Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Document Type
- Journal article (6)
Language
- English (6)
Keywords
- HIV (6) (remove)
Background
HIV-disease progression correlates with immune activation. Here we investigated whether corticosteroid treatment can attenuate HIV disease progression in antiretroviral-untreated patients.
Methods
Double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial including 326 HIV-patients in a resource-limited setting in Tanzania (clinicaltrials.gov NCT01299948). Inclusion criteria were a CD4 count above 300 cells/μl, the absence of AIDS-defining symptoms and an ART-naïve therapy status. Study participants received 5 mg prednisolone per day or placebo for 2 years. Primary endpoint was time to progression to an AIDS-defining condition or to a CD4-count below 200 cells/μl.
Results
No significant change in progression towards the primary endpoint was observed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (19 cases with prednisolone versus 28 cases with placebo, p = 0.1407). In a per-protocol (PP)-analysis, 13 versus 24 study participants progressed to the primary study endpoint (p = 0.0741). Secondary endpoints: Prednisolone-treatment decreased immune activation (sCD14, suPAR, CD38/HLA-DR/CD8+) and increased CD4-counts (+77.42 ± 5.70 cells/μl compared to -37.42 ± 10.77 cells/μl under placebo, p < 0.0001). Treatment with prednisolone was associated with a 3.2-fold increase in HIV viral load (p < 0.0001). In a post-hoc analysis stratifying for sex, females treated with prednisolone progressed significantly slower to the primary study endpoint than females treated with placebo (ITT-analysis: 11 versus 21 cases, p = 0.0567; PP-analysis: 5 versus 18 cases, p = 0.0051): No changes in disease progression were observed in men.
Conclusions
This study could not detect any significant effects of prednisolone on disease progression in antiretroviral-untreated HIV infection within the intent-to-treat population. However, significant effects were observed on CD4 counts, immune activation and HIV viral load. This study contributes to a better understanding of the role of immune activation in the pathogenesis of HIV infection.
Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended guidelines for a HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) survey for resource-limited countries. Eligibility criteria for patients include age below 25 years in order to focus on the prevalence of transmitted HIVDR (tHIVDR) in newly-infected individuals. Most of the participating sites across Africa have so far reported tHIVDR prevalences of below 5%. In this study we investigated whether the rate of HIVDR in patients ,25 years is representative for HIVDR in the rest of the therapy-naive population. Methods and Findings: HIVDR was determined in 88 sequentially enrolled ART-naive patients from Mwanza, Tanzania (mean age 35.4 years). Twenty patients were aged, 25 years and 68 patients were aged 25–63 years. The frequency of HIVDR in the study population was 14.8% (95%; CI 0.072–0.223) and independent of NVP-resistance induced by prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs. Patients .25 years had a significantly higher HIVDR frequency than younger patients (19.1%; 95% CI 0.095–0.28) versus 0%, P = 0.0344). In 2 out of the 16 patients with HIVDR we found traces of antiretrovirals (ARVs) in plasma. Conclusions: ART-naive patients aged over 25 years exhibited significantly higher HIVDR than younger patients. Detection of traces of ARVs in individuals with HIVDR suggests that besides transmission, undisclosed misuse of ARVs may constitute a significant factor in the generation of the observed high HIVDR rate. The current WHO tHIVDR survey that is solely focused on the transmission of HIVDR and that excludes patients over 25 years of age may therefore result in substantial underestimation of the prevalence of HIVDR in the therapy-naive population. Similar studies should be performed also in other areas to test whether the so far reported optimistic picture of low HIVDR prevalence in young individuals is really representative for the rest of the ART-naive HIV-infected population.
Background
The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended guidelines for a HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) survey for resource-limited countries. Eligibility criteria for patients include age below 25 years in order to focus on the prevalence of transmitted HIVDR (tHIVDR) in newly-infected individuals. Most of the participating sites across Africa have so far reported tHIVDR prevalences of below 5%. In this study we investigated whether the rate of HIVDR in patients <25 years is representative for HIVDR in the rest of the therapy-naïve population.
Methods and Findings
HIVDR was determined in 88 sequentially enrolled ART-naïve patients from Mwanza, Tanzania (mean age 35.4 years). Twenty patients were aged <25 years and 68 patients were aged 25–63 years. The frequency of HIVDR in the study population was 14.8% (95%; CI 0.072–0.223) and independent of NVP-resistance induced by prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs. Patients >25 years had a significantly higher HIVDR frequency than younger patients (19.1%; 95% CI 0.095–0.28) versus 0%, P = 0.0344). In 2 out of the 16 patients with HIVDR we found traces of antiretrovirals (ARVs) in plasma.
Conclusions
ART-naïve patients aged over 25 years exhibited significantly higher HIVDR than younger patients. Detection of traces of ARVs in individuals with HIVDR suggests that besides transmission, undisclosed misuse of ARVs may constitute a significant factor in the generation of the observed high HIVDR rate. The current WHO tHIVDR survey that is solely focused on the transmission of HIVDR and that excludes patients over 25 years of age may therefore result in substantial underestimation of the prevalence of HIVDR in the therapy-naïve population. Similar studies should be performed also in other areas to test whether the so far reported optimistic picture of low HIVDR prevalence in young individuals is really representative for the rest of the ART-naïve HIV-infected population.
Background: HIV-associated general immune activation is a strong predictor for HIV disease progression, suggesting that chronic immune activation may drive HIV pathogenesis. Consequently, immunomodulating agents may decelerate HIV disease progression. Methods: In an observational study, we determined immune activation in HIV patients receiving low-dose (5 mg/day) prednisolone with or without highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) compared to patients without prednisolone treatment. Lymphocyte activation was determined by flow cytometry detecting expression of CD38 on CD8(+) T cells. The monocyte activation markers sCD14 and LPS binding protein (LBP) as well as inflammation markers soluble urokinase plasminogen activated receptor (suPAR) and sCD40L were determined from plasma by ELISA. Results: CD38-expression on CD8+ T lymphocytes was significantly lower in prednisolone-treated patients compared to untreated patients (median 55.40% [percentile range 48.76-67.70] versus 73.34% [65.21-78.92], p = 0.0011, Mann-Whitney test). Similarly, we detected lower levels of sCD14 (3.6 μg/ml [2.78-5.12] vs. 6.11 μg/ml [4.58-7.70]; p = 0.0048), LBP (2.18 ng/ml [1.59-2.87] vs. 3.45 ng/ml [1.84-5.03]; p = 0.0386), suPAR antigen (2.17 μg/ml [1.65-2.81] vs. 2.56 μg/ml [2.24-4.26]; p = 0.0351) and a trend towards lower levels of sCD40L (2.70 pg/ml [1.90-4.00] vs. 3.60 pg/ml [2.95-5.30]; p = 0.0782). Viral load in both groups was similar (0.8 × 105 ng/ml [0.2-42.4 × 105] vs. 1.1 × 105 [0.5-12.2 × 105]; p = 0.3806). No effects attributable to prednisolone were observed when patients receiving HAART in combination with prednisolone were compared to patients who received HAART alone. Conclusions: Patients treated with low-dose prednisolone display significantly lower general immune activation than untreated patients. Further longitudinal studies are required to assess whether treatment with low-dose prednisolone translates into differences in HIV disease progression.
Background:
While HIV, AIDS and atypical Mycobacterium infections are closely linked, the use of Integrase-Inhibitor based cART, notably raltegravir-based regimens is more widespread. RAL should be double-dosed to 800 mg semi-daily in situation of rifampicin co-medication, because RAL is more rapidly metabolized due to rifampicin-induced Uridine-5'-diphosph-gluronosyl-transferase (UGT1A1). Recently, it was speculated that chewed RAL might lead to increased absorption, which might compensate the inductive effect of rifampicin-rapid metabolized RAL, as part of cost-saving effects in countries with high-tuberculosis prevalence and less economic power.
Methods:
We report measurement of raltegravir pharmacokinetics in a 34-year AIDS-patient suffering from disseminated Mycobacterium avium infection with necessity of parenteral rifampicin treatment. RAL levels were measured with HPLC (internal standard: carbamazepine, LLQ 11 ng/ml, validation with Valistat 2.0 program (Arvecon, Germany)). For statistical analysis, a two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired samples was used.
Results:
High intra-personal variability in raltegravir serum levels was seen. Comparable C\(_{max}\) concentrations were found for 800 mg chewed and swallowed RAL, as well as for 400 mg chewed and swallowed RAL. While C\(_{max}\) seems to be more dependent from overall RAL dosing than from swallowed or chewed tablets, increased AUC(12) is clearly linked to higher RAL dosages per administration. Anyway, chewed raltegravir showed a rapid decrease in serum levels.
Conclusions:
We found no evidence that chewed 400 mg semi-daily raltegravir in rifampicin co-medication leads to optimized pharmacokinetics. There is need for more data from randomized trials for further recommendations.
A 21 year old MSM patient with newly diagnosed HIV infection was hospitalized in our department after ingestion of an overdose of his antiretroviral therapy (ART) comprising dolutegravir (DTG - Tivicay\(^{®}\)) and tenofovir disaproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (Truvada\(^{®}\)) in suicidal intention. On admission, the patient did not show any clinical signs of intoxication and laboratory findings were unremarkable. After 6 hours of intensive care monitoring, the patient was referred to a psychiatric clinic. 5 days after the day of intoxication, serum creatinine levels increased to high normal values (1.2 mg/dl). However, levels never exceeded the upper threshold. 8 and 12 weeks later, serum creatinine normalized to levels measured prior to the intoxication. No other adverse events occurred, and the patient does not suffer from permanent impairments.