Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionEvidence is needed to guide the inclusion of broader groups of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in differentiated service delivery (DSD) programmes. We assessed treatment outcomes among PLHIV on second‐line regimens in a community antiretroviral therapy (ART) delivery programme, compared to those who remained at clinics.MethodsUsing data from 61 public clinics, we did a retrospective cohort study among PLHIV receiving second‐line ART following rollout of the Centralized Chronic Medicines Dispensing and Distribution (CCMDD) programme in KwaZulu‐Natal, South Africa. We included PLHIV from the timepoint when they were first eligible, though not necessarily referred, for community ART within CCMDD and followed them for 18 months. We used multivariable logistic regression to compare 12‐month attrition and viraemia between clients referred for community ART and those remaining in clinic care.ResultsAmong 209,744 PLHIV aged ≥ 18 years who collected ART between October 2016 and December 2018, 7511 (3.6%) received second‐line ART. Of these, 2575 (34.3%) were eligible for community ART. The median age was 39.0 years (interquartile range 34.0–45.0) and 1670 (64.9%) were women. Five hundred and eighty‐four (22.7%) were referred for community ART within 6 months of meeting eligibility criteria. Overall, 4.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.0–6.6%] in community ART and 4.4% (95% CI 3.5–5.4%) in clinic care experienced attrition at 12 months post eligibility for community ART. Two thousand one hundred and thirty‐eight (83.0%) had a viral load recorded 6–18 months after becoming eligible, and of these, 10.3% (95% CI 7.7–13.3%) in community ART and 11.3% (95% CI 9.8–12.9%) in clinic care had viraemia > 200 copies/ml. In separate regressions adjusted for age, gender, district, time on second‐line ART, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone and year of eligibility, no differences in the odds of attrition [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.02, 95% CI 0.71–1.47] or viraemia (aOR 0.91, 95% CI 0.64–1.29) were observed between those in community ART and those remaining in clinic care.ConclusionsWe found good outcomes among PLHIV who were stable on second‐line regimens and referred for community ART. Efforts to expand DSD access among this group should be prioritized.

Abstract
IntroductionWhen protease inhibitor (PI)‐based second‐line ART fails, guidelines recommend drug resistance testing and individualized third‐line treatment. However, PI‐resistant viral strains are rare and drug resistance testing is costly. We investigated whether less costly PI‐exposure testing can be used to select those patients who would benefit most from drug resistance testing.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of South African adults living with HIV experiencing failure of ritonavir‐boosted‐lopinavir (LPV/r)‐based second‐line ART for whom drug resistance testing results were available. We included patients who received plasma‐based drug resistance testing at a central South African reference laboratory in 2017 and patients who received dried blood spots (DBS)‐based drug resistance testing at a rural South African clinic between 2009 and 2017. PI‐exposure testing was performed on remnant plasma or DBS using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LCMS). Additionally, a low‐cost immunoassay was used on plasma. Population genotypic drug resistance testing of the pol region was performed on plasma and DBS using standard clinical protocols.ResultsSamples from 544 patients (494 plasma samples and 50 DBS) were included. Median age was 41.0 years (IQR: 33.3 to 48.5) and 58.6% were women. Median HIV‐RNA load was 4.9 log10 copies/mL (4.3 to 5.4). Prevalence of resistance to the NRTI‐backbone was 70.6% (349/494) in plasma samples and 56.0% (28/50) in DBS. Major PI‐resistance mutations conferring high‐level resistance to LPV/r were observed in 26.7% (132/494) of plasma samples and 12% (6/50) of DBS. PI‐exposure testing revealed undetectable LPV levels in 47.0% (232/494) of plasma samples and in 60.0% (30/50) of DBS. In pooled analysis of plasma and DBS samples, detectable LPV levels had a sensitivity of 90% (84% to 94%) and a negative predictive failure of 95% (91% to 97%) for the presence of major LPV/r resistance.ConclusionsPI‐exposure testing revealed non‐adherence in half of patients experiencing failure on second‐line ART and accurately predicted the presence or absence of clinically relevant PI resistance. PI‐exposure testing constitutes a novel screening strategy in patients with virological failure of ART that can differentiate between different underlying causes of therapy failure and may allow for more effective use of limited resources available for drug resistance testing.