Browsing by Author "Musiime, Victor."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Abacavir, zidovudine, or stavudine as paediatric tablets for African HIV-infected children (CHAPAS-3): an open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial
    (The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2016) Mulenga, Veronica; Musiime, Victor.; Kekitiinwa, Adeodata; Cook, Adrian D; Abongomera, George; Kenny, Julia; Chabala, Chisala; Mirembe, Grace; Asiimwe, Alice; Owen-Powell, Ellen; Burger, David; McIlleron, Helen; Klein, Nigel.; Chintu, Chifumbe; Thomason, Margaret J.; Kityo, Cissy.; Walker, Sarah A.; Gibb, Diana M
    Background WHO 2013 guidelines recommend universal treatment for HIV-infected children younger than 5 years. No paediatric trials have compared nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Africa, where most HIV-infected children live. We aimed to compare stavudine, zidovudine, or abacavir as dual or triple fi xed-dose-combination paediatric tablets with lamivudine and nevirapine or efavirenz. Methods In this open-label, parallel-group, randomised trial (CHAPAS-3), we enrolled children from one centre in Zambia and three in Uganda who were previously untreated (ART naive) or on stavudine for more than 2 years with viral load less than 50 copies per mL (ART experienced). Computer-generated randomisation tables were incorporated securely within the database. The primary endpoint was grade 2–4 clinical or grade 3/4 laboratory adverse events. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry number, 69078957. Findings Between Nov 8, 2010, and Dec 28, 2011, 480 children were randomised: 156 to stavudine, 159 to zidovudine, and 165 to abacavir. After two were excluded due to randomisation error, 156 children were analysed in the stavudine group, 158 in the zidovudine group, and 164 in the abacavir group, and followed for median 2·3 years (5% lost to follow-up). 365 (76%) were ART naive (median age 2·6 years vs 6·2 years in ART experienced). 917 grade 2–4 clinical or grade 3/4 laboratory adverse events (835 clinical [634 grade 2]; 40 laboratory) occurred in 104 (67%) children on stavudine, 103 (65%) on zidovudine, and 105 (64%), on abacavir (p=0·63; zidovudine vs stavudine: hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·75–1·29]; abacavir vs stavudine: HR 0·88 [0·67–1·15]). At 48 weeks, 98 (85%), 81 (80%) and 95 (81%) ART-naive children in the stavudine, zidovudine, and abacavir groups, respectively, had viral load less than 400 copies per mL (p=0·58); most ART-experienced children maintained suppression (p=1·00). Interpretation All NRTIs had low toxicity and good clinical, immunological, and virological responses. Clinical and subclinical lipodystrophy was not noted in those younger than 5 years and anaemia was no more frequent with zidovudine than with the other drugs. Absence of hypersensitivity reactions, superior resistance profi le and oncedaily dosing favours abacavir for African children, supporting WHO 2013 guidelines.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Acceptability of lopinavir/r pellets (minitabs), tablets and syrups in HIV-infected children
    (Europe PMC Funders Group, 2016) Kekitiinwa, Adeodata.; Musiime, Victor.; Thomason, Margaret J.; Mirembe, Grace; Lallemant, Marc; Nakalanzi, Sarah.; Baptiste, David.; Walker, Sarah A.; Gibb, Diana M.; Judd, Ali
    Lopinavir/ritonavir ‘pellets’ were recently tentatively approved for licensing. We describe their acceptability for infants and children up to 48 weeks. Methods—CHAPAS-2 was a randomised, 2-period crossover trial comparing syrup and pellets in HIV-infected infants (n=19, group A, aged 3-<12 months) and children (n=26, group B, 1-<4yrs) and tablets and pellets in older children (n=32, group C, 4-<13yrs) from 2 clinics (“JCRC”, “PIDC”) in Uganda. At week 8, all groups chose which formulation to continue. Acceptability data were collected at weeks 0,4,8,12, and 48. Results—For groups A and B overall, the proportion preferring pellets increased between week 0 and week 12 and decreased at week 48 (group A 37%, 72%, 44%; group B 12%, 64% and 36% respectively), although there were marked differences between clinics. For group C, pellets were progressively less preferred to tablets over time: 41%,19%,13% at weeks 0,12,48 respectively. During follow-up unpleasant taste was similarly reported among young children taking pellets and syrups (37%/43% group A; 29%/26% group B), whereas among older children, pellets tasted worse than tablets (40%/2%). No participants reported problems with storage/transportation for pellets (0%/0%) unlike syrups (23%/13%). Conclusions—For children <4 years, pellets were more acceptable at week 12 but not week 48. Clinic differences could reflect bias among healthcare workers for different formulations. Pellets taste similar to syrup, are easier to store and transport than syrup, and represent an alternative formulation for young children unable to swallow tablets; improvements in taste and support for healthcare workers may help sustain acceptability