Important note: Information in this article was accurate in May 2009. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Five-year survival rates of 87% without routine CD4 or laboratory monitoring in DART study demonstrate an important model for ARV access programmes
HIV Treat Bull - 2009 Jul/Aug;10(7/8): 05
Simon Collins, HIV i-Base
The most important study results presented at the 5th IAS conference were from the DART (Development of AntiRetrovial Treatment in Africa) trial.[1]
Sponsored by the UK‘s Medical Research Council and University College London, DART randomised over 3300 treatment-naïve patients in Uganda and Zimbabwe to be managed by either routine three-monthly CD4 count and laboratory monitoring (LCM group), or by clinically driven monitoring (CDM). Laboratory monitoring was also performed for this group, but results were only given to the treating doctor when a grade-4 toxicity was identified. Viral load was not monitored in either arm.
Criteria for switching patients to second-line therapy included a CD4 count less than 100 cells/mm3 in the LCM group or by symptoms/progression in the CDM group.
Patients were also randomised to one of three treatments, all with background AZT+3TC: abacavir (9%, n=300), nevirapine (7%, n=247) or tenofovir (74%, n=2469). d4T was not included as a first-line regimen, even though some patients switched to d4T during the study (for example to avoid anaemia). They were then followed for five years (median 4.9 years, IQR 4.5 – 5.3).
The Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) closed an earlier component of DART looking into treatment interruptions in March 2006.
The rationale behind DART was to determine whether ARVs could be used effectively without routine monitoring, in order to broaden access to treatment in settings where CD4 and laboratory monitoring are either no available or where they are difficult to access.
Enrollment criteria included being treatment-naïve with a CD4 count <200 cells/mm3. Baseline median CD4 count and mean viral load were 86 cells/mm3 (IQR 31-139, range 0-199; one-third of patients had a CD4 count <50 cells/mm3) and 5.4 log (SD +0.7) copies/mL. WHO stage 2/3/4 was diagnosed in 20%, 56% and 23% patients respectively.
At the conference DART had a separate satellite symposium within the main conference programme and this is one of the sessions that has been web cast. The top line results were both impressive and challenged common assumptions. Both arms showed a remarkable and similar 5-year survival rate - 90% vs. 87% in the lab and clinical arms respectively - separated only by a small percentage difference that only occurred after the first two years on study. This compared to an historical 5-year survival rate prior to HAART of only 8%. Clinic attendence was >98% with high reported adherence and only 7% patients lost to follow-up over five years.
The event rates for a new WHO Stage 4 event or death were 6.94 versus 5.24 per 100 person-years in the CDM vs. LCM arm [n=459 (28%) vs. 356 (22%) HR 1.31 [1.14-1.51], log-rank p=0.0001]. Death rates/100PY were 2.94 in CDM versus 2.18 in LCM (p=0.004). Differences between strategies occurred from the third year on ART whereas lower rates of switching to second-line ART occurred in CDM from the second year. There were no differences between strategies in time to first serious adverse event, grade-4 toxicity or ART-modifying toxicity (see Table 1).
| Table 1: 5-year event results from DART study | ||||
| Event rate/100 PY | HR [95%CI] p-value | |||
| CDM | LCM | |||
| New WHO Stage 4 event or death | 6.94 n=459 (28%) | 5.24 n=356 (22%) | HR 1.31 [1.14-1.51] log-rank p=0.0001 | |
| Death | 2.94 | 2.18 | p=0.004 | |
| Time to first SAE | HR 1.12 [0.94-1.31] p=0.20 | |||
| Time to grade-4 toxicity | HR 1.08 [0.97-1.20] p=0.18 | |||
| Time to ART-modifying toxicity | HR 1.01 [0.88-1.16] p=0.85 | |||
Around 60% of patients in each arm remained on their first line therapy after five years, with 20% modifying one or more drugs for tolerability and 20% of patients in each arm switching to second-line.
The higher mortality in the clinical monitoring arm was explained by patients being switched to second-line treatment at lower CD4 counts than the laboratory monitored group.
In an analysis of the two strategies, 3-monthly routine monitoring was determined to not be cost effective (based on the cost of treatment used in DART and relative to the WHO target for Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of 3 × GDP per capita).[2]
Lab unit costs were CD4 ($8.80), haematology ($5.30) and biochemistry ($29.50), with biochemistry carrying the highest cost with the least efficacy benefit. This was used to support the DART main conclusion that treatment shold not be witheld while waiting for monitoring and that resources for treatment access programmes should prioritise treatment over monitoring.
Several other presentations at the IAS conference presented a wealth of other aspects of the study including:
These and other presentations are now posted on the MRC website.[3]
See the next issue of HTB for detailed coverage of some of these studies.
Comment
These results strongly support expanding access to treatment to wider populations independent of access to routine laboratory monitoring and that delaying treatment access while waiting for laboratory infrastructure to be developed is resulting in extensive mortality and morbidity.
While the cost effectiveness analysis was limited to the strategy determined at the study outset, a sensitivity analysis looking at absolute real world costs based on using generic drugs (rather than subsided Western brands) and using an annual CD4 count from year two would be likely to bring this within the WHO target, and may reverse the slightly higher mortality linked to late CD4 switching seen in the clinical monitoring arm.
For example, in DART the annual drug costs for the three first line treatment arms were $432 (tenofovir), $444 (nevirapine) and $698 (abacavir) and $954 for second-line (lopinvir/r + ddI).
The modelling for the DART analysis concluded that CD4 tests would have to drop to $3.80 or less to be cost-effective, but this was based on providing 4 tests per year. Simply adding an annual test after two years would raise the minimum target cost per CD4 test to $15.20, which is well over the current costs. This implies that an annual CD4 test is actually cost effective and would detect those patients with CD4 counts <100 cells/mm3 who are at highest risk of serious events.
It is important to note that DART did not recommend excluding laboratory monitoring: the strategy was for treating without routine three-monthly monitoring, and the difference is critical to the study interpretation.
These results should also not be used to reduce the research and investment into the development of low cost diagnostics.
References:
2009-07-10
IB2009-07-05
©2009. I-BASE HIV Treatment Bulletin. Permission to reproduce courtesy of HIV i-Base, Third Floor East, Thrale House, 44-46 Southwark Street, London SE1 1UN - T: +44 (0) 20 7407 8488 F: +44 (0) 20 7407 8489
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted grants from the National Library of Medicine, and donations from users like you. Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2009. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2009. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content.