ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify differences in infant outcomes, virological efficacy, and preterm delivery (PTD) outcome between women exposed to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and those exposed to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r). METHODS: A retrospective case note review was carried out. The case notes of 493 women who conceived while on LPV/r or ATV/r or initiated LPV/r or ATV/r during pregnancy and who delivered between 1 September 2007 and 30 August 2012 were reviewed. Data collected included demographics, antiretroviral use, HIV markers, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. Infant outcomes, virological efficacies and PTD rates for LPV/r and ATV/r were compared. RESULTS: A total of 306 women received LPV/r (82 conceiving while on the drug and 224 commencing it post-conception) and 187 received ATV/r (96 conceiving while on the drug and 91 commencing it post-conception). Comparing the two protease inhibitors (PIs), viral suppression rates were similar and, in women starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) post-conception, the median times to first undetectable HIV viral load were not significantly different (P = 0.64). PTD rates did not differ by therapy overall (ATV/r, 13%; LPV/r, 14%) or when considering the timing of first exposure (conceiving on ART, P = 0.81; commencing ART in pregnancy, P = 0.08). Poor fetal outcomes were very uncommon. There were two transmissions, giving a mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) rate of 0.4% (95% confidence interval 0.05-1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Both ART regimens were well tolerated and successful in preventing MTCT. No significant differences in tolerability or in pregnancy or infant outcomes were observed, which supports the provision of a choice of PI in pregnancy.
