A randomized controlled trial to evaluate antiretroviral salvage therapy guided by rules-based or phenotype-driven HIV-1 genotypic drug-resistance interpretation with or without concentration-controlled intervention: the Resistance and Dosage Adapted Regimens (RADAR) study

Pharmacological advances in anti-retroviral therapy for human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection: A comprehensive review

The discovery of anti-retroviral (ARV) drugs over the past 36 years has introduced various classes, including nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitor, fusion, and integrase strand transfer inhibitors inhibitors. The introduction of combined highly active anti-retroviral therapies in 1996 was later proven to combat further ARV drug resistance along with enhancing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) suppression. As though the development of ARV therapies was continuously expanding, the variation of action caused by ARV drugs, along with its current updates, was not comprehensively discussed, particularly for HIV-1 infection. Thus, a range of HIV-1 ARV medications is covered in this review, including new developments in ARV therapy based on the drug's mechanism of action, the challenges related to HIV-1, and the need for combination therapy. Optimistically, this article will consolidate the overall updates of HIV-1 ARV treatments and conclude the significance of HIV-1-related pharmacotherapy research to combat the global threat of HIV infection.

Antiretroviral resistance testing in HIV-positive people

BACKGROUND

Resistance to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) compromises treatment effectiveness, often leading to virological failure and mortality. Antiretroviral drug resistance tests may be used at the time of initiation of therapy, or when treatment failure occurs, to inform the choice of ART regimen. Resistance tests (genotypic or phenotypic) are widely used in high-income countries, but not in resource-limited settings. This systematic review summarizes the relative merits of resistance testing in treatment-naive and treatment-exposed people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of antiretroviral resistance testing (genotypic or phenotypic) in reducing mortality and morbidity in HIV-positive people.

SEARCH METHODS

We attempted to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, through searches of electronic databases and conference proceedings up to 26 January 2018. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov to 26 January 2018. We searched Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and the Web of Science for publications from 1996 to 26 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared resistance testing to no resistance testing in people with HIV irrespective of their exposure to ART.Primary outcomes of interest were mortality and virological failure. Secondary outcomes were change in mean CD4-T-lymphocyte count, clinical progression to AIDS, development of a second or new opportunistic infection, change in viral load, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed each reference for prespecified inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data from each included study using a standardized data extraction form. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects model. We performed subgroup analyses for the type of resistance test used (phenotypic or genotypic), use of expert advice to interpret resistance tests, and age (children and adolescents versus adults). We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (published between 1999 and 2006), which included 2531 participants, met our inclusion criteria. All of these trials exclusively enrolled patients who had previous exposure to ART. We found no observational studies. Length of follow-up time, study settings, and types of resistance testing varied greatly. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 150 weeks. All studies were conducted in Europe, USA, or South America. Seven studies used genotypic testing, two used phenotypic testing, and two used both phenotypic and genotypic testing. Only one study was funded by a manufacturer of resistance tests.Resistance testing made little or no difference in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.22; 5 trials, 1140 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have slightly reduced the number of people with virological failure (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 10 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably made little or no difference in change in CD4 cell count (mean difference (MD) -1.00 cells/mm³, 95% CI -12.49 to 10.50; 7 trials, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or progression to AIDS (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; 3 trials, 809 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Resistance testing made little or no difference in adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55; 4 trials, 808 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduced viral load (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.11; 10 trials, 1837 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported on development of new opportunistic infections or quality of life. We found no statistically significant heterogeneity for any outcomes, and the I² statistic value ranged from 0 to 25%. We found no subgroup effects for types of resistance testing (genotypic versus phenotypic), the addition of expert advice to interpretation of resistance tests, or age. Results for mortality were consistent when we compared studies at high or unclear risk of bias versus studies at low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Resistance testing probably improved virological outcomes in people who have had virological failure in trials conducted 12 or more years ago. We found no evidence in treatment-naive people. Resistance testing did not demonstrate important patient benefits in terms of risk of death or progression to AIDS. The trials included very few participants from low- and middle-income countries.

Virological failure at one year in triple-class experienced patients switching to raltegravir-based regimens is not predicted by baseline factors

We evaluated rates and determinants of virological failure in triple-class experienced patients receiving raltegravir-based regimens from a national observational study over 48 weeks, defined by any one of the following: (1) no HIV-RNA suppression to undetectable levels (<50 copies/mL) during follow-up; (2) detectable viral load after obtaining undetectable levels; and (3) leaving the study before 48 weeks. Among 101 eligible patients, 26 (25.7%; 95% CI 17.2–34.2) had virological failure. No significant differences between patients with and without virological failure were observed for gender, age, route of transmission, baseline CD4/HIV-RNA, CDC group, hepatitis B or C co-infections, resistance (based on the last genotype available), type and number of concomitant drug classes, concomitant use of darunavir, atazanavir, etravirine, enfuvirtide or maraviroc, and health-related quality-of-life measures. A high rate of treatment response was observed. The analyses did not identify any baseline factor associated with failure, including resistance status. Even if we cannot exclude the presence of pre-existing minority resistant variants not captured by genotypic tests, the lack of baseline predictors of failure suggests the need to monitor patients closely during follow up for other factors, such as potential drug interactions and reduced levels of adherence, which may favour virological failure.

Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

A relationship between plasma concentrations and viral suppression in patients receiving lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) has been observed. Therefore, it is important to increase our knowledge about factors that determine interpatient variability in LPV pharmacokinetics (PK).

METHODS

The study, designed to develop and validate population PK models for LPV and RTV, involved 263 ambulatory patients treated with 400/100 mg of LPV/RTV twice daily. A database of 1110 concentrations of LPV and RTV (647 from a single time-point and 463 from 73 full PK profiles) was available. Concentrations were determined at steady state using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. PK analysis was performed with NONMEM software. Age, gender, height, total body weight, body mass index, RTV trough concentration (RTC), hepatitis C virus coinfection, total bilirubin, hospital of origin, formulation and concomitant administration of efavirenz (EFV), saquinavir (SQV), atazanavir (ATV), and tenofovir were analyzed as possible covariates influencing LPV/RTV kinetic behavior.

RESULTS

Population models were developed with 954 drug plasma concentrations from 201 patients, and the validation was conducted in the remaining 62 patients (156 concentrations). A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption (including lag-time) and elimination best described the PK. Proportional error models for interindividual and residual variability were used. The final models for the drugs oral clearance (CL/F) were as follows: CL/F(LPV)(L/h)=0.216·BMI·0.81(RTC)·1.25(EFV)·0.84(ATV); CL/F(RTV)(L/h) = 8.00·1.34(SQV)·1.77(EFV)·1.35(ATV). The predictive performance of the final population PK models was tested using standardized mean prediction errors, showing values of 0.03 ± 0.74 and 0.05 ± 0.91 for LPV and RTV, and normalized prediction distribution error, confirming the suitability of both models.

CONCLUSIONS

These validated models could be implemented in clinical PK software and applied to dose individualization using a Bayesian approach for both drugs.

The role of therapeutic drug monitoring in the management of patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is a well-established method to optimize dosing regimens in individual patients for drugs that are characterized by a narrow therapeutic range and large interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. For some antiretroviral drugs, mainly nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors, TDM has been proposed as a means to improve the response in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. In contrast, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors do not show a predictable plasma concentration-response (toxicity, efficacy) relationship, and intracellular analyses are expensive. Therefore, TDM is generally not recommended for this class of drugs. TDM has been successfully applied in the clinical practice for certain antiretroviral drugs, but there are ongoing research efforts on the use and refinement of TDM for human immunodeficiency virus treatment, and convincing data from randomized trials are still needed. The best pharmacokinetic measures of drug exposure such as trough and peak concentrations or concentration ratios have not been unambiguously established.

[Evidence-based therapeutic drug monitoring of lopinavir]

The HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir presents a wide inter-individual variability related to liver and intestinal metabolism involving CYP3A. Published studies were analyzed to establish whether there is evidence that therapeutic drug monitoring of lopinavir could improve patient care. In naïve or pretreated HIV-infected patients, no relationship could be evidenced between virological efficacy and trough lopinavir concentration, most likely because concentrations are above inhibitory concentrations. Although data are limited, patients with elevated triglycerides and cholesterol had trough lopinavir concentrations >8 000 ng/mL. These data suggest that the level of evidence of interest of lopinavir therapeutic drug monitoring is may be recommended in some situations such as children, pregnant women, pretreated patients if the number of mutations is <5, when coadministration with drug with metabolizing enzyme inducing properties is warranted and toxicity.

Strategies to improve HIV treatment adherence in developed countries: clinical management at the individual level

REMARKABLE ADVANCES IN THE TREATMENT OF HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV) DISEASE HAVE BEEN BLUNTED BY WIDESPREAD SUBOPTIMAL ADHERENCE (IE, NONADHERENCE), WHICH HAS EMERGED AS A MAJOR BARRIER TO ACHIEVING THE PRIMARY GOAL OF ANTIRETROVIRAL (ARV) THERAPY: suppression of HIV viral load. Nonsuppressed HIV viral load is associated with drug resistance, increased morbidity and mortality, and a higher risk of person-to-person HIV transmission. For HIV-infected individuals who are failing HIV treatment due to nonadherence, becoming adherent is a life-saving behavior change. However, overcoming nonadherence is one of the most daunting challenges in the successful management of HIV disease. The purpose of this paper is to provide clinicians with a better understanding of nonadherence to ARV treatment and to review the various factors that have been associated with either adherence or nonadherence. Strategies are presented that may help the nonadherent individual become ready to take HIV medications as prescribed.

Clinical management of HIV drug resistance

Combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection has resulted in profound reductions in viremia and is associated with marked improvements in morbidity and mortality. Therapy is not curative, however, and prolonged therapy is complicated by drug toxicity and the emergence of drug resistance. Management of clinical drug resistance requires in depth evaluation, and includes extensive history, physical examination and laboratory studies. Appropriate use of resistance testing provides valuable information useful in constructing regimens for treatment-experienced individuals with viremia during therapy. This review outlines the emergence of drug resistance in vivo, and describes clinical evaluation and therapeutic options of the individual with rebound viremia during therapy.

Pharmacokinetics and disposition of rilpivirine (TMC278) nanosuspension as a long-acting injectable antiretroviral formulation

The next-generation human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor rilpivirine (TMC278) was administered in rats and dogs as single intramuscular (IM) or subcutaneous (SC) injections, formulated as a 200-nm nanosuspension. The plasma pharmacokinetics, injection site concentrations, disposition to lymphoid tissues, and tolerability were evaluated in support of its potential use as a once-monthly antiretroviral agent in humans. Rilpivirine plasma concentration-time profiles showed sustained and dose-proportional release over 2 months in rats and over 6 months in dogs. The absolute bioavailability approached 100%, indicating a complete release from the depot, in spite of rilpivirine concentrations still being high at the injection site(s) 3 months after administration in dogs. For both species, IM administration was associated with higher initial peak plasma concentrations and a more rapid washout than SC administration, which resulted in a stable plasma-concentration profile over at least 6 weeks in dogs. The rilpivirine concentrations in the lymph nodes draining the IM injection site exceeded the plasma concentrations by over 100-fold 1 month after administration, while the concentrations in the lymphoid tissues decreased to 3- to 6-fold the plasma concentrations beyond 3 months. These observations suggest uptake of nanoparticles by macrophages, which generates secondary depots in these lymph nodes. Both SC and IM injections were generally well tolerated and safe, with observations of a transient inflammatory response at the injection site. The findings support clinical investigations of rilpivirine nanosuspension as a long-acting formulation to improve adherence during antiretroviral therapy and for preexposure prophylaxis.

Inhibitory quotient in HIV pharmacology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the use of the inhibitory quotient in light of therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral drugs. The inhibitory quotient is a parameter that combines viral resistance data with drug exposure data, and has its main role in therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in experienced patients. Data from recent clinical studies investigating inhibitory quotient cutoffs to be used in therapeutic drug monitoring will be reviewed. In addition points for discussion regarding the use and study of inhibitory quotients will be presented.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of studies generated data on the use of the inhibitory quotient in general and the genotypic inhibitory quotient in particular. Most of these studies define a cutoff inhibitory quotient value, above which the virological response rate is higher. These cutoff values can be used in therapeutic drug monitoring and give guidance to the clinician on dose adjustments. Genotypic inhibitory quotient cutoff values are available for amprenavir, atazanavir, darunavir, lopinavir, saquinavir and tipranavir.

SUMMARY

The inhibitory quotient is becoming a valuable tool in therapeutic drug monitoring. At this moment most data are available for the genotypic inhibitory quotient. Nevertheless, a consensus needs to be reached on a number of items, including the methods to study inhibitory quotient as well as the mathematical and virological background.

Effectiveness of antiretroviral regimens containing abacavir with tenofovir in treatment-experienced patients: predictors of virological response and drug resistance evolution in a multi-cohort study

BACKGROUND

In treatment-naïve patients, a combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) containing tenofovir (TDF) and abacavir (ABC) with lamivudine leads to unacceptably high virological failure rates with frequent selection of reverse transcriptase mutations M184V and K65R. We explored the efficacy of at least 16 weeks of ABC + TDF-containing cART regimens in 307 antiretroviral-experienced HIV-1-infected individuals included in observational databases.

METHODS

Virological failure was defined as an HIV RNA > 400 copies/ml after at least 16 weeks of treatment. Patients had received a median of three prior cART regimens. Of these, 76% concomitantly received a potent or high genetic barrier regimen (with at least one protease inhibitor [PI]) or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or thymidine analogue) while a third non-thymidine nucleoside analogue was used in the remaining patients.

RESULTS

The 1-year estimated probability of virological failure was 34% in 165 patients with HIV RNA > 400 copies/ ml at ABC + TDF regimen initiation. Independent predictors of virological failure were the absence of a potent or high genetic barrier cART, the higher number of cART regimens experienced, and the use of a new drug class. In the subset of 136 patients for whom there were genotypic resistance test results prior to ABC + TDF initiation, the virological failure (1-year estimated probability 46%) was independently predicted by the higher baseline viral load, the concomitant use of boosted PI, and the presence of reverse transcriptase mutation M41L. In 142 patients starting ABC + TDF therapy with HIV RNA pound < or =400 copies/ml, virological failure (1-year estimated probability 17%) was associated only with the transmission category. In a small subset of subjects for whom there were an available paired baseline and follow-up genotype (n = 28), the prevalence of most nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations decreased, suggesting a possible low adherence to treatment. No selection of K65R was detected.

CONCLUSION

The virological response to ABC + TDF-containing regimens in this moderately-to-heavily treatment experienced cohort was good. Higher viral load and the presence of M41L at baseline were associated with worse virological responses, while the concomitant prescription of drugs enhancing the genetic barrier of the regimen conveyed a reduced risk of virological failure. The Appendix provides the names of other members of the MASTER cohort.

Benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients depends on PI used in HAART regimen--ANRS 111 trial

As a result of high inter-patient variability, and efficacy-concentration and toxicity-concentration relationships, optimization of HIV-protease inhibitor (PI) doses based on plasma concentrations could be beneficial. During a 48-week open prospective non-randomized interventional study of 115 protease inhibitor-naïve patients initiating an indinavir/ritonavir- or lopinavir/ritonavir-, or nelfinavir-containing therapy, protease inhibitor dose was modified when plasma trough concentrations (C(trough)) at weeks 2, 8, 16 and 24 were outside predefined optimal concentration ranges. Failure of the strategy was defined as the proportions of patients with HIV-RNA above 200 copies/mL from weeks 24 to 48 and/or experiencing grades 2, 3 or 4 PI-related adverse events during the study; proportion of patients with last C(trough) measurement outside the concentration range was determined at each visit. Virological failure and/or occurrence of adverse event were observed in 37/94 assessable patients (39%; 95% CI: 29.4-50.0). In the on-treatment analysis, failure of the strategy was noted in 16% of indinavir/r- or lopinavir/r-treated patients (8/51; 95% CI: 7.0-28.6; virological failure: 2; adverse event: 6) but in 44% of nelfinavir-treated patients (11/25; 95% CI: 24.4-65.1; virological failure: 10; adverse event: 1); C(trough) concentrations outside the range were less frequent at the last measurement than at W2 (41% vs. 66%; P < 0.05), with proportions of 35% for indinavir/r- or lopinavir/r-treated patients, but 57% for nelfinavir-treated patients. The proposed strategy of therapeutic drug monitoring may be beneficial to indinavir/r- and lopinavir/r-treated patients, but failed to move concentrations into the predefined range and to produce the expected virological success for nelfinavir-treated patients.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretrovirals for people with HIV

BACKGROUND

Despite the efficacy of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) and the improvement in prognosis of those living with HIV/AIDS, a large proportion of individuals on ART does not achieve or maintain adequate virological suppression. Several tools have been proposed to enhance ART outcomes, including therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antiretrovirals (ARVs). The aim of ARV TDM is to identify elevated (potentially toxic) or low (potentially sub-therapeutic) ARV concentrations. ARV TDM may thus optimise efficacy and minimise toxicity of ART.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether ARV TDM reduces mortality and morbidity of adult patients on ART. The primary outcome measures that have been assessed include death (all cause); occurrence of HIV-related events (death or AIDS-defining illness) and the proportion of patients achieving and maintaining an undetectable viral load, as defined by the authors.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We conducted a comprehensive search including both published and unpublished studies in all languages in MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, between January 1980 and January 2008. Databases listing conference abstracts and reference lists of articles were searched. Additional data were sought from relevant authors; however, no additional data were provided.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomized controlled trials conducted subsequent to the introduction of combination ART were included in this systematic review. Participants could be on either a protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI)-based regimen and be either ARV-naive or -experienced.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed and extracted data for analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. Where study outcomes could not be combined, a narrative review was performed. Outcome measures for dichotomous data were reported as a relative risk with 95% confidence intervals. Stratified analyses were conducted by ARV regimen and treatment groups. Heterogeneity between studies was anticipated; therefore, random effects models were chosen to generate pooled effects. Differences in the findings were assessed by the chi square test for heterogeneity (p <0.1) that was quantified by the Higgins I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Identified were 1408 records, and eight trials with a total of 1181 participants were included in the review. Trials were conducted in higher income earning countries between 2002 and 2007. Sample sizes ranged between 40 and 230. The methodological quality of the studies was judged to be generally good, although allocation concealment was reported in only three of the eight studies. A meta-analysis including three studies did not show any significant effect on virological suppression below 500 HIV-RNA copies/mL at one year (RR 1.28; [0.86, 1.92] chi(2) = 11.55 (P = 0.003), I(2) = 83%). Two trials including participants predominantly treated with unboosted PI-based regimens reported a 49% increased likelihood of achieving a HIV-RNA viral load below 500 copies/mL at 52 weeks (RR 1.49 [1.20, 1.83] chi(2) = 0.69 (P = 0.4), I(2) = 0%). Safety outcomes were reported in four studies and were similar between TDM and standard of care. Uptake of expert advice based on TDM results was good in two trials (>70%), but low (<35%) in the remaining three studies that reported uptake of the recommendations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review does not support routine use of ARV TDM in ARV-naive or -experienced patients on either boosted PI or NNRTI ART regimens. TDM in treatment-naive participants on a PI-based ART regimen, particularly if unboosted by ritonavir, may improve virological outcomes. Trials were underpowered with small sample sizes, short durations of follow-up and generally poor uptake of TDM recommendations. As these trials were conducted in higher income earning countries, results may not be generalisable to resource-limited countries where the burden of HIV is heaviest.

Development of a long-acting injectable formulation with nanoparticles of rilpivirine (TMC278) for HIV treatment

Long-acting parenteral formulations of antiretrovirals could facilitate maintenance and prophylactic treatment in HIV. Using the poorly water- and oil-soluble non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) TMC278 (rilpivirine) as base or hydrochloride (HCl), nanosuspensions were prepared by wet milling (Elan NanoCrystal technology) in an aqueous carrier. Laser diffraction showed that the average particles size were (1) close to the targeted size proportionality (200-400-800 nm), with increasing distributions the larger the average particle size, and (2) were stable over 6 months. Following single-dose administration, the plasma concentration profiles showed sustained release of TMC278 over 3 months in dogs and 3 weeks in mice. On comparison of intramuscular and subcutaneous injection of 5mg/kg (200 nm) in dogs, the subcutaneous route resulted in the most stable plasma levels (constant at 25 ng/mL for 20 days, after which levels declined slowly to 1-3 ng/mL at 3 months); 200 nm nanosuspensions achieved higher and less variable plasma concentration profiles than 400 and 800 nm nanosuspensions. In mice, the pharmacokinetic profiles after a single 20mg/kg dose (200 nm) were similar with two different surfactants used (poloxamer 338, or d-alpha-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate). In conclusion, this study provides proof-of-concept that 200-nm sized TMC278 nanosuspensions may act as long-acting injectable.

Successful virological outcome in an HIV-infected individual with a three-class resistant variant and an insertion in the protease genome with a Tipranavir based regimen

BACKGROUND

Multi-class HIV-1 resistant variants are not rare nowadays. Genotypic and phenotypic resistance testing (including virtual phenotype) constitutes an important tool for optimizing antiretroviral treatment.

AIM

To report a case of discrepancy between resistance interpretation and virological outcome.

METHODS

A case of a multi-drug experienced patient is presented. Genotypic and/or virtual phenotypic testing analysis was used.

RESULTS

The patient after 10 years of antiretroviral therapy with 11 different regimens unable to produce full virological suppression and with a rapidly declining CD4 count, achieved a successful virological outcome with a scheme containing Tipranavir boosted with low dose of ritonavir. Of note, the patient was screened for Tipranavir 1182.48 study and was found ineligible after genotypic analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Virologic suppression was achieved despite the fact that neither an active agent was included in the backbone regimen nor the resistance profile could ensure the effectiveness of Tipranavir.

Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection: 2008 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA panel

Resistance to antiretroviral drugs remains an important limitation to successful human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) therapy. Resistance testing can improve treatment outcomes for infected individuals. The availability of new drugs from various classes, standardization of resistance assays, and the development of viral tropism tests necessitate new guidelines for resistance testing. The International AIDS Society-USA convened a panel of physicians and scientists with expertise in drug-resistant HIV-1, drug management, and patient care to review recently published data and presentations at scientific conferences and to provide updated recommendations. Whenever possible, resistance testing is recommended at the time of HIV infection diagnosis as part of the initial comprehensive patient assessment, as well as in all cases of virologic failure. Tropism testing is recommended whenever the use of chemokine receptor 5 antagonists is contemplated. As the roll out of antiretroviral therapy continues in developing countries, drug resistance monitoring for both subtype B and non-subtype B strains of HIV will become increasingly important.

Practical therapeutic drug management in HIV-infected patients: use of population pharmacokinetic models supplemented by individualized Bayesian dose optimization

Individualized, model-based, target-oriented optimal concentration-controlled dosing of HIV medications can be beneficial to patients for whom there are limited dosing guidelines, such as children, adolescents, or patients with altered physiologic function. Barriers to this approach include lack of training, expertise, and access to appropriate software to assist the clinician. The authors present 4 illustrative clinical cases of HIV-infected patients whose therapy was optimized using population pharmacokinetic models (here generated from published studies) and supplemented by individualized Bayesian adaptive control of dosage regimens as implemented in the MM-USCPACK software. These 4 cases illustrate how clinicians can maximize therapeutic success in (1) patients with reduced drug clearance, (2) young adolescents transitioning to adult physiology, (3) patients with dose-dependent toxicity, and (4) adolescents with limited therapeutic options.

Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection

BACKGROUND

Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs.

METHODS

We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio.

RESULTS

In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Genotypic resistance profile and clinical progression of treatment-experienced HIV type 1-infected patients with virological failure

We explored the relationship between HIV-1 drug resistance in treatment-experienced patients and disease progression in a cohort of patients undergoing resistance testing to guide treatment decisions. A total of 601 treatment-failing individuals tested for genotypic HIV-1 drug resistance between 1998 and 2004 were selected. At genotypic testing, median HIV-1 RNA levels and CD4 counts were 3.8 log copies/ml and 293 cells/mul, respectively; 84% had resistance mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), 42% had resistance mutations to non-NRTIs, 51% had major resistance mutations to protease inhibitors (PI), 12% had no major resistance mutations to any drug class, 22% had mutations to one class, 42% had mutations to two classes, and 23% had mutations to three classes. During a follow-up of 714.7 patients/year, 80 patients showed an AIDS-defining event or died. In multivariable models adjusting for prior AIDS, baseline CD4 counts, HIV-1 RNA, and calendar year, viral resistance variables associated with increased hazards of clinical progression were the presence of reverse transcriptase substitution T215F (p = 0.002) and the presence of three or more protease substitutions among L33F/I/V, V82A/F/L/T, I84V, and L90M (p = 0.003). Resistance to three drug classes remained independently predictive of clinical progression only when calendar year was not used as an adjustment factor. Prevention and treatment of multiple drug class resistance are clinical priorities for HIV-infected patients. In recent years, improved treatment options may have helped in reducing part of the resistance-associated clinical progression.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Treatment-Naive and -Experienced HIV-1-Infected Patients

OBJECTIVE

To improve the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by defining the proportion of patients with and predictors of above or below target protease inhibitor (PI) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) concentrations.

METHODS

This 48-week, multicenter, open-label clinical trial randomized patients to TDM versus standard of care (SOC). Serial pharmacokinetics, including a week-2 3-sample sparse collection, and expert committee TDM recommendations were given to TDM-arm patients' providers.

RESULTS

Seventy-four (39%) of 190 patients had week-2 concentrations outside of targets and 122 (64%) of 190 had nontarget exposure at least once over 48 weeks. Providers accepted 75% of TDM recommendations. Among patients with below-target concentrations, more TDM-arm than SOC-arm patients achieved targets (65% vs. 45%; P = 0.09). Increased body weight and efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir use were significant predictors of nontarget concentrations. Patients at target and patients who achieved targets after TDM-directed dose modifications trended toward greater viral load reductions at week 48 than patients with below-target exposures (HIV RNA reductions: 2.4, 2.3, and 1.9 log10 copies/mL, respectively; P = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients had nontarget PI and/or NNRTI concentrations over 48 weeks. TDM recommendations were well accepted and improved exposure. Patients below TDM targets trended toward worse virologic response.

Randomized exposure-controlled trials; impact of randomization and analysis strategies

AIMS

In the literature, five potential benefits of randomizing clinical trials on concentration levels, rather than dose, have been proposed: (i) statistical study power will increase; (ii) study power will be less sensitive to high variability in the pharmacokinetics (PK); (iii) the power of establishing an exposure-response relationship will be robust to correlations between PK and pharmacodynamics (PD); (iv) estimates of the exposure-response relationship are likely to be less biased; and (v) studies will provide a better control of exposure in situations with toxicity issues. The main aim of this study was to investigate if these five statements are valid when the trial results are evaluated using a model-based analysis.

METHODS

Quantitative relationships between drug dose, concentration, biomarker and clinical end-point were defined using pharmacometric models. Three randomization schemes for exposure-controlled trials, dose-controlled (RDCT), concentration-controlled (RCCT) and biomarker-controlled (RBCT), were simulated and analysed according to the models.

RESULTS

(i) The RCCT and RBCT had lower statistical power than RDCT in a model-based analysis; (ii) with a model-based analysis the power for an RDCT increased with increasing PK variability; (iii) the statistical power in a model-based analysis was robust to correlations between CL and EC(50) or E(max); (iv) under all conditions the bias was negligible (<3%); and (v) for studies with equal power RCCT could produce either more or fewer adverse events compared with an RDCT.

CONCLUSION

Alternative randomization schemes may not have the proposed advantages if a model-based analysis is employed.

Adherence and plasma drug concentrations are predictors of confirmed virologic response after 24-week salvage highly active antiretroviral therapy

Data from 197 patients for whom highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) failed, who started a new regimen chosen under the guide of resistance testing results interpreted by experts, were retrospectively studied, provided that at least 2 determinations of adherence and plasma drug concentrations were performed during the follow-up. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted, using confirmed virologic response at week 24 as outcome measure (i.e., achievement of undetectable HIV plasma viral load at any time point before week 24 and its maintenance up to week 24). Suboptimal drug concentrations (odds ratio [OR]: 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.7; p = 0.006) and suboptimal adherence (OR: 0.4; 95% CI 0.2-0.8; p = 0.014) were both negative independent predictors of sustained virologic response, while the use of boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimens resulted to be protective (OR: 2.4; 95% CI 1.1-5.3; p = 0.032).

Issues in the design of trials comparing management strategies for heavily pretreated patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Strategies for the optimal management of heavily pretreated patients with multiple drug resistance mutations in whom viral suppression is not possible are not well defined. Trials of strategic management approaches (as opposed to testing the effect of one specific drug) in this area have been mainly limited to evaluating treatment interruptions, testing the benefits of multidrug ('mega-highly active antiretroviral therapy') regimens, and evaluating the use of resistance test data for choosing new regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Treatment interruption before the start of a new regimen has been found to be detrimental, in terms of the risk of clinical disease, compared with no interruption. Mega-highly active antiretroviral therapy has not yet convincingly been shown to improve overall outcomes. The use of genotypic resistance testing has been shown to be useful when constructing a new regimen.

SUMMARY

Several challenges exist in designing future strategic trials in this area. These include the formulation of suitable new strategies which are generalizable across specific drugs and drug classes, the choice of suitable and feasible endpoints, and the incorporation of sufficient flexibility (so that patients are not too constrained to commit to entry) without compromising the ability to answer the question.

Influence of viral chronic hepatitis co-infection on plasma drug concentrations and liver transaminase elevations upon therapy switch in HIV-positive patients

It is still controversial whether viral hepatitis co-infection can influence antiretroviral plasma drug concentrations and whether drug concentrations are correlated with liver enzyme elevations during highly active antiretroviral therapy. An analysis of data from a cohort of 220 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients was conducted. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify predictors of plasma drug concentrations. The association of transaminase elevation with higher plasma drug concentrations was explored following stratification of patients into HIV monoinfected and hepatitis C virus (HCV) and/or hepatitis B virus (HBV) co-infected groups. Hepatitis co-infections were independently correlated with drug concentrations above the therapeutic cut-offs at Week 1 (P=0.06), Week 4 (P=0.04) and Week 12 (P=0.005). The apparent effect was independent of the possible impact exerted by other variables such as demographics and medication adherence. The incidence of relevant hypertransaminasaemia was low. Patients with hepatitis co-infections had higher rates of transaminase elevation than monoinfected HIV patients; however, risk of transaminase elevation was not associated with drug concentrations. The presence of HCV and/or HBV co-infections correlated with higher plasma drug concentrations, although it did not appear to influence hepatotoxicity risk.

Pharmacologic optimization of protease inhibitors and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (POPIN)--a randomized controlled trial of therapeutic drug monitoring and adherence support

We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and adherence support (collectively, AT) vs standard of care (SOC) in patients receiving HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) within a nurse-led clinic. Primary end points were failure to achieve viral load of <50 copies/mL at 24 weeks, viral rebound, or development of treatment limiting toxicity. One hundred twenty-two patients (AT 63 and SOC 59) were followed-up every 12 weeks, for a median of 72 weeks. No difference was observed between arms in risk of reaching a study end point or between groups of patients with abnormal vs "therapeutic" drug concentrations. Interindividual variabilities (coefficient of variation) were the following: efavirenz, 77.5%; nevirapine, 74.5%; lopinavir, 73.4%; nelfinavir, 83.7%; indinavir, 80.8%; saquinavir, 112.4%. Intraindividual variabilities (median coefficient of variation) were the following: NNRTIs, approximately 25%; PIs, 48.4%. Despite persistently abnormal results in 26 of patients in the AT arm (38%), dosage adjustment was only undertaken in 9 patients (35%).A significant proportion of patients had drug concentrations outside the therapeutic range. The Pharmacologic Optimization of PIs and NNRTIs (POPIN) study confirms that TDM trials are complex to interpret and statistically underpowered, with effectiveness better assessed through the clinical utility of a TDM result, whether normal or abnormal. Although TDM of PIs and NNRTIs may be useful in selected patients, routine and unselected use is not supported by current evidence.

An Update on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Antiretroviral Drugs

There is an increasing uptake of TDM of antiretroviral drugs, particularly in Europe. There is consensus that current antiretroviral drugs meet most of the criteria of drugs that can be considered as candidates for a TDM strategy. This review examines the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for protease inibitors and non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, give an overview of the published randomised clinical trials and then summarises the scenarios for use of TDM. Finally the development of the inhibitory quotient (IQ) concept is discussed.

Comparison of a Rule-Based Algorithm with a Phenotype-Based Algorithm for the Interpretation of HIV Genotypes in Guiding Salvage Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients by a Randomized Clinical Trial: The Mutations and Salvage Study

BACKGROUND

There is still considerable uncertainty as to the best algorithm for interpreting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) genotyping results.

METHODS

A total of 318 subjects with HIV RNA levels of >1000 copies/mL were enrolled in 41 centers throughout Italy from 2001 through 2003, stratified on the basis of their drug history, randomized (1:1) to 2 arms to have their treatments modified on the basis of the results of HIV genotyping (as interpreted by virtual phenotype analysis or with use of a rule-based interpretation system), and followed up for 48 weeks. At least 1 nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor and 1 protease inhibitor had to be included in any new regimen; nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-naive patients were also prescribed a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor. Only drugs licensed in Italy were allowed. The primary end point was a decrease in HIV RNA level to <400 copies/mL by week 12 according to on-treatment analysis.

RESULTS

The mean (+/- standard deviation) values at baseline were as follows: HIV RNA level, 4.1+/-0.74 log(10) copies/mL; CD4(+) T lymphocyte count, 410+/-262 cells/microL; reverse-transcriptase mutations, 4.8+/-2.9; and protease mutations, 2.8+/-2.5. There were 133 patients (41.8%) who were nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor naive and protease inhibitor experienced, 63 patients (19.8%) who were nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor experienced and protease inhibitor naive, and 122 patients (38.4%) who were 3-class experienced. A total of 192 patients completed 12 weeks of the treatment regimen assigned at baseline; at 12 weeks, 66.3% of patients in the virtual phenotype arm and 71.3% of patients in the rule-based interpretation arm had HIV RNA levels of <400 copies/mL (P = .46). No statistically significant difference between arms was observed by intention-to-treat analysis.

CONCLUSION

Both the virtual phenotype and rule-based interpretation methods of HIV genotyping can guide the selection of effective antiretroviral drugs for a salvage regimen.

Clinical pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: use of inhibitory quotients to optimise pharmacotherapy

The introduction of HIV-1 protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1996 began an era described as that of highly active antiretroviral therapy. In addition, the more recent development and availability of HIV-1 genotypic and phenotypic resistance tests and advances in pharmacological assays that support therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) have created tools that may help clinicians to provide more individualised treatment with HIV-1 protease inhibitors. All current treatment guidelines provide fixed doses of protease inhibitors with vague recommendations for the use of TDM in selected clinical situations. In patients with resistance to protease inhibitors, the combined use of resistance tests with TDM provide a mechanism for individualising the clinical pharmacodynamics of protease inhibitors. Current therapeutic approaches seek to include the monitoring of protease-inhibitor concentrations as part of a TDM programme with phenotypic assays to calculate an inhibitory quotient, virtual inhibitory quotient, or normalised inhibitory quotient, whereas genotypic tests are used with TDM to calculate a genotypic inhibitory quotient. Current investigation is focused on examining the predictive value of this approach for clinical monitoring.

Comparative pharmacogenomics of antiretroviral and cytotoxic treatments

Few genetic markers are used routinely to predict clinical effectiveness and toxic effects despite the fact that physicians and their patients are consistently confronted with this balance. Because one of the goals of pharmacogenomics is to identify individuals and target populations that might have adverse outcomes, pharmaceutical companies have been reluctant to use a strategy that might identify patients who are not eligible for a particular treatment. This view is changing because drug-discovery programmes and treatments that target specific pathways, are showing improvements in surrogate and survival endpoints. HIV and cancer are now regarded as chronic diseases, which commonly need life-long systemic treatment from the time of diagnosis. HIV and cancer medicine have used pharmacogenomics to some extent in clinical care. Common and classic features of pharmacogenomics that are related to both antiretroviral treatment and to cytotoxic treatment are discussed in this review, providing a framework for individual treatment of these diseases.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antiretroviral Therapy

Treatment with antiretroviral drugs such as the HIV protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors have contributed to the improvement of life of many HIV-infected patients in recent years, but antiretroviral therapy is not without problems. In some patients, treatment is not effective and suppression of viral replication is not achieved. Other patients experience toxicity and have to stop treatment or change to a less effective treatment. Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between plasma concentrations of the protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and viral suppression and toxicity. Therapeutic drug monitoring uses drug concentrations to individualize and optimise therapy by dosage adjustments and many clinicians have advocated for the use of therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV antiretroviral therapy. Evidence from a number of randomized clinical trials supports the use of therapeutic drug monitoring, but the studies have limitations and might not apply to all the antiretroviral drugs. However, the consensus is that certain patients are very likely to benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring. Additionally, the combination of therapeutic drug monitoring and genotypic or phenotypic resistance testing might further improve antiretroviral therapy.

Efficacy of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-penetrating antiretroviral drugs against HIV in the neurological compartment: different patterns of phenotypic resistance in CSF and plasma

BACKGROUND

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations of multiple drugs in a large human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patient population, the virtual phenotype profiles for HIV in the plasma and CSF compartments, and the correlation of these profiles with exposure to antiretroviral therapy need to be further investigated.

METHODS

Drug concentrations in CSF and plasma were concomitantly determined for a large group of HIV-infected individuals receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Samples were analyzed using a validated method consisting of liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. For patients with detectable levels of virus, genotypic analysis was performed, followed by a virtual phenotype study.

RESULTS

Sixty-three HIV-infected patients were included in the study, 78% of whom were affected by neurological disease. Drug concentrations in CSF specimens were undetectable for didanosine, efavirenz, nelfinavir, and concomitantly administered ritonavir and saquinavir. CSF concentrations were higher for nevirapine, with a median CSF-to-plasma concentration ratio of 0.63, followed by lamivudine (0.23), stavudine (0.20), and indinavir (0.11). In 18 of the 40 patients with virtual phenotype data available for virus recovered from CSF samples and from plasma samples, differences in fold-change of resistance between the CSF virus and the plasma virus were noted for at least 1 drug. Factors associated with having differences in fold-change of resistance were number of drugs to which the patient had been exposed (P=.02) and presence of neurological disease (P=.05). A significant association was found between duration of therapy and fold-change of resistance in CSF and plasma isolates.

CONCLUSIONS

Antiretrovirals have different levels of penetration in the CSF, with several drugs achieving only low CSF concentrations. CSF isolates have different resistance profiles than do plasma isolates. Effective treatment decisions for CSF manifestations of disease may require better knowledge of drug penetration and the drug susceptibility of HIV in the CSF.