients (mean, 232) in the monotherapy group (noninferiority of monotherapy not shown, based on a 10-percentage-point margin). There was no significant difference in rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events among the three groups (P=0.82). The viral load was less than 400 copies per milliliter in 86% of patients in the NRTI group, 86% in the raltegravir group (P=0.97), and 61% in the monotherapy group (P<0.001)., Conclusions: When given with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy, NRTIs retained substantial virologic activity without evidence of increased toxicity, and there was no advantage to replacing them with raltegravir. Virologic control was inferior with protease-inhibitor monotherapy. (Funded by European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; EARNEST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN37737787, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988039.).