A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in similar safety and tolerability in antiretroviral-naive subjects through 48 weeks

Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dosing frequency is an important determinant of regimen effectiveness. Methods. To compare efficacy of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) antiretroviral therapy, we randomized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive, treatment-naive patients to lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) administered at a dosage of 400 mg of lopinavir and 100 mg of ritonavir BID (n = 160) or 800 mg of lopinavir and 200 mg of ritonavir QD (n = 161), plus either emtricitabine 200 mg QD and extended-release stavudine at a dosage of 100 mg QD or tenofovir at a dosage of 300 mg QD. Randomization was stratified by screening HIV RNA level <100,000 copies/mL versus > or = 100,000 copies/mL. The primary efficacy end point was sustained virologic response (SVR; defined as reaching and maintaining an HIV RNA level <200 copies/mL) through week 48.

RESULTS

Subjects were 78% male, 33% Hispanic, and 34% black. A total of 82% of subjects completed the study, and 71% continued to receive the initially assigned dosage schedule. The probability of SVR did not differ significantly for the BID versus QD comparison, with an absolute proportional difference of 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 0.12). The comparison depended on the screening RNA stratum (P=.038); in the higher RNA stratum, the probability of SVR was significantly better in the BID arm than in the QD arm: 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84), a difference of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.01-0.25). Lopinavir trough plasma concentrations were higher with BID dosing. Adherence to prescribed doses of LPV/r was 90.6% in the QD arm versus 79.9% in the BID arm (P<.001). Conclusions. Although subjects assigned to QD regimens had better adherence, overall treatment outcomes were similar in the QD and BID arms. Subjects with HIV RNA levels > or =100,000 copies/mL had better SVR with BID regimens at 48 weeks, which suggests a possible advantage in this setting for more frequent dosing. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00036452.

[AIDS Study Group/Spanish AIDS Plan consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection (updated January 2010)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of antiretroviral therapy recommendations for adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel made up of members of the Grupo de Estudio de Sida (Gesida, AIDS Study Group) and the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS, Spanish AIDS Plan) reviewed the advances in the current understanding of the pathophysiology of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the efficacy and safety of clinical trials, and cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in biomedical journals or presented at scientific meetings. Three levels of evidence were defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), cohort or case-control studies (level B), and expert opinion (level C). The decision to recommend, consider or not to recommend ART was established in each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, the treatment of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs of two different classes, including 2 nucleosides or nucleotide analogs (NRTI) plus 1 non-nucleoside (NNRTI) or 1 boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r), but other combinations are possible. Initiation of ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection. In asymptomatic patients, initiation of ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts below 350 cells/microl; 2) When CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/microl, therapy should be started in case of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, HIV nephropathy, HIV viral load above 100,000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells under 14%, and in people aged over 55; 3) Therapy should be deferred when CD4 are above 500 cells/microl, but could be considered if any of previous considerations concurs. Treatment should be initiated in case of hepatitis B requiring treatment and should be considered for reduce sexual transmission. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures but undetectable viral loads maybe possible with the new drugs even in highly drug experienced patients. Genotype studies are useful in these situations. Drug toxicity of ART therapy is losing importance as benefits exceed adverse effects. Criteria for antiretroviral treatment in acute infection, pregnancy and post-exposure prophylaxis are mentioned as well as the management of HIV co-infection with hepatitis B or C.

CONCLUSIONS

CD4 cells counts, viral load and patient co-morbidities are the most important reference factors to consider when initiating ART in asymptomatic patients. The large number of available drugs, the increased sensitivity of tests to monitor viral load, and the ability to determine viral resistance is leading to a more individualized therapy approach in order to achieve undetectable viral load under any circumstances.

Pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-ritonavir with and without nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in Ugandan HIV-infected adults

We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-ritonavir with and without nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in Ugandan adults. The study design was a three-period crossover study (3 tablets [600 mg of lopinavir/150 mg of ritonavir {600/150 mg}], 4 capsules [533/133 mg], and 2 tablets [400/100 mg] twice a day [BD]; n = 40) of lopinavir-ritonavir with NNRTIs and a parallel one-period study (2 tablets BD; n = 20) without NNRTIs. Six-point pharmacokinetic sampling (0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h) was undertaken after observed intake with a standardized breakfast. Ugandan DART trial participants receiving efavirenz (n = 20), nevirapine (n = 18), and no NNRTI (n = 20) had median ages of 41, 35, and 37 years, respectively, and median weights of 60, 64, and 63 kg, respectively. For the no-NNRTI group, the geometric mean (percent coefficient of variation [%CV]) lopinavir area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)) was 110.1 (34%) microg x h/liter. For efavirenz, the geometric mean lopinavir AUC(0-12) (%CV) values were 91.8 microg x h/liter (58%), 65.7 microg x h/liter (39%), and 54.0 microg x h/liter (65%) with 3 tablets, 4 capsules, and 2 tablets BD, respectively, with corresponding (within-individual) geometric mean ratios (GMR) for 3 and 2 tablets versus 4 capsules of 1.40 (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 1.65; P = 0.002) and 0.82 (90% CI, 0.68 to 0.99; P = 0.09), respectively, and the apparent oral clearance (CL/F) values were reduced by 58% and 1%, respectively. For nevirapine, the geometric mean lopinavir AUC(0-12) (%CV) values were 112.9 microg x h/liter (30%), 68.1 microg x h/liter (53%), and 61.5 microg x h/liter (52%), respectively, with corresponding GMR values of 1.66 (90% CI, 1.46 to 1.88; P < 0.001) and 0.90 (90% CI, 0.77 to 1.06; P = 0.27), respectively, and the CL/F was reduced by 57% and 7%, respectively. Higher values for the lopinavir concentration at 12 h (C(12)) were observed with 3 tablets and efavirenz-nevirapine (P = 0.04 and P = 0.0005, respectively), and marginally lower C(12) values were observed with 2 tablets and efavirenz-nevirapine (P = 0.08 and P = 0.26, respectively). These data suggest that 2 tablets of lopinavir-ritonavir BD may be inadequate when dosed with NNRTIs in Ugandan adults, and the dosage should be increased by the addition of an additional adult tablet or a half-dose tablet (100/25 mg), where available.

Protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: the evidence behind the options

The introduction of protease inhibitors (PIs) to HIV treatment combinations in 1996 has significantly reduced morbidity and mortality due to HIV infection. Since the 1990s, multiple PIs have been approved, with several boosted PI regimens recognized as first-line regimens in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive patients. While the current guidelines recommend non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-, PI- and integrase inhibitor-based regimens as equal alternatives in ART-naive patients, there are clearly selected patients for whom PI-based regimens appear to be the best option because of specific toxicity or dosing issues. Due to the multiple options of therapy available for ART-naive patients, providers initiating PI-based ART can individualize therapy based on patient characteristics and needs, including pre-treatment resistance, drug-drug interactions, adverse effect profiles and co-morbid conditions. Here, we discuss the current recommendations and recent guidelines, and the evidence available for various PI-based ART regimens in treatment-naive patients. We also discuss adverse effects and the use of PIs in special circumstances.

Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy.

METHODS

The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729.

FINDINGS

702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol -12.6%vs 1.0%, non-HDL cholesterol -15.0%vs 2.6%, and triglycerides -42.2%vs 6.2%. At week 24, 293 (84.4%, 95% CI 80.2-88.1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -11.2 to -1.3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group.

INTERPRETATION

Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir.

FUNDING

Merck.

Treatment outcomes and plasma level of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir monotherapy among HIV-infected patients who had NRTI and NNRTI failure

BACKGROUND

Different strategies of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir monotherapy have been explored; however, data regarding salvage therapy among HIV-infected patients who failed nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) is still limited.

METHODS

A prospective study was conducted among HIV-infected patients who failed NNRTI-based antiretroviral therapy with M184V, TAMs, and NNRTI mutations, and were naïve to protease inhibitor. LPV/r at 400/100 mg and lamivudine 150 mg were given twice daily. CD4 and HIV-1 RNA were monitored at week 0, 12, 24, and 48. LPV Cmin was assayed for the first 14 patients using HPLC.

RESULTS

There were 40 patients with a mean age of 37 years and 70% were male. Median (IQR) baseline CD4 was 123 (37-245) cells/mm(3) and median (IQR) HIV-1 RNA was 55,800 (9,670-100,000) copies/mL. By intend-to-treat analysis, 30 (75%) and 24 (60%) patients achieved HIV-1 RNA at <400 and <50 copies/mL, respectively. In as-treated analysis, the corresponding rates were 29 (83%) and 23 (67%), respectively. Low-level viral rebound was found in 6 (15%) patients at week 48. Medians CD4 at week 12, 24, 36 and 48 were 249, 283, 307, and 351 cells/mm(3) and significantly changed from baseline (all, P < 0.05). At 6 and 12 weeks, median (min-max) LPV Cmin was 6.52 (1.62-11.64) mg/L and 5.79 (0.75-16.31) mg/L, respectively. There were increments of mean total cholesterol and triglyceride at 48 weeks from baseline (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

LPV/r monotherapy with recycled lamivudine can maintain virological suppression in a substantial proportion of patients failing NNRTI-based regimen and provides adequate plasma concentrations of LPV although the incidence of low-level viremia is relatively high.

Formulation preference, tolerability and quality of life assessment following a switch from lopinavir/ritonavir soft gel capsule to tablet in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) tablet compared to the soft gel capsule (SGC) formulation has no oleic acid or sorbitol, has no refrigeration or food-restriction requirements, and has less pharmacokinetic variability. We compared the tolerability, quality of life (QoL), and formulation preference after switching from LPV/r SGC to the tablet formulation.

METHODS

In a prospective, single-arm, cohort study-design, 74 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected subjects stable on LPV/r-based therapy were enrolled prior to (n = 25) or 8 weeks (n = 49) after switching from SGC to tablet. Baseline data included clinical laboratory tests, bowel habit survey (BHS) and QoL questionnaire (recalled if enrolled post-switch). Global Condition Improvement (GCI)-score, BHS-score, QoL-score, and formulation preference data were captured at weeks 4 and 12.

RESULTS

At week 12 post-enrollment; the tablet was preferred to the SGC (74% vs. 10%, p < 0.0001). GCI-overall-tolerability score was 2.46 +/- 3.30 on a scale of -7 to +7, with 90% admitting to feeling better or about the same. Stool frequency, consistency, volume, and +/- blood improved, however the improvement was significant in "consistency" only (p = 0.03). Aggregate Bowel Habit-Profile improved (BHS-score change = -0.227, p = 0.01). Inverse relationship existed between GCI and BHS (slope = -1.2, p = 0.02) at week-4, suggesting that improved overall-tolerability was related to better gastrointestinal (GI)-tolerance. QoL-scores were stable. Mean reductions in total cholesterol of 9.20 mg/dL (p = 0.02), in triglycerides of 33 mg/dL (p = 0.04), and in HDL of 4.50 mg/dL (p = 0.01) unrelated to lipid-lowering therapy, were observed at week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

LPV/r-tablet was well tolerated and preferred to the SGC in HIV infected subjects, with stable QoL and appreciable improvement in GI-tolerability. The unexpected changes in lipid profile deserve further evaluation.

The relation between treatment outcome and efavirenz, atazanavir or lopinavir exposure in the NORTHIV trial of treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected patients

PURPOSE

The relation between treatment outcome and trough plasma concentrations of efavirenz (EFV), atazanavir (ATV) and lopinavir (LPV) was studied in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic substudy of the NORTHIV trial-a randomised phase IV efficacy trial comparing antiretroviral-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients treated with (1) EFV + 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (2NRTI) once daily, (2) ritonavir-boosted ATV + 2NRTI once daily or (3) ritonavir-boosted LPV + 2NRTI twice daily. The findings were related to the generally cited minimum effective concentration levels for the respective drugs (EFV 1,000 ng/ml, ATV 150 ng/ml, LPV 1,000 ng/ml). The relation between atazanavir-induced hyperbilirubinemia and virological efficacy was also studied.

METHODS

Drug concentrations were sampled at weeks 4 and 48 and optionally at week 12 and analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detector. When necessary, trough values were imputed by assuming the reported average half-lives for the respective drugs. Outcomes up to week 48 are reported.

RESULTS

No relation between plasma concentrations of EFV, ATV or LPV and virological failure, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects or antiviral potency (viral load decline from baseline to week 4) was demonstrated. Very few samples were below the suggested minimum efficacy cut-offs, and their predictive value for treatment failure could not be validated. There was a trend toward an increased risk of virological failure in patients on ATV who had an average increase of serum bilirubin from baseline of <25 micromol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

The great majority of treatment-naïve and adherent patients on standard doses of EFV, ritonavir-boosted ATV and ritonavir-boosted LPV have drug concentrations above that considered to deliver the maximum effect for the respective drug. The results do not support the use of routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for efficacy optimisation in treatment-naïve patients on these drugs, although TDM may still be of value in some cases of altered pharmacokinetics, adverse events or drug interactions. Serum bilirubin may be a useful marker of adherence to ATV therapy.

Renal function with use of a tenofovir-containing initial antiretroviral regimen

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is associated with renal dysfunction when used as part of an initial antiretroviral regimen and to assess the effect of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) coadministration on renal function in TDF-treated patients.

DESIGN

Analysis from a prospective observational cohort.

METHODS

: We compared all antiretroviral-naive patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 50 ml/min per 1.73 m (modification of diet in renal disease equation) who initiated either TDF (n = 201) or any alternative nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) (n = 231) after 1 January 2002.

RESULTS

Patients taking both TDF and NRTIs experienced an initial decline in eGFR during the first 180 days of therapy, but eGFR stabilized between 180 and 720 days. There was no difference between TDF and NRTI use in 25 or 50% decline in eGFR at 1 or 2 years or in change in eGFR at 6, 12, or 24 months. Those taking TDF and a PI/r had a greater median decline in eGFR than those taking TDF and a non-NRTI at 6 months (P = 0.01), with trends at 12 (P = 0.08) and 24 months (P = 0.08). There was no difference in median GFR decline between those on an NRTI and PI/r vs. an NRTI and non-NRTI.

CONCLUSION

Our data are consistent with results of clinical trials, which have shown no evidence of renal toxicity when TDF is used as part of an initial regimen. Our results support the use of TDF as a component of the initial antiretroviral regimen, and suggest that the eGFR should be monitored more closely when TDF is used with a PI/r.

Emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: in combination with a protease inhibitor in HIV-1 infection

Emtricitabine, a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir DF), a nucleotide RTI, as a fixed-dose combination tablet (emtricitabine/tenofovir DF) for once-daily oral administration, are used as the nucleoside/nucleotide RTI backbone in combination with other antiretroviral agents, including ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs), in the treatment of adults with HIV-1 infection. Emtricitabine and tenofovir DF show good activity against laboratory strains and clinical isolates of HIV-1 in vitro, although strains with resistance to emtricitabine or tenofovir have also been reported. Regimens consisting of once-daily emtricitabine/tenofovir DF 200 mg/300 mg plus lopinavir/ritonavir (in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-matched, multicentre HEAT study) or boosted atazanavir or efavirenz (in the randomized, partially-blind, multicentre ACTG 5202 trial) were effective in the initial treatment of patients with HIV-1 infection (with screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of >or=100,000 copies/mL in ACTG 5202). In other randomized studies, emtricitabine/tenofovir DF 200 mg/300 mg once daily was an effective backbone for boosted PI-based regimens in the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. Treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection also experienced beneficial virological effects when treated with similar regimens. Emtricitabine/tenofovir DF in combination with various boosted PIs was generally well tolerated by adults with HIV-1 infection.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter trial of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir for initial HIV treatment

BACKGROUND

Abacavir sulfate/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and tenofovir DF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) are widely used nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial HIV-1 treatment. This is the first completed, randomized clinical trial to directly compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these agents, each in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive patients.

METHODS

Six hundred and eighty-eight antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomized in this double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter, noninferiority study to receive a once-daily regimen of either ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg or TDF/FTC 300 mg/200 mg, both with lopinavir/ritonavir 800 mg/200 mg. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/ml at week 48 (missing = failure, switch included analysis) and the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events over 96 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 48, 68% in the ABC/3TC group vs. 67% in the TDF/FTC group achieved an HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/ml (intent-to-treat exposed missing = failure, 95% confidence interval on the difference -6.63 to 7.40, P = 0.913), demonstrating the noninferiority of ABC/3TC to TDF/FTC at week 48. Noninferiority of the two regimens was sustained at week 96 (60% vs. 58%, respectively, 95% confidence interval -5.41 to 9.32, P = 0.603). In addition, efficacy of both regimens was similar in patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA >or= 100 000 copies/ml or CD4 cell counts below 50 cells/microl. Median CD4 recovery (ABC/3TC vs. TDF/FTC, cells/microl) was +250 vs. +247 by week 96. Premature study discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in both groups. Protocol-defined virologic failure occurred in 14% of patients in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Both ABC/3TC and TDF/FTC provided comparable antiviral efficacy, safety, and tolerability when each was combined with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive patients.