Nicolas Nagot1, Chipepo Kankasa2, James K Tumwine3, Nicolas Meda4, G Justus Hofmeyr5, Roselyne Vallo6, Mwiya Mwiya2, Mary Kwagala3, Hugues Traore4, Amwe Sunday5, Mandisa Singata5, Chafye Siuluta2, Eric Some4, David Rutagwera2, Desire Neboua4, Grace Ndeezi3, Debra Jackson7, Valérie Maréchal6, Dorine Neveu6, Ingunn M S Engebretsen8, Carl Lombard9, Stéphane Blanche10, Halvor Sommerfelt11, Claire Rekacewicz12, Thorkild Tylleskär8, Philippe Van de Perre13. 1. INSERM U 1058, Montpellier, France; Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France; CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 2. University of Zambia, School of Medicine, Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, University Teaching Hospital, Lusaka, Zambia. 3. Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 4. Centre of International Research for Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. 5. Effective Care Research Unit, Cecilia Makiwane Hospital, East London Hospital Complex, East London, South Africa; School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. 6. INSERM U 1058, Montpellier, France; Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 7. School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, South Africa. 8. Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 9. Biostatistics Unit, Medical Research Council of South Africa, Cape Town, South Africa. 10. University of Paris V, Department of Paediatrics, URC/CIC Necker-Cochin, Hôpital Necker, Paris, France. 11. Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Centre for Intervention Science in Maternal and Child Health, Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Department of International Public Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. 12. French National Institute of Health and Medical Research-National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (INSERM-ANRS), Paris, France. 13. INSERM U 1058, Montpellier, France; Université Montpellier, Montpellier, France; CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France. Electronic address: p-van_de_perre@chu-montpellier.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Strategies to prevent postnatal mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in Africa, including infant prophylaxis, have never been assessed past 6 months of breastfeeding, despite breastfeeding being recommended up to 12 months after birth. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of infant prophylaxis with the two drug regimens (lamivudine or lopinavir-ritonavir) to prevent postnatal HIV-1 transmission up to 50 weeks of breastfeeding. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial in four sites in Burkina Faso, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia in children born to HIV-1-infected mothers not eligible for antiretroviral therapy (CD4 count >350 cells per μL). An independent researcher electronically generated a randomisation schedule; we then used sequentially numbered envelopes to randomly assign (1:1) HIV-1-uninfected breastfed infants aged 7 days to either lopinavir-ritonavir or lamivudine (paediatric liquid formulations, twice a day) up to 1 week after complete cessation of breastfeeding or at the final visit at week 50. We stratified the randomisation by country and used permuted blocks of four and six. We used a study label on drug bottles to mask participants, study physicians, and assessors to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was infant HIV-1 infection between age 7 days and 50 weeks, diagnosed every 3 months with HIV-1 DNA PCR, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all who attended at least one follow-up visit). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00640263. FINDINGS:Between Nov 16, 2009, and May 7, 2012, we enrolled and randomised 1273 infants and analysed 1236; 615 assigned tolopinavir-ritonavir or 621 assigned to lamivudine. 17 HIV-1 infections were diagnosed in the study period (eight in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and nine in the lamivudine group), resulting in cumulative HIV-1 infection of 1.4% (95% CI 0.4-2.5) and 1.5% (0.7-2.5), respectively. Infection rates did not differ between the two drug regimens (hazard ratio [HR] of lopinavir-ritonavir versus lamivudine of 0.90, 95% CI 0.35-2.34; p=0.83). Clinical and biological severe adverse events did not differ between groups; 251 (51%) infants had a grade 3-4 event in the lopinavir-ritonavir group compared with 246 (50%) in the lamivudine group. INTERPRETATION: Infant HIV-1 prophylaxis with lopinavir-ritonavir was not superior to lamivudine and both drugs led to very low rates of HIV-1 postnatal transmission for up to 50 weeks of breastfeeding. Infant pre-exposure prophylaxis should be extended until the end of HIV-1 exposure and mothers should be informed about the persistent risk of transmission throughout breastfeeding. FUNDING: INSERM/National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (including funds from the Total Foundation), European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, Research Council of Norway.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Strategies to prevent postnatal mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 in Africa, including infant prophylaxis, have never been assessed past 6 months of breastfeeding, despite breastfeeding being recommended up to 12 months after birth. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of infant prophylaxis with the two drug regimens (lamivudine or lopinavir-ritonavir) to prevent postnatal HIV-1 transmission up to 50 weeks of breastfeeding. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial in four sites in Burkina Faso, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia in children born to HIV-1-infected mothers not eligible for antiretroviral therapy (CD4 count >350 cells per μL). An independent researcher electronically generated a randomisation schedule; we then used sequentially numbered envelopes to randomly assign (1:1) HIV-1-uninfected breastfed infants aged 7 days to either lopinavir-ritonavir or lamivudine (paediatric liquid formulations, twice a day) up to 1 week after complete cessation of breastfeeding or at the final visit at week 50. We stratified the randomisation by country and used permuted blocks of four and six. We used a study label on drug bottles to mask participants, study physicians, and assessors to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was infantHIV-1 infection between age 7 days and 50 weeks, diagnosed every 3 months with HIV-1 DNA PCR, in the modified intention-to-treat population (all who attended at least one follow-up visit). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00640263. FINDINGS: Between Nov 16, 2009, and May 7, 2012, we enrolled and randomised 1273 infants and analysed 1236; 615 assigned to lopinavir-ritonavir or 621 assigned to lamivudine. 17 HIV-1 infections were diagnosed in the study period (eight in the lopinavir-ritonavir group and nine in the lamivudine group), resulting in cumulative HIV-1 infection of 1.4% (95% CI 0.4-2.5) and 1.5% (0.7-2.5), respectively. Infection rates did not differ between the two drug regimens (hazard ratio [HR] of lopinavir-ritonavir versus lamivudine of 0.90, 95% CI 0.35-2.34; p=0.83). Clinical and biological severe adverse events did not differ between groups; 251 (51%) infants had a grade 3-4 event in the lopinavir-ritonavir group compared with 246 (50%) in the lamivudine group. INTERPRETATION:InfantHIV-1 prophylaxis with lopinavir-ritonavir was not superior to lamivudine and both drugs led to very low rates of HIV-1 postnatal transmission for up to 50 weeks of breastfeeding. Infant pre-exposure prophylaxis should be extended until the end of HIV-1 exposure and mothers should be informed about the persistent risk of transmission throughout breastfeeding. FUNDING: INSERM/National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis (including funds from the Total Foundation), European Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, Research Council of Norway.
Authors: Frantz Foissac; Jörn Blume; Jean-Marc Tréluyer; Thorkild Tylleskär; Chipepo Kankasa; Nicolas Meda; James K Tumwine; Mandisa Singata-Madliki; Kim Harper; Silvia M Illamola; Naïm Bouazza; Nicolas Nagot; Philippe Van de Perre; Stéphane Blanche; Déborah Hirt Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Patricia M Flynn; Taha E Taha; Mae Cababasay; Mary Glenn Fowler; Lynne M Mofenson; Maxensia Owor; Susan Fiscus; Lynda Stranix-Chibanda; Anna Coutsoudis; Devasena Gnanashanmugam; Nahida Chakhtoura; Katie McCarthy; Cornelius Mukuzunga; Bonus Makanani; Dhayendre Moodley; Teacler Nematadzira; Bangini Kusakara; Sandesh Patil; Tichaona Vhembo; Raziya Bobat; Blandina T Mmbaga; Maysseb Masenya; Mandisa Nyati; Gerhard Theron; Helen Mulenga; Kevin Butler; David E Shapiro Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Elizabeth J McFarland; Tina M Powell; Carolyne Onyango-Makumbi; Weiming Zhang; Kelsey Melander; Prossy Naluyima; Samuel Okurut; Michael A Eller; Mary Glenn Fowler; Edward N Janoff Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Armen Sanosyan; David G Rutagwera; Jean-Pierre Molès; Karine Bollore; Marianne Peries; Chipepo Kankasa; Mwiya Mwiya; Thorkild Tylleskär; Nicolas Nagot; Philippe Van De Perre; Edouard Tuaillon Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Eric N Somé; Ingunn M S Engebretsen; Nicolas Nagot; Nicolas Meda; Carl Lombard; Roselyne Vallo; Marianne Peries; Chipepo Kankasa; James K Tumwine; G Justus Hofmeyr; Mandisa Singata; Kim Harper; Philippe Van De Perre; Thorkild Tylleskar Journal: Int Breastfeed J Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 3.461
Authors: Audrey Monnin; Valérie Desquiret-Dumas; Nicolas Méda; David Goudenège; Céline Bris; Chipepo Kankasa; Mandisa Singata-Madliki; Thorkild Tylleskar; Vincent Procaccio; Nicolas Nagot; Philippe Van de Perre; Pascal Reynier; Jean-Pierre Molès Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Lana Clara Chikhungu; Stephanie Bispo; Nigel Rollins; Nandi Siegfried; Marie-Louise Newell Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 2.622