PMTCT: a moving target or a moving strategy?

23rd June 2008MSF Access Campaign

Objectives of the meeting

To review recent data with scientific experts, implementers etc.

To balance new evidence with remaining gaps in knowledge

To define where new data needs to be generated and where implementation can start

Agenda Monday

Treatment of the mother Implementation Cost-effectiveness data

Tuesday Treatment of the infant Summary: role for advocacy? New evidence

needed or operational research or implementation/cost obstacles?

Context

No controversy on the role of HIVRNA suppression to decrease HIV transmission

Tous Homme-Femme Femme-Homme

Etude « Rakai »: Risque de transmission en fonction de la charge virale

Pas de transmission si CV « indétectable »

Quinn et al. N Engl J Med 2000;342:921-9

N Engl J Med 1999;341:394-402

Maternal levels of plasma HIV RNA and the risk of perinatal transmission

No transmission if mother’s viremia below 1000 copies

Maternal HIVRNA of a NON infected infant

Maternal HIVRNA of an infected infant

Evolution of MTCT rates over time

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

av 1994 1996 2000 2004

AZTHAART

Percent of infected infants

We will review randomized trials (AMATA, Kesho Bora) and DREAMS data

Effect of cART on MTCT

2705 infants from HIV infected mothers, whom HIVRNA was undetectable from week 36 to week 40

3 infants were infected

Claire Townsend et al. 15th CROI, Poster 653

Breastfeeding transmission

0123456789

10

sans ttmt

Percent of infected infants

IAS Conference Sydney, Abstracts TUAX 101 and 102

Mothers on NVP/3TC/AZT, 2 studies in Kenya and Uganda. 441 and 172

pregnancies, 1 infection

Antepartum Evaluation of Optimal Antepartum PMTCT Strategy

US/UK guidelines state persons with CD4 <350 should get HAART for own health.

Women with CD4 <350 are at greatest risk of MTCT even with short-course ART and of NVP resistance following SD NVP.

Thus, there is no controversy about what to do for pregnant women with low CD4 - give cART as treatment for own health and continue after birth.

• However, there is uncertainty about optimal strategy for women with CD4 >350.

– Women with CD4 >350 have lower baseline risk of MTCT and lower risk of developing resistance.

– Obstacles to universal pregnancy coverage:

–Issue of interrupting cART? (what does the experience of wealthy countries teach us?) (B.Hirschel)

–Concerns regarding pregnancy outcome and HAART? (Preterm, Europe, low birth rate, IC)

–Limited formulary?

–Limited resources? Complexity of implementation?

Antepartum Evaluation of Optimal Antepartum PMTCT Strategy

Context No controversy about the importance

and the possibility to eradicate MTCT But HOW?

Is there a failure of current PMTCT strategy? (S. Balkan)

Can changes in ART combinations lead to a change in strategy? (R.Tubiana)

Is coverage of 100% pregnant women regardless of CD4 cell count feasible and desirable?

CD4 below or above 350 cell count: how this should – or should not stratify the strategy?

What is the ongoing research agenda? (F. Dabis and L. Ciaffi)

6-Week MTCT Risk in Women Not Meeting WHO Criteria* for ART Who Receive Short-Course ARV Prophylaxis Cote d’Ivoire Trials Data, F. Dabis 6/05

10.9%3.6% 3.5% 2.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

% M

TC

T a

t 6

Wks

* Does not Meet WHO criteria if: WHO Stage 3 and CD4 >350 orStage 1-2 and CD4 >200

Short AZT AZT+ AZT/3TC+ HAART SD NVP SD NVP

Finding the balance

Pro- Effectiveness in

preventing the transmission- Lowering long term cost by preventing children’s infection

- Preventing resistances?

Cons- Effect of cART on children

-Treatment interruption (mother)

- Cost- Complexity in implementation

Thanks for participating

We hope that at the end of the meeting, we will have a clear idea on whether to wait new evidence, or start with implementation strategy

for cART for all pregnant women