Advertisement covers The 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI 2011)

Treating Children Previously Exposed to Single Dose Nevirapine: Update on IMPAACT P1060 and NEVEREST

July/August 2011

 1  |  2  |  Next > 

Two oral presentations at CROI 2011 showed further findings from studies looking at treatment in children previously exposed or unexposed to maternal/infant single dose nevirapine (NVP) in prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) programmes.


IMPAACT P1060 was a randomised trial to determine whether NVP- or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based treatment performed better in young children exposed and unexposed to single dose NVP. All children received AZT plus 3TC. The trial comprised of Cohort 1 (exposed children) and Cohort 2 (unexposed children). Data from Cohort 1 have previously been reported and this part of the study was stopped early after a scheduled Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) review, as there was an unsurprising trend towards more failure in the children receiving NVP- compared to LPV/r-based treatment.


Peter Palumbo presented results from Cohort 2. This cohort enrolled children aged 2 to 36 months, who met WHO criteria for treatment and were unexposed to single dose NVP. Children were stratified by age < or ≥ 12 months. Children with TB were excluded from the trial.

The study had a composite primary endpoint of treatment failure, which comprised viral failure (<1 log10 decline from baseline to after 12 to 24 weeks or >400 copies/mL at week 24), or permanent discontinuation of NVP or LPV/r, including death by 24 weeks. Rates were calculated from Kaplan-Meier curves for each treatment group and age group.

Secondary endpoints included time to virological failure by 24 weeks, time to treatment failure throughout follow up and time to virological failure or death throughout follow up.

P1060 Cohort 2 was fully enrolled with 288 children by March 2010 and had 48-week planned follow-up to March 2011. In October 2010, the DSMB recommended that the study was unblinded. All children had completed 24 weeks of follow up.

Dr Palumbo reported that the children's median age at enrollment was 1.7 years (73% >12 months) and their median baseline viral load and CD4 percentage were 535,632 copies/mL and 15% respectively. The majority (79%) of children were subtype C. The median follow-up was 72 weeks.

At week 24, 87 children had reached an endpoint; 60 in the NVP and 27 in the LPV/r arms. The overall difference in failure rate was 21.5% (95% CI, 11.2-31.8) in favour of LPV/r, p<0.001. This was similar in both age groups: 22.0% (<12 months) and 21.3% (>12 months).

There was also a significant difference in time to off study drug, over the full length of the trial, p<0.001. There were 10 vs. 3 deaths in the NVP vs. LPV/r arms during the entire follow-up

period (none judged related to study drugs), but this did not reach statistical significance, p=0.63.

There was a notable amendment during the course of the trial. In 2007 the recommended NVP dose in WHO guidelines increased from the FDA recommended dose of 7mg/kg to 160-200mg/m2 (max 200mg). Only 32 children were enrolled under the lower dose compared to 115 at the higher one but the investigators saw no effect associated with this change.

Dr Palumbo noted that the main reasons for off study were more virological failure, toxicity and death in the NVP arm.

As both the NEVEREST and P1060 Cohort 1 data had suggested poorer weight and CD4 improvement in children receiving LPV/r compared to NVP, the investigators also looked at this in Cohort 2. They did not find a statistically significant difference in CD4 improvement between the two arms but there was a difference in weight z-score favouring NVP at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively p=0.007 and p=0.009.

When the investigators looked at NVP resistance in samples from subsets of children at baseline and time of virological failure, they found 2.4% (5/206) with resistance at baseline compared to 56% (10/18) at time of virological failure.

These results were different to those in the sister study, OCTANE P1060, in which maternal data demonstrated non-inferiority of NVP- to LPV/r-based treatment, by the study definition, for NVP- unexposed women.

This highlighted the "unique and challenging situation of early paediatric HIV infection", Dr Palumbo said, including very high baseline viral load and the unforgiving nature of NVP resistance. LPV/r is already recommended for NVP-exposed children and discussions are ongoing as to whether this recommendation should expand to all young children, possibly up to three years of age.

These data once again point to the importance of developing new first and second line options for use in this age group.

 1  |  2  |  Next > 

This article was provided by HIV i-Base. It is a part of the publication HIV Treatment Bulletin. Visit HIV i-Base's website to find out more about their activities, publications and services.

No comments have been made.

Add Your Comment:
(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in
Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Before
adding your comment, please read's Comment Policy.)

Your Name:

Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:

Please note: Knowledge about HIV changes rapidly. Note the date of this summary's publication, and before treating patients or employing any therapies described in these materials, verify all information independently. If you are a patient, please consult a doctor or other medical professional before acting on any of the information presented in this summary. For a complete listing of our most recent conference coverage, click here.


The content on this page is free of advertiser influence and was produced by our editorial team. See our content and advertising policies.