Phionah Kibalama Ssemambo1, Mary Gorrethy Nalubega-Mboowa2,3,4, Arthur Owora2,5, Robert Serunjogi2, Susan Kironde3, Sarah Nakabuye2, Francis Ssozi3, Maria Nannyonga3, Philippa Musoke2,6, Linda Barlow-Mosha2. 1. Makerere University-Johns Hopkins University (MU-JHU) Research Collaboration, Upper Mulago Hill Road, Mulago, P.O.BOX 23491, Kampala, Uganda. pkibalama@mujhu.org. 2. Makerere University-Johns Hopkins University (MU-JHU) Research Collaboration, Upper Mulago Hill Road, Mulago, P.O.BOX 23491, Kampala, Uganda. 3. Nsambya Home Care Project (NHC), Kampala, Uganda. 4. Clarke International University (Formerly IHSU), Namuwongo, Kampala, Uganda. 5. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Indiana University, Indiana, USA. 6. Department of Paediatrics and Child Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many HIV-infected African children gained access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) through expansion of PEPFAR programs since 2004 and introduction of "Test and Treat" WHO guidelines in 2015. As ART access increases and children transition from adolescence to adulthood, treatment failure is inevitable. Viral load (VL) monitoring in Uganda was introduced in 2016 replacing clinical monitoring. However, there's limited data on the comparative effectiveness of these two strategies among HIV-infected children in resource-limited settings (RLS). METHODS: HIV-infected Ugandan children aged 1-12 years from HIV-care programs with > 1 year of first-line ART using only immunologic and clinical criteria to monitor response to treatment were screened in 2010. Eligible children were stratified by VL ≤ 400 and > 400 copies/ml randomized to clinical and immunological (control) versus clinical, immunological and VL monitoring to determine treatment failure with follow-up at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Plasma VL was analyzed retrospectively for controls. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the prevalence of viral suppression between study arms and identify factors associated with viral suppression. RESULTS: At baseline all children (n = 142) were on NNRTI based ART (75% Nevirapine, 25% efavirenz). One third of ART-experienced children had detectable VL at baseline despite high CD4%. Median age was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-9) and 43% were female. Overall, the odds of viral suppression were not different between study arms: (arm by week interaction, p = 0.63), adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.53, 2.17, p = 0.57) and did not change over time (aOR: 0 vs 24 week: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.46, p = 0.24 and 0 vs 48 weeks: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.92, 1.74, p = 0.15). Longer duration of a child's ART exposure was associated with lower odds of viral suppression (aOR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.87, p < .01). Only 13% (9/71) of children with virologic failure were switched to second-line ART, in spite of access to real-time VL. CONCLUSION: With increasing ART exposure, viral load monitoring is critical for early detection of treatment failure in RLS. Clinicians need to make timely informed decisions to switch failing children to second-line ART. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489953 , 28 Jul 2020. Retrospectively registered. ( https://register.clinicaltrials.gov ).
BACKGROUND: Many HIV-infected African children gained access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) through expansion of PEPFAR programs since 2004 and introduction of "Test and Treat" WHO guidelines in 2015. As ART access increases and children transition from adolescence to adulthood, treatment failure is inevitable. Viral load (VL) monitoring in Uganda was introduced in 2016 replacing clinical monitoring. However, there's limited data on the comparative effectiveness of these two strategies among HIV-infectedchildren in resource-limited settings (RLS). METHODS:HIV-infected Ugandan children aged 1-12 years from HIV-care programs with > 1 year of first-line ART using only immunologic and clinical criteria to monitor response to treatment were screened in 2010. Eligible children were stratified by VL ≤ 400 and > 400 copies/ml randomized to clinical and immunological (control) versus clinical, immunological and VL monitoring to determine treatment failure with follow-up at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Plasma VL was analyzed retrospectively for controls. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to compare the prevalence of viral suppression between study arms and identify factors associated with viral suppression. RESULTS: At baseline all children (n = 142) were on NNRTI based ART (75% Nevirapine, 25% efavirenz). One third of ART-experienced children had detectable VL at baseline despite high CD4%. Median age was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 5-9) and 43% were female. Overall, the odds of viral suppression were not different between study arms: (arm by week interaction, p = 0.63), adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.53, 2.17, p = 0.57) and did not change over time (aOR: 0 vs 24 week: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.91, 1.46, p = 0.24 and 0 vs 48 weeks: 1.26; 95%CI: 0.92, 1.74, p = 0.15). Longer duration of a child's ART exposure was associated with lower odds of viral suppression (aOR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.87, p < .01). Only 13% (9/71) of children with virologic failure were switched to second-line ART, in spite of access to real-time VL. CONCLUSION: With increasing ART exposure, viral load monitoring is critical for early detection of treatment failure in RLS. Clinicians need to make timely informed decisions to switch failing children to second-line ART. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04489953 , 28 Jul 2020. Retrospectively registered. ( https://register.clinicaltrials.gov ).
Entities:
Keywords:
Antiretroviral therapy; Children and adolescents; HIV; Second-line; Switch, viral load, treatment failure, monitoring & response
Authors: Theodore D Ruel; Moses R Kamya; Pelin Li; William Pasutti; Edwin D Charlebois; Teri Liegler; Grant Dorsey; Philip J Rosenthal; Diane V Havlir; Joseph K Wong; Jane Achan Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Susan D Emmett; Coleen K Cunningham; Blandina T Mmbaga; Grace D Kinabo; Werner Schimana; Mark E Swai; John A Bartlett; John A Crump; Elizabeth A Reddy Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jessica Adams; Nimish Patel; Nancy Mankaryous; Mariam Tadros; Christopher D Miller Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Hannah Castro; Ali Judd; Diana M Gibb; Karina Butler; Rebecca K Lodwick; Ard van Sighem; Jose T Ramos; Josiane Warsawski; Claire Thorne; Antoni Noguera-Julian; Niels Obel; Dominique Costagliola; Pat A Tookey; Céline Colin; Jesper Kjaer; Jesper Grarup; Genevieve Chene; Andrew Phillips Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Oliver Barry; Jonathan Powell; Lorna Renner; Evelyn Y Bonney; Meghan Prin; William Ampofo; Jonas Kusah; Bamenla Goka; Kwamena W C Sagoe; Veronika Shabanova; Elijah Paintsil Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Nicole K Le; Emilia Riggi; Gaetano Marrone; Tam Van Vu; Ricardo O Izurieta; Chuc Kim Thi Nguyen; Mattias Larsson; Cuong Duy Do Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: A Judd; R Lodwick; A Noguera-Julian; D M Gibb; K Butler; D Costagliola; C Sabin; A van Sighem; B Ledergerber; C Torti; A Mocroft; D Podzamczer; M Dorrucci; S De Wit; N Obel; F Dabis; A Cozzi-Lepri; F García; N H Brockmeyer; J Warszawski; M I Gonzalez-Tome; C Mussini; G Touloumi; R Zangerle; J Ghosn; A Castagna; G Fätkenheuer; C Stephan; L Meyer; M A Campbell; G Chene; A Phillips Journal: HIV Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Alexander J Szubert; Andrew J Prendergast; Moira J Spyer; Victor Musiime; Philippa Musoke; Mutsa Bwakura-Dangarembizi; Patricia Nahirya-Ntege; Margaret J Thomason; Emmanuel Ndashimye; Immaculate Nkanya; Oscar Senfuma; Boniface Mudenge; Nigel Klein; Diana M Gibb; A Sarah Walker Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 11.069