Use of antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited countries in 2006: distribution and uptake of first- and second-line regimens
ABSTRACT To address the information gap on current use of antiretroviral drugs (ARTs) in developing countries.
The AIDS Medicines and Diagnostics Service of the World Health Organization (WHO) carried out a multi-country survey in early 2006. Questionnaires covered the use of first- and second-line regimens in adults and children, and the rates of switching from first-line to second-line regimen. Weighted percentages of use of ARTs across the cohort of adults and children were calculated and correlated with 2006 WHO guidelines. A second analysis compared demand for ARTs with rates of production of active pharmaceutical ingredients.
Twenty-three countries (96%) returned the questionnaires, representing 53% of relevant patients in developing countries as of June 2006, and comprising 92% adults and 8% children receiving ARTs. Response rates were highest for questions regarding first-line use and lowest for those regarding pediatric regimens. The distribution of first-line: second-line use was 96%: 4% among adults and 99%: 1% among children. For adults, 95% of those receiving first-line treatment, but only 25% of those receiving second-line treatment, were on regimens consistent with those preferred by the WHO. Among first-line users, the most common regimen (61%) was stavudine+lamivudine+nevirapine. Among second-line users, abacavir+didanosine+lopinavir/ritonavir was the most common regimen (24%). Among children, compliance with WHO guidelines was high among the respondents, with zidovudine+lamivudine+nevirapine reported as the main option. Estimates of first-year switching rate were highly variable, ranging from 1% to 15%, with only ten responses. Comparison of supply and demand showed that the stated production capacity for active pharmaceutical ingredients is sufficient to meet current demands for ARTs.
This survey has provided valuable information on the uptake of ARTs in developing countries and will help forecast future demand. Reporting for second-line and pediatric antiretroviral therapy should improve as national programs gain more experience. The current availability of active pharmaceutical ingredients appears to be sufficient to meet current demand. Further work is needed for an understanding of switching rates.
SourceAvailable from: Soranun Chantarangsu
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Recent WHO guidelines for resource-limited settings recommend tenofovir in first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) yet there are suggestions that patients receiving nevirapine with tenofovir have worse outcomes than those receiving efavirenz. We sought to compare outcomes among those taking nevirapine vs. efavirenz with tenofovir and lamivudine. We analyzed data on ART naïve, non-pregnant patients, ≥18 years old without tuberculosis co-infection, initiating tenofovir with lamivudine and either nevirapine or efavirenz between April 1, 2010 and July 31, 2011 (when South Africa's public-sector use of tenofovir began) at Themba Lethu Clinic in South Africa. We measured virologic suppression (viral load <400 copies/ml), virologic failure (2 consecutive viral loads >1000 copies/ml), and attrition (death/loss to follow-up) all at 12 months after ART initiation. Modified Poisson regression with robust error estimation was used to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for predictors of each outcome. 2,254 patients were prescribed efavirenz, 131 nevirapine. Patients were followed a median (range) of 12.0 (0.1-12.0) person-months. 62.2% were female and median (IQR) age was 37.7 years (31.5-44.1). Patients prescribed efavirenz had similar initiating CD4 counts (median 132 for both regimens) but were somewhat more likely to be WHO Stage III or IV (39.6% vs. 33.6%) than those prescribed nevirapine. No difference in attrition was found (aRR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.49-1.41). Among patients with ≥1 viral load within 1 year on ART, those prescribed nevirapine were as likely to reach virologic suppression (aRR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.07) but more likely to experience virologic failure (aRR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.02-3.31) than those prescribed efavirenz. Our results support the notion that, among patients prescribed tenofovir and lamivudine, virologic failure is more common among those taking nevirapine than among those taking efavirenz. Longer-term follow up and larger studies will be needed to confirm this finding.PLoS ONE 08/2013; 8(8):e71719. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0071719 · 3.53 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) accounts for less than 5% of total ART in resource-limited settings. We described the baseline characteristics, reasons for switch and treatment outcomes of Nigerian patients receiving second-line ART. In this retrospective cohort study we recorded the baseline characteristics of HIV-infected adults whose treatment regimen was switched from a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, a first-line agent, to a protease inhibitor-based second-line regimen. The duration of follow-up was 12 months. Of 4229 patients who started first-line therapy, 186 (4.4%) were switched to second-line therapy after a mean duration of 16.6 ± 7.6 months. Their mean age was 41.8 ± 9.6 years and 59.1% were women. The median (range) viral load and CD4 cell counts at switch were 4.7 (4.1-6.3) log10 copies/ml and 71 (6-610) cells/µl, respectively. The predominant reason for switch was virological failure (79.0%). Only 55.4% and 36.6% of patients had CD4 cell count and viral load at 12 months. About 82%, 79% and 82% of patients with available data achieved virological suppression at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months respectively (p = 0.81). The proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% rise in CD4 cell count increased from 55.8% at 3 months to 78.6% at 12 months (p = 0.0002). The rate of switch to second-line therapy was low but there were good treatment outcomes among patients with available data. Attrition rate was high. Regular viral load monitoring, improved availability/affordability of second-line regimens and retention in care should become priorities in resource-limited settings.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 08/2013; 107(10). DOI:10.1093/trstmh/trt071 · 1.93 Impact Factor