A total of 91 (99%) of children in the LPV/r arm and 85 (89%) of children in the NNRTI arm remained in follow-up at 48 weeks, the time point of the primary analysis. One child discontinued study medication due to an adverse reaction (Stevens–Johnson Syndrome after 3 weeks of therapy with NVP). Eight children withdrew from the NNRTI arm and 1 from the LPV/r arm (Fig. 1), all due to inability to comply with study procedures, and none related to medication tolerance. HIV RNA levels at 48 weeks were missing from 13 children (7 LPV/r and 6 NNRTI) due to missed study visits or laboratory problems.
The proportion of children with virologic suppression at 48 weeks was 80% (67/84) in the LPV/r arm compared with 76% (59/78) in the NNRTI arm, corresponding to a difference of 4.1% with a 95% CI of –8.7% to 17%, thereby excluding the prespecified noninferiority margin of −11%. In modified intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of children with virologic suppression was 74% (67/91) in the LPV/r arm compared with 65% (60/92) in the NNRTI arm (difference of 8.4%; 95% CI: −4.9% to +22%).
The proportion of children with virologic suppression at 96 weeks was 89% (46/52) in the LPV/r arm vs. 84% (41/49) in the NNRTI arm (difference: 4.8%, 95% CI: −9% to 18%) in per-protocol analysis. Of the 124 children enrolled with at least 96 weeks of follow-up (Fig. 1), 6 had changed from NNRTI to LPV/r and 18 children were missing HIV RNA levels due to laboratory error or missed visits (LPV/r: 10, NNRTI: 8).
A total of 37 children developed confirmed virologic failure by 96 weeks (Fig. 2; see Figure S1, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/QAI/A491). Among the ART-naive, the 96-week virologic failure rate was 26% (95% CI: 17% to 39%) in the LPV/r arm and 28% (18% to 41%) in the NNRTI arm (Log-rank test P = 0.8) in survival modeling. Among the ART-experienced, the 96-week virologic failure rate was 8% (95% CI: 2% to 27%) in the LPV/r arm and 12% (4% to 32%) in the NNRTI arm (Log-rank test P = 0.6).
Compared with the NNRTI arm, a greater portion of the children who developed virologic failure in the LPV/r arm subsequently achieved virologic suppression after adherence counseling. Of the 18 children with virologic failure in the LPV/r arm, 14 (78%) subsequently achieved virologic suppression after adherence counseling. In contrast, of the 19 with virologic failure in the NNRTI arm, only 4 (21%) subsequently achieved virologic suppression (P = 0.0006). A total of 6 children switched to second-line ART (all from NNRTI to LPV/r); 5 achieved virologic suppression and 1 did not yet have follow-up viral load testing.
ART-naive children experienced comparable increases in CD4 counts, with mean change from baseline to 48 weeks of 405 cells per microliter (SD, 324) for the LPV/r arm and 426 cells per microliter (498) for the NNRTI arm (P = 0.7); similar recovery in CD4 percentage was also seen, with mean (SD) change of 11.8 (7.4) in the LPV/r arm and 13.3 (7.1) in the NNRTI arm (P = 0.27). Among the ART-experienced, there were mean (SD) losses in CD4 count at 48 weeks for both the LPV/r [−296 (610)] and NNRTI arms [−5.8 (733)] (P = 0.13), but CD4 percentages showed mean improvements: LPV/r [0.5 (8.8)], NNRTI [3.5 (9.5)] (P = 0.23). There were no significant differences in mean CD4 number or percentage between arms at any time point (all P values >0.05) (Figs. 3A, B; see Figure S2a and 2b, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/QAI/A491). There was a trend toward lower mean CD4 counts among ART-experienced children randomized to LPV/r vs. NNRTI at 48–96 weeks, but CD4 percentages remained comparable at all time points.
Division of AIDS grade 3 or 4 adverse events were rare, and there were no significant differences in their incidence between the 2 ART arms (see Table S1, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/QAI/A491). Neutropenia (<750 cells/μL) and thrombocytopenia (<50,000/μL) were the most commonly reported adverse events. There were 47 neutropenia events (24.0 per 100 person-years) in the LPV/r arm and 51 (28.3 per 100 person-years) in the NNRTI arm. The rate of grade 3 or 4 elevated alanine aminotransferase was slightly higher in children in the NNRTI arm compared with the LPV/r arm (3.32 vs. 1.53 events per person-year, respectively, P = 0.26). There was 1 permanent ART change in a patient who developed Stevens–Johnson Syndrome while receiving NVP. One patient changed from NVP to EFV due to hepatitis. Two children (1 from each arm) temporarily changed to EFV to avoid interactions with therapy for tuberculosis. There were 4 deaths, none attributed to study medications. Two children with severe malnutrition (1 each randomized to NVP and LPV/r) died within 6 weeks of enrollment of unclear causes; they had been admitted to the hospital and provided with nutritional supplementation. One child died of measles complicated by pneumonia (NVP) despite measles vaccination. One child experienced a sudden death of unclear etiology (EFV).
Our finding of comparable virologic outcomes in children receiving LPV/r and NNRTI-based ART supports to the idea that LPV/r-based ART could be used to treat HIV-infected African children while also preventing malaria. We previously showed that children in the LPV/r arm of this study experienced a lower incidence of malaria,1 primarily due to a reduction in the incidence of recurrent malaria after treatment with artemether–lumefantrine. It is thus important to note that the benefits of LPV/r in malaria prevention would only apply to areas where artemether–lumefantrine is in use. But, artemether–lumefantrine is recommended by the WHO as first line treatment for malaria and is in use throughout much of Africa.10 With the results present here, we show that the antimalarial benefits of LPV/r for HIV-infected children in this setting did not come at a cost of virologic or CD4+ T-cell recovery.
Comparable virologic outcomes for protease inhibitor (PI) vs. NNRTI-based ART have been reported from larger randomized trials in adults and children. In the optimal combination therapy after NVP exposure (A5208) trial, NVP and LPV/r-based ART lead to the same rate of virologic failure or death (14% vs. 14%, hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.6) among 500 ART-naive HIV-infected African women without previous exposure to single-dose NVP.11 In the PENPACT 1 trial, 263 HIV-infected children randomized to either NNRTI- or PI-based ART had similar proportions with HIV RNA <400 copies per milliliter throughout follow-up.12 However, in the IMPAACT p1060 trial, the HIV-infected infants (without perinatal exposure to NVP) randomized to receive NVP had an elevated risk of virologic failure (confirmed HIV RNA >400 copies/mL) or death by 24 weeks (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95% CI: 1.41 to 4.47) and a trend toward lower rates of suppression (HIV RNA <400 copies/mL) at 48 weeks (75% vs. 85%, respectively, P = 0.06) compared with infants receiving LPV/r.5 Our study did not confirm the superiority of LPV/r reported in the p1060 trial, but we did note trends in favor of the LPV/r. Differences between our results and those of p1060 are likely explained, at least in part, by the age differences between our and their cohorts (median 3.1 vs. 1.8 years, respectively). If we restrict our analyses to include only children aged <3 years (n = 75), the rates of virologic suppression are more in favor of LPV/r as reported in p1060 (data not shown). Also of note, the older children in the NNRTI arm of our study received EFV, which has been associated with superior outcomes compared with NVP in African children.13
The good outcomes of children switching from NNRTI to LPV/r-based ART in our study add to limited data on the safety of switching ART in children with virologic control.14–18 HIV-infected children occasionally need to change ART due to adverse events, anticipated drug interactions, or formulation availability. Previous studies have demonstrated safety in changing from PI to EFV15 or NVP4,18-based ART, but to the best of our knowledge, no randomized trials have previously reported on the safety of switching from NNRTI- to PI-based ART among children with virologic suppression.
We observed a notable difference between treatment arms in the outcomes of children recognized to have virologic failure. Most children in the LPV/r arm ultimately achieved suppression with adherence counseling and without a change in ART, but most children in the NNRTI arm continued to fail despite counseling. This could be the result of the lower barrier to resistance seen with NNRTI's compared with PIs such as LPV/r19 or reflect ongoing issues of poorer tolerance and adherence to NNRTI's. This finding highlights the importance of early recognition of adherence problems and the role that frequent HIV RNA level testing could play in identifying those at risk for resistance.
Virologic failure rates by 96 weeks were >25% in both treatment arms. The reasons for such high failure rates are uncertain, but adherence issues were identified in the majority of cases. Caregivers received adherence counseling before treatment initiation and at every monthly visit. Adherence was reported at 99.5% over all clinic visits, but we believe that caregiver reports were inflated. When a case of virologic failure was identified, additional counseling was performed and in difficult cases, counselors visited the homes of families to help them problem solve. In some cases, adherence was improved with simple changes in practice such as substituting tablets for liquids. But, in other cases, socioeconomic factors presented greater challenge and no clear solution, such as the case of the single mothers who assigned responsibility for medication administration to young siblings. Our experience suggests that treatment programs in similar settings should devote as much effort as resources allow to adherence support to optimize ART outcomes.
Consideration of the optimal first line ART for HIV-infected African children must take into account not only the response to initial therapy but also the consequences of failure on resistance mutation accumulation and the response to second-line therapy. Our ability to assess the long-term implications of study regimens would have been improved with information about the accumulation of resistance mutations and additional data about the outcomes of children on the second-line therapy. Some studies have shown good responses to PI-based therapy after NNRTI-based ART in Africa, but data are limited in children.20–22 One small retrospective study showed poorer virologic responses when NNRTIs were used as second-line following PIs, compared with when PIs followed NNRTIs.23 However, in PENPACT 1, which took place in Europe and North and South America, children who received PIs (vs. NNRTI) as first line had fewer NRTI mutations at the time of virologic failure and good suppression rates in response to NNRTI-based second-line treatment.4
We also compared changes in CD4 measures by treatment arm. In HIV-infected adults, several studies have suggested that PIs,24–26 and LPV/r in particular,27 may be associated with improved CD4 count recovery. Conversely, some data suggest impaired CD4 responses in children receiving LPV/r compared with NNRTI-based ART. Among the NVP-exposed infants in the p1060 trial, the LPV/r arm demonstrated a trend toward lower CD4 percentages recovery at 48 weeks28 compared with the NNRTI arm. In the NEVEREST trial, ART-experienced infants receiving LPV/r were randomized to either continue LPV/r or switch to NVP; a greater portion of those who stayed on LPV/r experienced a 10% decline in CD4 percentage at 52 weeks (15% vs. 3%).4 The marginal differences in CD4 measures that have been reported are of unclear clinical significance, but suggest the possibility of an interaction of LPV/r with lymphocyte recovery. In this trial, we did not find significant differences in CD4 count or percentage between the arms of our study. ART-experienced LPV/r-treated children had lower median CD4 counts, with a net decline from baseline to 48 weeks but CD4 percentages remained notably stable.
Both NNRTIs and LPV/r were well tolerated in our study, with only 1 grade III/IV adverse event leading to permanent discontinuation. As in other trials of NNRTIs and PIs in children, the most common adverse event was neutropenia, but the clinical consequences of these events seem to have been minor.5,28 All cases resolved without complications in our study. Indeed, high rates of reported neutropenia may also reflect genetic and/or geographic differences that lead to relatively low neutrophil levels in Ugandan, compared with North American children.29 There is some concern that LPV/r may impair growth; greater change in weight-for-age Z score was seen in children receiving NNRTIs compared with those receiving PIs in the p1060 trial. In our trial, severe malnutrition was noted in only 1 patient, who died before initiating medications, but detailed analyses of impacts of study drugs on growth are ongoing.
Considering our results, what is the role for LPV/r in the treatment of HIV-infected African children? The cost of LPV/r has declined dramatically over the past decade, and there is wider access to pediatric formulations.30 Clinical trials have yielded varying results about whether LPV/r is superior to NNRTIs. At the moment, it may be that LPV/r use should be targeted to the populations of children in which it has shown particular benefit. The World Health Organization now recommends LPV/r over NNRTIs as the first-line therapy for all HIV-infected children aged younger than 3 years.31 The results of PROMOTE-pediatrics suggest that the use of LPV/r- over NNRTI-based ART could lower the incidence of malaria for HIV-infected children aged up to 6 years living in malaria-endemic regions where artemether–lumefantrine is the malaria treatment of choice.1 And for a malaria-endemic country, the relatively higher cost of LPV/r compared with NNRTs may be offset by the avoidance of malaria-associated medications, hospitalizations, and mortality. As the use of LPV/r expands in Africa, it will be important that data about clinical outcomes and the declining cost of LPV/r continue to be evaluated in the development of treatment guidelines.
The authors would like to acknowledge the children and families and study team of PROMOTE-pediatrics for the time and effort that made the trial possible. The authors thank Albert Plenty for his assistance with statistical analysis.
1. Achan J, Kakuru A, Ikilezi G, et al.. Antiretroviral agents and prevention of malaria in HIV-infected Ugandan children. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2110–2118.
2. Parikh S, Gut J, Istvan E, et al.. Antimalarial activity of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49:2983–2985.
3. Ikilezi G, Achan J, Kakuru A, et al.. Prevalence of asymptomatic parasitemia and gametocytemia among HIV-infected Ugandan children randomized to receive different antiretroviral therapies. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2013;88:744–746.
4. Coovadia A, Abrams EJ, Stehlau R, et al.. Reuse of nevirapine in exposed HIV-infected children after protease inhibitor-based viral suppression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;304:1082–1090.
5. Violari A, Lindsey JC, Hughes MD, et al.. Nevirapine versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir for HIV-infected children. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2380–2389.
6. World Health Organization. Antiretroviral Therapy of HIV Infection in Infants and Children: Towards Universal Access: Recommendations for a Public Health Approach—2010 Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2010.
7. Working Group on Antiretroviral Therapy and Medical Management of HIV-Infected Children. Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroiviral Agents in Pediatric HIV Infection. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2008. Available at: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/guidelines/archive/pediatric-guidelines/
. Accessed April 18, 2013.
10. Technical Guidelines Development Group. Guidelines for the Treatment of Malaria. 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2010.
11. Lockman S, Hughes MD, McIntyre J, et al.. Antiretroviral therapies in women after single-dose nevirapine exposure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1499–1509.
12. Babiker A, Castro nee Green H, Compagnucci A, et al.. First-line antiretroviral therapy with a protease inhibitor versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and switch at higher versus low viral load in HIV-infected children: an open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11:273–283.
13. Kamya MR, Mayanja-Kizza H, Kambugu A, et al.. Predictors of long-term viral failure among Ugandan children and adults treated with antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2007;46:187–193.
14. Viergever RF, ten Berg MJ, van Solinge WW, et al.. Changes in hematological parameters after switching treatment of HIV-infected patients from zidovudine to abacavir or tenofovir DF. HIV Clin Trials. 2009;10:125–128.
15. McComsey G, Bhumbra N, Ma JF, et al.. Impact of protease inhibitor substitution with efavirenz in HIV-infected children: results of the First Pediatric Switch Study. Pediatrics. 2003;111:e275–e281.
16. Mallolas J, Podzamczer D, Milinkovic A, et al.. Efficacy and safety of switching from boosted lopinavir to boosted atazanavir in patients with virological suppression receiving a LPV/r-containing HAART: the ATAZIP study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51:29–36.
17. Valantin MA, Bittar R, de Truchis P, et al.. Switching the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine promptly improves triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in dyslipidaemic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:556–561.
18. Gonzalez-Tome MI, Amador JT, Pena MJ, et al.. Outcome of protease inhibitor substitution with nevirapine in HIV-1 infected children. BMC Infect Dis. 2008;8:144.
19. Tang MW, Shafer RW. HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance: scientific principles and clinical applications. Drugs. 2012;72:e1–e25.
20. Kekitiinwa A, Asiimwe AR, Kasirye P, et al.. Prospective long-term outcomes of a cohort of Ugandan children with laboratory monitoring during antiretroviral therapy. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2012;31:e117–e125.
21. Murphy RA, Sunpath H, Castilla C, et al.. Second-line antiretroviral therapy: long-term outcomes in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;61:158–163.
22. Schoffelen AF, Wensing AM, Tempelman HA, et al.. Sustained virological response on second-line antiretroviral therapy following virological failure in HIV-infected patients in rural South Africa. PLoS One. 2013;8:e58526.
23. Zanoni BC, Sunpath H, Feeney ME. Pediatric response to second-line antiretroviral therapy in South Africa. PLoS One. 2012;7:e49591.
24. Bartlett JA, Fath MJ, Demasi R, et al.. An updated systematic overview of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults. AIDS. 2006;20:2051–2064.
25. Dronda F, Moreno S, Moreno A, et al.. Long-term outcomes among antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with small increases in CD4+ cell counts after successful virologic suppression. Clin Infect Dis. 2002;35:1005–1009.
26. Barreiro P, Soriano V, Casas E, et al.. Different degree of immune recovery using antiretroviral regimens with protease inhibitors or non-nucleosides. AIDS. 2002;16:245–249.
27. Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo AG, et al.. Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2095–2106.
28. Palumbo P, Lindsey JC, Hughes MD, et al.. Antiretroviral treatment for children with peripartum nevirapine exposure. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1510–1520.
29. Lubega IR, Fowler MG, Musoke PM, et al.. Considerations in using US-based laboratory toxicity tables to evaluate laboratory toxicities among healthy Malawian and Ugandan infants. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;55:58–64.
30. Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign. Untangling the Web of Antiretrovirtal Price Reductions. 16th ed. Médecins Sans Frontières: Geneva, Switzerland; 2013. Available at: http://www.msfaccess.org
. Accessed December 12, 2013.
31. World Health Organization. Consolidated Guidelines on the Use of Antiretrovrial Drugs for Treating and Preventing HIV Infection. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press; 2013.
Keywords:© 2014 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
children; African; lopinavir; virologic outcomes