Background Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is indicated during tuberculosis (TB) treatment of patients infected with HIV-1, but the urgency to start ART at TB diagnosis for patients of varying levels of immune compromise is not known. Methods We conducted an open label, randomized study comparing immediate (within 2 weeks of TB treatment initiation) to early (8–12 weeks) ART among HIV-1 infected patients with CD4+ lymphocytes < 250/mm3 and suspected TB. The primary study endpoint was proportion of patients who survived without an AIDS-defining illness at 48 weeks. Results 809 patients with median baseline CD4+ lymphocytes of 77 cells/mm3 and HIV-1 RNA of 5.43 log10 copies/mL were enrolled. In the immediate arm, 12.9% of patients experienced an AIDS-defining illness or death by 48 weeks compared to 16.1% in the early arm (p=0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference: −1.8%, 8.1%). In patients with screening CD4+ lymphocytes <50 cells/mm3, 15.5% of patients on the immediate arm vs. 26.6% on early ART experienced an AIDS defining illness or death (p=0.02; difference CI: 1.5%, 20.5%). TB immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) was more common with immediate ART (11% vs. 5%: p=0.002). Viral suppression at 48 weeks was 74% and did not differ between arms (p=0.38). Conclusion Overall, immediate ART did not reduce AIDS-defining illnesses and death compared to early ART. For persons with CD4+ lymphocytes < 50 cells/mm3, immediate ART had 42% less AIDS defining illnesses and death compared to early ART. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT00108862.)

Twice-daily maraviroc was not noninferior to efavirenz at <50 copies/mL in the primary analysis. However, 15% of patients would have been ineligible for inclusion by a more sensitive screening assay. Their retrospective exclusion resulted in similar response rates in both arms Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: (NCT00098293) .

Summary Background Expanded access to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the resource-poor setting is dependent on “task-shifting” from doctors to other health care providers. We compared “doctor-initiated-nurse-monitored” care to the current standard of care, “doctor-initiated-doctor-monitored” ART. Methods A randomised strategy trial to determine whether treatment outcomes of “nurse-monitored” ART were non-inferior to “doctor-monitored” ART was conducted at two South African primary-care clinics. HIV-positive individuals with a CD4 count of <350cells/mm3 or WHO stage 3 or 4 disease were eligible. The primary objective was a composite end-point of treatment limiting events, incorporating mortality, viral failure, treatment-limiting toxicities and visit schedule adherence. Intention-to-treat analyses were performed. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00255840. Findings The hazard ratio for composite failure was 1.09 (95% CI= 0.89-1.33) which lay within the limits for non-inferiority. The analysis was performed on 812 HIV-positive adults with either doctor-(n=408) or nurse-monitored ART (n=404). At baseline 573 (70%) patients were female, 282 (34.7%) had prior AIDS diagnoses and the median CD4 was 164 cells/mm3. After a median follow-up of 24.3 months, deaths (10 vs. 11), virological failures (44 vs. 39), CD4 gain (270 vs. 248 cells/mm3), toxicity failures (68 vs. 66) and program losses (70 vs. 63) were similar in nurse and doctor arms respectively. 371(46%) patients reached an endpoint of treatment failure; 192(47.5%) and 179(43.9%) in the nurse and doctor arms respectively. Interpretation Nurse-monitored ART was shown to be non-inferior to doctor-monitored therapy. This study supports task-shifting to appropriately trained nurses for monitoring ART.

No abstract

No abstract