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

BackgroundDirect-acting antivirals (DAA) and antiretroviral (ARV) medications pose treatment challenges in HIV/HCV co-infection. Management of contraindicated combinations varies across practices. ARV switches may increase the risk of HIV virologic and treatment failure, and has been reported to increase the risk of DAA treatment failure. This analysis assesses how switches in ARV regimen impacts treatment outcomes in HIV/HCV co-infection.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study includes patients 18 years and older with stable HIV/HCV co-infection (HIV RNA<50 for ≥6 months) who received DAA HCV therapy. Data were obtained using the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems. The “ARV switch” cohort is defined as patients undergoing a switch in ARV regimen within 6 months prior to DAA treatment. The “no ARV switch” cohort was defined as patients without a change in ARV during the same time period. The primary outcome is HIV treatment failure which is a composite endpoint including HIV virologic failure (defined as confirmed loss of HIV viral suppression), discontinuation/change of ARV regimen, progression to AIDS, or death. We compared baseline characteristics, the proportion of patients free of HIV treatment failure, free of HIV virologic failure, and that achieved sustained viral response (SVR) at 12 and 24 weeks after DAA treatment among ARV switch and no ARV switch groups.ResultsOf the 256 patients, 63/256 (25%) underwent an ARV switch (Table 1). At baseline, the most common regimen in the ARV switch group was protease inhibitor (PI)-based while for the no ARV switch group, it was an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimen. HIV/HCV transmission risk factors, HCV genotype, and AST/ALT were similar among the two groups (Table 1). The proportion with HIV treatment and virologic failure, and the proportion achieving SVR12/24 were similar among the ARV switch and no ARV switch groups.ConclusionHIV treatment and virologic failure, and SVR12/24 were not different among patients who did or did not undergo a switch in their ARV regimen prior to DAA treatment. This suggests that switches in the ARV regimen for DAA treatment of HCV do not negatively impact HIV or HCV outcomes among patients with HIV/HCV Coinfection.DisclosuresAll authors: No reported disclosures.

BackgroundWe investigated the prevalence of wild-type virus (no major drug resistance) and drug resistance mutations at second-line antiretroviral treatment (ART) failure in a large HIV treatment program in South Africa.Methodology/ Principal FindingsHIV-infected patients ≥15 years of age who had failed protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line ART (2 consecutive HIV RNA tests >1000 copies/ml on lopinavir/ritonavir, didanosine, and zidovudine) were identified retrospectively. Patients with virologic failure were continued on second-line ART. Genotypic testing for drug resistance was performed on frozen plasma samples obtained closest to and after the date of laboratory confirmed second-line ART failure. Of 322 HIV-infected patients on second-line ART, 43 were adults with confirmed virologic failure, and 33 had available plasma for viral sequencing. HIV-1 RNA subtype C predominated (n = 32, 97%). Mean duration on ART (SD) prior to initiation of second-line ART was 23 (17) months, and time from second-line ART initiation to failure was 10 (9) months. Plasma samples were obtained 7(9) months from confirmed failure. At second-line failure, 22 patients (67%) had wild-type virus. There was no major resistance to PIs found. Eleven of 33 patients had a second plasma sample taken 8 (5.5) months after the first. Median HIV-1 RNA and the genotypic resistance profile were unchanged.Conclusions/ SignificanceMost patients who failed second-line ART had wild-type virus. We did not observe evolution of resistance despite continuation of PI-based ART after failure. Interventions that successfully improve adherence could allow patients to continue to benefit from second-line ART therapy even after initial failure.

BackgroundThere are limited data on the failure of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) and the use of third-line ART in people living with HIV in resource-limited settings. Since 2011, the Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) HIV/tuberculosis programme in Mumbai, India, has been providing third-line ART to patients in care.ObjectiveTo describe the experiences and programmatic challenges during management of suspected second-line ART failure and third-line ART therapy for patients living with HIV, including the use of HIV viral load (VL) testing.DesignThis was a retrospective, observational cohort study of patients with suspected second-line ART treatment failure, who were followed for at least 12 months between January 2011 and March 2014.ResultsA total of 47 patients with suspected second-line failure met the inclusion criteria during the study period. Twenty-nine of them (62%) responded to enhanced adherence support, had a subsequent undetectable VL after a median duration of 3 months and remained on second-line ART. The other 18 patients had to be initiated on a third-line ART regimen, which consisted of darunavir–ritonavir, raltegravir, and one or more appropriate nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, based on the results of HIV genotype testing. Of the 13 patients for whom follow-up VL results were available, 11 achieved virological suppression after a median duration of 3 months on third-line ART (interquartile range: 2.5–3.0). No serious treatment-related adverse events were recorded.ConclusionsWith intensive counselling and adherence support in those suspected of failing second-line ART, unnecessary switching to more expensive third-line ART can be averted in the majority of cases. However, there is an increasing need for access to third-line ART medications such as darunavir and raltegravir, for which national ART programmes should be prepared. The cost of such medications and inadequate access to VL monitoring and HIV genotype testing are currently major barriers to optimal management of patients failing second-line ART.

IntroductionHIV-1 resistance data to inform treatment sequencing are limited for children with virological failure on first- and second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsHIV-1-infected children aged ≤15 years were retrospectively identified from an ART cohort in Cape Town, South Africa (2003 to 2010). First-line ART was either non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or lopinavir/ritonavir-based (with the exception of children <6 months old who received full-dose ritonavir as the sole protease inhibitor (PI) from 2004 to 2007). Second-line ART was the alternative regimen. Treatment outcomes, including virological failure, loss to care, death or remaining in care, were determined. Genotypic resistance testing was conducted on stored serum from children at first- or second-line virological failure (two consecutive HIV-1 RNA levels >1000 copies/ml). International AIDS Society criteria defined resistance mutations.ResultsOf 472 children starting first-line ART, 352 (75%) remained in care, 45 (9%) were lost and 4 (1%) died on first-line treatment. Seventy-one (15%) had observed virological failure, and 37 of these children had specimens available for genotype testing. Eight children (22%) had wild-type virus, seven (19%) had thymidine analog mutations (TAMs), 24 (65%) had NNRTI resistance and two (5.4%) had multiple protease resistance (PR). Of the 78 children who received second-line ART, 54 (71%) remained in care, 6 (8%) were lost and 1 (1%) died during second-line treatment. Fifteen (20%) had observed virological failure; 13 had samples available for genotype. Three (23%) had wild-type virus, eight (62%) had TAMs, nine (69%) had NNRTI resistance, and five (38%) had multiple PI resistance all of whom had received full-dose ritonavir.ConclusionAlthough virological failure was infrequent in children on first- and second-line ART, rates of observed resistance including multiple PR resistance after failure were high. Reasons for high rates of resistance include use of full-dose ritonavir and continued viremia. Wild-type virus was common, suggesting poor adherence or challenges in correct dosing. Genotype resistance testing in children with virological failure may optimize selection of subsequent regimens and inform recommendations for sequencing of existing ART.

Objective. To describe and evaluate the outcomes of a support programme for patients with virological failure while receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa. Method. We described a comprehensive medical and counselling patient support programme for patients receiving secondline ART and with two consecutive viral loads (VLs) >1 000 copies/ml. Patients with >3 months follow-up and at least one VL measurement after inclusion in the programme were eligible for analysis. Results. Of 69 patients enrolled in the programme, 40 had at least one follow-up VL and no known drug resistance at enrolment; 27 (68%) of these re-suppressed while remaining on second-line ART following enhanced adherence support. The majority (18/27; 67%) achieved re-suppression within the first 3 months in the programme. Five patients with diagnosed second-line drug resistance achieved viral re-suppression (<400 copies/ml) after being switched to third-line ART. Seven patients (7/40; 18%) did not achieve viral re-suppression after 9 months in the programme: 6 with known adherence problems (4 without drug resistance on genotype) and 1 with a VL <1 000 copies/ml. Overall, 3 patients (4%) died, 3 (4%) were lost to follow-up and 2 (3%) were transferred out. Conclusion. Our experience from a routine programme demonstrates that with targeted adherence support, the majority of patients who were viraemic while receiving second-line ART returned to an undetectable VL within 3 months. By increasing the time receiving second-line ART and decreasing the need for genotypes and/or third-line ART, this intervention may reduce costs.

Objective. To describe and evaluate the outcomes of a support programme for patients with virological failure while receiving second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa.Method. We described a comprehensive medical and counselling patient support programme for patients receiving secondline ART and with two consecutive viral loads (VLs) &gt;1 000 copies/ml. Patients with &gt;3 months follow-up and at least one VL measurement after inclusion in the programme were eligible for analysis.Results. Of 69 patients enrolled in the programme, 40 had at least one follow-up VL and no known drug resistance at enrolment; 27 (68%) of these re-suppressed while remaining on second-line ART following enhanced adherence support. The majority (18/27; 67%) achieved re-suppression within the first 3 months in the programme. Five patients with diagnosed second-line drug resistance achieved viral re-suppression (&lt;400 copies/ml) after being switched to third-line ART. Seven patients (7/40; 18%) did not achieve viral re-suppression after 9 months in the programme: 6 with known adherence problems (4 without drug resistance on genotype) and 1 with a VL &lt;1 000 copies/ml. Overall, 3 patients (4%) died, 3 (4%) were lost to follow-up and 2 (3%) were transferred out.Conclusion. Our experience from a routine programme demonstrates that with targeted adherence support, the majority of patients who were viraemic while receiving second-line ART returned to an undetectable VL within 3 months. By increasing the time receiving second-line ART and decreasing the need for genotypes and/or third-line ART, this intervention may reduce costs.

ODYSSEY showed superior efficacy for dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) versus standard of care (SOC) in children living with HIV starting first-line or second-line ART aged 4 weeks or older. Here, we aim to compare virological outcomes and resistance in the dolutegravir group versus SOC for first-line and second-line ART up to 96 weeks. ODYSSEY was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial done in 29 centres in seven countries (Germany, Spain, South Africa, Thailand, the UK, Uganda, and Zimbabwe). ODYSSEY recruited children living with HIV aged at least 28 days and younger than 18 years, weighing at least 3 kg, starting first-line ART (ODYSSEY A), or switching to second-line therapy after treatment failure (ODYSSEY B). Children were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir plus two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; dolutegravir group) versus the SOC group (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NNRTI], boosted protease inhibitor, or non-dolutegravir integrase strand-transfer inhibitor, plus two NRTIs). Two randomised cohorts were combined in this exploratory analysis: children weighing at least 14 kg were enrolled between Sept 20, 2016, and June 22, 2018, and children weighing less than 14 kg were enrolled between July 5, 2018, and Aug 26, 2019. Virological failure was defined as an inadequate virological response at week 24 with an ART switch or confirmed HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 400 copies per mL after week 36. Virological suppression was defined as two consecutive viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL and was compared between groups, including an ART switch and death as competing risks. Children with virological failure were tested for post-failure genotypic resistance, with baseline results used to identify emergent resistance. Development of emergent resistance was a secondary trial outcome and all other outcomes are exploratory. ODYSSEY was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02259127), EUDRACT (2014-002632-14), and ISRCTN (ISRCTN91737921). In ODYSSEY at enrolment, 381 participants started first-line ART (ODYSSEY A: 189 in the dolutegravir group and 192 in the SOC group) and 407 participants started second-line ART (ODYSSEY B: 202 in the dolutegravir group and 205 in the SOC group). 72 participants in ODYSSEY A and 13 participants in ODYSSEY B weighed less than 14 kg. 401 (51%) of 788 participants were female and 387 (49%) were male. Virological suppression occurred significantly earlier in the dolutegravir group (adjusted [cause-specific] hazard ratio [HR] 1·57 [95% CI 1·35 to 1·83]; p<0·0001). Overall, 51 (13%) participants had virological failure by 96 weeks in the dolutegravir group versus 86 (22%) in the SOC group (including 18 [10%] vs 43 [22%] in ODYSSEY A and in 33 [16%] vs 43 [21%] in ODYSSEY B; adjusted HR 0·56 [0·40 to 0·79]; p=0·0011). Among ODYSSEY B participants starting dolutegravir, virological failure was higher in children starting zidovudine (HR 2·22 [1·01 to 4·88]; p=0·048) and similar in those starting tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (1·19 [0·50 to 2·83]; p=0·70) compared with abacavir. Time to virological suppression was marginally faster in participants receiving second-line dolutegravir and abacavir with high-level abacavir resistance at baseline compared with those with no, low-level, intermediate-level resistance (cause-specific HR 1·70 [1·01 to 2·85]; p=0·046); and failure rates by week 96 were similar (HR 0·90 [0·23 to 3·61]; p=0·88). An estimated 1% (95% CI 0 to 2) of participants in the dolutegravir group versus 20% (14 to 26) in the SOC group in ODYSSEY A had emergent resistance to at least one drug-class within their first-line regimen (risk difference -20% [-25 to -14]; p<0·0001); 4% (1 to 6) versus 5% (2 to 8) had resistance to drug within their initial second-line regimen (risk difference -1% [-5 to 3]; p=0·60). 3% (0 to 5) of participants in the dolutegravir group had emergent integrase strand-transfer inhibitors resistance compared with 3% (1 to 6) of participants in the SOC group who had emergent resistance to the anchor drug (risk difference 0% [-4 to 3]; p=0·78). Dolutegravir led to faster virological suppression and lower risk of virological failure than NNRTIs and boosted protease inhibitor-based SOC. Participants starting second-line dolutegravir-based ART with an abacavir or tenofovir backbone were at lower risk of virological failure than those starting zidovudine. During first-line therapy, dolutegravir protected against emergent resistance; starting second-line therapy, the risk of emergent resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone, and anchor drugs, was similar among participants starting dolutegravir within their second-line regimen and those starting mainly boosted protease inhibitor-based SOC. Penta Foundation, ViiV Healthcare, and UK Medical Research Council.

BackgroundSouth African HIV treatment guidelines call for patients who fail first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) to be switched to second-line ART, yet logistical issues, clinician decisions and patient preferences make delay in switching to second-line likely. We explore the impact of delaying second-line ART after first-line treatment failure on rates of death and virologic failure.MethodsWe include patients with documented virologic failure on first-line ART from an observational cohort of 9 South African clinics. We explored predictors of delayed second-line switch and used marginal structural models to analyze rates of death following first-line failure by categorical time to switch to second-line. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine virologic failure on second-line ART among patients who switched to second-line.Results5895 patients failed first-line ART, and 63% switched to second-line. Among patients who switched, median time to switch was 3.4 months (IQR: 1.1–8.7 months). Longer time to switch was associated with higher CD4 counts, lower viral loads and more missed visits prior to first-line failure. Worse outcomes were associated with delay in second-line switch among patients with a peak CD4 count on first-line treatment ≤100 cells/mm3. Among these patients, marginal structural models showed increased risk of death (adjusted HR for switch in 6–12 months vs. 0–1.5 months = 1.47 (95% CI: 0.94–2.29), and Cox models showed increased rates of second-line virologic failure despite the presence of survivor bias (adjusted HR for switch in 3–6 months vs. 0–1.5 months = 2.13 (95% CI: 1.01–4.47)).ConclusionsEven small delays in switch to second-line ART were associated with increased death and second-line failure among patients with low CD4 counts on first-line. There is opportunity for healthcare providers to switch patients to second-line more quickly.

BackgroundSuppressed patients with drug-resistant HIV-1 require effective and simple antiretroviral therapy to maintain treatment adherence and viral suppression.MethodsThis randomized, open-label, noninferiority, multicenter pilot study involved HIV-infected adults who met the following criteria: confirmed HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for ≥6 months preceding the study randomization, treatment with at least 3 antiretroviral drugs, and a history of drug resistance mutations against at least 2 antiretroviral classes but remaining fully susceptible to darunavir (DRV) and integrase inhibitors. Participants were randomized 1:1 to switch to dolutegravir (DTG; 50 mg once per day) plus DRV boosted with cobicistat (DRV/c; 800/150 mg once per day; 2D group) or continue with their baseline regimen (standard-of-care [SOC] group). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 48 relative to time to loss of virologic response, with a noninferiority margin set at −12.5%. Virologic failure was defined as confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL or a single determination of HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/mL followed by antiretroviral therapy discontinuation.ResultsForty-five participants were assigned to the 2D group and 44 to the SOC group. Time to loss of virologic response showed no difference in the proportion maintaining HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 48: 39 of 45 (86.7%; 95% CI, 73.21%–94.95%) in the 2D group vs 42 of 44 (95.4%; 95% CI, 84.53%–99.44%) in the SOC group (log-rank P = .159) with an estimated difference of −8.7 (95% CI, −22.72 to 5.14). Only 2 (4.5%) in the SOC group experienced virologic failure, and 3 participants from the 2D group experienced adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation.ConclusionsIn suppressed patients with at least 2 resistant antiretroviral classes, noninferiority could not be demonstrated by fully active DRV/c plus DTG. Nevertheless, there were no unexpected adverse events or virologic failure. DRV/c plus DTG may be considered a once-daily therapy option only for well-selected patients.Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03683524).

BackgroundIn resource-limited settings, HIV budgets are flattening or decreasing. A policy of discontinuing antiretroviral therapy (ART) after HIV treatment failure was modeled to highlight trade-offs among competing policy goals of optimizing individual and population health outcomes.MethodsIn settings with two available ART regimens, we assessed two strategies: (1) continue ART after second-line failure (Status Quo) and (2) discontinue ART after second-line failure (Alternative). A computer model simulated outcomes for a single cohort of newly detected, HIV-infected individuals. Projections were fed into a population-level model allowing multiple cohorts to compete for ART with constraints on treatment capacity. In the Alternative strategy, discontinuation of second-line ART occurred upon detection of antiretroviral failure, specified by WHO guidelines. Those discontinuing failed ART experienced an increased risk of AIDS-related mortality compared to those continuing ART.ResultsAt the population level, the Alternative strategy increased the mean number initiating ART annually by 1,100 individuals (+18.7%) to 6,980 compared to the Status Quo. More individuals initiating ART under the Alternative strategy increased total life-years by 15,000 (+2.8%) to 555,000, compared to the Status Quo. Although more individuals received treatment under the Alternative strategy, life expectancy for those treated decreased by 0.7 years (−8.0%) to 8.1 years compared to the Status Quo. In a cohort of treated patients only, 600 more individuals (+27.1%) died by 5 years under the Alternative strategy compared to the Status Quo. Results were sensitive to the timing of detection of ART failure, number of ART regimens, and treatment capacity. Although we believe the results robust in the short-term, this analysis reflects settings where HIV case detection occurs late in the disease course and treatment capacity and the incidence of newly detected patients are stable.ConclusionsIn settings with inadequate HIV treatment availability, trade-offs emerge between maximizing outcomes for individual patients already on treatment and ensuring access to treatment for all people who may benefit. While individuals may derive some benefit from ART even after virologic failure, the aggregate public health benefit is maximized by providing effective therapy to the greatest number of people. These trade-offs should be explicit and transparent in antiretroviral policy decisions.

The identification and management of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure is a key challenge for HIV programs in resource-limited settings. In 2008, the National AIDS Control Organisation, India piloted a national strategy to provide second-line ART. We assessed the National AIDS Control Organisation second-line ART evaluation algorithm. Adult patients who had received 6 months or more of standard first-line ART were referred for second-line ART evaluation if they demonstrated CD4 decline to pre-ART values, CD4 drop to less than 50% of peak on-treatment value, failure to achieve CD4 greater than 100 c/mm(3), or development of a new World Health Organization Stage 3 or 4 AIDS-defining illness. Patients received HIV RNA testing, and those with HIV RNA 10,000 c/mL or greater qualified to switch to second-line ART. World Health Organization-defined clinical and CD4 criteria for ART failure were compared against virologic failure criteria. Between January and June 2008, 154 patients met criteria for evaluation. Of 122 (79%) patients who had HIV RNA testing, 87 (71%) had viral load 10,000 c/mL or greater and were recommended to start second-line ART, 29 (24%) had viral load less than 400 c/mL, and six (5%) had viral load between 400 and 10,000 c/mL. The positive predictive value of World Health Organization clinical/immunologic criteria to detect virologic failure was 71% (95% confidence interval, 63% to 79%). Second-line ART was initiated in the public sector in India using an approach combining clinical and immunologic evaluation with confirmation of virologic failure. Almost 25% of patients who met clinical/immunologic failure criteria demonstrated virologic suppression. Inclusion of targeted HIV RNA testing in the evaluation of treatment failure can prevent unnecessary switches to second-line ART.

Implementation of an intensive adherence intervention in patients with second-line antiretroviral therapy failure in four west African countries with little access to genotypic resistance testing: a prospective cohort study

New antiretroviral drugs and approaches to HIV treatment.

BackgroundAntiretroviral therapy (ART) has been proven to be highly effective in reducing the impact of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. However, as more people receive initial ART treatment, the risk of developing resistance and eventual treatment failure increases, leading to the need for second-line treatment regimens. Understanding the factors that contribute to virologic failure to second-line ART is crucial in preventing switching to the more expensive and toxic third-line regimens. This study provides information on the prevalence, rate, and predictors of virologic failure (VF) among clients on second-line ART in Tanzania.ResultsWe followed 4718 clients for 15100 person-years (PY) of observations. Of them, 1402 (29.72%) experienced virologic failure at a rate of 92.85 per 1000 PY of observations (95% CI 88.11, 97.84). Factors that were associated with VF included: having a viral load count of ≥ 1000 copies/mL during first-line ART, with a hazard ratio (HR) 4.65 (95% CI 3.57, 6.07), using lopinavir (LPV/r) as a protease inhibitor during second-line ART (HR 4.20 (95% CI 3.12, 7.10), having a CD4 count < 200 cells/mm3 during second-line ART (HR 1.89 (95% CI 1.46, 2.44), and being on ART for 13–35 months (HR 8.22 (95% CI 2.21, 30.61). Paradoxically, having a CD4 count < 200 cells/mm3 during first-line ART treatment was associated with a reduced risk of virologic failure (HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.60, 0.99).ConclusionsIn Tanzania, approximately 30% of adult clients on second-line ART experience VF at a rate of 92.71 per 1000 person-years. This high virologic failure rate underscores the urgent need for targeted interventions, such as enhancing adherence support, optimizing drug regimens, and regular viral load monitoring. These interventions will reduce the need for switching to the more costly and toxic third-line ART therapy and are also crucial for achieving the UNAIDS goal of 95% viral suppression among treated individuals by 2030.

Second-line antiretroviral therapy failure and characterization of HIV-1 drug resistance patterns in children in Mali