First-line antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir plus two nucleoside analogues: the SUSKA study, a non-randomized comparison from the VACH cohort

The protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, as treatment for COVID-19: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

The HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir, boosted with ritonavir, has been used off-label to treat COVID-19. We aimed to synthesize the clinical evidence for lopinavir/ritonavir as a treatment for COVID-19.

METHODS

We performed a rapid review by searching databases including PubMed, GoogleScholar, medRxiv, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, for COVID-19 studies comparing outcomes between patients who did and did not receive lopinavir/ritonavir. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria.

RESULTS

We identified five completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 retrospective cohort studies. Two large RCTs of 5,040 and 2,771 hospitalized adults with COVID-19 found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir influenced the primary outcome of mortality, or secondary outcomes including progression to mechanical ventilation or time to discharge. Results remained similar in all sub-group analyses including by age, gender, baseline ventilation and time since symptom onset. The three smaller RCTs (n=86-199) also found no evidence of a benefit in the primary outcomes of time to clinical improvement or time to viral clearance. The 14 observational studies included between 50 and 415 participants, and were limited by a lack of adjustment for potential confounding variables. The majority of these studies found no evidence that lopinavir/ritonavir was associated with improved mortality or other clinical outcomes, although results regarding viral clearance were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Good evidence from large clinical trials does not support using lopinavir/ritonavir to treat COVID-19 amongst hospitalized patients.

Dyslipidemias and Elevated Cardiovascular Risk on Lopinavir-Based Antiretroviral Therapy in Cambodia

BACKGROUND

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is widely used in Cambodia with high efficacy but scarce data exist on long-term metabolic toxicity.

METHODS

We carried out a cross-sectional and retrospective study evaluating metabolic disorders and cardiovascular risk in Cambodian patients on LPV/r-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) for > 1 year followed in Calmette Hospital, Phnom Penh. Data collected included cardiovascular risk factors, fasting blood lipids and glucose, and retrospective collection of bioclinical data. We estimated the 10-year risks of coronary heart disease with the Framingham, Ramathibodi-Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Rama-EGAT), and the Data Collection on Adverse Effects of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) risk equations. We identified patients with LDL above targets defined by the French expert group on HIV and by the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Disease Society of America and the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (IDSA-AACTG).

RESULTS

Of 115 patients enrolled-mean age 40.9 years, 69.2% male, mean time on LPV/r 3.8 years-40 (34.8%) had hypercholesterolemia (> 2.40 g/L), and 69 (60.0%) had low HDL cholesterol (< 0.40 g/L). Twelve (10.5%), 28 (24%) and 9 (7.7%) patients had a 10-year risk of coronary heart disease ≥ 10% according to the Framingham, D:A:D, and Rama-EGAT score, respectively. Fifty one (44.4%) and 36 (31.3%) patients had not reached their LDL target according to IDSA-AACTG and French recommendations, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of dyslipidemia was high in this cohort of HIV-infected Cambodian patients on LPV/r. Roughly one third had high LDL levels requiring specific intervention.

Use of efavirenz or atazanavir/ritonavir is associated with better clinical outcomes of HAART compared to other protease inhibitors: routine evidence from the Italian MASTER Cohort

Randomized trials and observational cohorts reported higher rates of virological suppression after highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) including efavirenz (EFV), compared with boosted protease inhibitors (PIs). Correlations with immunological and clinical outcomes are unclear. Patients of the Italian MASTER cohort who started HAART from 2000 to 2010 were selected. Outstanding outcome (composite outcome for success (COS)) was introduced. We evaluated predictors of COS (no AIDS plus CD4+ count >500/mm(3)plus HIV-RNA <500 copies/mL) and of eight single outcomes either at month 6 or at year 3. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted. There were 6259 patients selected. Patients on EFV (43%) were younger, had greater CD4+ count, presented with AIDS less frequently, and more were Italians. At year 3, 90% of patients had HIV RNA <500 copies/mL, but only 41.4% were prescribed EFV, vs. 34.1% prescribed boosted PIs achieved COS (p <0.0001). At multivariable analysis, patients on lopinavir/ritonavir had an odds ratio of 0.70 for COS at year 3 (p <0.0001). Foreign origin and positive hepatitis C virus-Ab were independently associated with worse outcome (OR 0.54, p <0.0001 and OR 0.70, p 0.01, respectively). Patients on boosted PIs developed AIDS more frequently either at month 6 (13.8% vs. 7.6%, p <0.0001) or at year 3 (17.1% vs. 13.8%, p <0.0001). At year 3, deaths of patients starting EFV were 3%, vs. 5% on boosted PIs (p 0.008). In this study, naïve patients on EFV performed better than those on boosted PIs after adjustment for imbalances at baseline. Even when virological control is achieved, COS is relatively rare. Hepatitis C virus-positive patients and those of foreign origin are at risk of not obtaining COS.

Durability of the first antiretroviral treatment regimen and reasons for change in patients with HIV infection

BACKGROUND

To study the durability of the drugs and coformulations currently used in the first treatment regimen of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV patients, and to examine the reasons for changing this medication.

METHODS

A retrospective observational multicenter study of patients with HIV infection who started a first-line ART regimen between January 2007 and June 2010. The primary outcome variable was the durability of this first ART regimen until discontinued or amended and the reasons for the change. Survival analysis of durability was performed using Kaplan-Meyer curves analysis, and a Cox multiple regression model was constructed to identify associated factors.

RESULTS

A first-line ART regimen was initiated for 600 patients; after 1 year, it had been changed in 172 (28%) cases, with a median duration of 31 months. The main reason for change was toxicity (20.5% of all patients), followed by loss to follow-up (8.3%) and virological failure (5.3%). The most common type of toxicity was gastrointestinal (30%), followed by cutaneous (23%) and neuropsychiatric (18%). The use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) was associated with greater durability than that of protease inhibitors (43 months vs 21 months; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The durability of the first-line ART regimen, based on current antiretroviral drugs and coformulations, is about 2.5 years, with toxicity being the main reason for its modification. Gastrointestinal toxicity is the type most commonly reported. NNRTI treatment is associated with greater durability of the first treatment regimen.

Effectiveness of efavirenz compared with ritonavir-boosted protease-inhibitor-based regimens as initial therapy for patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA above 100,000 copies/ml

BACKGROUND

There are no clinical trials in which the main objective is to compare the efficacy of efavirenz versus ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r)-based initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) in patients with high plasma HIV-1 RNA levels. This study aims to compare these regimens in this patient population in the setting of routine clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, observational cohort study, including 596 consecutive treatment-naive patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA>100,000 copies/ml initiating efavirenz or PI/r-based ART between 2000 and 2010. The primary effectiveness end point was the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml at week 48 by intent-to-treat analysis.

RESULTS

Among a total of 596 patients, 57% initiated efavirenz and 43% PI/r-regimens (73% lopinavir and fosamprenavir [62% lopinavir, 11% fosamprenavir]). HIV-1 RNA suppression to <50 copies/ml at week 48 was higher in the efavirenz group (84% versus 74% [difference 10%, 95% CI 3.4%, 16.7%; P=0.002]). The percentage of virological failures was similar (efavirenz 4% versus PI/r 4%; P=0.686), but voluntary discontinuations and toxicity-related treatment changes were higher with PI/r (4% versus 1%; P=0.006 and 11% versus 6%; P=0.069, respectively). However, resistance selection at failure was higher in patients receiving efavirenz (89% versus 50%; P=0.203). Efavirenz was significantly more effective than lopinavir/r or fosamprenavir/r, whereas no significant differences were observed between efavirenz and darunavir/r or atazanavir/r. The high viral suppression in the efavirenz group was also evident in patients with very high viral loads (>500,000 copies/ml) and in those with low CD4(+) T-cell counts.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine clinical practice, the effectiveness of initial efavirenz-based regimens was at least similar to or even higher than various PI/r-based regimens in HIV-1-infected patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA>100,000 copies/ml.

Lipid profile of HIV-infected patients in relation to antiretroviral therapy: a review

This study reviewed the lipid profile of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) patients in relation to use of antiretroviral therapy (ART), and its different classes of drugs. A total of 190 articles published in peer-reviewed journals were retrieved from PubMed and LILACS databases; 88 of them met the selection criteria and were included in the review. Patients with HIV/AIDS without ART presented an increase of triglycerides and decreases of total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL-c), and high density lipoprotein (HDL-c) levels. Distinct ART regimens appear to promote different alterations in lipid metabolism. Protease inhibitors, particularly indinavir and lopinavir, were commonly associated with hypercholesterolemia, high LDL-c, low HDL-c, and hypertriglyceridemia. The protease inhibitor atazanavir is apparently associated with a more advantageous lipid profile. Some nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (didanosine, stavudine, and zidovudine) induced lipoatrophy and hypertriglyceridemia, whereas abacavir increased the risk of cardiovascular diseases even in the absence of apparent lipid disorders, and tenofovir resulted in lower levels of cholesterol and triglycerides. Although non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors predisposed to hypertriglyceridemia and hypercholesterolemia, nevirapine was particularly associated with high HDL-c levels, a protective factor against cardiovascular diseases. Therefore, the infection itself, different classes of drugs, and some drugs from the same class of ART appear to exert distinct alterations in lipid metabolism.

[Initial antiretroviral treatment in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in Spain: Decisions made in relation to particular immunovirological characteristics (PERFIL-es study)]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of Perfil-es study was to identify the proportion of patients starting ARV treatment based on NNRTIs or PI/r, and to identify the variables involved in the therapeutic decision-making in standard clinical practice.

METHODS

An observational retrospective study performed in 65 Spanish hospitals.

RESULTS

Was a total of 1,687 starts: 53% with NNRTI-based regimen and 42% with PI/r, and of the 642 patients analyzed, 72% had a CD4 count<350 cells/μl.

CONCLUSION

The initiation of ARV treatment is still late in Spain. NNRTIs are the more frequent choice, although PI/r plays an important role.

Duration of first-line antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir and emtricitabine combined with atazanavir/ritonavir, efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir in the Italian ARCA cohort

OBJECTIVES

To explore the durability of three first-line tenofovir/emtricitabine-based regimens in combination with atazanavir/ritonavir, efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective, longitudinal, multicentre analysis of adult patients enrolled in the Antiretroviral Resistance Cohort Analysis (ARCA), a national prospective observational cohort of HIV-1-infected patients followed up at more than 100 clinical and laboratory units in Italy. Patients eligible were those starting first-line antiretroviral therapy between 1 June 2004 and 15 April 2011 and who were followed up for at least 6 months. The primary endpoint was durability, defined as the time from antiretroviral therapy initiation to first treatment modification. Time-dependent events were analysed by the Kaplan-Meier approach and the Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

There are 26,000 HIV-infected patients in the ARCA database, of whom 1654 met study inclusion criteria. Six hundred and thirty-nine (38.6%) received efavirenz, 321 (19.4%) received atazanavir/ritonavir and 694 (41.9%) received lopinavir/ritonavir as a first-line regimen. Over a total observation period of 88 months, equivalent to more than 2805 person-years of follow-up, 618 patients underwent treatment modification. Lopinavir/ritonavir, given twice daily, was associated with a higher discontinuation rate than efavirenz- and atazanavir-based regimens [hazard ratio (HR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56-2.15, P = 0.001]. Comparing the once-daily regimens, the rate of discontinuation of efavirenz was higher than that of atazanavir/ritonavir (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06-1.83, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in treatment duration were observed among the three studied regimens. Once-daily regimens exhibited greater durability than the twice-daily regimen. Among the specific regimens examined, tenofovir/emtricitabine plus atazanavir/ritonavir showed the greatest durability.

Assessing the effectiveness of antiretroviral regimens in cohort studies involving HIV-positive injection drug users

OBJECTIVE

We compared the effectiveness of different highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens considering, separately, history of injection drug use (IDU) (yes/no). DESIGN, METHODS: A total of 1163 HIV-infected patients initiated HAART between 1 January 2000 and 28 February 2009 in British Columbia, Canada, and were followed until 28 February 2010. HAART effectiveness was measured by the ability to achieve viral suppression below 50 copies/ml at 6 months. We compared HAART regimens containing efavirenz and boosted atazanavir. We developed logistic regression models using different techniques to control for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Among the 1163 patients, 796 (68%) achieved viral suppression at 6 months (32% reporting a history of IDU). Different confounding models yielded very similar odds ratios for achieving viral suppression. Boosted atazanavir-based HAART demonstrated to be the most effective regimen, showing a surprisingly higher benefit for patients with a history of IDU (odds ratios from different models ranged from 1.74-1.95 to 1.45-1.51).

CONCLUSIONS

The literature has conflicting results regarding the effectiveness of HAART to treat HIV infection among those with a history of IDU. We have shown that most patients, with and without a history of IDU, were able to achieve viral suppression at 6 months. Boosted atazanavir-based HAART was the most resilient regimen and it was more effective than efavirenz-based HAART among IDUs. Given the limited inclusion of IDU in clinical trials of HAART's efficacy, a randomized clinical trial comparing different first-line HAART regimens among IDU is warranted based on these results.

Antiretroviral therapy in Indian setting: when & what to start with, when & what to switch to?

With the rapid scale up of antiretroviral therapy, there is a dramatic decline in HIV related morbidity and mortality in both developed and developing countries. Several new safe antiretroviral, and newer class of drugs and monitoring assays are developed recently. As a result the treatment guideline for the management of HIV disease continue to change. This review focuses on evolving science on Indian policy - antiretroviral therapy initiation, which drugs to start with, when to change the initial regimen and what to change.

Pilot, randomized study assessing safety, tolerability and efficacy of simplified LPV/r maintenance therapy in HIV patients on the 1 PI-based regimen

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of an individualized treatment-simplification strategy consisting of switching from a highly-active anti-retroviral treatment (HAART) with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) and 2 nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy, with intensification by 2 NRTIs if necessary, to that of continuing their HAART.

METHODS

This is a one-year, randomized, open-label, multi-center study in virologically-suppressed HIV-1-infected adults on their first PI/r-containing treatment, randomized to either LPV/r-monotherapy or continue their current treatment. Treatment efficacy was determined by plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL), time-to-virologic rebound, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and CD4+T-cell-count changes. Safety was assessed with the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were randomized to LPV/r and 39 to continue their HAART. No statistically-significant differences between the two study groups in demographics and baseline characteristics were observed. At day-360, 71(39:LPV/r;32:HAART) patients completed treatment, while 9(2:LPV/r;7:HAART) discontinued. In a Last Observation Carried Forward Intent-to-Treat analysis, 40(98%) patients on LPV/r and 37(95%) on HAART had VL<200 copies/mL (P = 0.61). Time-to-virologic rebound, changes in PROs, CD4+ T-cell-count and VL from baseline, also exhibited no statistically-significant between-group differences. Most frequent AEs were diarrhea (19%), headache (18%) and influenza (16%). Four (10%) patients on LPV/r were intensified with 2 NRTIs, all regaining virologic control. Eight serious AEs were reported by 5(2:LPV/r;3:HAART) patients.

CONCLUSION

At day-360, virologic efficacy and safety of LPV/r appears comparable to that of a PI+2NRTIs HAART. These results suggest that our individualized, simplified maintenance strategy with LPV/r-monotherapy and protocol-mandated NRTI re-introduction upon viral rebound, in virologically-suppressed patients merits further prospective long-term evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00159224.

Lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected naive children: rare protease inhibitor resistance mutations but high lamivudine/emtricitabine resistance at the time of virologic failure

BACKGROUND

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is now the protease inhibitor regimen of choice in the first-line antiretroviral therapy for children <6 years of age.

METHODS

We included all the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1-infected highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-naive children who started an LPV/r-based regimen between 2000 and 2009 at the Necker Hospital (Paris, France). Virologic failure (VF) was defined as an HIV-RNA ≥50 copies/mL. Resistance genotypic test was performed in case of VF.

RESULTS

A total of 43 children were included at a median age of 4.8 years (1.8-8.0). Median level of HIV RNA and percentage of CD4 cell count was 5.5 log₁₀ copies/mL (4.6-6) and 15% (8-27.5), respectively. HAART included LPV/r and 2 nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, mainly lamivudine (3TC), zidovudine, and/or abacavir. The median follow-up period was 36 months (18-72). Less than 50 copies/mL of HIV RNA was observed in 46%, 67%, and 70% of the children at months 6, 9, and 12, respectively. In all, 20 children (46.5%) experienced a VF. The risk factors of primary VF were a young age and a low socioeconomic status. The genotypic resistance test, performed for 18 of 20 children with VF, revealed 1 LPV/r-resistant virus and protease inhibitor-related major mutations without LPV/r resistance in 2 other children. Of the 18 children with VF, 15 received a 3TC-based HAART: 12 of 15 (80%) harbored a 3TC-resistant virus. No virus resistant to zidovudine or abacavir was found.

CONCLUSION

In all, 70% of HAART-naive children had virologic success at month 12. The selection of LPV-resistant strains was a rare event. A high rate of selection of 3TC-mutations strengthens the recommendation to prefer a first-line 3TC-sparing regimen, particularly for children with risk factors of poor adherence.

A retrospective study of HIV antiretroviral treatment persistence in a commercially insured population in the United States

This study examined factors associated with persistence (time from initiation to discontinuation of treatment) on initial antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in commercially insured HIV patients in the United States, a population not well researched. This retrospective analysis of US health insurance claims data from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2008 included treatment-naive patients aged 18–65 years with an HIV diagnosis receiving ARV therapy consisting of at least two individual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) or one fixed-dose combination NRTI, plus at least one nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or one protease inhibitor (PI), with or without ritonavir. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival estimation, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were completed. Patients were considered persistent until any component of the regimen was modified or there was a gap in treatment > 90 days. A total of 2460 patients met full inclusion criteria (1388 NNRTI and 1072 PI). Mean (SD) time to discontinuation for NNRTI- vs PI-based regimens was 370 (346) vs 295 (338) days (p < 0.001). Female sex, substance use, low comorbidity score, index year before 2007, geographical region, and taking a lopinavir/ritonavir regimen predicted discontinuation. Relative to NNRTI-based regimens, PI-based regimens demonstrated a greater risk of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; p <0.001). The fixed-dose efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir combination yielded the lowest risk of discontinuation (HR, 0.39; p < 0.001). HIV treatment persistence was longer with NNRTI-based regimens than PI-based regimens. The fixed-dose regimen of once-daily efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir had the lowest risk of discontinuation.

Medication persistence in the treatment of HIV infection: a review of the literature and implications for future clinical care and research

Persistence, continuous treatment with a prescribed medication or intervention, is an important, but underrecognized aspect of medication treatment, especially for HIV. In contrast to adherence, which measures the percentage of patient behavior to a prescribed therapy, persistence measures the duration during which a patient remains on a prescribed therapy. Decreased persistence for HIV treatment, or shorter duration on therapy, is associated with increased rates of virological failure, development of antiretroviral resistance, and increased morbidity and mortality. Additionally, frequency and duration of nonpersistent episodes rather than adherence may be a better predictor of clinical outcomes in HIV-infected patients on certain regimens. In this review, we codify the constructs of persistence and adherence, and further define persistence as either patient or regimen persistence. Furthermore, current literature on the clinical consequences of and factors associated with suboptimal persistence is summarized. Finally, methods to measure persistence as well as interventions that may improve persistence and clinical outcomes are suggested.

Association of pharmacogenetic markers with premature discontinuation of first-line anti-HIV therapy: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Poor tolerance and adverse drug reactions are main reasons for discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). Identifying predictors of ART discontinuation is a priority in HIV care.

METHODS

A genetic association study in an observational cohort to evaluate the association of pharmacogenetic markers with time to treatment discontinuation during the first year of ART. Analysis included 577 treatment-naive individuals initiating tenofovir (n = 500) or abacavir (n = 77), with efavirenz (n = 272), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 184), or atazanavir/ritonavir (n = 121). Genotyping included 23 genetic markers in 15 genes associated with toxicity or pharmacokinetics of the study medication. Rates of ART discontinuation between groups with and without genetic risk markers were assessed by survival analysis using Cox regression models.

RESULTS

During the first year of ART, 190 individuals (33%) stopped 1 or more drugs. For efavirenz and atazanavir, individuals with genetic risk markers experienced higher discontinuation rates than individuals without (71.15% vs 28.10%, and 62.5% vs 14.6%, respectively). The efavirenz discontinuation hazard ratio (HR) was 3.14 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-7.33, P = .008). The atazanavir discontinuation HR was 9.13 (95% CI: 3.38-24.69, P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Several pharmacogenetic markers identify individuals at risk for early treatment discontinuation. These markers should be considered for validation in the clinical setting.

A randomized factorial trial comparing 4 treatment regimens in treatment-naive HIV-infected persons with AIDS and/or a CD4 cell count <200 cells/μL in South Africa

BACKGROUND

Few randomized trials comparing antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens have been conducted in resource-limited settings.

METHODS

In the Republic of South Africa, antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals >14 years old with a CD4 cell count <200 cells/μL or a prior AIDS diagnosis were randomized to receive efavirenz (EFV) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) with either zidovudine (ZDV) plus didanosine (ddI) or stavudine (d4T) plus lamivudine (3TC) in an open-label, 2-by-2 factorial study and followed up for the primary outcome of AIDS or death and prespecified secondary outcomes, including CD4 cell count and viral load changes, treatment discontinuation, and grade 4 events.

RESULTS

In total, 1771 persons were randomized and followed up for a median of 24.7 months. AIDS or death occurred in (1) 163 participants assigned EFV and 157 assigned LPV/r (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.84-1.30]) and in (2) 170 participants assigned ZDV+ddI and 150 assigned d4T+3TC (HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.93-1.44]). HIV RNA levels were lower (P < .001) and CD4 cell counts were greater (P < .01) over follow-up for d4T+3TC versus ZDV+ddI. Rates of potentially life-threatening adverse events and overall treatment discontinuation were similar for d4T+3TC and ZDV+ddI; however, more participants discontinued d4T because of toxicity (12.6%) than other treatments (<5%).

CONCLUSION

EFV and LPV/r are effective components of first-line ART. The poorer viral and immune responses with ZDV+ddI and the greater toxicity-associated discontinuation rate with d4T+3TC suggest that these treatments be used cautiously as initial therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00342355.

Phase 2a randomized controlled trial of short-term activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of a novel nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, RDEA806, in HIV-1-positive, antiretroviral-naive subjects

RDEA806 is a novel nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with potent in vitro activity against wild-type and NNRTI-resistant HIV-1. A phase 2a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalating study evaluated the short-term antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of RDEA806 monotherapy in antiretroviral-naïve, HIV-1-infected subjects. The subjects were randomized to four cohorts comprising four dosage regimens and two formulations of RDEA806 or placebo in a 3:1 ratio within each cohort. The investigators were blinded to the results for each cohort. The subjects received RDEA806 or placebo for 7 days. The primary end point was the change in the HIV RNA load from the baseline to day 9 for each of the four RDEA806 dose regimens compared to that achieved with placebo. The RDEA806 PKs and the immune response to RDEA806 were evaluated along with the safety and tolerability of each dose. Of a total of 48 enrolled subjects, 36 subjects (9 in each cohort) were randomized to RDEA806 study drug, and 12 (3 in each cohort) took placebo. A statistically significant decrease in the viral load from the baseline to day 9 was observed for all RDEA806 treatment groups (P<0.001). On day 9, the mean changes in the HIV RNA load from that at the baseline were -1.95 log10 copies/ml (400 mg twice a day), -1.39 log10 copies/ml (600 mg once a day [q.d.]), -1.62 log10 copies/ml (800 mg q.d.), and -1.70 log1) copies/ml (1,000 mg q.d.). The pharmacokinetics were linear and dose proportional. Treatment with RDEA806 was well tolerated, and there were no discontinuations due to adverse events. In conclusion, all doses of RDEA806 were safe and well tolerated and exhibited robust antiretroviral activity in this short-term monotherapy study with antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected subjects. RDEA806 is a potent and promising novel NNRTI.

Virological and immunological responses to efavirenz or boosted lopinavir as first-line therapy for patients with HIV

BACKGROUND

Efavirenz and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir are both recommended as first-line therapies for patients with HIV when combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. It is uncertain which therapy is more effective for patients starting therapy with an advanced infection.

METHODS

We estimated the relative effect of these two therapies on rates of virological and immunological failure within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and considered whether estimates depended on the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. We defined virological failure as either an incomplete virological response or viral rebound after viral suppression and immunological failure as failure to achieve an expected CD4(+) T-cell increase calculated from EuroSIDA statistics.

RESULTS

Patients starting efavirenz (n=660) and lopinavir (n=541) were followed for a median of 4.5 and 3.1 years, respectively. Virological failure was less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.63 (0.50-0.78) then multiplied by a factor of 1.00 (0.90-1.12) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. Immunological failure was also less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio of 0.68 (0.51-0.91) then multiplied by a factor of 1.29 (1.14-1.46) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Virological failure is less likely with efavirenz regardless of the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. Immunological failure is also less likely with efavirenz; however, this advantage disappears if patients start therapy with a low CD4(+) T-cell count.

Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance and the role of the second-generation agents

OBJECTIVE

To review the current state of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance, discuss the promising role of second-generation NNRTIs, and provide insight into their clinical utility.

DATA SOURCES

Articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (May 2000-August 2009) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (May 1998-August 2009), using the key words etravirine, rilpivirine, TMC125, TMC278, diarylpyrimidine, NNRTI, and resistance.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Clinical trials, resistance studies, and pharmacokinetic data were selected for review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

NNRTIs are an integral class of antiretroviral agents utilized for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. These agents have become preferred therapy options for treatment-naïve individuals per treatment guideline recommendations and have gained increased popularity over protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy. However, available NNRTIs possess inherent characteristics, such as low genetic barrier to resistance and high degree of cross-resistance, that limit their use in HIV therapy. Due to the growing utilization of this highly efficacious antiretroviral class and the increased capability for resistance development, many HIV-infected patients have experienced treatment failure of an NNRTI. Cross-resistance makes other first-generation NNRTI agents unavailable for future use. Etravirine and rilpivirine are second-generation NNRTIs that are not significantly hampered by cross-resistance and possess potent antiretroviral activity against current NNRTI-resistant viral strains. These agents provide new and important therapy options for many HIV-infected patients.

CONCLUSIONS

NNRTI resistance is an increasing problem that may impair the chances for therapeutic success in HIV-infected patients. Novel agents such as etravirine and rilpivirine provide new, sensitive options for patients and significantly improve the rate of virologic suppression when appropriately applied.

Efavirenz: a decade of clinical experience in the treatment of HIV

Efavirenz, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has been an important component of the treatment of HIV infection for 10 years and has contributed significantly to the evolution of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The efficacy of efavirenz has been established in numerous randomized trials and observational studies in HAART-naive patients, including those with advanced infection. In the ACTG A5142 study, efavirenz showed greater virological efficacy than the boosted protease inhibitor (PI), lopinavir. Efavirenz is more effective as a third agent than unboosted PIs or the nucleoside analogue abacavir. Some, but not all, studies have suggested that efavirenz (added to two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors) is more effective than nevirapine. Virological and immunological responses achieved with efavirenz-based HAART have been maintained for 7 years. Dosing convenience predicts adherence, and studies have demonstrated that patients can be switched from PI-based therapy to simplified, once-daily efavirenz-based regimens without losing virological control. The one-pill, once-daily formulation of efavirenz plus tenofovir and emtricitabine offers a particular advantage in this regard. Efavirenz also retains a role after failure of a first PI-based regimen. Efavirenz is generally well tolerated: rash and neuropsychiatric disturbances are the most notable adverse events. Neuropsychiatric disturbances generally develop early in treatment and they tend to resolve with continued administration, but they are persistent and troubling in a minority of patients. Efavirenz has less effect on plasma lipid profiles than some boosted PIs. Lipodystrophy can occur under treatment with efavirenz but it may be reduced if the concurrent use of thymidine analogues is avoided. Efavirenz resistance mutations (especially K103N) can be selected during long-term treatment, underscoring the importance of good adherence. Recent data have confirmed that efavirenz is a cost-effective option for first-line HAART. In light of these features, efavirenz retains a key role in HIV treatment strategies and is the first-line agent recommended in some guidelines.

Two-year outcomes of children on non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and protease inhibitor regimens in a South African pediatric antiretroviral program

BACKGROUND

Few data exist on the efficacy of the limited regimens for children with HIV, which are available in sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study to evaluate the clinical and laboratory outcomes of 391 children who received protease inhibitor (PI) or non-nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor (nNRTI)-containing highly active antiretroviral regimens (HAART) from a Cape Town clinic. Endpoints included CD4% and count, viral loads, weight-for-age Z score (WAZ), survival, drug changes, and loss to follow-up over 24 months. A generalized estimating equation population-averaged model was used to identify associations with virological suppression, and a log-rank test explored associations with survival.

RESULTS

Overall, this cohort achieved a sustained doubling of median CD4% from baseline, steady increase of median WAZ, and survival of 91%, despite only 49% virologic suppression at 24 months. However, when analyzed according to regimen, PI-containing regimens had better virologic suppression at all time points. There were no differences in immunologic and growth endpoints between regimens or in survival. In a multivariate model predicting virologic suppression at any duration up to 24 months and adjusting for baseline CD4%, regimen, age, baseline WAZ, duration of HAART, and year of HAART initiation, nNRTI-based regimens (odds ratio [OR]: 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19-0.77) and length of time on HAART were inversely associated with virologic suppression. Age (OR: 1.23 per year; 95% CI: 1.09-1.39) was positively associated with virologic suppression.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of HAART are substantial in this setting, although PI regimens achieved greater virologic suppression than nNRTIs. Further exploration of regimens and dosing of antiretrovirals for children in these settings is needed.