BACKGROUND: Concerns about stavudine (d4T) toxicity have led to increased use of abacavir (ABC) in first-line pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens. Field experience with ABC in ART-naïve children is limited. METHODS: Deidentified demographic, clinical and laboratory data on HIV-infected children initiating ART between 2004 and 2011 in a large pediatric HIV treatment program in Johannesburg, South Africa, were used to compare viral suppression at 6 and 12 months by initial treatment regimen, time to suppression (<400 copies/mL) and rebound (>1000 copies/mL after initial suppression). Adjusted logistic regression was used to investigate confounders and calendar effects. RESULTS: Two thousand thirty-six children initiated either d4T/3TC- or ABC/3TC-based first-line regimens in combination with either boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) or efavirenz (EFV). 1634 received d4T regimens (LPV/r n = 672; EFV n = 962) and 402 ABC regimens (LPV/r n = 192; EFV n = 210). At 6 and 12 months on ART, viral suppression rate was poorer in ABC versus d4T groups within both the LPV/r and EFV groups (P < 0.0001 for all points). In ABC groups, time to suppression was significantly slower (log-rank P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0092 for LPV/r- and EFV-based, respectively) and time to rebound after suppression significantly faster (log-rank P = 0.014 and P = 0.0001 for LPV/r- and EFV-based, respectively). Logistic regression confirmed the worse outcomes in the ABC groups even after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSION: Data from this urban pediatric ART service program show significantly poorer virological performance of ABC compared with d4T-based regimens, a signal that urgently warrants further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Concerns about stavudine (d4T) toxicity have led to increased use of abacavir (ABC) in first-line pediatric antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens. Field experience with ABC in ART-naïve children is limited. METHODS: Deidentified demographic, clinical and laboratory data on HIV-infectedchildren initiating ART between 2004 and 2011 in a large pediatric HIV treatment program in Johannesburg, South Africa, were used to compare viral suppression at 6 and 12 months by initial treatment regimen, time to suppression (<400 copies/mL) and rebound (>1000 copies/mL after initial suppression). Adjusted logistic regression was used to investigate confounders and calendar effects. RESULTS: Two thousand thirty-six children initiated either d4T/3TC- or ABC/3TC-based first-line regimens in combination with either boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) or efavirenz (EFV). 1634 received d4T regimens (LPV/r n = 672; EFV n = 962) and 402 ABC regimens (LPV/r n = 192; EFV n = 210). At 6 and 12 months on ART, viral suppression rate was poorer in ABC versus d4T groups within both the LPV/r and EFV groups (P < 0.0001 for all points). In ABC groups, time to suppression was significantly slower (log-rank P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0092 for LPV/r- and EFV-based, respectively) and time to rebound after suppression significantly faster (log-rank P = 0.014 and P = 0.0001 for LPV/r- and EFV-based, respectively). Logistic regression confirmed the worse outcomes in the ABC groups even after adjustment for confounders. CONCLUSION: Data from this urban pediatric ART service program show significantly poorer virological performance of ABC compared with d4T-based regimens, a signal that urgently warrants further investigation.
Authors: Victoria A Johnson; Vincent Calvez; Huldrych F Günthard; Roger Paredes; Deenan Pillay; Robert Shafer; Annemarie M Wensing; Douglas D Richman Journal: Top Antivir Med Date: 2011-11
Authors: S Staszewski; P Keiser; J Montaner; F Raffi; J Gathe; V Brotas; C Hicks; S M Hammer; D Cooper; M Johnson; S Tortell; A Cutrell; D Thorborn; R Isaacs; S Hetherington; H Steel; W Spreen Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-03-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary-Ann Davies; Harry Moultrie; Brian Eley; Helena Rabie; Gilles Van Cutsem; Janet Giddy; Robin Wood; Karl Technau; Olivia Keiser; Matthias Egger; Andrew Boulle Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: H Green; D M Gibb; A S Walker; D Pillay; K Butler; F Candeias; G Castelli-Gattinara; A Compagnucci; M Della Negra; A de Rossi; C Feiterna-Sperling; C Giaquinto; L Harper; J Levy; Y Saidi; U Wintergerst Journal: AIDS Date: 2007-05-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Clement Zeh; Paul J Weidle; Lillian Nafisa; Humphrey M Lwamba; Jully Okonji; Emily Anyango; Philip Bondo; Rose Masaba; Mary Glenn Fowler; John N Nkengasong; Michael C Thigpen; Timothy Thomas Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Princy N Kumar; Patricia Salvato; Anthony LaMarca; Edwin DeJesus; Parul Patel; Daniel McClernon; Allison Florance; Mark S Shaefer Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 2.250
Authors: Sherwin K B Sy; Ruben Malmberg; Aoi Matsushima; Eduardo Asin-Prieto; Bernd Rosenkranz; Mark F Cotton; Hartmut Derendorf; Steve Innes Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Sherwin K B Sy; Steve Innes; Hartmut Derendorf; Mark F Cotton; Bernd Rosenkranz Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Veronica Mulenga; Victor Musiime; Adeodata Kekitiinwa; Adrian D Cook; George Abongomera; Julia Kenny; Chisala Chabala; Grace Mirembe; Alice Asiimwe; Ellen Owen-Powell; David Burger; Helen McIlleron; Nigel Klein; Chifumbe Chintu; Margaret J Thomason; Cissy Kityo; A Sarah Walker; Diana M Gibb Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Mhairi Maskew; Matthew P Fox; Denise Evans; Darshini Govindasamy; Lise Jamieson; Given Malete; Constance Mongwenyana; Karl Technau Journal: AIDS Res Treat Date: 2016-10-27