| Literature DB >> 25794163 |
Suad Kapetanovic1, Lisa Aaron2, Grace Montepiedra2, Patricia Anthony3, Kasalyn Thuvamontolrat3, Savita Pahwa4, Sandra Burchett5, Adriana Weinberg6, Andrea Kovacs3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the effect of cytomegalovirus (CMV) co-infection and viremia on reconstitution of selected CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell subsets in perinatally HIV-infected (PHIV+) children ≥ 1-year old who participated in a partially randomized, open-label, 96-week combination antiretroviral therapy (cART)-algorithm study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25794163 PMCID: PMC4368806 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120474
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics by CMV Status among ACTG 366 Participants with Immune Activation Data.
| Characteristic | CMV+ viremic (N = 15) | CMV+ aviremic (N = 52) | CMV-naïve (N = 40) | Total (N = 107) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yrs), median (Q1, Q3) | 4 (3, 9) | 8 (5, 10) | 6 (3, 9) | 7 (4, 10) | 0.026 | |
| Age (yrs), N (%) | 1–5 years | 11 (73%) | 18 (35%) | 19 (48%) | 48 (45%) | 0.431 |
| 6–12 years | 3 (20%) | 28 (54%) | 17 (43%) | 48 (45%) | ||
| >12 years | 1 (7%) | 6 (12%) | 4 (10%) | 11 (10%) | ||
| Gender, N (%) | Male | 4 (27%) | 36 (69%) | 19 (48%) | 59 (55%) | 0.007 |
| Race/Ethnicity, N (%) | Black Non-Hispanic | 10 (67%) | 26 (50%) | 26 (65%) | 62 (58%) | 0.270 |
| Hispanic (regardless of race) | 5 (33%) | 18 (35%) | 8 (20%) | 31 (29%) | ||
| White Non-Hispanic/Other | 0 (0%) | 8 (15%) | 6 (15%) | 14 (13%) | ||
| CDC Category “C” at entry, N (%) | 6 (40%) | 19 (37%) | 15 (38%) | 40 (37%) | 0.970 | |
| Baseline HIV-1 RNA level (copies/ml), median (Q1,Q3) | 79,725 (44,203, 157,089) | 60,670.0 (27,030.5, 121,584.5) | 57,598.0 (22,426.0, 152,533.5) | 59,818 (24,807, 129,510) | 0.524 | |
| Baseline HIV-1 RNA level (copies/ml), N (%) | <50,000 | 5 (33%) | 21 (40%) | 18 (45%) | 44 (41%) | 0.699 |
| >50,000–100,000 | 4 (27%) | 15 (29%) | 7 (18%) | 26 (24%) | ||
| >100,000 | 6 (40%) | 16 (31%) | 15 (38%) | 37 (35%) | ||
| CDC immunologic category | No suppression | 4 (27%) | 14 (27%) | 14 (35%) | 32 (30%) | 0.957 |
| Moderate suppression | 5 (33%) | 26 (50%) | 9 (23%) | 40 (37%) | ||
| Severe suppression | 6 (40%) | 12 (23%) | 17 (43%) | 35 (33%) | ||
| CD4 percent at entry, median(Q1,Q3) | 22 (12, 24) | 17 (11, 24) | 21.5 (9.0, 28.5) | 19 (11, 27) | 0.638 | |
| CD4 percent at entry, N (%) | 0–<15 | 5 (36%) | 22 (43%) | 14 (35%) | 41 (39%) | 0.213 |
| 15–25 | 6 (43%) | 19 (37%) | 10 (25%) | 35 (33%) | ||
| > 25 | 3 (21%) | 10 (20%) | 16 (40%) | 29 (28%) | ||
| Antiretroviral regimen at entry, N (%) | cART with NFV | 3 (20%) | 16 (31%) | 10 (25%) | 29 (27%) | 0.887 |
| cART without NFV | 3 (20%) | 12 (23%) | 9 (23%) | 24 (22%) | ||
| Not on cART | 9 (60%) | 24 (46%) | 21 (53%) | 54 (50%) | ||
| On cART at entry, N (%) | 6 (40%) | 28 (54%) | 19 (48%) | 53 (50%) | 0.607 | |
| On PIs at entry, N (%) | 6 (40%) | 24 (46%) | 14 (35%) | 44 (41%) | 0.557 | |
| On NNRTIs at entry, N (%) | 3 (20%) | 8 (15%) | 10 (25%) | 21 (20%) | 0.515 | |
| ACTG 366 treatment arm | 1A | 3 (20%) | 10 (19%) | 9 (23%) | 22 (21%) | 0.641 |
| 1B | 5 (33%) | 9 (17%) | 7 (18%) | 21 (20%) | ||
| 2 | 3 (20%) | 17 (33%) | 8 (20%) | 28 (26%) | ||
| 3 & 4 | 4 (27%) | 16 (31%) | 16 (40%) | 36 (34%) | ||
| Viral load response at week 16 | Response | 4 (27%) | 20 (38%) | 20 (50%) | 44 (41%) | 0.368 |
| Partial response | 2 (13%) | 12 (23%) | 6 (15%) | 20 (19%) | ||
| Non-response | 6 (40%) | 15 (29%) | 7 (18%) | 28 (26%) | ||
| Missing | 3 (20%) | 5 (10%) | 7 (18%) | 15 (14%) | ||
(a) Kruskal-Wallis Test
(b) Mantel Haenszel Chi-Square Test
(c) Chi-Square Test
cART = combination antiretroviral therapy; NFV = nelfinavir; NNRTI = non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; PI = protease inhibitor
*The participants in the protocol ACTG 366 were cross-classified according to NNRTI and PI exposure histories into four groups: 1 = NNRTI-PI-; 2 = NNRTI-PI+; 3 = NNRTI+PI-; and 4 = NNRTI+PI+. Group 1 was subdivided into Group 1A and 1B, where participants were randomized to be switched to either 2 NNRTIs different from current therapy + nevirapine/nelfinavir combination or 2 new NNRTIs + nevirapine/ritonavir combination. Group 2 was switched to 1 new NNRTI + nevirapine + nelfinavir + ritonavir. Groups 3 and 4 were switched to 2 new NNRTIs + nelfinavir + ritonavir. Enrollment occurred between May 1998 and January 2000 at 50 US sites. The original publication provides more detail on treatment algorithm and participant treatment histories [11].
Multivariate model estimates for selected CD4+ T-cell subtypes vs. selected key covariates.
| CD4+ subset | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD38+HLA-DR+ | CD62L+CD45RA+ | CD95-CD28+ | CD95+CD28- | CD62L-CD45RA+ | |||||||
| Covariate | Est. | p | Est. | p | Est. | p | Est. | p | Est. | p | |
|
| −0.18 | 0.019 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 0.10 | 0.26 | −0.03 | 0.68 | −0.02 | 0.48 | |
|
| 0.58 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.70 | 0.08 | ||||||
|
| −4.30 | 0.32 | 2.76 | 0.60 | −3.06 | 0.55 | 4.16 | 0.40 | −1.30 | 0.27 | |
|
| −0.16 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.79 | 1.60 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 0.86 | −1.75 | 0.029 | |
|
| 0.08 | 0.49 | 0.42 | 0.54 | 0.67 | ||||||
|
| 0.26 | 0.041 | −0.15 | 0.36 | −0.19 | 0.19 | 0.14 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.38 | |
|
| −0.01 | 0.92 | −0.12 | 0.28 | −0.04 | 0.63 | 0.02 | 0.85 | 0.02 | 0.60 | |
|
| −0.78 | <0.001 | 1.16 | <0.001 | 1.28 | <0.001 | −0.81 | <0.001 | 0.00 | 0.96 | |
“Est.” = Estimate; “p” = p-value; “Week” = treatment week of the ACTG 366 clinical trial
1Estimates are adjusted for gender, age group (1–5yrs, 6–12 yrs, >12 yrs), baseline ARV regimen (cART with NFV, cART without NFV, no cART), HIV-1 RNA (log10cp/ml), race/ethnicity (Hispanic, Black, White/other), viral load response at week 16 (responder, partial-responder, non-responder, missing), treatment arm (1a, 1b, 2, ¾) main effect and interaction with week, in addition to covariates listed in table.
Multivariate model estimates1 for selected CD8+ T-cell subtypes vs. selected key covariates.
| CD8+ subset | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD38+HLA-DR+ | CD62L+CD45RA+ | CD95-CD28+ | CD95+CD28- | CD62L-CD45RA+ | |||||||
| Covariate | Est. | p | Est. | p | Est. | p | Est. | p | Est. | p | |
|
| −0.19 | 0.08 | 0.30 | <0.001 | 0.20 | 0.011 | −0.20 | 0.05 | −0.05 | 0.45 | |
|
| 0.46 | 0.029 | 0.33 | 0.038 | 0.049 | ||||||
|
| 4.32 | 0.44 | −8.79 | 0.06 | −4.89 | 0.24 | 12.38 | 0.016 | 5.51 | 0.17 | |
|
| 4.40 | 0.25 | −7.59 | 0.018 | −3.47 | 0.22 | 5.49 | 0.11 | 6.71 | 0.018 | |
|
| 0.41 | 0.025 | 0.004 | 0.003 | 0.38 | ||||||
|
| 0.22 | 0.21 | −0.23 | 0.10 | −0.32 | 0.013 | 0.43 | 0.010 | 0.16 | 0.17 | |
|
| 0.10 | 0.37 | −0.24 | 0.008 | −0.25 | 0.002 | 0.33 | 0.002 | 0.02 | 0.75 | |
|
| −0.63 | <0.001 | 0.81 | <0.001 | 0.20 | 0.011 | −0.69 | <0.001 | −0.26 | 0.05 | |
“Est.” = Estimate; “p” = p-value; “Week” = treatment week of the ACTG 366 clinical trial.
Fig 1Mean T-cell Phenotype Percentages by CMV Status and Week.
This figure shows trends in reconstitution of selected CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell phenotypes in response to cART by cytomegalovirus (CMV) co-infection status and study week in the ACTG 366. Left column (top to bottom): The rate of change in the percentage of activated CD4+ T-cells (i.e., CD4+CD38+HLA-DR+%) was marginally significant by the CMV status. Neither naïve (i.e., CD4+CD62L+CD45RA+% and CD4+CD95-CD28+%) or terminally differentiated effector CD4+ T-cells (i.e., CD4+CD95+CD28- and CD4+CD62L-CD45RA+) were significantly affected by CMV co-infection or viremia status. Right column (top to bottom): The rate of change in the percentage of activated CD8+ T-cells (i.e., CD8+CD38+HLA-DR+%) was not significantly affected by the CMV status. The increase in both CD8+ naïve subsets (i.e., CD8+CD62L+CD45RA+% and CD8+CD95-CD28+%) in response to cART was significantly slower in CMV+ viremic and aviremic groups compared to CMV-naïve group. The decrease in one of the terminally differentiated effector subsets of CD8+ T-cells (i.e., CD8+CD95+CD28-%) in response to cART was significantly slower in CMV+ viremic and aviremic groups compared to CMV-naïve group. The rate of change in the percentage of the other terminally differentiated effector CD8+ subset (i.e., CD8+CD62L-CD45RA+) in response to cART was not significantly affected by CMV co-infection or viremia status.
Fig 2Effect of CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) on normalization of selected T-cell subsets in CMV+ participants.
This figure shows the relationship between CMV-specific cell-mediated immunity (CMI) and changes over time in three selected CD8+ T-cell subsets in response to cART among 103 eligible participants with available CMV CMI results. In linear mixed effects models, CMV CMI+ status was significantly associated with lower mean CD8+CD62L+CD45RA+% (naïve) (p = 0.03) and CD8+CD95-CD28+% (naïve) (p = 0.045), but not with CD8+CD95+CD28-% (terminally differentiated) (p = 0.19).