Virologic Response to First-line Efavirenz- or Nevirapine-based Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-infected African Children.

BACKGROUND: Poorer virologic response to nevirapine- versus efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been reported in adult systematic reviews and pediatric studies. METHODS: We compared drug discontinuation and viral load (VL) response in ART-naïve Ugandan/Zimbabwean children ≥3 years of age initiating ART with clinician-chosen nevirapine versus efavirenz in the ARROW trial. Predictors of suppression <80, <400 and <1000 copies/mL at 36, 48 and 144 weeks were identified using multivariable logistic regression with backwards elimination (P = 0.1). RESULTS: A total of 445 (53%) children received efavirenz and 391 (47%) nevirapine. Children receiving efavirenz were older (median age, 8.6 vs. 7.5 years nevirapine, P < 0.001) and had higher CD4% (12% vs. 10%, P = 0.05), but similar pre-ART VL (P = 0.17). The initial non-nucleoside-reverse-transcriptase-inhibitor (NNRTI) was permanently discontinued for adverse events in 7 of 445 (2%) children initiating efavirenz versus 9 of 391 (2%) initiating nevirapine (P = 0.46); at switch to second line in 17 versus 23, for tuberculosis in 0 versus 26, for pregnancy in 6 versus 0 and for other reasons in 15 versus 5. Early (36-48 weeks) virologic suppression <80 copies/mL was superior with efavirenz, particularly in children with higher pre-ART VL (P = 0.0004); longer-term suppression was superior with nevirapine in older children (P = 0.05). Early suppression was poorer in the youngest and oldest children, regardless of NNRTI (P = 0.02); longer-term suppression was poorer in those with higher pre-ART VL regardless of NNRTI (P = 0.05). Results were broadly similar for <400 and <1000 copies/mL. CONCLUSION: Short-term VL suppression favored efavirenz, but long-term relative performance was age dependent, with better suppression in older children with nevirapine, supporting World Health Organization recommendation that nevirapine remains an alternative NNRTI.

Once vs twice-daily abacavir and lamivudine in African children.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence is critical for successful HIV treatment outcomes. Once-daily dosing could improve adherence. Plasma concentrations of once-daily vs twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine are bioequivalent in children, but no randomized trial has compared virological outcomes. METHODS: Children taking abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line regimens twice daily for more than 36 weeks in the ARROW trial (NCT02028676, ISRCTN24791884) were randomized to continue twice-daily vs move to once-daily abacavir + lamivudine (open-label). Co-primary outcomes were viral load suppression at week 48 (12% noninferiority margin, measured retrospectively) and lamivudine or abacavir-related grade 3/4 adverse events. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-nine children (median 5 years, range 1-16) were randomized to twice daily (n = 333) vs once daily (n = 336) after median 1.8 years on twice-daily abacavir + lamivudine-containing first-line ART. Children were followed for median 114 weeks. At week 48, 242/331 (73%) twice daily vs 236/330 (72%) once daily had viral load less than 80 copies/ml [difference -1.6% (95% confidence interval -8.4,+5.2%) P = 0.65]; 79% twice daily vs 78% once daily had viral load less than 400 copies/ml (P = 0.76) (week 96 results similar). One grade 3/4 adverse event was judged uncertainly related to abacavir + lamivudine (hepatitis; once daily). At week 48, 9% twice daily vs 10% once daily reported missing one or more ART pills in the last 4 weeks (P = 0.74) and 8 vs 8% at week 96 (P = 0.90). Carers strongly preferred once-daily dosing. There was no difference between randomized groups in postbaseline drug-resistance mutations or drug-susceptibility; WHO 3/4 events; ART-modifying, grade 3/4 or serious adverse events; CD4% or weight-for-age/height-for-age (all P > 0.15). CONCLUSION: Once-daily abacavir + lamivudine was noninferior to twice daily in viral load suppression, with similar resistance, adherence, clinical, immunological and safety outcomes. Abacavir + lamivudine provides the first once-daily nucleoside backbone across childhood that can be used to simplify ART.

A randomized trial of prolonged co-trimoxazole in HIV-infected children in Africa.

BACKGROUND: Co-trimoxazole (fixed-dose trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) prophylaxis administered before antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces morbidity in children infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We investigated whether children and adolescents receiving long-term ART in sub-Saharan Africa could discontinue co-trimoxazole. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, noninferiority trial of stopping versus continuing daily open-label co-trimoxazole in children and adolescents in Uganda and Zimbabwe. Eligible participants were older than 3 years of age, had been receiving ART for more than 96 weeks, were using insecticide-treated bed nets (in malaria-endemic areas), and had not had Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia. Coprimary end points were hospitalization or death and adverse events of grade 3 or 4. RESULTS: A total of 758 participants were randomly assigned to stop or continue co-trimoxazole (382 and 376 participants, respectively), after receiving ART for a median of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.8 to 2.3). The median age was 7.9 years (interquartile range, 4.6 to 11.1), and the median CD4 T-cell percentage was 33% (interquartile range, 26 to 39). Participants who stopped co-trimoxazole had higher rates of hospitalization or death than those who continued (72 participants [19%] vs. 48 [13%]; hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 2.37; P = 0.007; noninferiority not shown). There was no evidence of variation across ages (P=0.93 for interaction). A total of 2 participants in the prophylaxis-stopped group (1%) died, as did 3 in the prophylaxis-continued group (1%). Most hospitalizations in the prophylaxis-stopped group were for malaria (49 events, vs. 21 in the prophylaxis-continued group) or infections other than malaria (53 vs. 25), particularly pneumonia, sepsis, and meningitis. Rates of adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were similar in the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.72; P=0.33), but more grade 4 adverse events occurred in the prophylaxis-stopped group (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.22; P=0.05), with anemia accounting for the largest number of events (12, vs. 2 with continued prophylaxis). CONCLUSIONS: Continuing co-trimoxazole prophylaxis after 96 weeks of ART was beneficial, as compared with stopping prophylaxis, with fewer hospitalizations for both malaria and infection not related to malaria. (Funded by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council and others; ARROW Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN24791884.).

Ethical and legal constraints to children's participation in research in Zimbabwe: experiences from the multicenter pediatric HIV ARROW trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials involving children previously considered unethical are now considered essential because of the inherent physiological differences between children and adults. An integral part of research ethics is the informed consent, which for children is obtained by proxy from a consenting parent or guardian. The informed consent process is governed by international ethical codes that are interpreted in accordance with local laws and procedures raising the importance of contextualizing their implementation. FINDINGS: In Zimbabwe the parental informed consent document for children participating in clinical research is modeled after Western laws of ethics and requires that the parent or legally authorized representative provide consent on behalf of a minor. This article highlights the experiences and lessons learnt by Zimbabwean researchers in obtaining informed consent from guardians of orphaned children participating in a collaborative HIV clinical trial involving the Medical Research Council, United Kingdom and four centers, three of which are in Uganda. Researchers were faced with a situation where caregivers of orphaned children were not permitted to provide informed consent for trial participation. The situation contrasted with general clinical practice where consent for procedures on orphans is obtained from their caregivers who are not legal guardians. CONCLUSION: The challenges faced in obtaining informed consent for orphans in this clinical trial underscores the need for the Zimbabwe ethics committee to develop an ethical and legal framework for pediatric research that is based on international guidelines while taking into account the cultural context. The Medical Research Council of Zimbabwe has since started the process that is expected to involve critical stakeholders namely the community including children, ethicists, the legal fraternity and researchers.