Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor - Based Regimens as Switching Regimen for HIV - Infected Children Failing Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors in Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute

Authors

  • จุไร วงศ์สวัสดิ์ Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health
  • รุจนี สุนทรขจิต Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute, Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health
  • นฤภัค บุญฤทธิภัทร์ Bamrasnaradura Infectious Disease Institute
  • ดวงมณี สุวรรณมาศ Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute
  • สุมนมาลย์ อุทยมกุล Bamrasnaradura Infectious Disease Institute
  • สิมากานต์ วรเดชวิญญู Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute

Keywords:

Protease Inhibitors (PI), HIV - infected children

Abstract

A number of HIV infected children treated with 2 Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors ( NRTI) and 1 Non Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor ( NNRTI) in Thailand have currently been facing with treatment failure and the effectiveness of the Protease Inhibitors (PI) based regimens as the switching regimen have been questioned. This retrospective study was aimed to study the effectiveness of the PI based regimens for the cohort of PI- naive HIV- infected children, treated at the pediatric unit in Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute , who failed NNRTI - based regimens. There were 55 cases with male to female ratio around 1:1, the mean age at initiation of antiretroviral drugs was 3.88 years. The mean age at starting PI was 9.18 years. The mean duration for NRTI and NNRTI treatments prior to initiation of PI were 5.23 and 2.53 years respectively. The mean CD4 , CD4 percentage and plasma HIV RNA before initiation of PI were 363.8 cells/mm3 ,12.2 % and 4.8 log10 copies/mL respectively. The prevalence of M184V/I mutations and NNRTI mutations were 92 % and 83%. Thymidine Analogue - associated mutations ( TAMs) were found in 86 % of cases with 54% of > 4 TAMs. Twenty one cases received single boosted PI, which Indinavir /ritonavir was most frequently used (71%). Thirty four cases received double boosted PI, which Indinavir/ Lopinavir/ ritonavir was most frequently used ( 67%). Comparing single boosted PI vs double boosted PI, within 1 year of treatment, the mean increase of CD4 was 183 vs 260 cells/mm3 ( p = 0.5), the mean increase of CD4 percentage was 3.9 vs 5.5% ( p= 0.8) , the earliest time to achieve an increase of CD4 was 5.2 vs 4.7 months ( p = 0.5), the percentage of the children who achieved plasma HIV viral load < 50 copies/ml (1.69 log10) was 50 vs 45% ( p = 0.6) , the earliest time to achieve plasma HIV viral load < 50 copies/ml was 4.5 vs 5.9 months ( p = 0.17) , and the percentage of the children with viral load > 400 copies/ml ( 2.6log10) was 16 vs 3% ( p= 0.12). Comparing single boosted PI vs double bossted PI , after 1 year of treatment, the mean increase of CD4 was 265 vs 722 cells/mm3 ( p = 0.004), the mean increase of CD4 percentage was 15.2 vs 15.3 % ( p= 0.97) , the longest time to sustain a CD4 increase was 21.1 vs 26.6 months ( p = 0.14), the percentage of the children who achieved plasma HIV viral load < 50 copies/ml was 71 vs 93 % ( p = 0.1), the longest time to sustain plasma HIV viral load < 50 copies/ml was 26.4 vs 31.4 months ( p = 0.14) , and the percentage of the children with viral load > 400 copies/ml was 28 vs 0% ( p= 0.1). In conclusion, the PI based regimens revealed good effectiveness for children failing NRTIs and NNRTI regimens. However, double boosted PI seemed to be more potent and offered long term effectiveness than single boosted PI.

References

1) กรมควบคุมโรค กระทรวงสาธารณสุข สมาคมโรคเอดส์แห่งประเทศไทย สมาคมโรคติดเชื้อในเด็กแห่งประเทศไทย. การวินิจฉัยและการรักษาผู้ป่วยเด็กที่มีการรักษาล้มเหลว. ใน: สมนึก สังฆานุภาพ, กุลกัญญา โชคไพบูลย์กิจ, ถนอมศักดิ์ อเนกธนานนท์, นรินทร์ หิรัญสุทธิกุล, ฤดีวิไล สามโกเศศ, ธิดาพร จิรวัฒนะไพศาล, บรรณาธิการ. แนวทางการดูแลรักษาผู้ติดเชื้อเอชไอวีและผู้ป่วยเอดส์ในประเทศไทย ปี พ.ศ. 2549/2550. กรุงเทพฯ โรงพิมพ์ชุมนุมสหกรณ์การเกษตรแห่งประเทศไทย 2550 : 101 - 113.

2) Puthanakit T, Oberdorfer A, Akaratham N, et al. Efficacy of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV - Infected Children Participating in Thailand's National Access to Antiretroviral Program. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41 : 100 - 7.

3) World Health Organization. Antiretroviral therapy of HIV infection in infants and children in resource-limited settings, towards universal access: Recommendations for a public health approach. http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/ fs_2006guidelines_paediatric/en/index.html,2006.

4) Working Group on Antiretroviral Therapy and Medical Management of HIV - Infected Children. Guidelines for the USE of Antiretroviral Agents in Pediatriv HIV Infection, February 28, 2008. Available from http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/

5) Resino F, Bellon JM, Ramos JT, et al. Positive virologic outcome after lopinavir/ritronavir salvage therapy in protease inhibitor – experienced HIV - 1- infected children: a prospective cohort study. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54: 921-31.

6) Molla A, Mo H, Vasavanonda S, et al. In vitro interaction of Lopinavir with other protease inhibitors. Antimicrobe Agents Chemother 2002; 46: 2249 - 2253.

7) Ananworanich J, Kosalaraksa P, Hill A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and 24-week efficacy/safety of dual boosted saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir in nucleoside-pretreated children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005; 24(10): 874-9

8) กระทรวงสาธารณสุข. แนวทางการใช้ยาต้านไวรัสเอดส์ในเด็กที่ติดเชื้อเอชไอวี. ใน: สัญชัย ชาสมบัติ, ชีวนันท์ เลิศพิริยสุวัฒน์, พรทิพย์ ยุกตานนท์, บรรณาธิการ. แนวทางการดูแลรักษาผู้ติดเชื้อเอชไอวีและผู้ป่วยโรคเอดส์เด็กและผู้ใหญ่ในประเทศไทย ปี พ.ศ. 2547 ( ฉบับปรับปรุงครั้งที่ 8). กรุงเทพฯ: โรงพิมพ์ชุมนุมสหกรณ์การเกษตรแห่งประเทศไทย 2547: 71-82.

9) Saez -Llorens X, Vioari A, Deetz CO, et al. Forty-eight-week evaluation of lopinavir/ritonavir, a new protease inhibitor, in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2003; 22(3): 216-24

10) Stephan C, Hentig N, Kourbeti I, et al. Saquinavir drug exposure is not impaired by the boosted double protease inhibitor combination of lopinavir/ritonavir. AIDS. 2004; 18(3): 503-8.

11) Bergshoeff AS, Fraaij PL, van Rossum AM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of indinavir combined with low-dose ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004; 48(5): 1904-7.

12) Sungkanuparph S, Manosuthi W, Kiertiburanakul S, Piyavong B, Chumpathat N, Chantratita W. Options for a second-line antiretroviral regimen for HIV type 1-infected patients whose initial regimen of a fixed-dose combination of stavudine, lamivudine, and nevirapine fails. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 44(3): 447-52.

13) Borkowsky W, Stanley K, Douglas SD, et al. Immunologic response to combination nucleoside analogue plus protease inhibitor therapy in stable antiretroviral therapy-experienced human immunodeficiency virus-infected children. J Infect Dis. 2000;182(1): 96-103.

14) HIV Paediatric Prognostic Markers Collaborative Study. Predictive value of absolute CD4 cell count for disease progression in untreated HIV- 1 infected children. AIDS 2006; 20: 1289- 94.

Downloads

Published

2008-06-30

How to Cite

1.
วงศ์สวัสดิ์ จ, สุนทรขจิต ร, บุญฤทธิภัทร์ น, สุวรรณมาศ ด, อุทยมกุล ส, วรเดชวิญญู ส. Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor - Based Regimens as Switching Regimen for HIV - Infected Children Failing Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors in Bamrasnaradura Infectious Diseases Institute. Dis Control J [Internet]. 2008 Jun. 30 [cited 2024 Mar. 29];34(2):161-72. Available from: https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/DCJ/article/view/156077

Issue

Section

Original Article