*Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, CA
†Makerere University–University of California San Francisco Research Collaboration
‡Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University, NY
§Department of Medicine, Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, University of California San Francisco, CA
‖Department of Pediatrics, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
¶Department of Medicine, HIV/AIDS Division at San Francisco General Hospital, University of California San Francisco, CA
#Department of Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Supported by NIH/Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health P01 (HD059454).
To the Editors:
The WHO recently updated guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) among pregnant women, including “Option B+”—the initiation of combination ART (cART) during pregnancy and continued for life1 regardless of CD4+ cell count. Numerous countries have begun implementing Option B+ and scaling-up lifelong cART initiated during pregnancy. Option B+ includes either lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), abacavir, or efavirenz (EFV)-based cART initiated after the first trimester of pregnancy for women with CD4+ cell counts above 350 cells/mm3 versus nevirapine (NVP) or EFV-based cART for women with CD4+ cell counts 350 cells/mm3 or lower. Option B+ is cost-effective for Uganda2 and benefits include near elimination of perinatal and breastfeeding HIV transmission, promotion of women’s health, and markedly diminished risk of sexual HIV transmission.
As Option B+ is implemented, clinicians will face challenging management issues, particularly in resource-constrained settings when women starting Option B+ regimens have indications for a change in ART because of reasons such as desire for additional pregnancies, contraceptive choice, in-country availability, or cost. Moreover, women will be starting, and potentially changing, cART at higher CD4+ cell counts raising questions regarding the safety of switching to NVP-based regimens. We provide early data on HIV-infected pregnant women treated with cART at all CD4+ cell counts who were switched to an NVP-based regimen at the cessation of breastfeeding.
We performed a secondary analysis of PROMOTE-Pregnant Women and Infant Study (NCT00993031), an open-label randomized-controlled trial of HIV-infected pregnant women comparing efficacy of LPV/r versus EFV in preventing placental malaria in Tororo, Uganda. Women at all CD4+ cell counts are enrolled at 12 to 28 weeks gestation and receive LPV/r or EFV-based cART from enrollment until 1 year postpartum. At 1 year postpartum, women are given the opportunity to continue nonstudy cART, and care is transitioned to a community-based HIV clinic. Women’s nonstudy regimens are chosen based on their reproductive intentions, contraceptive choice, and available in-country regimens.
Between March 7, 2011, and April 3, 2012, women receiving LPV/r were switched to NVP at the end of trial participation if they were transitioning to a local clinic without LPV availability. Women on EFV who desired future childbearing or were not using long-acting or permanent contraception were switched to NVP. The day after study medication discontinuation, women on LPV/r received 2 weeks of once-daily NVP followed by twice daily NVP, whereas women on EFV switched to twice daily NVP.3–5 All women on NVP returned to the study clinic for a 2-week follow-up visit. Community-based clinics in close proximity to the study provided follow-up for women after trial participation. Adverse events were assessed at all unscheduled and scheduled visits and graded using Division of AIDS standardized Toxicity Table for Grading Severity of Adult and Pediatric Adverse Events, Version 1.0. We calculated the incidence of dermatologic adverse events among women transitioned to NVP.
Between March 7, 2011, and April 3, 2012, when the NVP transition plan was in place, 121 participants reached 1 year postpartum. Of these 121 women, 79 were switched to an NVP-based regimen, including 42 women on LPV/r and 37 women on EFV. Forty-two women remained on the same regimen, including 20 women on LPV and 22 women on EFV. Among the 79 women in the NVP switch cohort, the median nadir CD4+ cell count was 272 cells/mm3 (interquartile range, 195–362) and nadir CD4+ cell count was > 250 and > 350 cells/mm3 among 59.5% and 27.9%, respectively. The median pretreatment CD4 cell count was 318 cells/mm3 (interquartile range, 246–441; range, 55–1342).
There were 5 cases [6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7 to 14.0) of dermatologic toxicity, all attributed to NVP. (Table 1) Among women with a CD4+ nadir >250 cells/mm3, the incidence of any dermatologic toxicity was 10.6% (95% CI: 1.6 to 19.6) and incidence of grade 3 dermatologic toxicity was 2.1% (95% CI: 0 to 6.3). Three cases occurred in women switched from EFV and 2 cases occurred among women switched from LPV/r. The nadir CD4+ cell count was >250 cells/mm3 in all 5 cases and >350 cells/mm3 in 3 cases. All reactions were noted within 8 weeks of switching to NVP, and 3 women (3.8%; 95% CI: 1.3 to 0.6) required discontinuation of NVP. There was 1 case (1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2 to 6.8) of a grade 3 rash requiring hospitalization at day 48 following switching from LPV/r. All women experienced resolution of their rash. All women had normal alanine aminotransferase values before NVP switch, but follow-up studies at the time of the rash were not obtained.
Among women in our cohort switched to NVP with a CD4+ cell count nadir >250 cells/mm3, the incidence of any rash (10.6%) and grade 3 rash (2.1%) is similar to what has been described in NVP trials among ART-naive and NVP switch trials among ART-experienced adults. Aaron et al6 reported a 9.3% risk of grade 2 or worse rash associated with initiation of NVP among 54 nonpregnant women in the United States.6 There was 1 case (1.9%) of Stevens-Johnson syndrome. The NVP package insert reports a 2% incidence of grade 3 or 4 rash within the first 6 weeks of therapy.7 The manufacturer also reports a 5% to 7% incidence of moderate or severe rash associated with NVP in controlled trials. Among 6 randomized-controlled trials evaluating switching from suppressive protease inhibitor to NVP-based cART, the cumulative incidence of rash requiring NVP discontinuation was 4.2%.8–14 The mean CD4+ cell count at the time of switch to NVP was 501 to650 cells/mm3 for these 6 studies, but there is no information on baseline CD4+ cell count before cART initiation. Data suggest that, although initiating NVP among ART-naive individuals at high CD4+ cell counts is associated with increased risk of dermatologic and hepatic toxicity, switching to NVP at high CD4+ cell counts is not associated with an increased risk of such adverse events.15,16 Our report extends the understanding of NVP rash by including women with a full range of pretreatment CD4+ cell counts.
In conclusion, women who transition from LPV/r or EFV during pregnancy to NVP after cessation of breastfeeding may experience serious dermatologic toxicity. The severity and frequency of rashes attributed to NVP in this setting are in the range of what has been reported previously. This remains the case when only evaluating women in our cohort with CD4+ cell count nadir > 250 cells/mm3. Nonetheless, given the potential serious nature of dermatologic toxicity, particularly in resource-limited settings, the risks of switching to NVP purely for cost or to reduce the theoretical risks of teratogenicity from EFV need to be carefully weighed against the risk of toxicity requiring diligent monitoring. Settings that choose to switch women to NVP following cessation of breastfeeding should establish systems to closely monitor these women for adverse events.
The authors thank the PROMOTE-Pregnant Women and Infant study participants, the PROMOTE study team, the staff at TASO, and Tororo District Hospital.
1. WHO. Use of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treating Pregnant Women and Preventing HIV Infection in Infants. Geneva: WHO; 2012.
2. Kuznik A, Lamorde M, Hermans S, et al.. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of combination antiretroviral therapy for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in Uganda. Bull World Health Organ. 2012;90:595–603.
3. Winston A, Pozniak A, Smith N, et al.. Dose escalation or immediate full dose when switching from efavirenz to nevirapine-based highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected individuals? AIDS. 2004;18:572–574.
4. Parienti JJ, Massari V, Rey D, et al.. Efavirenz to nevirapine switch in HIV-1-infected patients with dyslipidemia: A randomized, controlled study. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:263–266.
5. Laureillard D, Prak N, Fernandez M, et al.. Efavirenz replacement by immediate full-dose nevirapine is safe in HIV-1-infected patients in Cambodia. HIV Med. 2008;9:514–518.
6. Aaron E, Kempf MC, Criniti S, et al.. Adverse events in a cohort of HIV infected pregnant and non-pregnant women treated with nevirapine versus non-nevirapine antiretroviral medication. PLoS One. 2010;5:e12617.
7. Boehringer-Ingelheim. Viramune® (nevirapine) package insert. 2011.
8. Ena J, Leach A, Nguyen P. Switching from suppressive protease inhibitor-based regimens to nevirapine-based regimens: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. HIV Med. 2008;9:747–756.
9. Arranz Caso JA, Lopez JC, Santos I, et al.. A randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of switching from a protease inhibitor to nevirapine in patients with undetectable viral load. HIV Med. 2005;6:353–359.
10. Barreiro P, Soriano V, Blanco F, et al.. Risks and benefits of replacing protease inhibitors by nevirapine in HIV-infected subjects under long-term successful triple combination therapy. AIDS. 2000;14:807–812.
11. Calza L, Manfredi R, Colangeli V, et al.. Substitution of nevirapine or efavirenz for protease inhibitor versus lipid-lowering therapy for the management of dyslipidaemia. AIDS. 2005;19:1051–1058.
12. Negredo E, Cruz L, Paredes R, et al.. Virological, immunological, and clinical impact of switching from protease inhibitors to nevirapine or to efavirenz in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection and long-lasting viral suppression. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;34:504–510.
13. Negredo E, Ribalta J, Paredes R, et al.. Reversal of atherogenic lipoprotein profile in HIV-1 infected patients with lipodystrophy after replacing protease inhibitors by nevirapine. AIDS. 2002;16:1383–1389.
14. Ruiz L, Negredo E, Domingo P, et al.. Antiretroviral treatment simplification with nevirapine in protease inhibitor-experienced patients with hiv-associated lipodystrophy: 1-year prospective follow-up of a multicenter, randomized, controlled study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2001;27:229–236.
15. Kesselring AM, Wit FW, Sabin CA, et al.. Risk factors for treatment-limiting toxicities in patients starting nevirapine-containing antiretroviral therapy. AIDS. 2009;23:1689–1699.
16. Antela A, Ocampo A, Gomez R, et al.. Liver toxicity after switching or simplifying to nevirapine-based therapy is not related to CD4 cell counts: Results of the TOSCANA study. HIV Clin Trials. 2010;11:11–17.