An observational study in an urban Ugandan clinic comparing virological outcomes of patients switched from first-line antiretroviral regimens to second-line regimens containing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation approved boosted atazanavir as a preferred second line protease inhibitor in 2010. This is as an alternative to the current boosted lopinavir. Atazanavir has a lower genetic barrier than lopinavir. We compared the virological outcomes of patients during the roll out of routine viral load monitoring, who had switched to boosted second- line regimens of either atazanavir or lopinavir. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving adult patients at the Infectious Diseases Institute Kampala, Uganda started on a standard WHO recommended second-line regimen containing either boosted atazanavir or boosted lopinavir between 1 Dec 2014 and 31 July 2015.. Mantel -Haenszel chi square was used to test for the statistical significance of the odds of being suppressed (VL < 400 copies/ml) when on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir after stratifying by duration on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Multivariate logistic regression analysis used to determine if the type of boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) was associated with virological outcome. RESULTS: Ninety (90) % on ATV/r and 83% on LPV/r had a VL less than 1000 copies/ml. The odds of being suppressed using the same viral load cut-off while on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir was not statistically significant after stratifying for duration on ART (p = 0.09). In a multivariate analysis the type of bPI used was not a predictor of virological outcome (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using the WHO recommended second-line of boosted atazanavir have comparable virological suppression to those on boosted lopinavir

An observational study in an urban Ugandan clinic comparing virological outcomes of patients switched from first-line antiretroviral regimens to second-line regimens containing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation approved boosted atazanavir as a preferred second line protease inhibitor in 2010. This is as an alternative to the current boosted lopinavir. Atazanavir has a lower genetic barrier than lopinavir. We compared the virological outcomes of patients during the roll out of routine viral load monitoring, who had switched to boosted second- line regimens of either atazanavir or lopinavir. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving adult patients at the Infectious Diseases Institute Kampala, Uganda started on a standard WHO recommended second-line regimen containing either boosted atazanavir or boosted lopinavir between 1 Dec 2014 and 31 July 2015.. Mantel -Haenszel chi square was used to test for the statistical significance of the odds of being suppressed (VL < 400 copies/ml) when on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir after stratifying by duration on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Multivariate logistic regression analysis used to determine if the type of boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) was associated with virological outcome. RESULTS: Ninety (90) % on ATV/r and 83% on LPV/r had a VL less than 1000 copies/ml. The odds of being suppressed using the same viral load cut-off while on boosted atazanavir compared to boosted lopinavir was not statistically significant after stratifying for duration on ART (p = 0.09). In a multivariate analysis the type of bPI used was not a predictor of virological outcome (p = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using the WHO recommended second-line of boosted atazanavir have comparable virological suppression to those on boosted lopinavir

High willingness to use injectable antiretroviral therapy among women who have been lost to follow-up from HIV programmes: A nested cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to achieve zero transmission of HIV to infants born to women living with HIV in sub-Saharan African are undermined by high rates of loss to follow-up in prevention of vertical transmission (PVT) programmes. The fear of HIV status disclosure through the discovery of pill bottles at home is a major contributor. Injectable antiretroviral therapy (ART) has proved to be efficacious in clinical trials and is discreet, offering a potential solution. We investigated the knowledge and willingness to use injectable ART among women who were lost to follow-up from the PVT programme in Uganda. METHODS: Women were traced by nurse counsellors and knowledge and opinions relating to injectable ART, including willingness to use it when it becomes available, were collected. Generalized linear models were used to determine predictors of willingness to use injectable ART. CONCLUSIONS: Among 1023 women registered between 2017 and 2019 under the PVT programmes in Kampala and Wakiso districts, Uganda, 385 (38%) were lost to follow-up from care and 22% of these (83/385) were successfully traced and interviewed. Only 25% (21/83) had heard of injectable ART. Over half (55%, 46/83) were very willing to use injectable ART, 40% (33/83) were somewhat willing and four (5%) were not willing. Those who associated ART tablets with disclosure risk were more willing to consider injectable ART (adjusted odds ratio = 4.21; 95% confidence interval: 1.45-12.19; p = 0.008). We report high willingness to use injectable ART associated with fears that ART tablets were a potential source of HIV status disclosure. Injectable ART could be a solution for women who have challenges with disclosure

Dolutegravir use over 48 weeks is not associated with worsening insulin resistance and pancreatic beta cell function in a cohort of HIV-infected Ugandan adults

Abstract Background The Uganda Ministry of Health issued restrictive guidelines on the use of dolutegravir (DTG) in persons stratified to have a heightened risk of diabetes mellitus. This followed multiple reports of persons with HIV (PWH) presenting with accelerated hyperglycemia after a few weeks to months of exposure to DTG. Having demonstrated a low incidence of diabetes mellitus and improving blood glucose trajectories in a cohort of ART naïve Ugandan PWH on DTG, we sought to determine whether the observed improvement in blood glucose did not mask background compensated insulin resistance. Methods In this analysis, 63 patients underwent serial oral glucose tolerance tests over 48 weeks. Using fasting serum insulin and glucose, we calculated insulin resistance and pancreatic beta cell function by homeostatic modelling (HOMA IR and HOMA%β respectively). Absolute mean changes between baseline and post-baseline blood glucose, pancreatic beta cell function and insulin resistance were computed by subtracting each post-baseline value from the baseline value and compared using student t-test. Multiple linear regression models were used to determine the factors associated with changes in pancreatic beta cell function and insulin resistance. Results Of the 63 participants, 37 (58%) were female. Median age was 31 (IQR: 28–37). Despite a trend towards an initial increase in both HOMA IR and HOMA%β at 12 weeks followed by a decline through 36 weeks to 48 weeks, the HOMA IR and HOMA%β at 48 weeks were not significantly different from baseline i.e. (difference in mean HOMA IR from baseline: 0.14, 95%CI: -0.46, 0.733, p = 0.648) and (difference in mean HOMA %β from baseline: 6.7, 95%CI: -13.4, 26.8, p = 0.506) respectively. Conclusion We demonstrated insignificant changes in both insulin resistance and pancreatic beta cell function in clinically stable young adult Ugandan PWH on dolutegravir for 48 weeks. We add to the body of evidence demonstrating glucose metabolic safety of dolutegravir in ART naïve patients. Ugandan guidelines should reconsider restricting DTG initiation in ART naive adults at high risk for diabetes

Two-drug regimens for the treatment of HIV in Africa

Two-drug regimens (2DR) for the treatment of HIV are increasingly available. The oral regimen of dolutegravir and lamivudine is recommended as a preferred option in multiple national guidelines but is not currently included in WHO HIV treatment guidelines nor widely used in Africa. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir and rilpivirine is being rolled out in USA, Europe, and Australia but use in sub-Saharan Africa is currently limited to clinical trials. Given increasing life expectancy, rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases, and resulting polypharmacy among people living with HIV (PLWH), there are potential advantages to the use of 2DR in this setting. However, 2DR are not suitable for all. Data on the use of 2DR in PLWH in Africa are limited and further studies are needed to inform policy. In this article we review existing evidence and highlight the risks, benefits, and key knowledge gaps for the use of 2DR in programmatic care settings

Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir or darunavir in combination with lamivudine plus either zidovudine or tenofovir for second-line treatment of HIV infection (NADIA): week 96 results from a prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: WHO guidelines recommend dolutegravir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for second-line HIV therapy, with NRTI switching from first-line tenofovir to zidovudine. We aimed to examine whether dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir, the best-in-class protease inhibitor drug, and whether maintaining tenofovir in second-line therapy is non-inferior to switching to zidovudine. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial (NADIA), participants with confirmed HIV first-line treatment failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies per mL) were recruited at seven clinical sites in Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Following a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA concentration, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive a 96-week regimen containing either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg of darunavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir once daily) in combination with either tenofovir (300 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or zidovudine (300 mg twice daily) plus lamivudine (150 mg twice daily). The NRTI drugs allocated by randomisation were administered orally in fixed-dose combination pills; other drugs were administered orally as separate pills. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Here, we report the main secondary outcome: the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 96 weeks (non-inferiority margin 12%). We analysed this outcome and safety outcomes in the intention-to-treat population, which excluded only those who were randomly assigned in error and withdrawn before receiving trial drugs. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between July 30 and Dec 18, 2019, we screened 783 patients and enrolled 465. One participant was randomly assigned in error and immediately withdrawn. The remaining 464 participants were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir (n=235) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=229) and to receive lamivudine plus either tenofovir (n=233) or zidovudine (n=231). At week 96, 211 (90%) of 235 participants in the dolutegravir group and 199 (87%) of 229 participants in the darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 2·9, 95% CI -3·0 to 8·7), indicating non-inferiority. Nine (4%) participants (all in the dolutegravir group) developed dolutegravir resistance; no participants developed darunavir resistance (p=0·0023). In the other randomised comparison, 214 (92%) of 233 patients in the tenofovir group and 196 (85%) of 231 patients in the zidovudine group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 7·0, 95% CI 1·2 to 12·8), showing non-inferiority and indicating the superiority of tenofovir (p=0·019). The proportions of participants with any grade 3-4 adverse event were similar between the dolutegravir (26 [11%]) and darunavir (28 [12%]) groups and between the tenofovir (22 [9%]) and zidovudine (32 [14%]) groups. There were no deaths related to study medication. INTERPRETATION: Dolutegravir-based and darunavir-based regimens maintain good viral suppression during 96 weeks; dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir but is at greater risk of resistance in second-line therapy. Tenofovir should be continued in second-line therapy, rather than being switched to zidovudine. FUNDING: Janssen