BackgroundThe antiretroviral drug nevirapine and the antimalarial artemisinin-based combination therapy artemether-lumefantrine are commonly co-administered to treat malaria in the context of HIV. Nevirapine is a known inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A4, which metabolizes artemether and lumefantrine. To address the concern that the antiretroviral nevirapine impacts the antimalarial artemether-lumefantrine pharmacokinetics, a prospective non-randomized controlled study in children presenting with uncomplicated malaria and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa was carried out.MethodsParticipants received artemether-lumefantrine (20/120 mg weight-based BID) for 3 days during nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) co-administration (158–266 mg/m2 QD). HIV positive participants who were not yet on ART drugs were also enrolled as the control group. The target enrollment was children aged 3–12 years (n = 24 in each group). Intensive pharmacokinetics after the last artemether-lumefantrine dose was assessed for artemether, its active metabolite dihydroartemisinin, and lumefantrine. Pharmacokinetic parameters (area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC), maximum concentration and day 7 lumefantrine concentrations) were estimated using non-compartmental methods and compared to controls.ResultsNineteen children (16 on nevirapine and three not on ART) enrolled. Fifteen of the 16 (aged 4 to 11 years) on nevirapine-based ART were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. Due to evolving WHO HIV treatment guidelines, insufficient children were enrolled in the control group (n = 3), so the pharmacokinetic data were compared to a historical control group of 20 HIV-uninfected children 5–12 years of age who also presented with malaria and underwent identical study procedures. Decreases of pharmacokinetic exposure [as estimated by AUC (AUC0-8hr)] were marginally significant for artemether (by -46%, p = 0.08) and dihydroartemisinin (-22%, p = 0.06) in the children on nevirapine-based ART, compared to when artemether-lumefantrine was administered alone. Similarly, peak concentration was decreased by 50% (p = 0.07) for artemether and 36% (p = 0.01) for dihydroartemisinin. In contrast, exposure to lumefantrine increased significantly in the context of nevirapine [AUC0-120hr:123% (p<0.001); Cday7:116% (p<0.001), Cmax: 95% (p<0.001)].ConclusionsNevirapine-based ART increases the exposure to lumefantrine in pre-pubescent children with a trend toward diminished artemether and dihydroartemisinin exposure. These findings contrast with other studies indicating NVP reduces or results in no change in exposure of antimalarial drugs, and may be specific to this age group (4–12 years). Considering the excellent safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine, the increase in lumefantrine is not of concern. However, the reduction in artemisinin exposure may warrant further study, and suggests that dosage adjustment of artemether-lumefantrine with nevirapine-based ART in children is likely warranted.
Background Many HIV-infected African children gained access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) through expansion of PEPFAR programs since 2004 and introduction of “Test and Treat” WHO guidelines in 2015. As ART access increases and children transition from adolescence to adulthood, treatment failure is inevitable. Viral load (VL) monitoring in Uganda was introduced in 2016 replacing clinical monitoring. However, there’s limited data on the comparative effectiveness of these two strategies among HIV-infected children in resource-limited settings (RLS). Methods HIV-infected Ugandan children aged 1–12 years from HIV-care programs with > 1 year of first-line ART using only immunologic and clinical criteria to monitor response to treatment were screened in 2010. Eligible children were stratified by VL ≤ 400 and > 400 copies/ml randomized to clinical and immunological (control) versus clinical, immunological and VL monitoring to determine treatment failure with follow-up at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Plasma VL was analyzed retrospectively for controls. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the prevalence of viral suppression between study arms and identify factors associated with viral suppression. Results At baseline all children (n = 142) were on NNRTI based ART (75% Nevirapine, 25% efavirenz). One third of ART-experienced children had detectable VL at baseline despite high CD4%. Median age was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–9) and 43% were female. Overall, the odds of viral suppression were not different between study arms: (arm by week interaction, p = 0.63), adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.53, 2.17, p = 0.57) and did not change over time (aOR: 0 vs 24 week: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.46, p = 0.24 and 0 vs 48 weeks: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.92, 1.74, p = 0.15). Longer duration of a child’s ART exposure was associated with lower odds of viral suppression (aOR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.87, p < .01). Only 13% (9/71) of children with virologic failure were switched to second-line ART, in spite of access to real-time VL. Conclusion With increasing ART exposure, viral load monitoring is critical for early detection of treatment failure in RLS. Clinicians need to make timely informed decisions to switch failing children to second-line ART. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489953, 28 Jul 2020. Retrospectively registered. (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov).
Background: Many HIV-infected African children gained access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) through expansion of PEPFAR programs since 2004 and introduction of “Test and Treat” WHO guidelines in 2015. As ART access increases and children transition from adolescence to adulthood, treatment failure is inevitable. Viral load (VL) monitoring in Uganda was introduced in 2016 replacing clinical monitoring. However, there’s limited data on the comparative effectiveness of these two strategies among HIV-infected children in resource-limited settings (RLS).Methods: HIV-infected Ugandan children aged 1-12 years from HIV-care programs with >1 year of first-line ART using only immunologic and clinical criteria to monitor response to treatment were screened in 2010. Eligible children were stratified by VL ≤ 400 and >400 copies/ml randomized to clinical and immunological (control) versus clinical, immunological and VL monitoring to determine treatment failure with follow-up at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Plasma VL was analyzed retrospectively for controls. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the prevalence of viral suppression between study arms and identify factors associated with viral suppression. Results: At baseline all children (n=142) were on NNRTI based ART (75% Nevirapine, 25% efavirenz). One third of ART-experienced children had detectable VL at baseline despite high CD4%. Median age was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-9) and 43% were female. Overall, the odds of viral suppression were not different between study arms: (arm by week interaction, p=0.63), adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.53, 2.17, p=0.57) and did not change over time (aOR: 0 vs 24 week: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.46, p=0.24 and 0 vs 48 weeks: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.92, 1.74, p=0.15). Longer duration of a child’s ART exposure was associated with lower odds of viral suppression (aOR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.87, p<.01). Only 13% (9/71) of children with virologic failure were switched to second-line ART, in spite of access to real-time VL.Conclusion: With increasing ART exposure, viral load monitoring is critical for early detection of treatment failure in RLS. Clinicians need to make timely informed decisions to switch failing children to second-line ART. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489953, 28 Jul 2020. Retrospectively registered.
Background: Many HIV-infected African children gained access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) through expansion of PEPFAR programs since 2004 and introduction of “Test and Treat” WHO guidelines in 2015. As ART access increases and children transition from adolescence to adulthood, treatment failure is inevitable. Viral load (VL) monitoring in Uganda was introduced in 2016 replacing clinical monitoring. However, there’s limited data on the comparative effectiveness of these two strategies among HIV-infected children in resource-limited settings (RLS).Methods: HIV-infected Ugandan children aged 1-12 years from HIV-care programs with >1 year of first-line ART using only immunologic and clinical criteria to monitor response to treatment were screened in 2010. Eligible children were stratified by VL ≤ 400 and >400 copies/ml randomized to clinical and immunological (control) versus clinical, immunological and VL monitoring to determine treatment failure with follow-up at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Plasma VL was analyzed retrospectively for controls. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the prevalence of viral suppression between study arms and identify factors associated with viral suppression. Results: At baseline all children (n=142) were on NNRTI based ART (75% Nevirapine, 25% efavirenz). One third of ART-experienced children had detectable VL at baseline despite high CD4%. Median age was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-9) and 43% were female. Overall, the odds of viral suppression were not different between study arms: (arm by week interaction, p=0.63), adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.53, 2.17, p=0.57) and did not change over time (aOR: 0 vs 24 week: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.46, p=0.24 and 0 vs 48 weeks: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.92, 1.74, p=0.15). Longer duration of a child’s ART exposure was associated with lower odds of viral suppression (aOR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.87, p<.01). Only 13% (9/71) of children with virologic failure were switched to second-line ART, in spite of access to real-time VL.Conclusion: With increasing ART exposure, viral load monitoring is critical for early detection of treatment failure in RLS. Clinicians need to make timely informed decisions to switch failing children to second-line ART. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489953, 28 Jul 2020. Retrospectively registered.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.