Development and validation of decision rules to guide frequency of monitoring CD4 cell count in HIV-1 infection before starting antiretroviral therapy

Background Although CD4 cell count monitoring is used to decide when to start antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV-1 infection, there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding its optimal frequency. It is common practice to monitor every 3 to 6 months, often coupled with viral load monitoring. We developed rules to guide frequency of CD4 cell count monitoring in HIV infection before starting antiretroviral therapy, which we validated retrospectively in patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Methodology/Principal Findings We built up two prediction rules (“Snap-shot rule” for a single sample and “Track-shot rule” for multiple determinations) based on a systematic review of published longitudinal analyses of CD4 cell count trajectories. We applied the rules in 2608 untreated patients to classify their 18 061 CD4 counts as either justifiable or superfluous, according to their prior ≥5% or <5% chance of meeting predetermined thresholds for starting treatment. The percentage of measurements that both rules falsely deemed superfluous never exceeded 5%. Superfluous CD4 determinations represented 4%, 11%, and 39% of all actual determinations for treatment thresholds of 500, 350, and 200×106/L, respectively. The Track-shot rule was only marginally superior to the Snap-shot rule. Both rules lose usefulness for CD4 counts coming near to treatment threshold. Conclusions/Significance Frequent CD4 count monitoring of patients with CD4 counts well above the threshold for initiating therapy is unlikely to identify patients who require therapy. It appears sufficient to measure CD4 cell count 1 year after a count >650 for a threshold of 200, >900 for 350, or >1150 for 500×106/L, respectively. When CD4 counts fall below these limits, increased monitoring frequency becomes advisable. These rules offer guidance for efficient CD4 monitoring, particularly in resource-limited settings.

Treatment failure and mortality factors in patients receiving second-line HIV therapy in resource-limited countries

Context Long-term antiretroviral therapy (ART) use in resource-limited countries leads to increasing numbers of patients with HIV taking second-line therapy. Limited access to further therapeutic options makes essential the evaluation of second-line regimen efficacy in these settings. Objectives To investigate failure rates in patients receiving second-line therapy and factors associated with failure and death. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicohort study of 632 patients >14 years old receiving second-line therapy for more than 6 months in 27 ART programs in Africa and Asia between January 2001 and October 2008. Main Outcome Measures Clinical, immunological, virological, and immunovirological failure (first diagnosed episode of immunological or virological failure) rates, and mortality after 6 months of second-line therapy use. Sensitivity analyses were performed using alternative CD4 cell count thresholds for immunological and immunovirological definitions of failure and for cohort attrition instead of death. Results The 632 patients provided 740.7 person-years of follow-up; 119 (18.8%) met World Health Organization failure criteria after a median 11.9 months following the start of second-line therapy (interquartile range [IQR], 8.7-17.0 months), and 34 (5.4%) died after a median 15.1 months (IQR, 11.9-25.7 months). Failure rates were lower in those who changed 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) instead of 1 (179.2 vs 251.6 per 1000 person-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.96), and higher in those with lowest adherence index (383.5 vs 176.0 per 1000 person-years; IRR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.67-5.90 for <80% vs ≥95% [percentage adherent, as represented by percentage of appointments attended with no delay]). Failure rates increased with lower CD4 cell counts when second-line therapy was started, from 156.3 vs 96.2 per 1000 person-years; IRR, 1.59 (95% CI, 0.78-3.25) for 100 to 199/μL to 336.8 per 1000 person-years; IRR, 3.32 (95% CI, 1.81-6.08) for less than 50/μL vs 200/μL or higher; and decreased with time using second-line therapy, from 250.0 vs 123.2 per 1000 person-years; IRR, 1.90 (95% CI, 1.19-3.02) for 6 to 11 months to 212.0 per 1000 person-years; 1.71 (95% CI, 1.01-2.88) for 12 to 17 months vs 18 or more months. Mortality for those taking second-line therapy was lower in women (32.4 vs 68.3 per 1000 person-years; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.91); and higher in patients with treatment failure of any type (91.9 vs 28.1 per 1000 person-years; HR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.38-5.80). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Conclusions Among patients in Africa and Asia receiving second-line therapy for HIV, treatment failure was associated with low CD4 cell counts at second-line therapy start, use of suboptimal second-line regimens, and poor adherence. Mortality was associated with diagnosed treatment failure.

Optimal time for initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV-infected, treatment-naive children aged 2 to 5 years old

BACKGROUND The use of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) comprising three antiretroviral medications from at least two classes of drugs is the current standard treatment for HIV infection in adults and children. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for antiretroviral therapy recommend early treatment regardless of immunologic thresholds or the clinical condition for all infants (less than one years of age) and children under the age of two years. For children aged two to five years current WHO guidelines recommend (based on low quality evidence) that clinical and immunological thresholds be used to identify those who need to start cART (advanced clinical stage or CD4 counts ≤ 750 cells/mm(3) or per cent CD4 ≤ 25%). This Cochrane review will inform the current available evidence regarding the optimal time for treatment initiation in children aged two to five years with the goal of informing the revision of WHO 2013 recommendations on when to initiate cART in children. OBJECTIVES To assess the evidence for the optimal time to initiate cART in treatment-naive, HIV-infected children aged 2 to 5 years. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the AEGIS conference database, specific relevant conferences, www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform and reference lists of articles. The date of the most recent search was 30 September 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate with deferred initiation of cART, and prospective cohort studies which followed children from enrolment to start of cART and on cART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors considered studies for inclusion in the review, assessed the risk of bias, and extracted data on the primary outcome of death from all causes and several secondary outcomes, including incidence of CDC category C and B clinical events and per cent CD4 cells (CD4%) at study end. For RCTs we calculated relative risks (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). For cohort data, we extracted relative risks with 95% CI from adjusted analyses. We combined results from RCTs using a random effects model and examined statistical heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS Two RCTs in HIV-positive children aged 1 to 12 years were identified. One trial was the pilot study for the larger second trial and both compared initiation of cART regardless of clinical-immunological conditions with deferred initiation until per cent CD4 dropped to <15%. The two trials were conducted in Thailand, and Thailand and Cambodia, respectively. Unpublished analyses of the 122 children enrolled at ages 2 to 5 years were included in this review. There was one death in the immediate cART group and no deaths in the deferred group (RR 2.9; 95% CI 0.12 to 68.9). In the subgroup analysis of children aged 24 to 59 months, there was one CDC C event in each group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.06 to 14.87) and 8 and 11 CDC B events in the immediate and deferred groups respectively (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.24 to 3.73). In this subgroup, the mean difference in CD4 per cent at study end was 5.9% (95% CI 2.7 to 9.1). One cohort study from South Africa, which compared the effect of delaying cART for up to 60 days in 573 HIV-positive children starting tuberculosis treatment (median age 3.5 years), was also included. The adjusted hazard ratios for the effect on mortality of delaying ART for more than 60 days was 1.32 (95% CI 0.55 to 3.16). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This systematic review shows that there is insufficient evidence from clinical trials in support of either early or CD4-guided initiation of ART in HIV-infected children aged 2 to 5 years. Programmatic issues such as the retention in care of children in ART programmes in resource-limited settings will need to be considered when formulating WHO 2013 recommendations.

Epoetin and Darbepoetin for Managing Anemia in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment: Comparative Effectiveness Update

Objectives: To update the 2006 systematic review of the comparative benefits and harms of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) strategies and non-ESA strategies to manage anemia in patients undergoing chemotherapy and/or radiation for malignancy (excluding myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia), including the impact of alternative thresholds for initiating treatment and optimal duration of therapy. Data sources: Literature searches were updated in electronic databases (n=3), conference proceedings (n=3), and Food and Drug Administration transcripts. Multiple sources (n=13) were searched for potential gray literature. A primary source for current survival evidence was a recently published individual patient data meta-analysis. In that meta-analysis, patient data were obtained from investigators for studies enrolling more than 50 patients per arm. Because those data constitute the most currently available data for this update, as well as the source for on-study (active treatment) mortality data, we limited inclusion in the current report to studies enrolling more than 50 patients per arm to avoid potential differential endpoint ascertainment in smaller studies. Review methods: Title and abstract screening was performed by one or two (to resolve uncertainty) reviewers; potentially included publications were reviewed in full text. Two or three (to resolve disagreements) reviewers assessed trial quality. Results were independently verified and pooled for outcomes of interest. The balance of benefits and harms was examined in a decision model. Results: We evaluated evidence from 5 trials directly comparing darbepoetin with epoetin, 41 trials comparing epoetin with control, and 8 trials comparing darbepoetin with control; 5 trials evaluated early versus late (delay until Hb ≤9 to 11 g/dL) treatment. Trials varied according to duration, tumor types, cancer therapy, trial quality, iron supplementation, baseline hemoglobin, ESA dosing frequency (and therefore amount per dose), and dose escalation. ESAs decreased the risk of transfusion (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.64; I2 = 51%; 38 trials) without evidence of meaningful difference between epoetin and darbepoetin. Thromboembolic event rates were higher in ESA-treated patients (pooled RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30 to 1.74; I2 = 0%; 37 trials) without difference between epoetin and darbepoetin. In 14 trials reporting the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)-Fatigue subscale, the most common patient-reported outcome, scores decreased by −0.6 in control arms (95% CI, −6.4 to 5.2; I2 = 0%) and increased by 2.1 in ESA arms (95% CI, −3.9 to 8.1; I2 = 0%). There were fewer thromboembolic and on-study mortality adverse events when ESA treatment was delayed until baseline Hb was less than 10 g/dL, in keeping with current treatment practice, but the difference in effect from early treatment was not significant, and the evidence was limited and insufficient for conclusions. No evidence informed optimal duration of therapy. Mortality was increased during the on-study period (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 37 trials). There was one additional death for every 59 treated patients when the control arm on-study mortality was 10 percent and one additional death for every 588 treated patients when the control-arm on-study mortality was 1 percent. A cohort decision model yielded a consistent result—greater loss of life-years when control arm on-study mortality was higher. There was no discernible increase in mortality with ESA use over the longest available followup (pooled HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.10; I2 = 38%; 44 trials), but many trials did not include an overall survival endpoint and potential time-dependent confounding was not considered. Conclusions: Results of this update were consistent with the 2006 review. ESAs reduced the need for transfusions and increased the risk of thromboembolism. FACT-Fatigue scores were better with ESA use but the magnitude was less than the minimal clinically important difference. An increase in mortality accompanied the use of ESAs. An important unanswered question is whether dosing practices and overall ESA exposure might influence harms.

HIV-1 Transmission During Recent Infection and During Treatment Interruptions as Major Drivers of New Infections in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND  Reducing the fraction of transmissions during recent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is essential for the population-level success of "treatment as prevention". METHODS  A phylogenetic tree was constructed with 19 604 Swiss sequences and 90 994 non-Swiss background sequences. Swiss transmission pairs were identified using 104 combinations of genetic distance (1%-2.5%) and bootstrap (50%-100%) thresholds, to examine the effect of those criteria. Monophyletic pairs were classified as recent or chronic transmission based on the time interval between estimated seroconversion dates. Logistic regression with adjustment for clinical and demographic characteristics was used to identify risk factors associated with transmission during recent or chronic infection. FINDINGS  Seroconversion dates were estimated for 4079 patients on the phylogeny, and comprised between 71 (distance, 1%; bootstrap, 100%) to 378 transmission pairs (distance, 2.5%; bootstrap, 50%). We found that 43.7% (range, 41%-56%) of the transmissions occurred during the first year of infection. Stricter phylogenetic definition of transmission pairs was associated with higher recent-phase transmission fraction. Chronic-phase viral load area under the curve (adjusted odds ratio, 3; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-5.48) and time to antiretroviral therapy (ART) start (adjusted odds ratio 1.4/y; 1.11-1.77) were associated with chronic-phase transmission as opposed to recent transmission. Importantly, at least 14% of the chronic-phase transmission events occurred after the transmitter had interrupted ART. CONCLUSIONS  We demonstrate a high fraction of transmission during recent HIV infection but also chronic transmissions after interruption of ART in Switzerland. Both represent key issues for treatment as prevention and underline the importance of early diagnosis and of early and continuous treatment.

Essentials from the 2015 European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) guidelines for the treatment of adult HIV-positive persons.

BACKGROUND The European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) guidelines are intended for all clinicians involved in the care of HIV-positive persons, and are available in print, online, and as a free App for download for iPhone and Android. GUIDELINE HIGHLIGHTS The 2015 version of the EACS guidelines contains major revisions in all sections; antiretroviral treatment (ART), comorbidities, coinfections and opportunistic diseases. Among the key revisions is the recommendation of ART for all HIV-positive persons, irrespectively of CD4 count, based on the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) study results. The recommendations for the preferred and the alternative ART options have also been revised, and a new section on the use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has been added. A number of new antiretroviral drugs/drug combinations have been added to the updated tables on drug-drug interactions, adverse drug effects, dose adjustment for renal/liver insufficiency and for ART administration in persons with swallowing difficulties. The revisions of the coinfection section reflect the major advances in anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment with direct-acting antivirals with earlier start of treatment in individuals at increased risk of liver disease progression, and a phasing out of interferon-containing treatment regimens. The section on opportunistic diseases has been restructured according to individual pathogens/diseases and a new overview table has been added on CD4 count thresholds for different primary prophylaxes. CONCLUSIONS The diagnosis and management of HIV infection and related coinfections, opportunistic diseases and comorbidities continue to require a multidisciplinary effort for which the 2015 version of the EACS guidelines provides an easily accessable and updated overview.

TRIPS and Special & Differential Treatment – Revisiting the Case for Derogations in Applying Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals in Developing Count

In this paper we apply an implicit threshold approach, malleable to the principle of graduation, to identify countries that should benefit from derogations from WTO TRIPS commitments for pharmaceutical patents under the tenets of Special and Differential Treatment. This is based on the identification of four broad constraints loosely classified as; economic constraints; access topharmaceuticals; capacity constraints; and incidence of health outcomes. We identify these by means of analytical criteria and create a composite index that ranks countries according to the observed constraints which delimit the capabilities and desirability of implementing TRIPs disciplines. We discuss the use of negotiated weights and thresholds in determining participation and graduation into general provisions of the agreement. It follows that countries below the chosen threshold should be exempt from these hence receiving Special and Differential Treatment.