Real-world use and outcomes of dolutegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy in HIV and tuberculosis co-infection: a site survey and cohort study in sub-Saharan Africa

INTRODUCTION

Dolutegravir is being scaled up globally as part of antiretroviral therapy (ART), but for people with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection, its use is complicated by a drug-drug interaction with rifampicin requiring an additional daily dose of dolutegravir. This represents a disadvantage over efavirenz, which does not have a major drug-drug interaction with rifampicin. We sought to describe HIV clinic practices for prescribing concomitant dolutegravir and rifampicin, and characterize virologic outcomes among patients with tuberculosis co-infection receiving dolutegravir or efavirenz.

METHODS

Within the four sub-Saharan Africa regions of the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS consortium, we conducted a site survey (2021) and a cohort study (2015-2021). The cohort study used routine clinical data and included patients newly initiating or already receiving dolutegravir or efavirenz at the time of tuberculosis diagnosis. Patients were followed from tuberculosis diagnosis until viral suppression (<1000 copies/ml), a competing event (switching ART regimen; loss to program/death) or administrative censoring at 12 months.

RESULTS

In the survey, 86 of 90 (96%) HIV clinics in 18 countries reported prescribing dolutegravir to patients who were receiving rifampicin as part of tuberculosis treatment, with 77 (90%) reporting that they use twice-daily dosing of dolutegravir, of which 74 (96%) reported having 50 mg tablets available to accommodate twice-daily dosing. The cohort study included 3563 patients in 11 countries, with 67% newly or recently initiating ART. Among patients receiving dolutegravir (n = 465), the cumulative incidence of viral suppression was 58.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 54.3-63.3%), switching ART regimen was 4.1% (95% CI: 2.6-6.2%) and loss to program/death was 23.4% (95% CI: 19.7-27.4%). Patients receiving dolutegravir had improved viral suppression compared with patients receiving efavirenz who had a tuberculosis diagnosis before site dolutegravir availability (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio [aSHR]: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.28-1.68) and after site dolutegravir availability (aSHR 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

At a programmatic level, dolutegravir was being widely prescribed in sub-Saharan Africa for people with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection with a dose adjustment for the drug-drug interaction with rifampicin. Despite this more complex regimen, our cohort study revealed that dolutegravir did not negatively impact viral suppression.

Adolescent pregnancy at antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation: a critical barrier to retention on ART

INTRODUCTION

Adolescence and pregnancy are potential risk factors for loss to follow-up (LTFU) while on antiretroviral therapy (ART). We compared adolescent and adult LTFU after ART initiation to quantify the impact of age, pregnancy, and site-level factors on LTFU.

METHODS

We used routine clinical data for patients initiating ART as young adolescents (YA; 10 to 14 years), older adolescents (OA; 15 to 19 years) and adults (≥20 years) from 2000 to 2014 at 52 health facilities affiliated with the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) East Africa collaboration. We estimated cumulative incidence (95% confidence interval, CI) of LTFU (no clinic visit for ≥6 months after ART initiation) and identified patient and site-level correlates of LTFU, using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models for all patients as well as individual age groups.

RESULTS

A total of 138,387 patients initiated ART, including 2496 YA, 2955 OA and 132,936 adults. Of these, 55%, 78% and 66%, respectively, were female and 0.7% of YA, 22.3% of OA and 8.3% of adults were pregnant at ART initiation. Cumulative incidence of LTFU at five years was 26.6% (24.6 to 28.6) among YA, 44.1% (41.8 to 46.3) among OA and 29.3% (29.1 to 29.6) among adults. Overall, compared to adults, the adjusted hazard ratio, aHR, (95% CI) of LTFU for OA was 1.54 (1.41 to 1.68) and 0.77 (0.69 to 0.86) for YA. Compared to males, pregnant females had higher hazard of LTFU, aHR 1.20 (1.14 to 1.27), and nonpregnant women had lower hazard aHR 0.90 (0.88 to 0.93). LTFU hazard among the OA was primarily driven by both pregnant and nonpregnant females, aHR 2.42 (1.98 to 2.95) and 1.51 (1.27 to 1.80), respectively, compared to men. The LTFU hazard ratio varied by IeDEA program. Site-level factors associated with overall lower LTFU hazard included receiving care in tertiary versus primary-care clinics aHR 0.61 (0.56 to 0.67), integrated adult and adolescent services and food ration provision aHR 0.93 (0.89 to 0.97) versus nonintegrated clinics with food ration provision, having patient support groups aHR 0.77 (0.66 to 0.90) and group adherence counselling aHR 0.61 (0.57 to 0.67).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adolescents experienced higher risk of LTFU compared to YA and adults. Interventions to prevent LTFU among older adolescents are critically needed, particularly for female and/or pregnant adolescents.