Comparison of ritonavir plus saquinavir- and nelfinavir plus saquinavir-containing regimens as salvage therapy in children with human immunodeficiency type 1 infection.
ABSTRACT In this retrospective study we compared the antiretroviral effect of regimens consisting of simultaneous administration of two protease inhibitors (PI) with at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor on plasma viral load (VL) and CD4 cell count in HIV-infected children intensively pretreated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and PIs.
Eleven HIV-infected children were changed to antiretroviral combination regimens including two PIs and followed for a median time of 24 weeks. Group A comprised six patients who were given ritonavir + saquinavir (SQV) and Group B consists of five patients who were changed to nelfinavir + SQV. Patients were treated with these combinations with 2 PIs because of treatment failure (increasing viral load) of prior PI therapy or clinical signs of disease progression.
Serial determinations of plasma viral load (Amplicor, Roche) and CD4 cells were performed every 4 to 8 weeks. The detection limit of the Amplicor-reverse transcriptase-PCR assay was 50 copies/ml (1.7 log10).
In Group A the median VL reduction was 1.1 log10 after 3 months and 1.4 log10 after 6 months. In Group B median VL decreased 0.1 and 0.2 log10 after 3 and 6 months. In both groups during the study period none of the patients reached undetectable VL. The relative changes of CD4 cells above baseline in Group A showed a median increase of 7% after 3 months and 23% after 6 months. In Group B after 3 months CD4 cells did not increase, and after 6 months the median relative increase was only 7%. Both combination therapies were well tolerated, not necessitating any drug interruption during study period.
In children with intensive prior antiretroviral treatment, a salvage therapy including two PIs demonstrated antiretroviral efficacy in some patients. In this study the reduction of the VL as well as the increase of CD4 cells was more pronounced with ritonavir + SQV than with nelfinavir + SQV. With both combinations complete suppression of HIV replication was not achieved. Therefore the long term effect of these combinations may be limited by the emergence of resistant HIV strains.
- SourceAvailable from: Annemarie M van RossumAIDS 10/2001; 15(13):1745-7. · 6.56 Impact Factor
- AIDS 09/2001; 15(13):1745-1747. DOI:10.1097/00002030-200109070-00025 · 6.56 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: PENTA Guidelines aim to provide practical recommendations for treating children with HIV infection in Europe. Changes to guidance since 2004 have been informed by new evidence and by expectations of better outcomes following the ongoing success of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Participation in PENTA trials of simplifying treatment is encouraged. The main changes are in the following sections: 'When to start ART': Treatment is recommended for all infants, and at higher CD4 cell counts and percentages in older children, in line with changes to adult guidelines. The number of age bands has been reduced to simplify and harmonize with other paediatric guidelines. Greater emphasis is placed on CD4 cell count in children over 5 years, and guidance is provided where CD4% and CD4 criteria differ. 'What to start with': A three-drug regimen of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with either a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) remains the first choice combination. Lamivudine and abacavir are the NRTI backbone of choice for most children, based on long-term follow-up in the PENTA 5 trial. Stavudine is no longer recommended. Whether to start with an NNRTI or PI remains unclear, but PENPACT 1 trial results in 2009 may help to inform this. All PIs should be ritonavir boosted. Recommendations on use of resistance testing, therapeutic drug monitoring and HLA testing draw from data in adults and from European paediatric cohort studies. Recently updated US and WHO paediatric guidelines provide more detailed review of the evidence base. Differences between guidelines are highlighted and explained.HIV Medicine 11/2009; 10(10):591-613. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-1293.2009.00759.x · 3.45 Impact Factor