Protease inhibitor monotherapy and the CNS: peace of mind?

Brain Perfusion, Regional Volumes, and Cognitive Function in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-positive Patients Treated With Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor monotherapy (PIM) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may exert suboptimal viral control in the central nervous system. We determined whether cerebral blood flow (CBF) and regional brain volumes were associated with PIM, and whether specific cognitive domains were associated with imaging biomarkers.

METHODS

Cognitive assessments and brain magnetic resonance imaging were performed after the final visit of a randomized HIV-treatment strategy trial. Participants were virologically suppressed on triple therapy at trial entry and followed for 3-5 years. We studied 37 patients randomized to ongoing triple therapy and 39 randomized to PIM. Resting CBF and normalized volumes were calculated for brain regions of interest, and correlated with treatment strategy and neuropsychological performance.

RESULTS

Mean age was 48.1 years (standard deviation 8.6 years), 63 male (83%), and 64 white (84%). Participants had median 8.1 years (interquartile range 6.4, 10.8) of antiretroviral therapy experience and CD4+ counts of median 640 cells/mm3 (interquartile range 490, 780). We found no difference between treatment arms in CBF or regional volumes. Regardless of treatment arm, poorer fine motor performance correlated with lower CBF in the caudate nucleus (P = .01), thalamus (P = .04), frontal cortex (P = .01), occipital cortex (P = .004), and cingulate cortex (P = .02), and was associated with smaller supratentorial white matter volume (decrease of 0.16 in Z-score per -1% of intracranial volume, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.29; P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

PIM does not confer an additional risk of neurological injury compared with triple therapy. There were correlations between fine motor impairment, grey matter hypoperfusion, and white matter volume loss.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

ISRCTN-04857074.

Neurotoxicity in the Post-HAART Era: Caution for the Antiretroviral Therapeutics

Despite the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), HIV-associated neurological disorders (HAND) remain a major challenge in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment. The early implementation of HAART in the infected individuals helps suppress the viral replication in the plasma and other compartments. Several studies also report the beneficial effect of drugs that successfully penetrate central nervous system (CNS). However, recent data in both clinical setup and in in vitro studies indicate CNS toxicity of the antiretrovirals (ARVs). Although the evidence is limited, correlation between prolonged use of ARVs and neurotoxicity strongly suggests that it is essential to study the underlying mechanisms responsible for such toxicity. Furthermore, closer attention toward clinical outcomes is required to screen various ARV regimens for their association with HAND and other comorbidities. A growing body of literature also indicates a possible role of accelerated aging in the antiretroviral therapy-associated neurotoxicity. Lastly, owing to high pill burden, multiple drugs in the HIV treatment also invite a possible role of drug-drug interaction via various cytochrome P450 enzymes. The particular emphasis of this review is to highlight the need to identify alternative approaches in reducing the CNS toxicity of the ARV drugs in HIV-infected individuals.

Efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy vs. triple therapy: meta-analysis of data from 2303 patients in 13 randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to review the evidence and update a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy.

METHODS

A PubMed/EMBASE search was conducted to find randomized trials of PI/r monotherapy vs. triple therapy in patients with HIV-1 RNA suppression at baseline (<50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL). Rates of virological suppression were analysed using switch-equals-failure and intensification-included endpoints [intent-to-treat (ITT)]. The rate of treatment-emergent resistance mutations, neurocognitive function endpoints, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) HIV-1 RNA were also analysed by treatment arm.

RESULTS

There were 2303 patients from 13 different randomized clinical trials of darunavir/r monotherapy (n = 784: MONET, MONOI, Monarch and PROTEA), lopinavir/r monotherapy (n = 829: OK pilot, OK-04, KalMo, KALESOLO, KRETA, MOST and DREAM), atazanavir/r monotherapy (n = 103: MODAT), or all three (n = 587: PIVOT). HIV-1 RNA plasma suppression was lower in the PI/r monotherapy arm compared with the triple therapy arm in the switch-equals-failure analysis [difference -8.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.9 to -4.8%], but not when intensification was included (difference 0.5%; 95% CI -2.5 to 3.6%). Rates of resistance mutations were similar between arms, as was overall neurocognitive function.

CONCLUSIONS

PI/r monotherapy showed a higher risk of plasma HIV-1 RNA elevations. However, there was no increased risk of treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive endpoints did not differ, and HIV-1 RNA suppression rates after intensification were similar between PI/r monotherapy and triple therapy.

Week 48 efficacy and central nervous system analysis of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus darunavir/ritonavir with two nucleoside analogues

BACKGROUND

In previous studies in virologically suppressed patients, protease inhibitor monotherapy has shown trends for more low-level elevations in HIV-1 RNA compared with triple therapy, but no increase in the risk of drug resistance.

METHODS

A total of 273 patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml on first-line antiretrovirals switched to darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n = 137) or as triple therapy with two nucleoside analogues (n = 136). Treatment failure was defined as HIV-1 RNA levels 50 copies/ml or above, or discontinuation of study treatment by week 48 (FDA Snapshot algorithm).

RESULTS

Patients were 83% male and 88% white, with mean age 42 years. In the primary efficacy analysis, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml by week 48 [intention-to-treat (ITT)] was 118 of 137 (86%) in the DRV/r monotherapy arm versus 129 of 136 (95%) in the triple therapy arm (difference = -8.7%, 95% confidence interval -15.50, -1.80). In a post-hoc analysis, for patients with nadir CD4 cell count 200 cells/μl or above, rates of HIV-1 RNA suppression were 91 of 96 (95%) in the DRV/r monotherapy arm and 100 of 106 (94%) in the triple therapy arm. There was no difference in neurocognitive function or the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events between DRV/r monotherapy and triple therapy. Two patients in the monotherapy arm with CD4 nadir less than 200 cells/μl developed viraemia in both cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma, with one symptomatic case.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study for patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at baseline, switching to DRV/r monotherapy showed lower efficacy versus triple therapy at week 48 in the primary ITT switch equals failure analysis, with two cases of viraemia in the CSF in the protease inhibitor monotherapy arm.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antiretrovirals in the central nervous system

HIV-positive patients may be effectively treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy and such a strategy is associated with striking immune recovery and viral load reduction to very low levels. Despite undeniable results, the central nervous system (CNS) is commonly affected during the course of HIV infection, with neurocognitive disorders being as prevalent as 20-50 % of treated subjects. This review discusses the pathophysiology of CNS infection by HIV and the barriers to efficacious control of such a mechanism, including the available data on compartmental drug penetration and on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships. In the reviewed articles, a high variability in drug transfer to the CNS is highlighted with several mechanisms as well as methodological issues potentially influencing the observed results. Nevirapine and zidovudine showed the highest cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to plasma ratios, although target concentrations are currently unknown for the CNS. The use of the composite CSF concentration effectiveness score has been associated with better virological outcomes (lower HIV RNA) but has been inconsistently associated with neurocognitive outcomes. These findings support the CNS effectiveness of commonly used highly antiretroviral therapies. The use of antiretroviral drugs with increased CSF penetration and/or effectiveness in treating or preventing neurocognitive disorders however needs to be assessed in well-designed prospective studies.

Dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides in virologically stable patients with HIV-1 (SALT): 48 week results from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Problems associated with lifelong antiretroviral therapy, such as need for strict adherence, drug-related toxic effects, difficulties with treatment schedules, and cost, mean that simplification strategies should be sought. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine as an option to switch to from standard combination antiretroviral therapy in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed.

METHODS

In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with chronic HIV-1 infection and no previous treatment failure or resistance, and with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL for at least 6 months, negative hepatitis B virus surface antigen, and good general health, from 30 hospitals in Spain. Exclusion criteria were switch in antiretroviral therapy during the previous 4 months, previous virological failure, pregnancy or breastfeeding, Gilbert's syndrome, use of contraindicated drugs, grade 4 laboratory abnormalities, and previous intolerance to any of the study drugs. We randomly assigned patients (1:1; stratified by active hepatitis C virus infection and previous treatment; computer-generated random number sequence) to dual treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or triple treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at the discretion of the investigators. The primary endpoint was virological response, defined as HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, in the per-protocol population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug in the safety analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307488.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 29, 2011, and May 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 286 patients (143 [50%] to each group). At week 48 in the per-protocol population, 112 (84%) of 133 patients had virological response in the dual-treatment group versus 105 (78%) of 135 in the triple-treatment group (difference 6% [95% CI -5 to 16%), showing non-inferiority at the prespecified level. 14 (5%) patients developed severe adverse events (dual treatment six [4%]; triple treatment eight [6%]), none of which we deemed related to the study drug. Grade 3-4 adverse events were similar between groups (dual treatment 77 [55%] of 140; triple treatment 78 [55%] of 141). Treatment discontinuations were less frequent in the dual-treatment group (three [2%]) than in the triple-treatment group (ten [7%]; p=0·047).

INTERPRETATION

In our trial, dual treatment was effective, safe, and non-inferior to triple treatment in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed who switch antiretroviral therapy because of toxic effects, intolerance, or simplification. This combination has the potential to suppress some of the long-term toxic effects associated with nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, preserve future treatment options, and reduce the cost of antiretroviral therapy.

FUNDING

Bristol Myers-Squibb and Fundación SEIMC-GESIDA.

HIV-1, HCV and alcohol in the CNS: potential interactions and effects on neuroinflammation

Approximately 25% of the HIV-1 positive population is also infected with HCV. The effects of alcohol on HIV-1 or HCV infection have been a research topic of interest due to the high prevalence of alcohol use in these infected patient populations. Although it has long been known that HIV-1 infects the brain, it has only been a little more than a decade since HCV infection of the CNS has been characterized. Both viruses are capable of infecting and replicating in microglia and increasing the expression of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines, including IL-6 and IL-8. Investigations focusing on the effects of HIV-1, HCV or alcohol on neuroinflammation have demonstrated that these agents are capable of acting through overlapping signaling pathways, including MAPK signaling molecules. In addition, HIV-1, HCV and alcohol have been demonstrated to increase permeability of the blood-brain barrier. Patients infected with either HIV-1 or HCV, or those who use alcohol, exhibit metabolic abnormalities in the CNS that result in altered levels of n-acetyl aspartate, choline and creatine in various regions of the brain. Treatment of HIV/HCV co-infection in alcohol users is complicated by drug-drug interactions, as well as the effects of alcohol on drug metabolism. The drug-drug interactions between the antiretrovirals and the antivirals, as well as the effects of alcohol on drug metabolism, complicate existing models of CNS penetration, making it difficult to assess the efficacy of treatment on CNS infection.

Short communication: focal encephalitis related to viral escape and resistance emergence in cerebrospinal fluid in a patient on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA suppression

Monotherapy with boosted protease inhibitors has emerged as an antiretroviral therapy simplification alternative for selected patients, endorsed by the results of some randomized clinical trials. However, there are some concerns about the efficacy of such a strategy in achieving successful viral suppression in those anatomic compartments or reservoirs in which antiretroviral drug penetration is lower, such as the central nervous system (CNS). Several studies have demonstrated better neurocognitive performance in patients receiving antiretroviral drugs with better cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) penetration. Nevertheless, cases of CSF viral escape accompanied by moderate or severe neurological symptoms have been reported with both standard triple therapy and boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy, and it is not well established whether ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy is associated with a higher risk of symptomatic CSF viral escape or not. Herein, we present a case of viral rebound and resistance emergence exclusively in CSF associated with an unusual clinical manifestation of focal encephalitis in a patient with plasma HIV-1 RNA suppression while receiving lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. Clinical resolution and CSF viral suppression were observed after switching to a genotype-guided combined antiretroviral regimen with good CSF penetration.

Pattern of neurocognitive function in patients receiving boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy: a detailed neuropsychological study

It is unknown if, compared to a triple drug antiretroviral therapy, boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy leads to worse results in specific neuropsychological processes. In our study, we included patients virologically suppressed (≥1 year), on antiretroviral therapy, without concomitant major neurocognitive confounders, receiving boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy (n = 96) or as triple therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (n = 95). All patients underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery (14 neuropsychological measures, covering seven domains). Both groups were compared in average score distributions and rates of neuropsychological deficits. Similar comparisons were conducted only for patients with neurocognitive impairment. In the adjusted analysis, we found only small differences between groups in the entire sample: better verbal learning (p = 0.02; d = 0.28) and verbal recall scores (p < 0.01; d = 0.25) in patients on boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy and slightly better motor skills with dominant hand (p = 0.02; d = 0.23) scores in patients on triple therapy. No greater proportion of deficits in the protease inhibitor monotherapy group was found in any neuropsychological measure. In neurocognitively impaired patients, we found similar outcomes in verbal learning, verbal recall, and motor skills with dominant hand but with larger effect sizes. Close similarities in the neurocognitive pattern between groups question the clinical relevance of the number of neuroactive drugs included in the regimen. These results also suggest that peripheral viral load control may be a good indicator of brain protection.

Neurological and psychiatric adverse effects of antiretroviral drugs

Antiretroviral drugs are associated with a variety of adverse effects on the central and peripheral nervous systems. The frequency and severity of neuropsychiatric adverse events is highly variable, with differences between the antiretroviral classes and amongst the individual drugs in each class. In the developing world, where the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) stavudine remains a commonly prescribed antiretroviral, peripheral neuropathy is an important complication of treatment. Importantly, this clinical entity is often difficult to distinguish from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-induced peripheral neuropathy. Several clinical trials have addressed the efficacy of various agents in the treatment of NRTI-induced neurotoxicity. NRTI-induced neurotoxicity is caused by inhibition of mitochondrial DNA polymerase. This mechanism is also responsible for the mitochondrial myopathy and lactic acidosis that occur with zidovudine. NRTIs, particularly zidovudine and abacavir, may also cause central nervous system (CNS) manifestations, including mania and psychosis. The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) efavirenz is perhaps the antiretroviral most commonly associated with CNS toxicity, causing insomnia, irritability and vivid dreams. Recent studies have suggested that the risk of developing these adverse effects is increased in patients with various cytochrome P450 2B6 alleles. Protease inhibitors cause perioral paraesthesias and may indirectly increase the relative risk of stroke by promoting atherogenesis. HIV integrase inhibitors, C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) inhibitors and fusion inhibitors rarely cause neuropsychiatric manifestations.

Neurocognitive impairment in patients treated with protease inhibitor monotherapy or triple drug antiretroviral therapy

Background

In patients who remain virologically suppressed in plasma with triple-drug ART a switch to protease inhibitor monotherapy maintains high rates of suppression; however it is unknown if protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated to a higher rate of neurocognitive impairment.

Methods

In this observational, cross-sectional study we included patients with plasma virological suppression (≥1 year) without concomitant major neurocognitive confounders, currently receiving for ≥1 year boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy or as triple ART. Neurocognitive impairment was defined as per the 2007 consensus of the American Association of Neurology. The association between neurocognitive impairment and protease inhibitor monotherapy, adjusted by significant confounders, was analysed.

Results

Of the 191 included patients - triple therapy: 96, 1–2 years of monotherapy: 40 and >2 years of monotherapy: 55 - proportions (95% CI) with neurocognitive impairment were: overall, 27.2% (20.9–33.6); triple therapy, 31.6% (22.1–41.0); short-term monotherapy, 25.0% (11.3–38.7); long-term monotherapy: 21.4% (10.5–32.3); p = 0.38. In all groups, neurocognitive impairment was mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic by self-report. There were not significant differences in Global Deficit Score by group. In the regression model confounding variables for neurocognitive impairment were years on ART, ethnicity, years of education, transmission category and the HOMA index. Adjusted by these variables the Odds Ratio (95% CI) for neurocognitive impairment of patients receiving short-term monotherapy was 0.85 (0.29–2.50) and for long-term monotherapy 0.40 (0.14–1.15).

Conclusions

Compared to triple drug antiretroviral therapy, monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir in patients with adequate plasma suppression was not associated with a higher rate of asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment than triple drug ART.

Screening for HIV-related neurocognitive impairment in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities

With increasingly successful management of HIV, focus has shifted away from AIDS-related complications to other chronic co-morbidities. For HIV-related cognitive problems, the true aetiopathogenesis and epidemiology remains unclear. Rather than a systematic review, this paper presents the challenges and the opportunities we faced in establishing our own clinical service. Papers were identified using Pubmed and the terms "screening", "HIV" and "neurocognitive". This article covers the background of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) with a focus on HIV-related neurocognitive impairment (NCI), detailing classification, prevalence, diagnostic categories and diagnostic uncertainties. Screening is discussed, including a comparison of the available screening tools for cognitive deficits in HIV-infected patients and the importance of practice effects. Discussed also are the normal ranges and the lack thereof and potential investigations for those found to have impairments. We conclude by discussing the role of NCI screening in routine clinical care at the current time.

Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy in HIV-infected adults: outputs from a pan-European expert panel meeting

While the introduction of combination highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens represents an important advance in the management of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients, tolerability can be an issue and the use of several different agents may produce problems. The switch of combination HAART to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy may offer the opportunity to maintain antiviral efficacy while reducing treatment complexity and the risks of toxicity. Current European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) guidelines recognise ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy with twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir or once-daily darunavir/ritonavir as a possible option in patients who have intolerance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, or for treatment simplification. Clinical trials data for PI boosted monotherapy are encouraging, showing substantial efficacy in the majority of patients; however, further data are required before this approach can be recommended as a routine treatment. Available data indicate that the most suitable candidates for the use of boosted PI monotherapy are long-term virologically suppressed patients who have demonstrated good adherence to antiretroviral therapy, who do not have chronic hepatitis B, have no history of treatment failure on PIs and are able to tolerate low-dose ritonavir.

Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy as a maintenance strategy: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (BPIMT) initiated as a maintenance strategy in routine care and identify predictive factors of failure.

DESIGN

Observational study in the FHDH-ANRS CO4 cohort.

METHODS

Five hundred and twenty-nine virologically suppressed individuals switched to BPIMT in the period 2006-2010, 75% had at least 12 and 49% at least 24 months of follow-up. Virological failure (two consecutive HIV-RNA > 50 copies/ml or one HIV-RNA > 50 copies/ml followed by BPIMT discontinuation) and treatment failure (virological failure, antiretroviral reintensification or death) were analysed separately.

RESULTS

At baseline, 11% were protease inhibitor-naive, median duration on combined antiretroviral therapy was 84 months and median duration of suppressed viremia was 38 months. Nine percent had a history of virological failure, while on a protease inhibitor-containing regimen, and rates of virological failure were higher among those individuals [adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9-2.9]. Compared to individuals with less than 1 year of sustained virological suppression before the switch to BPIMT, those with longer duration were less likely to experience virological failure [hazard ratio, 0.7; (95% CI, 0.4-1.2) and 0.6 (95%CI, 0.4-0.9)] for a duration of 12-23 months and 24 months or more, respectively. Rates of failure were similar for BPIMT with lopinavir-ritonavir (RTV) or darunavir-RTV, but increased for BPIMT with atazanavir-RTV. Same risk factors were associated with treatment failure.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of a maintenance strategy with BPIMT in a routine care setting matched the results of randomized clinical trials. A longer duration since last virological rebound before switching to BPIMT was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent failure.

Neurocognitive impairment in patients randomized to second-line lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy vs. lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy

We compared rates of neurocognitive impairment (NCI) among 93 Thai adults failing non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) before and after switching to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy (mLPV/r) vs. tenofovir/lamivudine/LPV/r (TDF/3TC/LPV/r). Participants completed the Color Trails 1 and 2, Digit Symbol, and Grooved Pegboard at weeks 0, 24, and 48. We calculated z-scores using normative data from 451 healthy HIV-negative Thais. We defined NCI as performance of <-1 SD on ≥2 tests. The Thai depression inventory was used to capture depressive symptoms. Lumbar puncture was optional at week 0 and 48. At baseline, median (IQR) age was 36.9 (32.8-40.5) years, and 46 % had primary school education or lower. The median CD4 count was 196 (107-292) cells/mm(3), and plasma HIV RNA was 4.1 (3.6-4.5) log(10) copies/ml. Almost all (97 %) had circulating recombinant CRF01_AE. At baseline, 20 (47 %) of the mLPV/r vs. 22 (44 %) of TDF/3TC/LPV/r arms met NCI criteria (p = 0.89). The frequency of NCI at week 48 was 30 vs. 32 % (p = 0.85) with 6 vs. 7 % (p = 0.85) developing NCI in the mLPV/r vs. TDF/3TC/LPV/r arms, respectively. Having NCI at baseline and lower education each predicted NCI at week 48. Depression scores at week 48 did not differ between arms (p = 0.47). Cerebrospinal fluid HIV RNA of <50 copies/ml at 48 weeks was observed in five out of seven in mLPV/r vs. three out of four in TDF/3TC/LPV/r arm. The rates of NCI and depression did not differ among cases failing NNRTI-based cART who received mLPV/r compared to LPV/r triple therapy.

Human immunodeficiency virus and the central nervous system

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) continues to infect large numbers of people, including children, worldwide. The virus produces much of its clinical impact by infecting cellular components of the immune system. However, HIV also has the propensity to infect the brain, where it can induce substantial pathology and impair brain function. Highly active antiretroviral therapy has reduced the severity and prevalence of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders. Nevertheless, substantial morbidity and mortality continue to stem from HIV infection of the nervous system. This article reviews the pathogenesis of HIV-induced central nervous system disease, the pathological and clinical effects of HIV infection within the brain, and the controversies and challenges of the use of highly active antiretroviral therapy for prevention and treatment of HIV-induced central nervous system dysfunction.

The MONET trial: week 144 analysis of the efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy versus DRV/r plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, for patients with viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at baseline

BACKGROUND

In the MONotherapy in Europe with Tmc114 (MONET) trial, darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy showed noninferior efficacy vs. two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus DRV/r at the primary 48-week analysis. The trial was continued to week 144 to assess the durability of the results.

METHODS

A total of 256 patients with viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL on current highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) for at least 6 months switched to DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n=127) or with two NRTIs (n=129). Treatment failure was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA levels above 50 copies/mL [time to loss of virological response (TLOVR)] by week 144, or discontinuation of study drugs.

RESULTS

Eighty-one per cent of patients were male and 91% were Caucasian, and they had a median baseline CD4 count of 575 cells/uL. More patients in the DRV/r monotherapy arm had hepatitis C virus coinfection at baseline than in the control arm (18% vs. 12%, respectively). By week 144, the percentage of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL [intent to treat (ITT), TLOVR, switch=failure method] was 69% vs. 75% in the DRV/r monotherapy and triple therapy arms [difference= -5.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.9%, +5.1%]; by a strict ITT analysis (switches not considered failures), the percentage of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL was 84% vs. 83.5%, respectively (difference= +0.5%; 95% CI -8.7%, +9.7%). Twenty-one and 13 patients had two consecutive HIV RNA results above 50 copies/mL in the DRV/r monotherapy arm and triple therapy arm, respectively, of whom 18 of 21 (86%) and 10 of 13 (77%) had HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 144.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, for patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at baseline, switching to DRV/r monotherapy showed noninferior efficacy to DRV/r plus two NRTIs in a strict ITT (switches not considered failures) analysis, but not in a TLOVR switch equals failure analysis.

Long-term treatment outcomes of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir monotherapy among HIV-infected patients who experienced NRTI and NNRTI failure

Background

We continue the previously described prospective cohort study of ritonovir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) monotherapy for second-line therapy in HIV-infected patients with prior failure and extensive resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), with the objective being to determine the three-year treatment responses.

Findings

There were 40 patients with a mean ± SD age of 37 ± 8 years. Median (IQR) baseline CD4 was 123 (37-245) cells/mm³ and median (IQR) HIV-1 RNA was 55,800 (9,670-100,000) copies/mL. All patients received twice daily LPV/r 400/100 mg and recycled lamivudine 150 mg. By intend-to-treat analysis at 144 weeks, 26 (65%) and 22 (56%) patients achieved HIV-1 RNA at < 400 and < 50 copies/mL, respectively. In as-treated analysis, the corresponding rates were 26 of 28 (93%) and 22 of 28 (78%), respectively. Low-level viral rebound (HIV-1 RNA 50-400 copies/mL) was found in 6 (15%), 6 (15%), and 4 (10%) patients at week 48, 96 and week 144, respectively. Medians CD4 at week 48, 96, and 144 were 351, 481, and 584 cells/mm³ and significantly changed from baseline (all, P < 0.05). There were increments of mean triglycerides at 48 weeks and 144 weeks from baseline (P < 0.05). No major protease resistance-associated mutations emerged after virologic failure.

Conclusion

LPV/r monotherapy with recycled lamivudine can maintain long-term virologic suppression in a relatively small proportion of patients failing NNRTI-based regimen and having limit option for active NRTI. More antiretroviral classes are needed be accessible in resource-limited countries.