Browsing by Author "Lundgren, Jens D. (35307337700)"

Background: CD4 cell count and viral loads are used in clinical trials as surrogate endpoints for assessing efficacy of newly available antiretrovirals. If antiretrovirals act through other pathways or increase the risk of disease this would not be identified prior to licensing. The aim of this study was to investigate the CD4 cell count and viral load-specific rates of fatal and nonfatal AIDS and non-AIDS events according to current antiretrovirals. Methods: Poisson regression was used to compare overall events (fatal or nonfatal AIDS, non-AIDS or death), AIDS events (fatal and nonfatal) or non-AIDS events (fatal or nonfatal) for specific nucleoside pairs and third drugs used with more than 1000 personyears of follow-up (PYFU) after 1 January 2001. Results: Nine thousand, eight hundred and one patients contributed 42372.5 PYFU, during which 1203 (437 AIDS and 766 non-AIDS) events occurred. After adjustment, there was weak evidence of a difference in the overall events rates between nucleoside pairs (global P-value1/40.084), and third drugs (global P-value1/40.031). As compared to zidovudine/lamivudine, patients taking abacavir/lamivudine [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.99-1.49] and abacavir and one other nucleoside [aIRR 1.51; 95% CI 1.14-2.02] had an increased incidence of overall events. Comparing the third drugs, those taking unboosted atazanavir had an increased incidence of overall events compared with those taking efavirenz (aIRR 1.46; 95% CI 1.09-1.95). Conclusion: There was little evidence of substantial differences between antiretrovirals in the incidence of clinical disease for a given CD4 cell count or viral load, suggesting there are unlikely to be major unidentified adverse effects of specific antiretrovirals. © 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Background: CD4 cell count and viral loads are used in clinical trials as surrogate endpoints for assessing efficacy of newly available antiretrovirals. If antiretrovirals act through other pathways or increase the risk of disease this would not be identified prior to licensing. The aim of this study was to investigate the CD4 cell count and viral load-specific rates of fatal and nonfatal AIDS and non-AIDS events according to current antiretrovirals. Methods: Poisson regression was used to compare overall events (fatal or nonfatal AIDS, non-AIDS or death), AIDS events (fatal and nonfatal) or non-AIDS events (fatal or nonfatal) for specific nucleoside pairs and third drugs used with more than 1000 personyears of follow-up (PYFU) after 1 January 2001. Results: Nine thousand, eight hundred and one patients contributed 42372.5 PYFU, during which 1203 (437 AIDS and 766 non-AIDS) events occurred. After adjustment, there was weak evidence of a difference in the overall events rates between nucleoside pairs (global P-value1/40.084), and third drugs (global P-value1/40.031). As compared to zidovudine/lamivudine, patients taking abacavir/lamivudine [adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) 1.22; 95% CI 0.99-1.49] and abacavir and one other nucleoside [aIRR 1.51; 95% CI 1.14-2.02] had an increased incidence of overall events. Comparing the third drugs, those taking unboosted atazanavir had an increased incidence of overall events compared with those taking efavirenz (aIRR 1.46; 95% CI 1.09-1.95). Conclusion: There was little evidence of substantial differences between antiretrovirals in the incidence of clinical disease for a given CD4 cell count or viral load, suggesting there are unlikely to be major unidentified adverse effects of specific antiretrovirals. © 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

The European HIV Drug Resistance Guidelines Panel, established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists, felt that sufficient new information has become available to warrant an update of its recommendations, explained in both pocket guidelines and this full paper. The Panel makes the following recommendations concerning the indications for resistance testing: for HIV-1 (i) test earliest sample for protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance in drug-naive patients with acute or chronic infection; (ii) test protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance at virologic failure, and other drug targets (integrase and envelope) if such drugs were part of the failing regimen; (iii) consider testing for CCR5 tropism at virologic failure or when a change of therapy has to be made in absence of detectable viral load, and in the latter case test DNA or last detectable plasma RNA; (iv) consider testing earliest detectable plasma RNA when a successful nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing therapy was inappropriately interrupted; (v) genotype source patient when postexposure prophylaxis is considered; for HIV-2, (vi) consider resistance testing where treatment change is needed after treatment failure. The Panel recommends genotyping in most situations, using updated and clinically evaluated interpretation systems. It is mandatory that laboratories performing HIV resistance tests take part regularly in external quality assurance programs, and that they consider storing samples in situations where resistance testing cannot be performed as recommended. Similarly, it is necessary that HIV clinicians and virologists take part in continuous education and discuss problematic clinical cases. Indeed, resistance test results should be used in the context of all other clinically relevant information for predicting therapy response.