M E O Perry1, G P Taylor2, C A Sabin3, K Conway1, S Flanagan4, E Dwyer5, J Stevenson5, L Mulka2, A McKendry6, E Williams7, A Barbour8, S Dermont9, S Roedling10, R Shah11, J Anderson4, M Rodgers5, C Wood6, L Sarner7, P Hay8, D Hawkins9, A deRuiter1. 1. Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 2. Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK. 3. Research Department of Infection and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. 4. Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Croydon University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK. 6. The North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK. 7. Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK. 8. St George's NHS Trust, London, UK. 9. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 10. (Mortimer Market Centre) Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 11. Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify differences in infant outcomes, virological efficacy, and preterm delivery (PTD) outcome between women exposed to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and those exposed to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r). METHODS: A retrospective case note review was carried out. The case notes of 493 women who conceived while on LPV/r or ATV/r or initiated LPV/r or ATV/r during pregnancy and who delivered between 1 September 2007 and 30 August 2012 were reviewed. Data collected included demographics, antiretroviral use, HIV markers, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. Infant outcomes, virological efficacies and PTD rates for LPV/r and ATV/r were compared. RESULTS: A total of 306 women received LPV/r (82 conceiving while on the drug and 224 commencing it post-conception) and 187 received ATV/r (96 conceiving while on the drug and 91 commencing it post-conception). Comparing the two protease inhibitors (PIs), viral suppression rates were similar and, in women starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) post-conception, the median times to first undetectable HIV viral load were not significantly different (P = 0.64). PTD rates did not differ by therapy overall (ATV/r, 13%; LPV/r, 14%) or when considering the timing of first exposure (conceiving on ART, P = 0.81; commencing ART in pregnancy, P = 0.08). Poor fetal outcomes were very uncommon. There were two transmissions, giving a mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) rate of 0.4% (95% confidence interval 0.05-1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Both ART regimens were well tolerated and successful in preventing MTCT. No significant differences in tolerability or in pregnancy or infant outcomes were observed, which supports the provision of a choice of PI in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify differences in infant outcomes, virological efficacy, and preterm delivery (PTD) outcome between women exposed to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and those exposed to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r). METHODS: A retrospective case note review was carried out. The case notes of 493 women who conceived while on LPV/r or ATV/r or initiated LPV/r or ATV/r during pregnancy and who delivered between 1 September 2007 and 30 August 2012 were reviewed. Data collected included demographics, antiretroviral use, HIV markers, and pregnancy and infant outcomes. Infant outcomes, virological efficacies and PTD rates for LPV/r and ATV/r were compared. RESULTS: A total of 306 women received LPV/r (82 conceiving while on the drug and 224 commencing it post-conception) and 187 received ATV/r (96 conceiving while on the drug and 91 commencing it post-conception). Comparing the two protease inhibitors (PIs), viral suppression rates were similar and, in women starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) post-conception, the median times to first undetectable HIV viral load were not significantly different (P = 0.64). PTD rates did not differ by therapy overall (ATV/r, 13%; LPV/r, 14%) or when considering the timing of first exposure (conceiving on ART, P = 0.81; commencing ART in pregnancy, P = 0.08). Poor fetal outcomes were very uncommon. There were two transmissions, giving a mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) rate of 0.4% (95% confidence interval 0.05-1.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Both ART regimens were well tolerated and successful in preventing MTCT. No significant differences in tolerability or in pregnancy or infant outcomes were observed, which supports the provision of a choice of PI in pregnancy.
Authors: John H Beigel; Hannah H Nam; Peter L Adams; Amy Krafft; William L Ince; Samer S El-Kamary; Amy C Sims Journal: Antiviral Res Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 5.970
Authors: Jim Aizire; Kristina M Brooks; Mark Mirochnick; Patricia M Flynn; Kevin Butler; Jennifer J Kiser; George K Siberry; Terry Fenton; Mae Cababasay; Mary G Fowler Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: L C Poon; H Yang; S Dumont; J C S Lee; J A Copel; L Danneels; A Wright; F Da Silva Costa; T Y Leung; Y Zhang; D Chen; F Prefumo Journal: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 7.299
Authors: Martina L Badell; Anandi N Sheth; Florence Momplaisir; Lisa Rahangdale; JoNell Potter; Padmashree C Woodham; Gweneth B Lazenby; William R Short; Scott E Gillespie; Nevert Baldreldin; Emily S Miller; Gregg Alleyne; Lunthita M Duthely; Stephanie M Allen; Judy Levison; Rana Chakraborty Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Caitlin M Dugdale; Tamsin K Phillips; Landon Myer; Emily P Hyle; Kirsty Brittain; Kenneth A Freedberg; Lucy Cunnama; Rochelle P Walensky; Allison Zerbe; Milton C Weinstein; Elaine J Abrams; Andrea L Ciaranello Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.240