Laura Ciaffi

Tolerability and Effectiveness of First-Line Regimens Combining Nevirapine and Lamivudine Plus Zidovudine or Stavudine in Cameroon

We compared the tolerability and effectiveness of two major first-line regimens used in resource-limited settings, namely zidovudine-lamivudine-nevirapine and stavudine-lamivudine-nevirapine. HIV-1-infected adults in Cameroon were enrolled in a prospective cohort study between 2001 and 2003. They were eligible if they had AIDS or a CD4 cell count below 350/mm(3), a Karnofsky score over 50%, and no contraindications to antiretroviral treatment. The patients were followed up to 2 years. Of 169 patients, 85 received zidovudine-lamivudine-nevirapine and 84 stavudine-lamivudine-nevirapine. The incidence rates of treatment changes, death, drug resistance, and severe adverse effects were, respectively, 12.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.2-19.9] and 10.9 (CI 6.4-18.3) per 100 person-years; 5.7 (CI 2.8-11.4) and 7.6 (CI 4.2-13.7); 2.9 (CI 1.1-7.7) and 5.0 (CI 2.4-10.6); and 41.7 (CI 30.2-57.6) and 49.1 (CI 36.1-66.6). The Kaplan-Meier curves for the likelihood of remaining on the initial regimen (p = 0.8) and for survival (p = 0.5) did not differ significantly between the groups. In Cox multivariate analysis only a lower baseline CD4 cell count was associated with death (p < 0.001). The proportion of patients with undetectable viral load and the increase in the CD4 cell count were similar in the two groups. Anemia was rare (4% vs. 6%). Five cases of severe peripheral neuropathy and one case of lipodystrophy occurred. This study suggests that the zidovudine-lamivudine-nevirapine combination is a safe first-line treatment, even in settings with few laboratory resources. In view of stavudine toxicity, these results support recommendations calling for a gradual switch from stavudine- to zidovudine-based regimens.

Nevirapine versus efavirenz for patients co-infected with HIV and tuberculosis: a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUNDnIn countries with a high incidence of HIV and tuberculosis co-infection, nevirapine and efavirenz are widely used as antiretroviral therapy but both interact with antituberculosis drugs. We aimed to compare efficacy and safety of a nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (started at full dose) with an efavirenz-based regimen in co-infected patients.nnnMETHODSnWe did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial at three health centres in Maputo, Mozambique. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) with tuberculosis and previously untreated HIV infection (CD4 cell counts <250 cells per μL) and alanine aminotransferase and total bilirubin concentrations of less than five times the upper limit of normal. 4-6 weeks after the start of tuberculosis treatment, we randomly allocated patients (1:1) with central randomisation, block sizes of two to six, and stratified by site and CD4 cell count to nevirapine (200 mg twice daily) or efavirenz (600 mg once daily), plus lamivudine and stavudine. The primary endpoint was virological suppression at 48 weeks (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (intention-to-treat population); death and loss to follow-up were recorded as treatment failure. The non-inferiority margin for the difference of efficacy was 10%. We assessed efficacy in intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations and safety in all patients who received study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00495326.nnnFINDINGSnBetween October, 2007, and March, 2010, we enrolled 285 patients into each group. 242 (85%) patients in the nevirapine group and 233 (82%) patients in the efavirenz group completed follow-up. In the intention-to-treat population, 184 patients (64·6%, 95% CI 58·7-70·1) allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 199 patients (69·8%, 64·1-75·1) allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI of the difference of efficacy 11·7%). In the per-protocol population, 170 (70·0%, 63·8-75·7) of 243 patients allocated nevirapine achieved virological suppression at week 48, as did 194 (78·9%, 73·2-83·8) of 246 patients allocated efavirenz (one-sided 95% CI 15·4%). The median CD4 cell count at randomisation was 89 cells per μL. 15 patients substituted nevirapine with efavirenz and six patients substituted efavirenz with nevirapine. 20 patients allocated nevirapine (7%) had grade 3-4 increase of alanine aminotransferase compared with 17 patients allocated efavirenz (6%). Three patients had severe rash after receipt of nevirapine (1%) but no patients did after receipt of efavirenz. 18 patients in the nevirapine group died, as did 17 patients in the efavirenz group.nnnINTERPRETATIONnAlthough non-inferiority of the nevirapine-regimen was not shown, nevirapine at full dose could be a safe, acceptable alternative for patients unable to tolerate efavirenz.nnnFUNDINGnFrench Research Agency for HIV/AIDS and hepatitis (ANRS).

Long-term safety, effectiveness and quality of a generic fixed-dose combination of nevirapine, stavudine and lamivudine.

We assessed the long-term safety, effectiveness and quality of a fixed-dose combination of nevirapine, stavudine and lamivudine (triomune). HIV-1-infected adults initially enrolled in a one-year, open-label, single-arm, multicentre trial in Cameroon were followed for 2 years. Our results support the safety and effectiveness of the triomune combination for first-line treatment of HIV infection. Virological effectiveness appeared to wane somewhat during the second year of treatment, however, and plasma nevirapine concentrations were relatively high.

Hepatotoxicity and effectiveness of a Nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients with or without viral hepatitis B or C infection in Cameroon

BackgroundCoinfection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) in HIV-infected patients receiving a commonly used nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy is a major concern for African clinicians owing to its high prevalence, the infrequent testing and treatment of viral hepatitis, and the impact of liver disease on the tolerability and effectiveness of anti-HIV treatment. We compared the hepatotoxicity and the immunological, virological and clinical effectiveness of a nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy between patients infected with HIV only and patients coinfected with hepatitis B or C virus in Cameroon.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among HIV-1-infected patients. Plasma HBV DNA and HCV RNA were tested in positive or indeterminate samples for HBsAg or HCV antibodies, respectively. All patients received nevirapine and lamivudine plus stavudine or zidovudine.ResultsOf 169 HIV-1-infected patients with a median baseline CD4 count of 135 cells/mm3 (interquartile range [IQR] 67-218), 21% were coinfected with HBV or HCV. In coinfected patients, the median viral load was 2.47 × 107 IU/mL for HBV (IQR 3680-1.59 × 108) and 928 000 IU/mL for HCV (IQR 178 400-2.06 × 106). Multivariate analyses showed that the risk of hepatotoxicity was 2-fold higher in coinfected patients (p < 0.01). The response to antiretroviral therapy was however comparable between monoinfected and coinfected patients in terms of CD4 cell count increase (p = 0.8), HIV-1 viral load below 400 copies/mL (p = 0.9), death (p = 0.3) and death or new AIDS-defining event (p = 0.1). Nevirapine was replaced by a protease inhibitor in 4 patients owing to hepatotoxicity.ConclusionThis study suggests that the nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy could be used safely as first-line treatment in patients with low CD4 cell count in Africa despite frequent coinfections with HBV or HCV and infrequent testing of these infections. Although testing for HBV and HCV should be systematically performed before initiating antiretroviral therapy, transaminases elevations at baseline or during treatment should be a decisive argument for testing when hepatitis status is unknown.

Efficacy and safety of three second-line antiretroviral regimens in HIV-infected patients in Africa

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 1000u200acopies/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 50u200acopies/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 200u200acopies/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 100u200a000u200acopies/ml (nu200a=u200a122) had a viral load below 50u200acopies/ml at week 48 (37.7 versus 75.4%; Pu200a<u200a0.001). 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.

High rates of active hepatitis B and C co-infections in HIV-1 infected Cameroonian adults initiating antiretroviral therapy

To investigate the presence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA in HIV‐infected patients initiating antiretroviral therapy in Cameroon.

Adherence to antiretroviral therapy assessed by drug level monitoring and self-report in cameroon.

Objectives:To compare adherence to antiretroviral therapy using drug level monitoring and self-report and to explore the relation between these 2 methods and viral load measurements. Methods:Sixty patients received a fixed-dose combination of nevirapine, stavudine, and lamivudine in a clinical study in Cameroon. Adherence was assessed every 6 months until month 36 by nevirapine minimal plasma concentration and self-report. Plasma HIV-1 viral load was determined at the same time. Analyses included 159 complete observations. Results:The proportion of patients labeled as “adherent” was significantly lower using nevirapine monitoring (88.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.7 to 93.2) than self-report (97.5%, CI: 93.7 to 99.3; P = 0.002). Virologic failure was associated with the nevirapine concentration (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.43; P = 0.018) but not with the self-reported adherence (aOR = 0.84; P = 0.9). As compared with the virologic outcome, the sensitivity of nevirapine level monitoring for predicting inadequate adherence was 20.5%, the specificity was 91.7%, the positive predictive value was 44.4%, and the negative predictive value was 78.0%. For self-report, the respective values were 2.6%, 97.5%, 25.0%, and 75.5%. Conclusions:Drug level monitoring provided a more reliable estimate of adherence than self-report. This method could be used in research settings. Operational research is required to define how to improve the accuracy of the self-report method because it is the most feasible method in clinical practice.

Impact of human immunodeficiency virus on the severity of buruli ulcer disease: results of a retrospective study in cameroon.

The impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection on Buruli ulcer (BU) severity and prevalence remains unclear. This study shows that patients who are HIV positive are at risk for BU. Notably, HIV-induced immunosuppression seems to have an impact on BU clinical presentation and disease evolution.

Women experience a better long-term immune recovery and a better survival on HAART in Lao People’s Democratic Republic

BackgroundIn April 2003, Médecins Sans Frontières launched an HIV/AIDS programme to provide free HAART to HIV-infected patients in Laos. Although HIV prevalence is estimated as low in this country, it has been increasing in the last years. This work reports the first results of an observational cohort study and it aims to identify the principal determinants of the CD4 cells evolution and to assess mortality among patients on HAART.MethodsWe performed a retrospective database analysis on patients initiated on HAART between 2003 and 2009 (CD4<200cells/μL or WHO stage 4). We excluded from the analysis patients who were less than 16 years old and pregnant women. To explore the determinants of the CD4 reconstitution, a linear mixed model was adjusted. To identify typical trajectories of the CD4 cells, a latent trajectory analysis was carried out. Finally, a Cox proportional-hazards model was used to reveal predictors of mortality on HAART including appointment delay greater than 1 day.ResultsA total of 1365 patients entered the programme and 913 (66.9%) received an HAART with a median CD4 of 49 cells/μL [IQR 15–148]. High baseline CD4 cell count and female gender were associated with a higher CD4 level over time. In addition, this gender difference increased over time. Two typical latent CD4 trajectories were revealed showing that 31% of women against 22% of men followed a high CD4 trajectory. In the long-term, women were more likely to attend appointments without delay. Mortality reached 6.2% (95% CI 4.8-8.0%) at 4 months and 9.1% (95% CI 7.3-11.3%) at 1 year. Female gender (HR=0.17, 95% CI 0.07-0.44) and high CD4 trajectory (HR=0.19, 95% CI 0.08-0.47) were independently associated with a lower death rate.ConclusionsPatients who initiated HAART were severely immunocompromised yielding to a high early mortality. In the long-term on HAART, women achieved a better CD4 cells reconstitution than men and were less likely to die. This study highlights important differences between men and women regarding response to HAART and medical care, and questions men’s compliance to treatment.

Nevirapine or efavirenz for tuberculosis and HIV coinfected patients: exposure and virological failure relationship

Objectives We describe nevirapine and efavirenz exposure on and off tuberculosis treatment and consequences for virological efficacy and tolerance in patients included in the ANRS 12146/12214-CARINEMO trial. Methods Participants were randomly selected to receive either nevirapine at 200 mg twice daily (nu200a=u200a256) or efavirenz at 600 mg daily (nu200a=u200a270), both combined with two nucleoside analogues. Blood samples were drawn 12 h after nevirapine or efavirenz administration, while on tuberculosis treatment and after tuberculosis treatment discontinuation. In 62 participants, samples taken 12 h after drug administration were drawn weekly for the first month of ART. Sixteen participants participated in an extensive pharmacokinetic study of nevirapine. Concentrations were compared with the therapeutic ranges of 3000–8000 ng/mL for nevirapine and 1000–4000 ng/mL for efavirenz. Results Nevirapine concentrations at the end of the first week of treatment (on antituberculosis drugs) did not differ from concentrations off tuberculosis treatment, but declined thereafter. Concentrations at steady-state were 4111 ng/mL at week 12 versus 6095 ng/mL at week 48 (Pu200a<u200a0.0001). Nevirapine concentrations <3000 ng/mL were found to be a risk factor for virological failure. Efavirenz concentrations were higher on than off tuberculosis treatment (2700 versus 2450 ng/mL, Pu200a<u200a0.0001). Conclusions The omission of the 2 week lead-in dose of nevirapine prevented low concentrations at treatment initiation but did not prevent the risk of virological failure. Results support the WHO recommendation to use efavirenz at 600 mg daily in patients on rifampicin-based antituberculosis therapy.