[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: For adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who have CD4+ T-cell counts that are greater than 200 and less than 350 per cubic millimeter and who live in areas with limited resources, the optimal time to initiate antiretroviral therapy remains uncertain.
We conducted a randomized, open-label trial of early initiation of antiretroviral therapy, as compared with the standard timing for initiation of therapy, among HIV-infected adults in Haiti who had a confirmed CD4+ T-cell count that was greater than 200 and less than 350 per cubic millimeter at baseline and no history of an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) illness. The primary study end point was survival. The early-treatment group began taking zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz therapy within 2 weeks after enrollment. The standard-treatment group started the same regimen of antiretroviral therapy when their CD4+ T-cell count fell to 200 per cubic millimeter or less or when clinical AIDS developed. Participants in both groups underwent monthly follow-up assessments and received isoniazid and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis with nutritional support.
Between 2005 and 2008, a total of 816 participants--408 per group--were enrolled and were followed for a median of 21 months. The CD4+ T-cell count at enrollment was approximately 280 per cubic millimeter in both groups. There were 23 deaths in the standard-treatment group, as compared with 6 in the early-treatment group (hazard ratio with standard treatment, 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6 to 9.8; P=0.001). There were 36 incident cases of tuberculosis in the standard-treatment group, as compared with 18 in the early-treatment group (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.6; P=0.01).
Early initiation of antiretroviral therapy decreased the rates of death and incident tuberculosis. Access to antiretroviral therapy should be expanded to include all HIV-infected adults who have CD4+ T-cell counts of less than 350 per cubic millimeter, including those who live in areas with limited resources. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00120510.)
New England Journal of Medicine 07/2010; 363(3):257-65. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa0910370 · 55.87 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To compare treatment outcomes by starting CD4 cell counts using data from the Comprehensive International Program of Research on AIDS-South Africa trial.
An observational cohort study.
Patients presenting to primary care clinics with CD4 cell counts below 350 cells/microl were randomized to either doctor or nurse-managed HIV care and followed for at least 2 years after antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation. Clinical and laboratory outcomes were compared by baseline CD4 cell counts.
Eight hundred and twelve patients were followed for a median of 27.5 months and 36% initiated ART with a CD4 cell count above 200 cells/microl. Although 10% of patients failed virologically, the risk was nearly double among those with a CD4 cell count of 200 cells/microl or less vs. above 200 cells/microl (12.2 vs. 6.8%). Twenty-one deaths occurred, with a five-fold increased risk for the low CD4 cell count group (3.7 vs. 0.7%). After adjustment, those with a CD4 cell count of 200 cells/microl had twice the risk of death/virologic failure [hazard ratio 1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1-3.3] and twice the risk of incident tuberculosis (hazard ratio 1.90; 95% CI, 0.89-4.04) as those above 200 cells/microl. Those with either a CD4 cell count of 200 cells/microl or less (hazard ratio 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.8) or a WHO IV condition (hazard ratio 2.9; 95% CI, 0.93-8.8) alone had a two-to-three-fold increased risk of death/virologic failure vs. those with neither, but those with both conditions had a four-fold increased risk (hazard ratio 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9-8.1). We observed some decreased loss to follow-up among those initiating ART at less than 200 cells/microl (hazard ratio 0.79; 95% CI, 0.50-1.25).
Patients initiating ART with higher CD4 cell counts had reduced mortality, tuberculosis and less virologic failure than those initiated at lower CD4 cell counts. Our data support increasing CD4 cell count eligibility criteria for ART initiation.
AIDS (London, England) 08/2010; 24(13):2041-50. DOI:10.1097/QAD.0b013e32833c703e · 5.55 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Most clinical guidelines recommend that AIDS-free, HIV-infected persons with CD4 cell counts below 0.350 × 10(9) cells/L initiate combined antiretroviral therapy (cART), but the optimal CD4 cell count at which cART should be initiated remains a matter of debate.
To identify the optimal CD4 cell count at which cART should be initiated.
Prospective observational data from the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration and dynamic marginal structural models were used to compare cART initiation strategies for CD4 thresholds between 0.200 and 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L.
HIV clinics in Europe and the Veterans Health Administration system in the United States.
20, 971 HIV-infected, therapy-naive persons with baseline CD4 cell counts at or above 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L and no previous AIDS-defining illnesses, of whom 8392 had a CD4 cell count that decreased into the range of 0.200 to 0.499 × 10(9) cells/L and were included in the analysis.
Hazard ratios and survival proportions for all-cause mortality and a combined end point of AIDS-defining illness or death.
Compared with initiating cART at the CD4 cell count threshold of 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L, the mortality hazard ratio was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.22) for the 0.350 threshold and 1.20 (CI, 0.97 to 1.48) for the 0.200 threshold. The corresponding hazard ratios were 1.38 (CI, 1.23 to 1.56) and 1.90 (CI, 1.67 to 2.15), respectively, for the combined end point of AIDS-defining illness or death. Limitations: CD4 cell count at cART initiation was not randomized. Residual confounding may exist.
Initiation of cART at a threshold CD4 count of 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L increases AIDS-free survival. However, mortality did not vary substantially with the use of CD4 thresholds between 0.300 and 0.500 × 10(9) cells/L.
Annals of internal medicine 04/2011; 154(8):509-15. DOI:10.1059/0003-4819-154-8-201104190-00001 · 17.81 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.