3 research outputs found

    Performance and Logistical Challenges of Alternative HIV-1 Virological Monitoring Options in a Clinical Setting of Harare, Zimbabwe

    No full text
    We evaluated a low-cost virological failure assay (VFA) on plasma and dried blood spot (DBS) specimens from HIV-1 infected patients attending an HIV clinic in Harare. The results were compared to the performance of the ultrasensitive heat-denatured p24 assay (p24). The COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 test, version 2.0, served as the gold standard. Using a cutoff of 5,000 copies/mL, the plasma VFA had a sensitivity of 94.5% and specificity of 92.7% and was largely superior to the VFA on DBS (sensitivity = 61.9%; specificity = 99.0%) or to the p24 (sensitivity = 54.3%; specificity = 82.3%) when tested on 302 HIV treated and untreated patients. However, among the 202 long-term ART-exposed patients, the sensitivity of the VFA decreased to 72.7% and to 35.7% using a threshold of 5,000 and 1,000 RNA copies/mL, respectively. We show that the VFA (either on plasma or on DBS) and the p24 are not reliable to monitor long-term treated, HIV-1 infected patients. Moreover, achieving acceptable assay sensitivity using DBS proved technically difficult in a less-experienced laboratory. Importantly, the high level of virological suppression (93%) indicated that quality care focused on treatment adherence limits virological failure even when PCR-based viral load monitoring is not available

    Patient-Reported Outcomes in First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy: Results From NEAT001/ANRS143 Trial Comparing Darunavir/Ritonavir in Combination With Tenofovir/Emtricitabine or Raltegravir

    No full text
    Background: There are few data comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized trials of initial antiretroviral therapy. We present results from a substudy of the NEAT001/ ANRS143 trial. Methods: The randomized trial compared first-line DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily plus RAL 400 mg twice daily and DRV/r plus TDF/ FTC 245/200 mg once daily. Changes in PROs were assessed with 3 questionnaires: EuroQoL 5 domains (EQ-5D), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, and HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Major depressive disorder (MDD) was defined as CES-D 16.Generalestimatingequationswereusedtomodelchangeover96weeksinPROsfrombaseline.Results:Ofthe805participants,797(99substudy.BaselinePROdataweresimilarforthe2randomizedgroups.HealthstatusimprovedovertimewithameanincreaseinEQ5Dvisualanaloguescale(VAS)of8.0byW96[95to9.4;P,0.001],andnostatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweengroups(differenceof0.3onVASscore(95globalPvalue 16. General estimating equations were used to model change over 96 weeks in PROs from baseline. Results: Of the 805 participants, 797 (99%) contributed to the substudy. Baseline PRO data were similar for the 2 randomized groups. Health status improved over time with a mean increase in EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) of 8.0 by W96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5 to 9.4; P, 0.001], and no statistically significant differences between groups (difference of 0.3 on VAS score (95% CI: 21.7 to 2.3); P = 0.7, global P value 0.05 for all domains over follow-up). There was no significant difference between groups on CES-D [difference of 20.1 (95% CI: 21.3 to 1.1); P = 0.9], or MDD during follow-up, adjusted for baseline MDD (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.18; P = 0.9). RAL + DRV/r group had lower level of convenience (P = 0.03) and fitted less well into patients’ lifestyle (P = 0.007) than the TDF/FTC + DRV/r regimen, and was associated with lower treatment satisfaction [median score: 53 RAL + DRV/r vs 55 TDF/FTC + DRV/r (P = 0.001)]. Conclusion: PROs improved after starting antiretroviral therapy, with no statistically significant difference between groups. The lower satisfaction with RAL + DRV/r may be explained by twicedaily administration

    Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics of ritonavir-boosted darunavir in the presence of raltegravir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in HIV-infected adults and the relationship with virological response : a sub-study of the NEAT001/ANRS143 randomized trial

    No full text
    OBJECTIVES: NEAT001/ANRS143 demonstrated non-inferiority of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) + twice-daily raltegravir (400 mg) versus darunavir/ritonavir + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (245/200 mg once daily) in treatment-naive patients. We investigated the population pharmacokinetics of darunavir, ritonavir, tenofovir and emtricitabine and relationships with demographics, genetic polymorphisms and virological failure. METHODS: Non-linear mixed-effects models (NONMEM v. 7.3) were applied to determine pharmacokinetic parameters and assess demographic covariates and relationships with SNPs (SLCO3A1, SLCO1B1, NR1I2, NR1I3, CYP3A5*3, CYP3A4*22, ABCC2, ABCC10, ABCG2 and SCL47A1). The relationship between model-predicted darunavir AUC0-24 and C24 with time to virological failure was evaluated by Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 805 enrolled, 716, 720, 347 and 361 were included in the darunavir, ritonavir, tenofovir and emtricitabine models, respectively (11% female, 83% Caucasian). No significant effect of patient demographics or SNPs was observed for darunavir or tenofovir apparent oral clearance (CL/F); coadministration of raltegravir did not influence darunavir or ritonavir CL/F. Ritonavir CL/F decreased by 23% in NR1I2 63396C>T carriers and emtricitabine CL/F was linearly associated with creatinine clearance (P < 0.001). No significant relationship was demonstrated between darunavir AUC0-24 or C24 and time to virological failure [HR (95% CI): 2.28 (0.53-9.80), P = 0.269; and 1.82 (0.61-5.41), P = 0.279, respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Darunavir concentrations were unaltered in the presence of raltegravir and not associated with virological failure. Polymorphisms investigated had little impact on study-drug pharmacokinetics. Darunavir/ritonavir + raltegravir may be an appropriate option for patients experiencing NRTI-associated toxicity
    corecore