https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1241-5954
Figures
Abstract
The use of holding regimens for people living with HIV (PLWH) without effective antiretroviral options can have effects on outcomes and future treatment options. We aimed to investigate the use of holding regimens for PLWH in Asian countries. Data from adults enrolled in routine HIV care in IeDEA Asia-Pacific cohorts were included. Individuals were considered to be on holding regimen if they had been on combination antiretroviral therapy for at least 6 months, had two confirmed viral loads (VL) ≥1000 copies/mL, and had remained on the same medications for at least 6 months. Survival time was analyzed using Fine and Gray’s competing risk regression. Factors associated with CD4 changes and VL <1000 copies/mL were analyzed using linear regression and logistic regression, respectively. A total of 425 PLWH (72.9% male; 45.2% high-income and 54.8% low-to-middle-income country) met criteria for being on a holding regimen. From high-income countries, 63.0% were on protease inhibitors (PIs); from low-to-middle-income countries, 58.4% were on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs); overall, 4.5% were on integrase inhibitors. The combination of lamivudine, zidovudine, and efavirenz was the most commonly used single regimen (n = 46, 10.8%), followed by lamivudine, zidovudine, and nevirapine (n = 37, 8.7%). Forty-one PLWH (9.7%) died during follow-up (mortality rate 2.0 per 100 person-years). Age >50 years compared to age 31–40 years (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 3.29, 95% CI 1.45–7.43, p = 0.004), and VL ≥1000 copies/ml compared to VL <1000 copies/mL (SHR, 2.14, 95% CI 1.08–4.25, p = 0.029) were associated with increased mortality, while higher CD4 counts were protective. In our Asia regional cohort, there was a diversity of holding regimens, and the patterns of PI vs. NNRTI use differed by country income levels. Considering the high mortality rate of PLWH with holding regimen, efforts to extend accessibility to additional antiretroviral options are needed in our region.
Citation: Kim JH, Jiamsakul A, Kiertiburanakul S, Huy BV, Khusuwan S, Kumarasamy N, et al. (2022) Patterns and prognosis of holding regimens for people living with HIV in Asian countries. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0264157. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264157
Editor: Carlo Torti, University "Magna Graecia" of Catanzaro, ITALY
Received: May 6, 2020; Accepted: February 4, 2022; Published: March 30, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Kim et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The TAHOD and TAHOD-LITE studies are initiatives of TREAT Asia, a program of amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research, with support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and the Fogarty International Center (IeDEA; U01AI069907). The Kirby Institute is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The content of this research is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of any of the institutions above.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) suppresses HIV replication, prevents opportunistic infections, and allows people living with HIV (PLWH) to live longer [1]. Because of the broader range of cART available, virologic suppression is now generally attainable with good adherence, even in PLWH with previous treatment failure and drug resistance [2, 3]. However, in countries where access to second- or third-line cART is limited, managing those with repeated virologic failure is often challenging [4]. Furthermore, resistance to integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) is beginning to create additional challenges for HIV management [5, 6].
For PLWH with no available effective treatment options, guidelines consider continuing treatment to avoid clinical deterioration [7, 8]. Previous studies have shown that continued treatment in PLWH with virological failure to all three antiretroviral-drug classes could reduce the risk of disease progression [9, 10]. However, maintaining treatment with viral replication is a major contributor to the emergence of resistant mutations that can compromise future treatment options [11, 12]. There are no universal criteria for treating PLWH who have experienced multiple treatment failures, because treatment options differ according to the available cART of the countries and likelihood of resistance. For example, patients who develop resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) could achieve viral suppression by changing to a protease inhibitor (PI)-based or an INSTI-based regimen [5, 13]. Still, in some cases, since access to the drugs was limited due to problems such as cost and availability, they should maintain their regimens [14].
When no fully suppressive cART options are available, providers may choose to maintain patients on “holding regimens” in anticipation of future treatments [7]. The use of holding regimens could have effects on the future immunologic and clinical outcomes of the PLWH. However, studies on the status, patterns and prognosis of holding regimens are limited in Asian countries. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the patterns and prognosis of holding regimens for Asian PLWH without effective drug options.
Materials and methods
Data sources
This study included data from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD) and TAHOD-Low Intensity TransfEr (TAHOD-LITE). TAHOD is a prospective observational cohort study involving 21 participating clinical sites in 12 countries in the Asia and Pacific region, which is a contributing cohort to the International Epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) global cohort consortium. TAHOD-LITE collects a simplified dataset from all PLWH who have received care at participating 10 sites in Cambodia, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, contributing data from over 49,000 PLWH. A detailed description of the TAHOD and TAHOD-LITE databases and methods has been previously published [15–17]. Ethics approvals for the study were obtained from the coordinating center (TREAT Asia ethics/amfAR, Bangkok, Thailand), the data management and analysis center (University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Committee, Sydney, Australia), and local institutional review boards for each participating site including the institutional review board of Yonsei University Health System Clinical Trial Center. Because of the pure observational nature of the study, written informed consent was waived for both TAHOD and TAHOD-LITE unless required by local institutional review board. All TAHOD and TAHOD-LITE data transfers are anonymized before submission to the Kirby Institute.
Study population
TAHOD subjects were included if they were enrolled up to the September 2018 data transfer, whilst TAHOD-LITE subjects were included from the 2017 data transfer. For TAHOD, enrolment was the date the patient was recruited into the cohort which can be after ART initiation. For TAHOD-LITE, enrolment was the date the patient was first seen at the site. The latest follow-up date for TAHOD-LITE was July 2017. We defined PLWH meeting all of the following criteria as taking holding regimens: 1) have initiated cART and been on it for at least 6 months; 2) had virologic failure defined as viral load (VL) ≥1000 copies/mL on two consecutive tests performed within 6 months while on the same regimen [18]; and 3) then remained on the same regimen for at least 6 months after the second VL test. The holding regimen itself can include mono/dual therapy. These definitions applied regardless of the number of drugs that make up the regimen or the category of regimen the subject was on (e.g., 1st, 2nd, or 3rd regimen). Subjects who switched after the first VL test and subjects who switched before 24 weeks after the second VL test were excluded because they did not meet the definition of holding regimen (Fig 1).
* Regimen A refers to holding regimen.
Outcome definitions
The baseline time point of our study was defined as the time of the second VL ≥1000 copies/mL. The primary outcome was identifying which diverse regimens were used as holding regimens in our study population. The secondary outcome was to assess the prognosis of PLWH who had been on holding regimens. To evaluate their prognosis, we further investigated mortality, and changes in CD4 count and VL. Because all included individuals were alive at 6 months after their second VL test (per the definition of being on a holding regimen), survival time was left truncated at 6 months after the second VL test. PLWH were included in the CD4 and VL outcomes analyses if they had at least one CD4 count or VL test within 6 months prior to the baseline time point and at least one CD4 count or VL test at week 24 (+/-12 weeks window period) or at week 48 (+/-12 weeks window period) after baseline. PLWH without measurements at these two time points were not included in the analyses. Changes in CD4 measurements refer to the difference between the CD4 taken at 24 or 48 weeks, compared to the measurement taken at baseline. VL was classified into two groups based on 1000 copies/mL at 24 or 48 weeks. Countries were split into lower-middle income countries (LMICs), upper-middle income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs) based on World Bank categorizations [19].
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to describe patterns of holding regimen use. Survival time from 6 months after the second VL test was analyzed using Fine and Gray competing risk regression, with loss to follow-up (LTFU) included as competing risk. LTFU was defined as those not seen in the previous 12 months. Survival was analysed using intention to treat methods. Survival time ended on the date of death, with censoring occurring on the date of transfer or last follow-up. Baseline age, sex, mode of HIV exposure, hepatitis B/C co-infection defined as ever having positive hepatitis B virus surface antigen or positive hepatitis C virus antibody, number of previous regimen changes (defined as a change of two drugs or drug class for any reason), prior mono/dual therapy, year of ART initiation, the holding ART regimen combination, and World Bank country income group were evaluated as time-fixed covariates. CD4 count, VL, and duration of ART (<5 years, 5–10 years, ≥10 years) were evaluated as time-updated covariates. Linear regression was used to analyze factors associated with CD4 changes at 24 weeks and at 48 weeks. Logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with VL <1000 copies/mL at 24 weeks and at 48 weeks. All analyses were adjusted for World Bank country income group. Data management and statistical analyses were performed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and Stata software version 14.2 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA).
Results
Baseline characteristics
A total of 425 PLWH met the inclusion criteria for being on a holding regimen and were included in the analysis. The median year of enrolment into the cohort was 2007 (IQR 2004–2010). The median age at baseline was 39 years (interquartile range [IQR] 33 to 46), and 72.9% of subjects were male. Heterosexual contact was the primary route of HIV exposure (69.4%). Median baseline VL was 12,300 copies/mL (IQR 2826 to 59,700), and median baseline CD4 counts were 240 cells/μL (IQR 137 to 389). Majority of subjects were from HICs (45.2%), followed by LMICs (37.9%). There were 211 (49.7%) patients who had no previous ART regimen changes, i.e. currently failing first-line ART. Overall, the combination of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) + NNRTI and the combination of NRTI + PI were used almost equally as holding regimens (44.2% vs. 44.5%, respectively) (Table 1).
Patterns of holding regimen
Overview.
The combination of 3TC, zidovudine (AZT), and efavirenz (EFV) was the most commonly used single regimen (n = 46, 10.8%), followed by 3TC + AZT + nevirapine (NVP) (n = 37, 8.7%), 3TC + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) (n = 33, 7.8%), and 3TC + TDF + EFV (n = 29, 6.8%). Combinations other than NRTI + NNRTI and NRTI + PI accounted for 11.3% of the total, with 19 PLWH (4.5%) using INSTIs (none on dolutegravir [DTG]; S1 Table).
Classified by World Bank country-income level.
In HICs, PI-based regimens were most commonly used (63.0%), of which a regimen consisted of 3TC + TDF + ATV/r was the most popular regimen (n = 18, 9.4%). In LMICs and UMICs, NNRTI-based regimens were mainly used (58.4%). The combination of 3TC + AZT + NVP was the most popular regimen in LMICs (n = 30, 18.6%), followed by 3TC + AZT + EFV (n = 27, 16.8%). In UMICs, 3TC + AZT + EFV was the most commonly used (n = 10, 13.9%), followed by didanosine + D4T + EFV (n = 8, 11.1%) (Table 2).
Classified by previous regimen changes.
In cases where PLWH were left on failing first regimens, 3TC + AZT + EFV was the most commonly used (n = 38, 18.0%), followed by 3TC + AZT + NVP (n = 34, 16.1%). Among those who had previously changed their regimens (e.g., to a second or third combination), 3TC + TDF + ATV/r was the most commonly used regimen in both patients who changed once (n = 26, 18.4%) and who changed more than once before (n = 6, 8.2%; S2 Table).
Survival analysis.
Of the 425 patients included in the survival analysis, there were 41 (9.7%) deaths (mortality rate 2.0 per 100 person-years), and 80 (18.8%) were LTFU. The median follow-up time from baseline was 3.1 years (IQR 1.4–6.8). Out of 41 deaths, 21 were AIDS-related, 14 were non-AIDS-related, and 6 were deaths by unknown causes. Univariate analysis showed that baseline age (p = 0.026), VL (p = 0.001), and CD4 count (p <0.001) were associated with mortality. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with increased mortality, whilst adjusting for country-income, were ages >50 years compared to ages 31 to 40 years (SHR 3.29, 95% CI 1.45 to 7.43, p = 0.004), and VL ≥1000 copies/ml compared to VL <1000 copies/mL (SHR, 2.14, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.25, p = 0.029). On the other hand, higher CD4 count had protective effects against mortality. The SHR for mortality of CD4 count 351–500 and CD4 >500 compared to CD4 count ≤200 cells/μL were 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.67, p = 0.009) and 0.25 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.80, p = 0.020), respectively (Table 3). Additional analyses were conducted where we accounted for changes from holding regimen (any changes to the holding ART or periods of no ART for >14 days). There were 271 patients who had changed out of their holding regimen however it was not associated with survival in the univariate analysis (SHR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.48–1.68, p = 0.719).
Subgroup analysis
Subgroup analysis was performed on PLWH with available follow-up CD4 cell count and VL results. Twenty-eight PLWH were included in the 24 week CD4 cell count analysis. On average, the CD4 count increased by 25.1 cells/μL at 24 weeks after baseline. Multivariate analysis showed that ages 41 to 50 years were associated with decrease in CD4 count compared to ages 31 to 40 years (Difference-133.3, 95% CI -232.4 to -34.2, p = 0.011), while PI-based holding regimen was associated with increase in CD4 count compared to NNRTI-based holding regimen (Difference 124.7, 95% CI 30.3 to 219.2, p = 0.012) (Table 4). For VL follow-up analysis, a total of 33 PLWH had a VL measurement available at 24 weeks, of whom 11 were undetectable (33%). The proportion with undetectable VL according to the number of previous ART regimen changes were: no previous ART regimen changes—5/14 (36%); 1 previous ART changes—5/12 (42%); and ≥2 previous ART changes—1/7 (14%). Country-income level was the only factor associated with having undetectable VL at 24 weeks where those living in HICs were more likely to achieve undetectable VL (OR = 17.50, 95% CI 1.70 to 180.02, p = 0.016). The changing patterns of mean CD4 cell count at 24 and 48 weeks after baseline and proportion of PLWH with VL<1000 copies/mL at 24 and 48 weeks after baseline can be seen in Figs 2 and 3. In Fig 2, there were 28 patients included at 24 weeks and 38 patients at 48 weeks. In Fig 3, of the total 66 patients, 33 patients each were included at 24 and 48 week time points. At 24 weeks, there were 11 patients with VL <1000 copies/mL, of those 7 patients had VL<200 copies/mL and 6 patients had VL<50 copies/mL. At 48 weeks, there were 15 patients with VL <1000 copies/mL, of those 11 patients had VL <200 copies/mL and 8 patients had VL <50 copies/mL.
Discussion
HIV management has been shifting from prevention of opportunistic infections to managing HIV as a chronic disease with a focus on addressing non-communicable diseases and improving quality of life. However, this paradigm shift is only possible when PLWH are on virally suppressive cART regimens, which may not be achievable when there is drug resistance or limited access to the antiretroviral drug options. This has led to the reliance on holding regimens in anticipation of future treatments. We found that 3TC + AZT + EFV was the most commonly used holding regimen in our Asia regional cohort, followed by 3TC + AZT + NVP.
The diverse patterns of holding regimen in our region is likely be due to differential cART access, national treatment guidelines, and health insurance options for PLWH in each country. For example, in Thailand, one of the UMICs, the 2014 national guidelines recommended EFV, one of the NNRTIs, as the first-line combination, and another NNRTI, NVP was recommended as an alternative drug. PIs were only recommended in second-line combinations and INSTIs in multi-class failure [20]. One reason for this is because many resource-limited countries, such as Thailand, could not financially afford the subsequent regimens [14]. However, in South Korea, one of the HICs, NVP was excluded from their 2013 national guidelines, and the INSTI raltegravir was recommended as a first-line drug [21]. Dutta et al. reported that there was still no ideal matching between actual clinical needs and available antiretroviral drugs in the Asia-Pacific [22]. In our retrospective study, only 4.5% of PLWH with holding regimens were on INSTIs, reflecting limited access to antiretrovirals like DTG. However, recent price reductions in DTG and introduction of generic formulations is likely to change future treatment options [23]. Efforts to use DTG and other new antiretroviral drugs in middle income countries have been continuing and are expected to have potential to overcome clinical unmet needs [24–26]. Future studies in this regard is warranted to monitor trend change of holding regimens.
The mortality rate of PLWH with holding regimens was more than twice that of other PLWH in our cohort reported in previous study [27]. This was consistent with the results of previous studies that the prognosis of a remaining regimen or a delay in switching regimens was poor in patients with virologic failure [28, 29]. The reasons for no switch or a delayed switch could be multifactorial, such as prolonged time-period before confirmation of virologic failure or doubts about adequate patient adherence [28, 29]. Still, there are cases of virologic failure even though a second-line or third-line regimen was already used with no other antiretroviral options available, as in this study. In particular, AIDS-related deaths were more common than non-AIDS-related deaths in this study, which differed from the previous results regarding the cause of death in TAHOD patients, where non-AIDS-related mortality rate was higher than AIDS-related mortality rate [27]. This fact demonstrates the need to extend accessibility to additional antiretroviral options in our region to improve their survival. Regarding factors associated with mortality, it was consistent with what is previously known that old age, high VL, and low CD4 cell counts increased mortality and supported our results that AIDS-related deaths were more common than non-AIDS-related deaths [30, 31]. There was no difference in mortality according to the holding regimens. On the other hand, PI-based holding regimen increased CD4 cell counts more than NNRTI-based holding regimens at 24 weeks after baseline. Old age was associated with poor prognosis in that not only increased mortality, but also decreased CD4 cell counts at 24 weeks after baseline. Meanwhile, the differences in mortality and CD4 cell counts changes according to World Bank country income levels were not identified. HICs was the only variable associated with undetectable VL at 24 weeks after baseline.
This study had several limitations. First, measurement of VL in TAHOD and TAHOD-LITE sites normally performed once a year, so we have small sample sizes due to our definition of 2 consecutive VL failure within 6 months. Second, TAHOD has patients who have been enrolled for a long time, so the data may reflect holding regimen in previous years. Since the median year of enrolment into the cohort was 2007 (IQR 2004–2010) and as INSTIs have not been widely available across all TAHOD sites, we could not identify the changes in patterns of holding regimen after INSTIs became widely available. Follow-up studies are warranted in this regard. Third, TAHOD-LITE does not collect ART adherence and therefore, we were not able to assess the impact of adherence counselling on our outcomes. Holding regimens are also sometimes used when adherence to ART is judged to be sub-optimal, especially for children who have suspected or proven poor adherence [32, 33]. However, TAHOD is for adult PLWH, and as TAHOD participating sites are generally urban referral centres, and each site recruits patients who are judged to have a reasonably good prospect of long-term follow-up, it is unlikely that holding regimens were used to ensure adherence in this study [34]. Fourth, data on resistance mutations in our study population were not available. In previous studies on resistance mutations in TAHOD patients, transmitted drug resistance was identified in 4.1%; 60% of which had NRTI, 43% NNRTI, and 18% PI-associated mutations [35]. The most common NRTI-associated mutation was M184V, the common NNRTI-associated mutation was K103N or Y181C, and the common PI-associated mutation was M46L [35, 36]. The results could be referred to in our study.
Conclusions
The patterns of holding regimens used in our cohort differed by country income levels. In LMICs and UMICs, NNRTI-based regimens including 3TC + AZT + EFV were most commonly used, but PI-based regimens were commonly used in HICs. The mortality of PLWH with holding regimens was higher than that of other PLWH in our cohort; old age, high VL, and low CD4 cell counts were associated with high mortality. Considering the high mortality rate of PLWH with holding regimen, efforts to extend accessibility to additional antiretroviral options are needed in our region.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Detailed patterns of holding regimens.
3TC, lamivudine; ABC, abacavir; ATV, atazanavir; AZT, zidovudine; COB, cobicistat; D4T, stavudine; DDC, zalcitabine; DDI, didanosine; DRV, darunavir; EFV, efavirenz; ETV, etravirine; EVG, elvitegravir; FAP, fosamprenavir; FTC, emtricitabine; HYD, hydroxyurea; IDV, indinavir; IL2, interleukin-2; LPV, lopinavir; MVC, maraviroc; NFV, nelfinavir; NNRTI, non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor; NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; NVP, nevirapine; PI, protease inhibitor; RAL, raltegravir; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RIT, ritonavir; RPV, rilpivirine; RTF, ritonavir full dose; SQF, saquinavir fortovase; SQI, saquinavir invirase; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264157.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Patterns of holding regimens by number of previous regimen changes.
Note: ART combinations comprising of less than 5% were grouped as Other. 3TC, lamivudine; ATV/r, atazanavir/ritonavir; AZT, zidovudine; D4T, stavudine; EFV, efavirenz; FTC, emtricitabine; IDV, indinavir; LPV/r, lopinavir/ritonavir; NVP, nevirapine; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264157.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
Study members of TAHOD and TAHOD-LITE of IeDEA Asia-Pacific:
PS Ly, V Khol, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Dermatology & STDs, Phnom Penh, Cambodia; FJ Zhang, HX Zhao, N Han, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China; MP Lee, PCK Li, W Lam, YT Chan, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong SAR; N Kumarasamy†, C Ezhilarasi, Chennai Antiviral Research and Treatment Clinical Research Site (CART CRS), VHS-Infectious Diseases Medical Centre, VHS, Chennai, India; S Pujari, K Joshi, S Gaikwad, A Chitalikar, Institute of Infectious Diseases, Pune, India; S Sangle, V Mave, I Marbaniang, S Nimkar, BJ Government Medical College and Sassoon General Hospital, Pune, India; TP Merati, DN Wirawan, F Yuliana, Faculty of Medicine Udayana University & Sanglah Hospital, Bali, Indonesia; E Yunihastuti, A Widhani, S Maria, TH Karjadi, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia—Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo General Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia; J Tanuma ‡, S Oka, T Nishijima, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan; JY Choi, Na S, JM Kim, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea; YM Gani, NB Rudi, Hospital Sungai Buloh, Sungai Buloh, Malaysia; I Azwa, A Kamarulzaman, SF Syed Omar, S Ponnampalavanar, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; R Ditangco, MK Pasayan, ML Mationg, Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City, Philippines; YJ Chan, WW Ku, PC Wu, E Ke, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; OT Ng, PL Lim, LS Lee, D Liang, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore (note: OT Ng was also supported by the NMRC Clinician Scientist Award (NMRC/CSA-INV/0002/2016), which had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.); A Avihingsanon, S Gatechompol, P Phanuphak, C Phadungphon, HIV-NAT/ Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre, Bangkok, Thailand; S Kiertiburanakul, A Phuphuakrat, L Chumla, N Sanmeema, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; R Chaiwarith, T Sirisanthana, J Praparattanapan, K Nuket, Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai, Thailand; S Khusuwan, P Kantipong, P Kambua, Chiangrai Prachanukroh Hospital, Chiang Rai, Thailand; KV Nguyen, HV Bui, DTH Nguyen, DT Nguyen, National Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Hanoi, Vietnam; CD Do, AV Ngo, LT Nguyen, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam; AH Sohn, JL Ross, B Petersen, TREAT Asia, amfAR—The Foundation for AIDS Research, Bangkok, Thailand; MG Law, A Jiamsakul, R Bijker, D Rupasinghe, The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, NSW, Australia.
† TAHOD Steering Committee Chair; ‡ co-Chair
References
- 1. Egger M, May M, Chene G, Phillips AN, Ledergerber B, Dabis F, et al. Prognosis of HIV-1-infected patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis of prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360: 119–129. pmid:12126821
- 2. Steigbigel RT, Cooper DA, Kumar PN, Eron JE, Schechter M, Markowitz M, et al. Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;359: 339–354. pmid:18650512
- 3. Pichenot M, Deuffic-Burban S, Cuzin L, Yazdanpanah Y. Efficacy of new antiretroviral drugs in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent randomized controlled trials. HIV Med. 2012;13: 148–155. pmid:22107456
- 4. Meyers T, Moultrie H, Naidoo K, Cotton M, Eley B, Sherman G. Challenges to pediatric HIV care and treatment in South Africa. J Infect Dis. 2007;196 Suppl 3: S474–481. pmid:18181697
- 5. Cooper DA, Steigbigel RT, Gatell JM, Rockstroh JK, Katlama C, Yeni P, et al. Subgroup and resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;359: 355–365. pmid:18650513
- 6. Hatano H, Lampiris H, Fransen S, Gupta S, Huang W, Hoh R, et al. Evolution of integrase resistance during failure of integrase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54: 389–393. pmid:20300008
- 7. Cossarini F, Spagnuolo V, Gianotti N, Carbone A, Lazzarin A, Castagna A. Management of HIV infection after triple class failure. New Microbiol. 2013;36: 23–39 pmid:23435813
- 8. The 2018 Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of HIV/AIDS in HIV-Infected Koreans. Infect Chemother. 2019;51: 77–88. pmid:30941943
- 9. Ledergerber B, Lundgren JD, Walker AS, Sabin C, Justice A, Reiss P, et al. Predictors of trend in CD4-positive T-cell count and mortality among HIV-1-infected individuals with virological failure to all three antiretroviral-drug classes. Lancet. 2004;364: 51–62. pmid:15234856
- 10. Raffanti SP, Fusco JS, Sherrill BH, Hansen NI, Justice AC, D’Aquila R, et al. Effect of persistent moderate viremia on disease progression during HIV therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004;37: 1147–1154 pmid:15319674
- 11. Kantor R, Shafer RW, Follansbee S, Taylor J, Shilane D, Hurley L, et al. Evolution of resistance to drugs in HIV-1-infected patients failing antiretroviral therapy. Aids. 2004;18: 1503–1511 pmid:15238768
- 12. Goetz MB, Ferguson MR, Han X, McMillan G, St Clair M, Pappa KA, et al. Evolution of HIV resistance mutations in patients maintained on a stable treatment regimen after virologic failure. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;43: 541–549. pmid:17075391
- 13. Clotet B, Bellos N, Molina JM, Cooper D, Goffard JC, Lazzarin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials. Lancet. 2007;369: 1169–1178. pmid:17416261
- 14. Teeranaipong P, Sirivichayakul S, Mekprasan S, Ohata PJ, Avihingsanon A, Ruxrungtham K, et al. Role of rilpivirine and etravirine in efavirenz and nevirapine-based regimens failure in a resource-limited country: a cross-sectional study. PloS one. 2016;11: e0154221. pmid:27120449
- 15. Zhou J, Kumarasamy N, Ditangco R, Kamarulzaman A, Lee CK, Li PC, et al. The TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database: baseline and retrospective data. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;38: 174–179 pmid:15671802
- 16. De La Mata NL, Kumarasamy N, Khol V, Ng OT, Van Nguyen K, Merati TP, et al. Improved survival in HIV treatment programmes in Asia. Antivir Ther. 2016;21: 517–527. pmid:26961354
- 17. De La Mata NL, Ly PS, Ng OT, Nguyen KV, Merati TP, Pham TT, et al. Trends in CD4 cell count response to first-line antiretroviral treatment in HIV-positive patients from Asia, 2003–2013: TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database Low Intensity Transfer. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28: 1282–1291. pmid:28632481
- 18.
Organization WH. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach: World Health Organization; 2016.
- 19. The World Bank. Countries and Economies 2015 [cited 2015 Feb 02]. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/country.
- 20. Manosuthi W, Ongwandee S, Bhakeecheep S, Leechawengwongs M, Ruxrungtham K, Phanuphak P, et al. Guidelines for antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected adults and adolescents 2014, Thailand. AIDS Res Ther. 2015;12: 12. pmid:25908935
- 21. The 2013 Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of HIV/AIDS in HIV-Infected Koreans. Infect Chemother. 2013;45: 455–461. pmid:24475362
- 22. Dutta A, Barker C, Kallarakal A. The HIV Treatment Gap: Estimates of the Financial Resources Needed versus Available for Scale-Up of Antiretroviral Therapy in 97 Countries from 2015 to 2020. PLoS Med. 2015;12: e1001907; discussion e1001907. pmid:26599990
- 23. Kumarasamy N, Prabhu S, Chandrasekaran E, Poongulali S, Pradeep A, Chitra D, et al. Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Generic Dolutegravir-containing Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens Among South Indian Human Immunodeficiency Virus-infected Patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2019;68: 1048–1051. pmid:30192925
- 24. Vitoria M, Hill A, Ford N, Doherty M, Clayden P, Venter F, et al. The transition to dolutegravir and other new antiretrovirals in low-income and middle-income countries: what are the issues? Aids. 2018;32: 1551–1561. pmid:29746295
- 25. Dorward J, Lessells R, Drain PK, Naidoo K, de Oliveira T, Pillay Y, et al. Dolutegravir for first-line antiretroviral therapy in low-income and middle-income countries: uncertainties and opportunities for implementation and research. Lancet HIV. 2018;5: e400–e404. pmid:29884404
- 26. Inzaule SC, Hamers RL, Doherty M, Shafer RW, Bertagnolio S, Rinke de Wit TF. Curbing the rise of HIV drug resistance in low-income and middle-income countries: the role of dolutegravir-containing regimens. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19: e246–e252. pmid:30902440
- 27. Jung IY, Rupasinghe D, Woolley I, O’Connor CC, Giles M, Azwa RI, et al. Trends in mortality among ART-treated HIV-infected adults in the Asia-Pacific region between 1999 and 2017: results from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD) and Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD) of IeDEA Asia-Pacific. J Int AIDS Soc. 2019;22: e25219. pmid:30615271
- 28. Bell-Gorrod H, Fox MP, Boulle A, Prozesky H, Wood R, Tanser F, et al. The Impact of Delayed Switch to Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy on Mortality, Depending on Definition of Failure Time and CD4 Count at Failure. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189: 811–819. pmid:32219384
- 29. Bell Gorrod H, Court R, Schomaker M, Maartens G, Murphy RA. Increased Mortality With Delayed and Missed Switch to Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020;84: 107–113. pmid:32032304
- 30. Smith C, Sabin CA, Lundgren JD, Thiebaut R, Weber R, Law M, et al. Factors associated with specific causes of death amongst HIV-positive individuals in the D:A:D Study. Aids. 2010;24: 1537–1548. pmid:20453631
- 31. Cockerham L, Scherzer R, Zolopa A, Rimland D, Lewis CE, Bacchetti P, et al. Association of HIV infection, demographic and cardiovascular risk factors with all-cause mortality in the recent HAART era. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;53: 102–106. pmid:19738484
- 32. Patten G, Bernheimer J, Fairlie L, Rabie H, Sawry S, Technau K, et al. Lamivudine monotherapy as a holding regimen for HIV-positive children. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0205455. pmid:30308013
- 33. Sohn AH, Chokephaibulkit K, Lumbiganon P, Hansudewechakul R, Gani YM, Van Nguyen L, et al. Peritransition Outcomes of Southeast Asian Adolescents and Young Adults With HIV Transferring From Pediatric to Adult Care. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2020;66: 92–99 pmid:31627925
- 34. Zhou J, Li P, Kumarasamy N, Boyd M, Chen Y, Sirisanthana T, et al. Deferred modification of antiretroviral regimen following documented treatment failure in Asia: results from the TREAT Asia HIV Observational Database (TAHOD). HIV medicine. 2010;11: 31–39 pmid:19601993
- 35. Phanuphak P, Sirivichayakul S, Jiamsakul A, Sungkanuparph S, Kumarasamy N, Lee MP, et al. Transmitted drug resistance and antiretroviral treatment outcomes in non-subtype B HIV1-infected patients in South East Asia. Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999). 2014;66: 74
- 36. Jiamsakul A, Sungkanuparph S, Law M, Kantor R, Praparattanapan J, Li PC, et al. HIV multi‐drug resistance at first‐line antiretroviral failure and subsequent virological response in Asia. Journal of the International AIDS Society. 2014;17: 19053 pmid:25141905