Treatment with amprenavir alone or amprenavir with zidovudine and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 347 Study Team

Viral proteases as therapeutic targets

Some medically important viruses-including retroviruses, flaviviruses, coronaviruses, and herpesviruses-code for a protease, which is indispensable for viral maturation and pathogenesis. Viral protease inhibitors have become an important class of antiviral drugs. Development of the first-in-class viral protease inhibitor saquinavir, which targets HIV protease, started a new era in the treatment of chronic viral diseases. Combining several drugs that target different steps of the viral life cycle enables use of lower doses of individual drugs (and thereby reduction of potential side effects, which frequently occur during long term therapy) and reduces drug-resistance development. Currently, several HIV and HCV protease inhibitors are routinely used in clinical practice. In addition, a drug including an inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 main protease, nirmatrelvir (co-administered with a pharmacokinetic booster ritonavir as Paxlovid®), was recently authorized for emergency use. This review summarizes the basic features of the proteases of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and SARS-CoV-2 and discusses the properties of their inhibitors in clinical use, as well as development of compounds in the pipeline.

Peripheral neuropathy in ART-experienced patients: prevalence and risk factors

Peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a common neurological complication of HIV infection that has debilitating effects on quality of life. While there has been a comprehensive evaluation of the prevalence of neuropathic signs/symptoms and risk factors (RFs) for PN or symptomatic PN (SPN) with initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in ART-naïve patients, similar evaluation in ART-experienced patients is limited. This study investigated the prevalence and RFs for PN/SPN in ART-experienced patients enrolled in clinical salvage therapy studies. Between February 2000 and June 2007, 522 ART-experienced participants who experienced virologic failure with a prior regimen and started new regimens were followed longitudinally and annually screened for signs and symptoms of PN. Rates of PN/SPN at 3 years since parent study entry were 52.8 and 24.0 %, respectively. Aging, taller height, protease inhibitor use, and female sex were significant RFs for PN/SPN. The use of statin drugs was significantly associated with lower odds of SPN, and it may prevent progression from no SPN to SPN.

Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV therapy

The advent of combination antiretroviral therapy has led to significant improvement in the care of HIV-infected patients. Originally designed as a protease inhibitor (PI), ritonavir is currently exclusively used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer of other protease inhibitors, predominantly due to ritonavir's potent inhibition of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme. Ritonavir-boosting of PIs decrease pill burden and frequency of dosing. Boosted PIs are recommended for first-line therapy in treatment and play a key role in the management of treatment-experienced patients. Potential problems associated with PIs include metabolic abnormalities (e.g. dyslipidemia), increased cardiovascular risk, and drug interactions.

Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs.

METHODS

We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing PI/r monotherapy to cART in suppressed patients. We calculated in an intention to treat (loss-of follow-up, discontinuation of assigned drugs equals failure) and per-protocol analysis (exclusion of protocol violators following randomisation) and based on three different definitions for virological failure pooled risk ratios for remaining virologically suppressed.

FINDINGS

We identified 10 trials comparing 3 different PIs with cART based on a PI/r plus 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1189 patients. With the most conservative approach (viral load <50 copies/ml on two consecutive measurements), the risk ratios for viral suppression at 48 weeks of PI/r monotherapy compared to cART were in the ITT analysis 0.94 8 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.00) p = 0.06; risk difference -0.06 (95%CI -0.11 to 0) p = 0.05, p for heterogeneity  = 0.08, I(2) = 43.1%) and in the PP analysis 0.93 ((95%CI 0.90 to 0.97) p<0.001; risk difference -0.07 (95%CI -0.10 to -0.03) p<0.001, p for heterogeneity  = 0.44, I(2) = 0%). Reintroduction of cART in 44 patients with virological failure led in 93% to de-novo viral suppression.

INTERPRETATION

Virologically well suppressed HIV-infected patients have a lower chance to maintain viral suppression when switching from cART to PI/r monotherapy. Failing patients achieve high rates of de-novo viral suppression following reintroduction of reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

Lower CD4 cell count and higher virus load, but not antiretroviral drug resistance, are associated with AIDS-defining events and mortality: an ACTG Longitudinal Linked Randomized Trials (ALLRT) analysis

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that drug resistance mutations would impact clinical outcomes associated with HIV-1 infection.

METHODS

A matched case-control study of participants in AIDS Clinical Trials Group Longitudinal Linked Randomized Trials (ALLRT). Cases experienced an AIDS-defining event (ADE) or mortality, and controls did not. One hundred thirty-four cases were identified and matched to a total of 266 controls by age, sex, treatment regimen, and length of follow-up. Both cases and controls had HIV RNA levels of ≥ 500 copies/mL within 24 weeks of an event. Population-based genotyping at or near the time of the event was used to evaluate the impact of resistance mutations on incidence of ADE and/or death using conditional logistic regression models.

RESULTS

One hundred four cases and 183 controls were analyzed. Median time to event was 99 weeks; 6 cases were deaths. At baseline, cases had lower CD4 (median 117 vs 235 cells/mm3; P < .0001) and higher HIV RNA levels (median 205,000 vs 57,000 copies/mL; P = .003). No significant differences in resistance were seen between cases and controls.

CONCLUSIONS

In this rigorously designed case-control study, lower CD4 cell counts and higher virus loads, not antiretroviral drug resistance, were strongly associated with ADE and mortality.

Comparative gender analysis of the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir at 96 weeks in the CASTLE study

Objectives

To examine whether the overall results of the CASTLE study pertain to both genders, we analysed the efficacy and safety of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in 277 female and 606 male patients in the open-label, multinational trial over 96 weeks. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779.

Methods

Treatment-naive patients aged ≥18 years with HIV-1 RNA ≥5000 copies/mL were randomized to receive either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily, with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily.

Results

At week 96, confirmed virological response rates (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL; intent-to-treat analysis) were higher in women and men receiving atazanavir/ritonavir than those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and lower in women than men in both treatment arms (67% of women and 77% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 63% of women and 71% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). These differences were not observed in the on-treatment analysis. Mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline to week 96 was 265 cells/mm³ for women and 269 cells/mm³ for men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 298 cells/mm³ for women and 286 cells/mm³ for men on lopinavir/ritonavir. Discontinuation rates were higher in women than men in each treatment arm (22% of women and 15% of men on atazanavir/ritonavir and 29% of women and 18% of men on lopinavir/ritonavir). In women and men, grade 2–4 nausea and diarrhoea were more frequent in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; jaundice and hyperbilirubinaemia occurred more frequently in the atazanavir/ritonavir group.

Conclusions

Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir is an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for women and men with HIV-1 infection. The sex-based differences in response may be due to higher discontinuation rates in women.

Methodological issues in the use of composite endpoints in clinical trials: examples from the HIV field

BACKGROUND

In many fields, the choice of a primary endpoint for a trial is not always the ultimate clinical endpoint of interest, but rather some surrogate endpoint believed to be relevant for predicting the effect of the intervention on the clinical endpoint. The classic example of such a field is clinical HIV treatment research, where a variety of primary endpoints are used to evaluate the efficacy of new antiretroviral drugs or new combinations of existing drugs. The choice of endpoint reflects either the goal of therapy as recommended by treatment guidelines (e.g. rapid virological suppression) or the licensing requirements of official drug approval organizations (e.g. time to loss of virological response [TLOVR]).

PURPOSE

To review the diversity of endpoints used in recent clinical trials in HIV infection and highlight the methodological issues.

METHODS

We identified articles relating to antiretroviral therapy by searching PubMed and through hand searches of relevant conference abstracts. We restricted the search to randomized controlled trials conducted in HIV-infected adults published/presented from January 2005 until March 2008.

RESULTS

We identified 28 trials in antiretroviral-naive patients (i.e. patients who were starting antiretroviral therapy for the first time at the time of randomization) and 23 trials in antiretroviral-experienced patients. Most trials were performed for purposes of drug licensing, but others were focused on strategies of using approved drugs. Most trials (40 of 51) used a composite primary endpoint (TLOVR in 13). Of note, 22 of these 40 studies reported that they had used a purely virological efficacy endpoint, but the primary endpoint was actually a composite one due to the way in which missing data and treatment switches were considered as failures.

LIMITATIONS

Examples are restricted to HIV clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst most current HIV clinical trials use composite primary endpoints, there are substantial differences in the components that make up these endpoints. In HIV and other fields where precise definitions are variable, guidelines for standardization of definition and reporting would greatly improve the ability to compare trial results.

AIDS clinical trials group longitudinal linked randomized trials (ALLRT): rationale, design, and baseline characteristics

PURPOSE

ALLRT is a longitudinal cohort study of HIV-infected subjects prospectively randomized into selected clinical trials for antiretroviral (ARV) treatment-naïve and ARV treatment-experienced individuals conducted by the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG). We describe the rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of the ALLRT cohort and its potential to address important research questions related to ARV therapy.

METHOD

Standardized visits occur every 16 weeks to evaluate long-term clinical, virologic, and immunologic outcomes associated with ARV treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4,371 subjects enrolled in ALLRT from January 2000 through June 2007. Of these, 3,146 (72%) were ARV naïve at parent study entry (18% female, 44% white, 32% black, 21% Hispanic; median age 37 years, CD4 count 218 cells/microL, follow-up 3.6 years; 343 [11%] followed > or = 8 years) and 1,225 (28%) were treatment experienced (13% female, 59% white, 20% black, 17% Hispanic; median age 42 years, CD4 count 325 cells/microL, follow-up 5.7 years).

CONCLUSIONS

ALLRT provides the opportunity to understand long-term ramifications of therapeutic ARV choices and determine whether these vary by treatment regimen, timing of treatment initiation, or treatment changes over long-term follow-up. Investigations based on uniform data and specimen collection in the context of randomized ARV treatments will be critical to developing more successful long-term therapeutic strategies for HIV treatment.

Monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir

Despite the unprecedented pace of development of drugs for the treatment of a viral disease and the unquestionable efficacy of antiretroviral therapy, there is a need for less toxic and cheaper regimens that could simplify the treatment of HIV infection without sacrificing efficacy. The favorable pharmacokinetic profile and the high genetic barrier of boosted protease inhibitors make them ideal candidates for use as monotherapy. Given the encouraging results of available studies on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in patients with no prior failure with protease inhibitors, it may be warranted to conduct trials to investigate the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy as second-line therapy in resource-constrained settings where virologic monitoring is not feasible. In addition, larger trials with longer follow up, with particular attention to the potential consequences of viral replication in sites where the penetration of protease inhibitors may be poor, are needed before this strategy can be considered for routine use.

Antiretroviral therapy in the treatment of HIV-associated nephropathy

BACKGROUND

The effect of antiretroviral therapy (ART) on the clinical course of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated nephropathy (HIVAN) is not well-established. This study was undertaken to further elucidate the potential benefit of ART in HIV-infected patients with documented HIVAN.

METHODS

A cohort of 263 consecutive HIV-infected patients referred to the Johns Hopkins renal clinic from 1995 to 2004 was examined. Patients were included if they had biopsy-proven HIVAN and did not require dialysis within 1 month of their kidney biopsy. The cumulative probability of renal survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox regression method.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients among 152 biopsied patients had HIVAN. Among 36 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 26 were treated with ART (group I) and 10 patients were not (group II). Except for age, baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar in the two groups. Renal survival was significantly better in the group receiving ART by both univariate (P = 0.025) and multivariate analysis (overall adjusted hazard ratio = 0.30; 95% confidence interval 0.09-0.98; P < 0.05) for ART compared with no treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with biopsy-proven HIVAN treated with ART had better renal survival compared with patients who did not receive ART. HIVAN should be considered as an indication to initiate ART.

Antiretroviral therapy 2006: Pharmacology, applications, and special situations

As we approach the completion of the first 25 years of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic, there have been dramatic improvements in the care of patients with HIV infection. These have prolonged life and decreased morbidity. There are twenty currently available antiretrovirals approved in the United States for the treatment of this infection. The medications, including their pharmacokinetic properties, side effects, and dosing are reviewed. In addition, the current approach to the use of these medicines is discussed. We have included a section addressing common comorbid conditions including hepatitis B and C along with tuberculosis.

A 42-Week Open-Label Study to Assess the Pharmacokinetics, Antiretroviral Activity, and Safety of Amprenavir or Amprenavir plus Ritonavir in Combination with Abacavir and Lamivudine for Treatment of HIV-Infected Patients

The pharmacokinetics, antiviral activity, and safety of an amprenavir-ritonavir (APV-RTV) 600/100 mg b.i.d. regimen and an APV-RTV 1200/200 mg q.d. regimen were studied in a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected population. The geometric least-square mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of steady-state trough concentrations, compared with that of the amprenavir 1200 mg b.i.d. regimen, was 6.08 (4.94-7.49) for the twice-daily APV-RTV regimen, and it was 4.19 (2.90-6.08) for the daily APV-RTV regimen. The regimens were well tolerated, which supports APV-RTV as an option for twice-daily or daily therapy for HIV.

Preclinical pharmacology and pharmacokinetics of GW433908, a water-soluble prodrug of the human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor amprenavir

GW433908 is the water-soluble, phosphate ester prodrug of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor amprenavir (APV). A high-yield synthesis of GW433908 is achieved by phosphorylation of the penultimate precursor of APV with phosphorous oxychloride (POCl(3)) in pyridine. A single-dose pharmacokinetic study of GW433908 sodium salt in dogs showed that APV exposure was similar to that achieved with an equivalent molar dose of the APV clinical formulation (Agenerase) and that systemic exposure to the prodrug was minimal (0.3% of the APV exposure). However, the sodium salt of GW433908 was a hygroscopic, amorphous solid and thus not suitable for pharmaceutical development. The calcium salt was a developable crystalline solid, but oral dosing afforded only 24% of the APV exposure in dogs compared with Agenerase. Acidification of the dog stomach by coadministration of HCl increased the bioavailability of the calcium salt to levels near those of the sodium salt. Single-dose administration of GW433908 calcium salt in dogs and rats produced portal vein GW433908 concentrations that were maximally 1.72 and 0.79% of those of APV concentrations, respectively. Furthermore, GW433908 had poor transepithelial flux and APV showed significant flux across human-derived Caco-2 cell monolayers (a model of intestinal permeability). Taken together, these results suggest that GW433908 is primarily metabolized to APV at or in the epithelial cells of the intestine and that the prodrug is not substantially absorbed. Based in part on these findings, GW433908 was advanced to clinical development.

Estimating and Comparing Reduction in HIV-1 RNA in Clinical Trials Using Methods for Interval Censored Data

The magnitude of reduction in HIV-1 RNA levels provides an important complement to the end point based on the percentage of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA levels below a threshold value. Analyses and interpretation of this end point, however, is difficult due to the lower limit of quantification. Crude methods of analyzing HIV-1 RNA data provide biased estimates of the HIV-1 RNA reduction. Censored methods that take into account the censoring of HIV-1 RNA measurements by the limit of quantification greatly improve the analysis of HIV-1 RNA reduction end points. It was shown, however, that when there is a high percentage of censoring, those methods can overestimate HIV-1 RNA reduction. We suggest going a step further, considering that HIV-1 RNA reduction is left-censored by the limit of quantification and right-bounded by the HIV-1 RNA levels at baseline. We then suggest using nonparametric and parametric methods introduced for interval-censored data to analyze such data. A convenient feature of the methodology is the ability to easily handle missing HIV-1 RNA data, although some assumptions are required. For instance, the HIV-1 RNA reduction can be estimated using the so-called "missing = failure" scenario. Graphic procedures to check the validity of using parametric methods are described. The methods are discussed and illustrated with data of 2 recent clinical trials. Surprisingly, it was found that the log10 transformation of the HIV-1 RNA reduction was not appropriate in our data.

Comparison of four-drug regimens and pairs of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether therapy for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) should be initiated with a four-drug or two sequential three-drug regimens.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial we compared initial therapy involving four-drug regimens containing efavirenz and nelfinavir in combination with either didanosine and stavudine or zidovudine and lamivudine with therapy involving two consecutive three-drug regimens the first of which contained either efavirenz or nelfinavir.

RESULTS

A total of 980 subjects were followed for a median of 2.3 years. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of regimen failures between the group that received the four-drug regimen containing didanosine, stavudine, nelfinavir, and efavirenz and the groups that received the three-drug regimens beginning with didanosine, stavudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio for regimen failure, 1.24) or didanosine, stavudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 1.01). There was no significant difference between the group that received the four-drug regimen containing zidovudine, lamivudine, nelfinavir, and efavirenz and the groups that received the three-drug regimens beginning with zidovudine, lamivudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio, 1.06) or zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 1.45). A four-drug regimen was associated with a longer time to the first regimen failure than the three-drug regimens containing didanosine, stavudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio for a first regimen failure, 0.55); didanosine, stavudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 0.63); or zidovudine, lamivudine, and nelfinavir (hazard ratio, 0.49), but not the three-drug regimen containing zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz (hazard ratio, 1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the duration of successful HIV-1 treatment between a single four-drug regimen and two consecutive three-drug regimens. Among these treatment strategies, initiating therapy with the three-drug regimen of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is the optimal choice.

Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection

BACKGROUND

The optimal sequencing of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure of the second three-drug regimen.

RESULTS

A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2.3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure of the second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the first virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the first virologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of antiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study.

Six-year follow-up of HIV-1-infected adults in a clinical trial of antiretroviral therapy with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine

OBJECTIVE

To assess virological and immunological responses and toxicity in subjects receiving combination antiretroviral therapy.

DESIGN

Six-year follow-up of a single arm of a randomized study of combination antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

HIV-infected, zidovudine-experienced patients originally randomized to receive indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine had HIV RNA levels and CD4 cell counts assessed over 6 years. Information was collected by questionnaire from subjects who discontinued the study regimen before 6 years. Both on-study and post-study responses were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 33 subjects, 16 (48%) discontinued before 6 years of follow-up. After 6 years, 16 (53%) and 14 (47%) of 30 contributing subjects had HIV RNA levels < 500 and < 50 copies/ml, respectively, and the median increase in CD4 cell count from baseline for 28 contributing subjects was 268 x 10(6) cells/l. Treatment-limiting nephrolithiasis occurred in four subjects. Of the 16 subjects who discontinued the study, 12 had post-study questionnaire data available and seven had HIV RNA < 500 copies/ml on a post-study regimen. In an exploratory analysis combining both on-study and post-study data at approximately 6 years, 26 (79%) and 19 (58%) of 33 had HIV RNA levels < 500 and < 50 copies/ml, respectively, and the median increase in CD4 cell count from baseline was 344 x 106 cells/l.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiretroviral therapy with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine suppressed HIV viremia and produced continued CD4 cell increases in a majority of subjects for 6 years. Most subjects who discontinued study medications had HIV RNA levels suppressed on post-study therapy. Though based on a small group, this study demonstrates the durable effects of antiretroviral therapy.

Nucleoside and Nucleotide Analogue Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors: A Clinical Review of Antiretroviral Resistance

Although advances in highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have made long-term suppression of HIV an achievable goal of therapy, a substantial proportion of first-line regimens will eventually fail. Successful long-term treatment requires consideration of downstream treatment options at the time of initiating or changing regimens. An understanding of the patterns and interactions of resistance mutations, and the appropriate use of genotypic and phenotypic testing is an important component of successful drug sequencing. Resistance to multiple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) may result from several genotypically distinct pathways, including the Q151M (151 complex), the 69 insertion complex, two distinct thymidine analogue mutational pathways and the K65R mutation. Knowledge of the clinical implications of these and other resistance pathways, as well as the antagonism or synergy between mutations, helps guide individualized treatment choices from initial therapy in the treatment-naive patient to salvage therapy in the highly treatment-experienced individual. The development of effective sequencing strategies will depend upon the continued understanding of drug resistance mutation patterns and their associations with specific HAART combinations. This review summarizes research advances that further the understanding of nucleoside and nucleotide analogue resistance mutations, and their interplay.

Twice-daily amprenavir 1200 mg versus amprenavir 600 mg/ritonavir 100 mg, in combination with at least 2 other antiretroviral drugs, in HIV-1-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Low-dose ritonavir (RTV) boosts plasma amprenavir (APV) exposure. Little has been published on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of APV 600 mg/RTV 100 mg (APV600/RTV) twice daily (BID) compared to APV 1200 mg BID (APV1200).

METHODS

ESS40011 was a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial in which antiretroviral therapy-naïve and -experienced HIV-1-infected adults were randomized 3:1 to receive either APV600/RTV BID or APV1200 BID, in combination with > or = 2 non-protease inhibitor antiretroviral drugs. Non-inferiority of the APV600/RTV regimen to the APV1200 regimen was established if the 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL at week 24 with APV 600/RTV minus APV1200 was > or =-0.12. Late in the conduct of the trial, patients not yet completing 24 weeks of therapy were given the option of continuing treatment for an additional 24-week period.

RESULTS

211 patients were randomized, 158 to APV600/RTV and 53 to APV1200. At week 24, APV600/RTV was similar to or better than APV1200 (HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL in 62% [73/118] vs 53% [20/38] of patients; intent-to-treat: observed analysis). In the APV600/RTV arm, significantly more patients achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (48% [57/118] vs 29% [11/38] with APV1200, P = 0.04), and greater mean reduction from baseline in HIV-1 RNA was observed (-2.21 vs -1.59 log10 copies/mL, P = 0.028). The two treatment arms were similar with respect to mean overall change from baseline in CD4+ count, frequency of drug-related grade 1-4 adverse events, and frequency of discontinuing treatment due to adverse events (most commonly nausea, diarrhea, vomiting or fatigue; 7% vs 8%), although a lower proportion of patients in the APV600/RTV arm experienced drug-related oral/perioral paresthesia (2% vs 8%). Eleven (73%) of 15 patients who had HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL at week 24 and chose to continue study treatment maintained this level of virologic suppression at follow-up 24 weeks later.

CONCLUSIONS

APV600 RTV BID was similar to or better than APV1200 BID in virologic response. Virologic results in a small number of patients who continued treatment for 24 weeks post-study suggest that virologic suppression with APV600 RTV BID is durable.

Drug Resistance Genotypes Predict Response to Amprenavir-Containing Regimens in Highly Drug-Experienced HIV-1-Infected Patients

We have undertaken a study of virological responses to amprenavir-containing antiretroviral regimens, during the expanded access programme within the UK. Ninety-five HIV-1-infected patients were included for which virological and immunological follow-up was available for 75, and baseline drug resistance data available for 51. These were highly drug-experienced patients, having previously received a median of nine antiviral drugs, within all available classes. Eighty-eight percent of patients had a virological response to the new regimen, with a median maximal decline of 1.45 log10 copies/ml, and 34% of patients reached <400 copies/ml on treatment. Although 68% of patients with resistance data had protease inhibitor resistance mutations, only 10% patients had key amprenavir resistance mutations, and virological response was predicted by the number of active drugs utilized in the amprenavir-containing regimen, as determined by the baseline genotypic resistance test. Other independent predictors of viral load decline were a higher baseline viral load and fewer previous antiviral drugs. We conclude that amprenavir can contribute to antiviral efficacy in salvage regimens, and that resistance testing may help to optimize its use in this scenario. New formulations of amprenavir, together with boosted regimens, may enhance the activity in the presence of protease inhibitor-resistant virus.

A phase II clinical study of the long-term safety and antiviral activity of enfuvirtide-based antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the long-term safety of the subcutaneous self-administration of enfuvirtide. Secondary objectives included the determination of enfuvirtide pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity and the immunological response to the enfuvirtide-containing regimen.

METHODS

A multicenter 48-week uncontrolled open-label rollover study was conducted on 71 HIV-infected adults recruited from previous enfuvirtide clinical trials. Patients with extensive previous use of protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors received a twice-daily dose of 50 mg enfuvirtide subcutaneously (45 mg deliverable) combined with two or more antiretroviral drugs selected for each individual, guided by resistance testing and previous treatment history.

RESULTS

The mean baseline plasma HIV-RNA level was 4.81 log(10) copies/ml and the mean CD4 cell count was 134.8 cells/microl. The majority (86.9%) of treatment-emergent adverse events were grade 2 or less in severity. Injection site reactions were common, but no patients discontinued treatment. A mean HIV-RNA change of -1.33 log(10) was achieved within 14 days of treatment initiation. At week 48, approximately one-third of all patients in the intent-to-treat population maintained significant suppression of plasma HIV RNA, with either less than 400 copies/ml or more than a 1.0 log(10) decline from baseline. The mean gain in absolute CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks was 84.9 cells/microl. Trough plasma concentrations of enfuvirtide were consistently higher than target concentrations.

CONCLUSION

Self-administration of enfuvirtide is not associated with unexpected toxicities for up to one year, and combined with oral antiretroviral drugs was associated with a significant decrease in HIV RNA and an increase in CD4 cell counts.

Scientific and ethical considerations in trial design for investigational agents for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection

The design of clinical trials for new antiretroviral agents poses unique challenges, given the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). These challenges include the selection of appropriate populations, the methods used to partition the effects of the study drug under observation from those of the other concurrently administered medications in early studies, performance of dose-ranging studies for disease states in which suboptimal drug exposure may lead to the development of viral resistance that limits future treatment options, and the need to fulfill the obligations of international regulatory agencies. Throughout, science and ethics are tightly woven elements in study designs for antiretroviral drug trials. Fast-track drug approval status and successful lobbying by advocates for patients with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome aimed at the US Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, university teaching centers, pharmaceutical companies, and members of Congress undoubtedly contributed to the development and swift regulatory approvals of the 17 antiretroviral medications now available in the United States for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Antivirals against HIV-1

Morbidity and mortality associated with HIV infection increased rapidly following the recognition of this syndrome in 1981, and by 1994, AIDS was the leading cause of death in the United States among men and women ages 15-45. The antiretroviral therapy era began in 1987 following the Food and Drug Administration approval of zidovudine, a nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor; however, it was not until 1996, when HIV viral load assays were developed that could quantify the copy number of HIV RNA present in plasma, that investigators and clinicians could appropriately evaluate the antiviral efficacy of therapy. This important technical breakthrough and the availability of HIV protease inhibitors led to a dramatic decline in the morbidity and mortality associated with the disease.

[Recommendations of the Spanish AIDS Study Group (GESIDA) and the National Aids Plan (PNS) for antiretroviral treatment in adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection in 2002]

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update of recommendation on antiretroviral treatment (ART) in HIV-infected adults.Methods. These recommendations have been agreed by consensus by a committee of the spanish AIDS Study Group (GESIDA) and the National AIDS Plan. To do so, advances in the physiopathology of AIDS and the results on efficacy and safety in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetics studies published in biomedical journals or presented at congresses in the last few years have been reviewed. Three levels of evidence have been defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), case-control or cohort studies (level B) and expert opinion (level C). Whether to recommend, consider, or not to recommend ART has been established for each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, ART with combinations of at least three drugs constitutes the treatment of choice in chronic HIV infection. In patients with symptomatic HIV infection, initiation of ART is recommended. In asymptomatic patients initiation of ART should be based on the CD41/mL lymphocyte count and on the plasma viral load (PVL): a) in patients with CD41 lymphocytes < 200 cells/mL, initiation of ART is recommended; b) in patients with CD41 lymphocytes between 200 and 300 cells/mL, initiation of ART should, in most cases, be recommended; however, it could be delayed when the CD41 lymphocyte count remains close to 350 cells/mL and the PVL is low, and c) in patients with CD41 lymphocytes > 350 cells/mL, initiation of ART can be delayed. The aim of ART is to achieve an undetectable PVL. Adherence to ART plays a role in the durability of the antiviral response. Because of the development of cross-resistance, the therapeutic options in treatment failure are limited. In these cases, genotypic analysis is useful. Toxicity limits ART. The criteria for ART in acute infection, pregnancy and postexposure prophylaxis and in the management of coinfection with HIV and hepatitis C and B virus are controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

The current approach to initiating ART is more conservative than in previous recommendations. In asymptomatic patients, the CD41 lymphocyte count is the most important reference factor for initiating ART. Because of the considerable number of drugs available, more sensitive monitoring methods (PVL) and the possibility of determining resistance, therapeutic strategies have become much more individualized.

Amprenavir-resistant HIV-1 exhibits lopinavir cross-resistance and reduced replication capacity

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate protease inhibitor (PI) cross-resistance and reductions in replication capacity conferred by amprenavir-selected mutations.

METHODS

HIV-1IIIB variants derived from passage in increasing concentrations of amprenavir were studied, as well as 3'Gag/protease recombinants derived from them. These strains progressively accumulated mutations at codons 10, 46, 47, 50 and 84 in the protease as well as a p1/p6 cleavage site mutation at codon 449 in Gag. Their susceptibility (IC50) to various PI and their corresponding replication capacities were evaluated by a single-cycle growth assay and compared with measures using competitive cultures and p24 antigen production.

RESULTS

Amprenavir susceptibility decreased with increasing numbers of protease mutations. Changes in lopinavir susceptibility paralleled changes in amprenavir susceptibility. Certain amprenavir-selected mutants conferred greater than 10-fold cross-resistance to lopinavir, including PrL10F/M46I/I50V-GagL449F (19-fold) and PrL10F/M46I/I47V/I50V-GagL449F (31-fold). Moreover, one isolate with only two mutations in the protease (L10F/84V) and GagL449F displayed a 7.7-fold increase in lopinavir IC50. Low-level cross-resistance to ritonavir and nelfinavir was also observed. The replication capacity of viruses containing either I84V or I50V was at least 90% lower than the reference virus in the single-cycle assay. The order of relative replication capacity was wild-type > L10F > L10F/I84V > L10F/M46I/I50V > L10F/M46I/I47V/I50V.

CONCLUSION

These results indicate that until more comprehensive genotype-phenotype correlations between amprenavir and lopinavir susceptibility are established, phenotypic testing may be preferable to genotyping to detect cross-resistance, and should be considered when switching patients from a failing amprenavir-containing regimen. This study also provides data on the concordance of replication capacity measurements generated using rapid single-cycle growth and competition assays.

On the use of magnitude of reduction in HIV-1 RNA in clinical trials: statistical analysis and potential biases

Clinical trials endpoints based on magnitude of reduction in HIV-1 RNA levels provide an important complement to endpoints based on either virologic failure or a proportion of patients having HIV-1 RNA levels below a threshold value. However, reductions in HIV-1 RNA often are not completely observed, because many patients have HIV-1 RNA levels below the limit of quantification at the primary follow-up visit. The crude method of analyzing such data is to define all HIV-1 RNA levels that fall below the limit of quantification as being equal to that limit of quantification. This method is widely used even though the underestimation inherent in such a method may also lead to underestimation of treatment difference in terms of HIV-1 RNA reduction. Analyses based on Kaplan-Meier method and censored regression can be used to estimate such a reduction. When a high percentage of patients have HIV-1 RNA levels below the limit of quantification at the time of primary follow-up, which corresponds to censored observations, the Kaplan-Meier method does not always provide an estimate of the median HIV-1 RNA reduction. We discuss a statistical method to provide lower and upper limits of such median reduction or of other percentiles of reduction. We found that when the percentage of censoring is high, the censored method may overestimate the HIV-1 RNA reduction and then may also overestimate the treatment difference. Although the censored method is preferable to the crude method, when the level of censoring is high, we suggest computation of the upper and lower limits either to provide a range of potential values of HIV-1 RNA reduction or to detect overestimation by the censored method.

Analysis of Virological Efficacy in Trials of Antiretroviral Regimens: Drawbacks of Not Including Viral Load Measurements after Premature Discontinuation of Therapy

Objectives

To compare two analytic approaches to assess the virological effect of HAART according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle.

Material

Data from 2318 patients enrolled in 10 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) and from 3091 patients followed in an observation cohort (EuroSIDA) starting their first HAART regimen.

Methods

Two classifications of defining virological response 48 weeks after starting the therapy to be evaluated were compared: 1) only patients remaining on the therapy and having a plasma viral load (pVL) below a given cut-off level at week 48 were classified as responders (ITT/s=f); and 2) patients with a pVL below a given cut-off at week 48 whether they remained on initial assigned therapy or switched therapy were responders (ITT/s incl). In both analyses, patients with missing data at week 48 were classified as failures (i.e., non-responders).

Results

According to ITT/s=f, 22–70% of the patients starting a HAART regimen in a RCT experienced a virological response at week 48. Only two RCTs had complete follow-up data ( n=424): between 29 and 62% achieved a virological response at week 48 in the six treatment arms evaluated in the studies according to ITT/s=f, and 41–72% according to ITT/s incl. Among those who discontinued the therapy to be evaluated in these two trials, 13–45% (cohort: 39–74%) subsequently experienced a virological response at week 48. The subsequent response rates were associated with the reason for discontinuation (toxicity versus confirmed virological failure: 63 vs 33%), varied largely across regimens and were not associated with the discontinuation rate.

Conclusions

Discontinuation of follow-up at switch from the therapy to be evaluated remains common in anti-retroviral treatment trials, but leads to an imprecise and incomplete assessment of the intrinsic effect of a given regimen. Complete follow-up of all patients should be encouraged strongly as this will allow for several complementary analytic approaches and a focus on optimal treatment strategies rather than specific regimens.

Genotypic testing for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance

There are 16 approved human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) drugs belonging to three mechanistic classes: protease inhibitors, nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors, and nonnucleoside RT inhibitors. HIV-1 resistance to these drugs is caused by mutations in the protease and RT enzymes, the molecular targets of these drugs. Drug resistance mutations arise most often in treated individuals, resulting from selective drug pressure in the presence of incompletely suppressed virus replication. HIV-1 isolates with drug resistance mutations, however, may also be transmitted to newly infected individuals. Three expert panels have recommended that HIV-1 protease and RT susceptibility testing should be used to help select HIV drug therapy. Although genotypic testing is more complex than typical antimicrobial susceptibility tests, there is a rich literature supporting the prognostic value of HIV-1 protease and RT mutations. This review describes the genetic mechanisms of HIV-1 drug resistance and summarizes published data linking individual RT and protease mutations to in vitro and in vivo resistance to the currently available HIV drugs.

HIV-1 genotype and phenotype correlate with virological response to abacavir, amprenavir and efavirenz in treatment-experienced patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of three new drugs in patients with antiretroviral failure and to correlate retrospectively baseline factors with virological response.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Open-label, 48-week, single-arm, multi-center phase II trial conducted at nine US university or government clinics and private practices.

PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients with HIV-1 RNA > or =500 copies/ml despite > or =20 weeks of treatment with at least one protease inhibitor received abacavir 300 mg twice a day, amprenavir 1200 mg twice a day and efavirenz 600 mg once a day. Other antiretrovirals were prohibited until week 16 except for substitutions for possible abacavir hypersensitivity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

HIV RNA at weeks 16 and 48.

RESULTS

A total of 101 highly treatment-experienced patients enrolled; 60 were naive to non-nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI). HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml was attained in 25 out of 101 (25%) patients at 16 weeks (35% of NNRTI-naive and 10% of -experienced patients) and 23 (23%) patients at 48 weeks (33% of naive and 7% of experienced patients). CD4 cells increased by a median of 15 x 10(6) and 43 x 10(6) cells/l at weeks 16 and 48, respectively. Drug-related rash occurred in 50 out of 99 (51%) of patients, and 17 out of 99 (17%) permanently discontinued one or more drugs as a result. Lower baseline viral load, fewer NNRTI-related mutations, absence of decreased abacavir (> or =4-fold) and efavirenz (> or =10-fold) susceptibility, and greater number of drugs to which virus was susceptible were associated with virological response at week 16.

CONCLUSIONS

Abacavir, amprenavir and efavirenz durably reduced HIV RNA and increased CD4 cell counts in a subset of treatment-experienced adults. Baseline viral load and some genotypic and phenotypic markers of resistance correlated with HIV RNA response.

Immune reconstitution in HIV-1-infected individuals treated with potent antiretroviral therapy

Potent combination antiretroviral therapy that was introduced in the mid-1990s for treatment of HIV-1 infection has resulted in unprecedented decreases in HIV-1 replication and increases in CD4+ T cell counts in many individuals. Coincident with the introduction of potent combination antiretroviral therapy, substantial declines in AIDS-related morbidity and mortality have been observed. Although these declines strongly suggest that significant immune reconstitution is occurring, increasing evidence suggests that immune reconstitution is neither uniform nor complete in all treated individuals. Clinical data suggest that some HIV-1-associated malignancies have not declined despite the new therapies, and that not all treated individuals reconstitute CD4+ T cell numbers to normal values. Laboratory studies reveal that immune responses to ubiquitous antigens are reconstituted, but that responses to rarely encountered antigens, such as tetanus, are not reconstituted without repeat vaccination. Many questions remain concerning the extent and clinical significance of the immune reconstitution that occurs in the setting of antiretroviral drug therapy. A better understanding of the nature of the immune reconstitution that results from potent antiretroviral therapy is critical to the optimal clinical management of HIV-1-infected individuals, and may provide important insights into the immunopathogenesis of HIV-1 infection as well.

A phase II trial of dual protease inhibitor therapy: amprenavir in combination with indinavir, nelfinavir, or saquinavir

This study evaluated dual protease inhibitor (PI) regimens containing amprenavir (APV) in PI-naive, HIV-1-infected patients over 48 weeks. Patients were randomized to 800-mg APV combined with 800-mg indinavir (IDV), 750-mg nelfinavir (NFV), or 800-mg saquinavir-soft gel capsule (SGV-SGC), all three times daily without nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, or APV given alone for 3 weeks and then with 150-mg lamivudine (3TC) and 300-mg zidovudine (ZDV), twice daily. Dual PI therapy demonstrated substantial antiviral activity and was generally safe and well tolerated. Eight patients had virologic failure; 5 were receiving dual PI therapy and 3 were in the APV/3TC/ZDV arm. The protease I50V mutation characteristic of APV resistance was not observed, although other key PI mutations were selected in 4 patients failing therapy, 2 of whom had PI resistance at baseline.

ACTG (AIDS Clinical Trials Group) 384: a strategy trial comparing consecutive treatments for HIV-1

ACTG (AIDS Clinical Trials Group) 384 is designed to evaluate different strategies for antiretroviral treatment in HIV-1-infected individuals with no previous exposure to antiretroviral treatment. The study is a randomized, partially double-blinded, controlled trial with 980 subjects at 81 centers in the United States and Italy. The study has a factorial design that addresses the following scientific questions: (1) Does the best initial choice of therapy include both a protease inhibitor (PI) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) in a four-drug combination with nucleoside analogue (NRTI) drugs, or should these agents be used sequentially in three-drug combinations?; (2) Which sequence is best in a three-drug regimen-PI followed by NNRTI or NNRTI followed by PI ?; (3) Which is the best sequence of dual NRTI combinations-zidovudine plus lamivudine followed by didanosine plus stavudine, or the converse? Subjects in the three-drug combination arms are offered a salvage regimen after failure of their second regimen; subjects in the four-drug combination arm are offered a salvage regimen after failure of their first regimen. The primary endpoint of the study is the time until salvage; secondary endpoints include time to virological failure and time to toxicity-related discontinuation of therapy. A Division of AIDS Data and Safety Monitoring Board will review the trial for safety and efficacy. Control Clin Trials 2001;22:142-159

Open-label phase II trial of amprenavir, abacavir, and fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine in newly and chronically HIV-1--infected patients

A Phase II clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of twice-daily abacavir, amprenavir, and zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC) in HIV-1-infected study subjects naive to protease inhibitors and 3TC. Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) HIV-1 RNA levels and T-cell subsets were measured. In all, 27 newly diagnosed and 12 chronically HIV-1-infected study subjects are included in the analysis. Week 48 plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were <500 copies/ml in 100% of study subjects, and <50 copies/ml in 80% of chronically infected and 100% of newly infected study subjects. The mean change in CD4 was (+)150 cells/microl (newly infected, p <.001), and (+)155 cells/microl (chronically infected, p <.001). At Week 48, evidence of cellular activation persisted in both cohorts. A twice-daily regimen of amprenavir, abacavir, and ZDV/3TC affords potent viral suppression and significant increases in total CD4(+) cells in HIV-1--infected study subjects. Patient intolerance may limit the efficacy of this combination.

International perspectives on antiretroviral resistance. Resistance to protease inhibitors

The availability of protease inhibitors (PIs) and their combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors marked the passage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) from potential for control to effective suppression and thus substantially reduced rates of morbidity and mortality related to HIV. Even so, what was first hoped to be an immutable HIV DNA treatment target has proved to be prone to resistance mutations, with substitutions identified at more than 20 amino acid sites, which reduces PI susceptibility and increases resistance to treatment. The mutation patterns associated with each PI have been defined, and have been observed to occur at one of two locations: at or near the active site, or in the substrate cleavage site. The natural history of PI resistance has been extensively studied, and the genetic and cellular pathways are described in detail in this article. In addition, cross-resistance among PIs is now recognized to be fairly extensive, although the degree of cross-resistance varies with the number of mutations and the variants selected by drug pressure. Thus, it is still possible to salvage a response with another PI after a first regimen with another PI has failed. The extensive basic science and clinical experience with PIs in the fight against HIV are reviewed in this article, which provides data on resistance-mutation profiles, cellular resistance mechanisms, viral fitness studies, and clinical outcome trials with various first-line and subsequent regimens that contain PIs. It is hoped that the information provided will guide physicians in best using PIs as part of a logical and successful ART strategy.

ABT-378/ritonavir plus stavudine and lamivudine for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48-week results

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and antiviral activity of different dose levels of the HIV protease inhibitor ABT-378 combined with low-dose ritonavir, plus stavudine and lamivudine in antiretroviral-naive individuals.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter.

METHODS

Eligible patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA > 5000 copies/ml received ABT-378 200 or 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h; after 3 weeks stavudine 40 mg and lamivudine 150 mg every 12 h were added (group I, n = 32). A second group initiated treatment with ABT-378 400 mg and ritonavir 100 or 200 mg plus stavudine and lamivudine every 12 h (group II, n = 68).

RESULTS

Mean baseline HIV-1 RNA was 4.9 log10 copies/ml in both groups and CD4 cell count was 398 x 10(6)/l and 310 x 10(6)/l in Groups I and II respectively. In the intent-to-treat (ITT; missing value = failure) analysis at 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA was < 400 copies/ml for 91% (< 50 copies/ml, 75%) and 82% (< 50 copies/ml, 79%) of patients in groups I and II respectively. Mean steady-state ABT-378 trough concentrations exceeded the wild-type HIV-1 EC50 (effective concentration to inhibit 50%) by 50-100-fold. The most common adverse events were abnormal stools, diarrhea and nausea. No patient discontinued before 48 weeks because of treatment-related toxicity or virologic rebound.

CONCLUSIONS

ABT-378 is a potent, well-tolerated protease inhibitor. The activity and durable suppression of HIV-1 observed in this study is probably attributable to the observed tolerability profile and the achievement of high ABT-378 plasma concentrations.

Positive and negative aspects of the human immunodeficiency virus protease: development of inhibitors versus its role in AIDS pathogenesis

In this review we summarize multiple aspects of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease from both structural and functional viewpoints. After an introductory overview, we provide an up-to-date status report on protease inhibitors (PI). This proceeds from a discussion of PI structural design, to how PI are optimally utilized in highly active antiretroviral triple therapy (one PI along with two reverse transcriptase inhibitors), the emergence of PI resistance, and the natural role of secretory leukocyte PI. Then we switch to another focus: the interaction of HIV protease with other genes in acute and persistent infection, which in turn may have an effect on AIDS pathogenesis. We conclude with a discussion on future directions in HIV treatment, involving multiple-target anti-HIV therapy, vaccine development, and novel reactivation-inhibitory reagents.

Low level of cross-resistance to amprenavir (141W94) in samples from patients pretreated with other protease inhibitors

The therapeutic success of an antiretroviral salvage regimen containing protease inhibitors (PI) is limited by PI-resistant viral strains exhibiting various degrees of resistance and cross-resistance. To evaluate the extent of cross-resistance to the new PI amprenavir, 155 samples from 132 human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients were analyzed for viral genotype by direct sequencing of the protease gene. Concomitantly, drug sensitivity to indinavir, saquinavir, ritonavir, nelfinavir, and amprenavir was analyzed by a recombinant virus assay. A total of 111 patients had been pretreated with 1-4 PI, but all were naive to amprenavir. A total of 105 samples (67.7%) were sensitive to amprenavir; 25 samples (16.1%) were intermediately resistant, and another 25 samples were highly resistant (4- to 8-fold- and >8-fold-reduced sensitivity, respectively). The mutations 46I/L, 54L/V, 84V, and 90M showed the strongest association with amprenavir resistance (P < 0. 0001). The scoring system using 84V and/or any two of a number of mutations (10I/R/V/F, 46I/L, 54L/V, and 90M) predicted amprenavir resistance with a sensitivity of 86.0% and a specificity of 81.0% within the analyzed group of samples. Of 62 samples with resistance against 4 PI, 23 (37.1%) were still sensitive to amprenavir. In comparison, only 2 of 23 samples (8.7%) from nelfinavir-naive patients with resistance against indinavir, saquinavir, and ritonavir were still sensitive to nelfinavir. Amprenavir thus appears to be an interesting alternative for PI salvage therapy.

Antiretroviral therapy 2000

As we enter the new millennium, there have been dramatic improvements in the care of patients with HIV infection. These have prolonged life and decreased morbidity and mortality. There are fourteen currently available antiretrovirals approved in the United States for the treatment of this infection. The medications, including their pharmacokinetic properties, side effects, and dosing are reviewed. In addition, the current approach to the use of these medicines is discussed.

Considerations in choosing a primary endpoint that measures durability of virological suppression in an antiretroviral trial

OBJECTIVES

At present, many clinical trials of anti-HIV-1 therapies compare treatments by a primary endpoint that measures the durability of suppression of HIV-1 replication. Several durability endpoints are compared.

DESIGN

Endpoints are compared by their implicit assumptions regarding surrogacy for clinical outcomes, sample size requirements, and accommodations for inter-patient differences in baseline plasma HIV-1-RNA levels and in initial treatment response.

METHODS

Virological failure is defined by the non-suppression of virus levels at a prespecified follow-up time T(early virological failure), or by relapse. A binary virological failure endpoint is compared with three time-to-virological failure endpoints: time from (i) randomization that assigns early failures a failure time of T weeks; (ii) randomization that extends the early failure time T for slowly responding subjects; and (iii) virological response that assigns non-responders a failure time of 0 weeks. Endpoint differences are illustrated with Agouron's trial 511.

RESULTS

In comparing high with low-dose nelfinavir (NFV) regimens in Agouron 511, the difference in Kaplan-Meier estimates of the proportion not failing by 24 weeks is 16.7% (P = 0.048), 6.5% (P = 0.29) and 22.9% (P = 0.0030) for endpoints (i), (ii) and (iii), respectively. The results differ because NFV suppresses virus more quickly at the higher dose, and the endpoints weigh this treatment difference differently. This illustrates that careful consideration needs to be given to choosing a primary endpoint that will detect treatment differences of interest.

CONCLUSION

A time from randomization endpoint is usually recommended because of its advantages in flexibility and sample size, especially at interim analyses, and for its interpretation for patient management.

In vitro resistance profile of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor BMS-232632

BMS-232632 is an azapeptide human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitor that displays potent anti-HIV-1 activity (50% effective concentration [EC(50)], 2.6 to 5.3 nM; EC(90), 9 to 15 nM). In vitro passage of HIV-1 RF in the presence of inhibitors showed that BMS-232632 selected for resistant variants more slowly than nelfinavir or ritonavir did. Genotypic and phenotypic analysis of three different HIV strains resistant to BMS-232632 indicated that an N88S substitution in the viral protease appeared first during the selection process in two of the three strains. An I84V change appeared to be an important substitution in the third strain used. Mutations were also observed at the protease cleavage sites following drug selection. The evolution to resistance seemed distinct for each of the three strains used, suggesting multiple pathways to resistance and the importance of the viral genetic background. A cross-resistance study involving five other protease inhibitors indicated that BMS-232632-resistant virus remained sensitive to saquinavir, while it showed various levels (0. 1- to 71-fold decrease in sensitivity)-of cross-resistance to nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, and amprenavir. In reciprocal experiments, the BMS-232632 susceptibility of HIV-1 variants selected in the presence of each of the other HIV-1 protease inhibitors showed that the nelfinavir-, saquinavir-, and amprenavir-resistant strains of HIV-1 remained sensitive to BMS-232632, while indinavir- and ritonavir-resistant viruses displayed six- to ninefold changes in BMS-232632 sensitivity. Taken together, our data suggest that BMS-232632 may be a valuable protease inhibitor for use in combination therapy.

BMS-232632, a highly potent human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor that can be used in combination with other available antiretroviral agents

BMS-232632 is an azapeptide human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease (Prt) inhibitor that exhibits potent anti-HIV activity with a 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) of 2.6 to 5.3 nM and an EC(90) of 9 to 15 nM in cell culture. Proof-of-principle studies indicate that BMS-232632 blocks the cleavage of viral precursor proteins in HIV-infected cells, proving that it functions as an HIV Prt inhibitor. Comparative studies showed that BMS-232632 is generally more potent than the five currently approved HIV-1 Prt inhibitors. Furthermore, BMS-232632 is highly selective for HIV-1 Prt and exhibits cytotoxicity only at concentrations 6,500- to 23, 000-fold higher than that required for anti-HIV activity. To assess the potential of this inhibitor when used in combination with other antiretrovirals, BMS-232632 was evaluated for anti-HIV activity in two-drug combination studies. Combinations of BMS-232632 with either stavudine, didanosine, lamivudine, zidovudine, nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, or amprenavir in HIV-infected peripheral blood mononuclear cells yielded additive to moderately synergistic antiviral effects. Importantly, combinations of drug pairs did not result in antagonistic anti-HIV activity or enhanced cytotoxic effects at the highest concentrations used for antiviral evaluation. Our results suggest that BMS-232632 may be an effective HIV-1 inhibitor that may be utilized in a variety of different drug combinations.

HIV-1 protease inhibitors

Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection with regimens that include protease inhibitors (PIs) has contributed to marked improvements in HIV-related disease progression and mortality. Five PIs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and have potent activity in vitro. PIs with 2 nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors have demonstrated prolonged suppression of HIV-1 replication in treated patients and improvements in disease progression and mortality. PIs combined with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or other PIs produce marked antiretroviral effects. Although not all patients have prolonged responses to PIs, and salvage treatment has had mixed results for patients who have not responded to initial PI therapy or whose HIV RNA levels have relapsed during such therapy, newer PIs currently being developed hold promise. Most patients can successfully tolerate PI-including regimens; however, long-term side effects, such as body fat redistribution, insulin resistance, and increased serum lipids, are now being observed in some patients receiving PI-including therapy.

A mutation in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease, N88S, that causes in vitro hypersensitivity to amprenavir

Amprenavir (Agenerase, 141-W94, VX-478) is a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitor (PRI) recently approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in the United States. A major cause of treatment failure is the development of resistance to PRIs. One potential use for amprenavir is as salvage therapy for patients for whom treatment that includes one (or more) of the other four currently approved PRIs-saquinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, and nelfinavir-has failed. We evaluated the cross-resistance to amprenavir of viruses that evolved during treatment with the two most commonly prescribed PRIs, nelfinavir and indinavir. Unexpectedly, a dramatic increase in susceptibility (2.5- to 12. 5-fold) was observed with 20 of 312 (6.4%) patient viruses analyzed. The most pronounced increases in susceptibility were strongly associated with an N88S mutation in protease. All viruses that carried the N88S mutation were hypersensitive to amprenavir. Site-directed mutagenesis studies confirmed the causal role of N88S in determining amprenavir hypersensitivity. The presence of the N88S mutation and associated amprenavir hypersensitivity may be useful in predicting an improved clinical response to amprenavir salvage therapy.