Diverse Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Drug Resistance Profiles at Screening for ACTG A5288: A Study of People Experiencing Virologic Failure on Second-line Antiretroviral Therapy in Resource-limited Settings.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance profiles are needed to optimize individual patient management and to develop treatment guidelines. Resistance profiles are not well defined among individuals on failing second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). METHODS: Resistance genotypes were performed during screening for enrollment into a trial of third-line ART (AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol 5288). Prior exposure to both nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-NRTIs and confirmed virologic failure on a protease inhibitor-containing regimen were required. Associations of drug resistance with sex, age, treatment history, plasma HIV RNA, nadir CD4+T-cell count, HIV subtype, and country were investigated. RESULTS: Plasma HIV genotypes were analyzed for 653 screened candidates; most had resistance (508 of 653; 78%) to 1 or more drugs. Genotypes from 133 (20%) showed resistance to at least 1 drug in a drug class, from 206 (32%) showed resistance to at least 1 drug in 2 drug classes, and from 169 (26%) showed resistance to at least 1 drug in all 3 commonly available drug classes. Susceptibility to at least 1 second-line regimen was preserved in 59%, as were susceptibility to etravirine (78%) and darunavir/ritonavir (97%). Susceptibility to a second-line regimen was significantly higher among women, younger individuals, those with higher nadir CD4+ T-cell counts, and those who had received lopinavir/ritonavir, but was lower among prior nevirapine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Highly divergent HIV drug resistance profiles were observed among candidates screened for third-line ART in LMIC, ranging from no resistance to resistance to 3 drug classes. These findings underscore the need for access to resistance testing and newer antiretrovirals for the optimal management of third-line ART in LMIC.

Two-way mobile phone intervention compared with standard-of-care adherence support after second-line antiretroviral therapy failure: a multinational, randomised controlled trial.

Background: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) non-adherence causes HIV treatment failure. Past behaviour might predict future behaviour; failing second-line ART could indicate ongoing risk for subsequent non-adherence. We aimed to find out whether a two-way mobile phone-based communication intervention would increase HIV treatment success by improving medication adherence. Methods: We did a multinational, randomised controlled trial of patients at 17 sites in nine lower-income and middle-income countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Patients aged 18 years and older, with HIV infection, and on second-line protease-inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimens, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either two-way mobile phone intervention plus standard of care (MPI + SOC) adherence support or standard-of-care alone (SOC). Our study was nested within a strategy study of ART after second-line ART failure (the main study, A5288). The main study had four cohorts, which were assigned regimens according to ART history and real-time genotype. Randomisation was stratified by the main study cohort with dynamic institutional balancing. Only the clinical management committee was masked, not the participants or site personnel. Text messages were sent over 48 weeks starting once a day and tapering down to once per week; participants were to respond once to each message if taking ART without issues. Repeated non-response to three messages over a 2-week period for the first 8 weeks, and then two messages over a 2-week period for the remainder of the study, triggered problem-solving counselling by staff. For this study, the primary endpoint was plasma HIV-1 RNA 200 copies per mL or less at 48 weeks and the secondary endpoint was virological failure (two consecutive HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies per mL) at 24 or more weeks. Prespecified intention-to- treat analyses were adjusted for cohort. Follow-up continued until the last participant had reached 48 weeks, with a median follow-up time of 72 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number . Findings: Enrolment began on Feb 22, 2013, and ended on Dec 21, 2015, with the last participant completing follow-up on Feb 13, 2017. Of 545 participants in the main study, 521 (96%) were enrolled and randomly assigned to MPI + SOC (n=257) or SOC alone (n=264). 52% of patients were men and the median HIV-1 RNA 4-4 log10 copies per mL (IQR 3.5 to 5-2). At week 48, HIV-1 RNA 200 copies per mL or less was reached in 169 (66%) of 257 patients in the MPI + SOC group and 164 (62%) of 264 patients in the SOC group (estimated difference 3-6% [95% CI -4-6% to 11-9%]; p=0-39). The adjusted odds ratio comparing MPI + SOC and SOC was 1-23 (0-82 to 1-84; p=0-32). Virological failure occurred in 66 (26%) patients in the MPI + SOC group and 89 (34%) patients in the SOC group during the median 72 weeks follow-up (adjusted p=0-027). Observed difference in virological failure favoured MPI + SOC in all cohorts. 23 (4%) participants died, 11 (4%) in the MPI + SOC group and 12 (5%) in the SOC group (p=0-89), with none of the deaths ascribed to ART, the MPI, or study procedures. Interpretation: Two-way MPI did not significantly improve week 48 suppression, but it did modestly affect virological failure. People failing second-line ART might not achieve benefits from phone-based triggers or enhanced adherence support (or both). More effective strategies are needed.

Third-line antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries (ACTG A5288): a prospective strategy study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) management is challenging for individuals in resource-limited settings presenting for third-line treatment because of complex resistance patterns, partly due to reduced access to viral load monitoring. We aimed to evaluate use of newer antiretroviral drugs and contemporary management approaches, including population-based sequencing, to select appropriate antiretrovirals, plasma viral load monitoring, and interventions to improve adherence in individuals presenting with second-line viral failure. METHODS: A5288 was a phase 4, third-line ART strategy study done at 19 urban sites in ten countries that enrolled adult participants with confirmed plasma HIV-1 RNA (viral load) of 1000 copies per mL or more after more than 24 weeks of protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. The primary objective was to use antiretrovirals (raltegravir, etravirine, and ritonavir-boosted darunavir) and diagnostic monitoring technologies, including viral load, genotyping, and adherence support to achieve viral load suppression (defined as ≤200 copies per mL) in 65% or more of participants. ART history and real-time drug resistance genotypes were used to assign participants to one of four cohorts: cohort A (no lopinavir resistance) stayed on second-line ART and cohorts B (B1, best available nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs] plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir; B2, ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir plus etravirine; B3, ritonavir-boosted darunavir, raltegravir, and either tenofovir plus emtricitabine or tenofovir plus lamivudine), C (ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir plus tenofovir-emtricitabine or tenofovir plus lamivudine), and D (best available NRTIs plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus raltegravir) were defined by increasing levels of resistance and received appropriate regimens, including new antiretrovirals. Participants in Cohort B without detectable hepatitis B surface antigen were assigned by blocked randomisation to cohorts B1 and B2, and those with detectable hepatitis B surface antigen were assigned to cohort B3. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01641367. FINDINGS: From Jan 10, 2013, to Sept 10, 2015, 545 participants were enrolled. 287 (53%) were assigned to cohort A, 74 (14%) to B1, 72 (13%) to B2, eight (1%) to B3, 70 (13%) to C, and 34 (6%) to D. Overall, 349 (64%, 95% CI 60-68) participants achieved viral suppression at week 48, with proportions varying from 125 (44%) of 287 in cohort A to 65 (88%) of 74 in cohort B1, 63 (88%) of 72 in B2, eight (100%) of eight in B3, 63 (90%) of 70 in C, and 25 (74%) of 34 in D. Participants in cohort A remained on their second-line protease inhibitor, and had the most participants with grade 3 or higher adverse events (147 [51%]). INTERPRETATION: Targeted real-time genotyping to select third-line ART can appropriately allocate more costly antiretrovirals to those with greater levels of HIV drug resistance. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Experience and challenges presented by a multicenter crossover study of combination analgesic therapy for the treatment of painful HIV-associated polyneuropathies.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence for efficacy of analgesics as monotherapy for neuropathic pain associated with HIV-associated polyneuropathies, in spite of demonstrated efficacy in other neuropathic pain conditions. We evaluated the tolerability and analgesic efficacy of duloxetine, methadone, and the combination of duloxetine-methadone compared with placebo. DESIGN: This study was a phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-period crossover multicenter study of analgesic therapy for patients with at least moderate neuropathic pain due to HIV-associated polyneuropathy. Duloxetine, methadone, combination duloxetine-methadone, and placebo were administered in four different possible sequences. The primary outcome measure was mean pain intensity (MPI) measured daily in a study-supplied pain diary. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients were enrolled from eight study sites and eight patients completed the entire trial. Study treatments failed to show statistically significant change in MPI compared with placebo. Adverse events were frequent and associated with high rates of drug discontinuation and study dropout. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges with participant recruitment and poor retention precluded trial completion to its planned targets, limiting our evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of the study treatments. Challenges to successful completion of this study and lessons learned are discussed.