A study of protease inhibitor monotherapy in Africa has
found that 25% fewer patients on monotherapy achieved an undetectable viral
load than those on standard combination therapy. However, CD4 increases were the
same in both groups.
The study adds to the debate about whether using
cost-cutting measures such as monotherapy and dispensing with laboratory
monitoring will benefit more patients in the long run than trying to use
developed-country standards of care in such settings.
The
Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection (HIV10) in Glasgow featured a number of presentations on trials of boosted protease
inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy.
This concept so far has been tested in high-income countries
where viral load tests are available. A study conducted in two African
countries, without viral load monitoring, found that PI/r therapy was
significantly less effective, in terms of achieving an undetectable viral load,
than standard second-line treatment with a protease inhibitor and two
nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (PI/r/NRTIs).
For every four patients who achieved a successful viral load
response on PI/r/NRTI therapy, one would be likely to fail virologically if
they took PI/r monotherapy, the study found.
The SARA study was a substudy of the large
DART trial in Uganda and Zimbabwe, which has been conducted amongst over
3000 patients to establish if antiretroviral (ARV) therapy can be successfully
used in the absence of monitoring tests, using symptoms alone to guide
decisions about switching therapy. Although CD4 and viral load tests were in
fact conducted in all patients during the DART study, test results were
randomised either to be released immediately or to be withheld and only
released after the study.
DART, as a whole, found that after five years the death rate
in patients receiving standard laboratory monitoring was 10% and in those
receiving clinical monitoring alone was 13.5%. Although this difference was
significant, investigators pointed out that dispensing with viral load and most
CD4 tests would enable them to treat up to a third more patients.
The SARA study was a substudy within DART in which patents
on second-line therapy were randomised to receive boosted lopinavir (LPV/r)
- either alone as monotherapy or supported by two NRTIs.
Two hundred patients who had already been on PI/r/NRTI
second-line therapy for 24 weeks were randomised either to continue PI/r/NRTI
therapy or to stop taking the NRTIs. The patients had been on ARVs for a total
of 4.4 years. In the DART study, second-line therapies were triggered when
patients developed an AIDS-defining illness, had other serious adverse events, or
when CD4 tests (withheld or otherwise) showed to the trial regulators that the
count had fallen below 100 cells/mm3, at which point they alerted
clinicians.
Results already presented at the International AIDS
Conference in Vienna this year (Gilks) showed that the rises in CD4 counts seen
were the same in the monotherapy and combination therapy arms. At Vienna, after 24 weeks, the average CD4
rise was 48 cells/mm3 in patients on monotherapy and 42 cells/mm3
in patients on combination therapy. At
Glasgow, presenter David Yirrell said that by week 72 the average CD4 count was
150 cells/mm3 in both arms amongst patients who had been in the
trial this long.
Monotherapy was therefore equivalent to combination therapy,
at least for up to 18 months, when it comes to CD4 counts. But what about viral
loads? DART showed that the relatively worse outcomes for patients receiving no
lab test results only started to happen after two years, and that staying on NRTIs
with what turned out to have been actively replicating HIV led to high levels
of NRTI drug resistance.
At randomisation, the retrospectively reviewed viral load
tests showed that 87% of SARA recruits had had viral loads under 50 copies/ml
at the start of the study.
After 24 weeks, 78% of those on PI/r/NRTIs still had viral loads under 50 copies/ml, but only 59% of those on
monotherapy: 24% fewer. Six per cent of patients on combination therapy had
viral loads over 1000 copies/ml, but 16% of those on monotherapy.
By 96 weeks, nearly two years into the study,
50% of patients on monotherapy had a viral load below 200 compared with only
20% on combination therapy. So far, though, there is data on only a small number of patients who reached this point.
Over the course of the study there was a net viral load
increase in 31% of patients, but this must be weighed against a net viral load
decrease in 45% of patients.
Do these viral load failures have clinical consequences? Data
from the 133 patients at the two Ugandan sites show that 7.6% of those on
combination therapy, and 36% on monotherapy, had viral loads over 1000 at week
24, and resistance tests were conducted with most of these patients. Major PI
resistance mutations were found in four patients out of 24 patients on
monotherapy and none on combination therapy.
To summarise, over the relatively short term
(follow-up in SARA was a median of 60 weeks), there was an increase in viral
load but no decrease in CD4 counts in patients on monotherapy, and only one in
six patients who failed monotherapy developed PI resistance. This implies the
majority would be re-suppressed virologically if they resumed NRTIs, as all
patients did at the end of the study. Presenter David Yirrell concluded that
“longer-term trials are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn”
about the wisdom of offering either monotherapy or combination therapy without
lab tests.