Long-term efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: week 96 results from the MONOI ANRS 136 study

Observational study to evaluate discontinuation of monotherapy with cobicistat-boosted darunavir in patients with human immunodeficiency virus

To evaluate the reasons for changing to monotherapy with protease inhibitors, together with the proportion and reasons for the interruption to treatment, in patients who have been treated at some point with cobicistat-boosted darunavir (DRV/c). Outpatients in a tertiary hospital. Observational retrospective study to evaluate monotherapy with DRV/c (800 mg/150 mg) in adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection, from December 2014 to July 2022. Demographic variables, viral load, cluster of differentiation 4 lymphocyte lymphocyte count, and antiretroviral therapy were assessed. 42 patients were included. 36% of the patients were undergoing monotherapy at the time of the analysis. The main reason for discontinuation was poor adherence. At time of analysis, 80% of the patients in monotherapy had an undetectable viral load. Antiretroviral therapy recommendations advise against exposing the patient to functional monotherapy with a single drug due to the high risk of virological failure and the onset of resistance to a single drug. Following the analysis of the results, DRV/c in monotherapy is not an effective strategy in the medium and long term due to factors such as lack of adherence or virological failure, although it can be maintained in specific circumstances. Therefore, patients undergoing monotherapy require close monitoring.

Evaluation of HIV-1 reservoir levels as possible markers for virological failure during boosted darunavir monotherapy

BACKGROUND

The gold standard for HIV-1 treatment is to administer triple antiretroviral therapy, but a shift to simplified regimens is being explored. Boosted darunavir monotherapy can be considered for patients who are for specific reasons not good candidates for dual or triple therapy. Still, a number of patients fail virologically or need to switch treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictive markers for those patients that are more likely to sustain virological control under monotherapy, virological and immunological markers were explored in HIV-1-positive patients that experienced virological failure on ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy in the PROTEA trial.

METHODS

As a retrospective nested study of the PROTEA study (NCT01448707), we analysed 77 HIV-1-infected patients who were on darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg monotherapy up to 96 weeks. Patients were appointed to three distinct cohorts based on viral loads (VLs): (i) undetectable VL after 96 weeks; (ii) very-low-level viraemia (5-39 copies/mL); and (iii) failing treatment. Total HIV-1 DNA, integrated HIV-1 DNA and 2-long terminal repeat circular HIV-1 DNA (2LTR circles) were measured in PBMCs at baseline, week 48 and week 96.

RESULTS

Total HIV-1 DNA and integrated HIV-1 DNA at baseline differed significantly between patients who experienced virological failure on monotherapy (P < 0.01 and P < 0.001). Although a higher level of HIV-1 DNA was measured in failures, this marker by itself does not provide enough predictive value to prospectively predict virological failure in patients on monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV-1 reservoir markers correlate with therapy failure in ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy. However, their role as a predictive marker combined with other markers in a routine clinical setting should be further explored.

Ultrasensitive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Viral Load as a Marker of Treatment Choice for Simplification Strategies

Background

Using 3 randomized Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy studies: Kalesolo, Dream and Monoi, we performed a pooled-analysis. Our objective was to determine in PI monotherapy and standard tritherapy: 1) distribution of ultrasensitive viral load (USVL) at week 96 (W96); 2) factors associated with virological failure (VF) at W96 and 3) factors associated with USVL<1 copy at W96.

Methods

VF was defined as 2 consecutive measurements of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 RNA viral load>50 copies/mL and analysed in Intention-To-Treat. A logistic model was used to investigate which variables were predictive of a VF and Fisher test to investigate differences in USVL at W96.

Results

Among 609 patients, 73% were male with median age of 44.4 years (IQR 39.8-52.1), baseline CD4/CD8 ratio was 0.8 (IQR 0.6-1.10), baseline CD4 was 564.5/mm3 (IQR 422-707) and 59% presented a baseline USVL<1 copy/mL. At W96, the proportion of USVL<1 copy/mL was significantly different between PI monotherapy and standard tritherapy in pooled-analysis (65% versus 74%; p=0.04). Overall, baseline USVL<1copy/mL, tritherapy and to be a female were associated with USVL<1 copy/mL at W96 (p<0.0001, p=0.049 and p=0.006). In PI monotherapy receiving DRV/r was associated with USVL<1 copy/mL at W96 (p=0.003). Factors associated to virological succes at W96 were higher baseline CD4 (p=0.034) and baseline USVL<1 copy/mL (p=0.0005).

Conclusion

Pooled-analysis of 3 PI monotherapy trials showed better efficacy of tritherapy in terms of USVL at W96. Furthermore regarding USVL at W96, to receive LPV/r seems to be more deleterious than DRV/r. Baseline USVL impacts VF at W96 more specifically in tritherapy arm.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT00421551, NCT00946595, and NCT00140751.

Week 96 efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in virologically suppressed patients with HIV: a randomized non-inferiority trial (ANRS 140 DREAM)

Background

Sparing of antiretroviral drug classes could reduce the toxicity and cost of maintenance treatment for HIV infection.

Objectives

To evaluate the non-inferiority of efficacy and the safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (r) monotherapy versus a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) over 2 years.

Methods

Adults on stable ART with plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load <50 copies/mL for the past 12 months and no documented treatment failure were randomized to receive either lopinavir/r or EFV/FTC/TDF for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 (viral load <50 copies/mL at week 96, confirmed at week 98), without study treatment discontinuation, a new AIDS-defining illness, or death.

Results

In the ITT analysis, the primary endpoint was reached by, respectively, 64% and 71% of patients in the lopinavir/r (n = 98) and EFV/FTC/TDF arms (n = 97), yielding a difference of -6.8% (lower limit of the 95% two-sided CI: -19.9%). Sanger and UltraDeep sequencing showed the occurrence of PI mutations in the lopinavir/r arm (n = 4) and of NNRTI and/or NRTI mutations in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (n = 2). No unexpected serious clinical events occurred.

Conclusions

Lopinavir/r monotherapy cannot be considered non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF. PI resistance rarely emerged in the lopinavir/r arm and did not undermine future PI options. Two years of lopinavir/r monotherapy had no deleterious clinical impact when compared with EFV/FTC/TDF.

Four-days-a-week antiretroviral maintenance therapy in virologically controlled HIV-1-infected adults: the ANRS 162-4D trial

Background

Intermittent treatment could improve the convenience, tolerability and cost of ART, as well as patients' quality of life. We conducted a 48 week multicentre study of a 4-days-a-week antiretroviral regimen in adults with controlled HIV-1-RNA plasma viral load (VL).

Methods

Eligible patients were adults with VL < 50 copies/mL for at least 1 year on triple therapy with a ritonavir-boosted PI (PI/r) or an NNRTI. The study protocol consisted of the same regimen taken on four consecutive days per week followed by a 3 day drug interruption. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants remaining in the strategy with VL < 50 copies/mL up to week 48. The study was designed to show an observed success rate of > 90%, with a power of 87% and a 5% type 1 error. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02157311) and EudraCT (2014-000146-29).

Results

One hundred patients (82 men), median age 47 years (IQR 40-53), were included. They had been receiving ART for a median of 5.1 (IQR 2.9-9.3) years and had a median CD4 cell count of 665 (IQR 543-829) cells/mm3. The ongoing regimen included PI/r in 29 cases and NNRTI in 71 cases. At 48 weeks, 96% of participants (95% CI 90%-98%) had no failure while remaining on the 4-days-a-week regimen. Virological failure occurred in three participants, who all resumed daily treatment and became resuppressed. One participant stopped the strategy. No severe treatment-related events occurred.

Conclusions

Antiretroviral maintenance therapy 4 days a week was effective for 48 weeks in 96% of patients, leading to potential reduction of long-term toxicities, high adherence to the antiretroviral regimen and drug cost saving.

Effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine and boosted darunavir in treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV infection: a preliminary 24 week analysis (RIDAR study)

Background

The objective was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine plus boosted-darunavir (RPV + bDRV) in real-life patients.

Methods

Observational, retrospective, multi-center study in HIV+ patients who had received RPV + bDRV for 24 weeks to optimize/simplify their previous antiretroviral treatment. We determined the percentage of patients without virologic failure (2 consecutive viral loads > 50 copies/mL) at 24 weeks of treatment.

Results

The study included 161 patients from 15 hospitals with median age of 49 years; 29.3% had previous AIDS stage and median CD4+ lymphocyte nadir of 170 cells/uL. They had been diagnosed with HIV for a median of 17 years and had received 14 years of ART, with five previous treatment combinations, and 36.6% had a history of virological failure. The reasons for the switch were simplification/optimization (49.7%), toxicity/intolerance (17.4%), or inadequate effectiveness of previous ART (10.6%).

Baseline VL of 50–1000 copies/mL was recorded in 25.5% of the patients. In the“intention-to-treat” analysis at 24 weeks, 87.6% of 161 patients continued the study treatment without virologic failure criteria.

In the “on treatment” analysis (excluding patients who discontinued treatment with dual therapy for any reason other than virologic failure) the efficacy was 94.6% (141/149 patients).

Conclusions

Dual therapy with RPV + DRVb proved to be effective and safe in patients with advanced HIV infection, long exposure to ART, low CD4 nadir, previous virologic failure, and/or history of ineffective ART.

The clinical pharmacology of integrase inhibitors

Introduction: Treatment of HIV infection has consistently evolved in the last three decades. A steady improvement in efficacy tolerability, safety, and practical aspects of treatment intake has made HIV infection much easier to manage over the long term, and in optimal treatment conditions the life expectancy of persons living with HIV infection now approaches the values of the general population. The last category of antiretrovirals to be fully developed for clinical use is the one of strand-transfer integrase inhibitors (INSTIs). Areas covered: In this review, the evolution of the knowledge on INSTIs use in the clinical setting is reviewed, analyzed, and interpreted. Emphasis is placed on the properties possibly accounting for several superiority results achieved by INSTIs in non-inferiority designed comparative clinical trials, which led to their inclusion as first line options in all versions of HIV therapeutic guidelines. Expert commentary: Some unprecedented clinical-pharmacological properties of INSTIs, such as their rapid and sustained action against HIV replication, the optimal tolerability and safety profile and a clinically proven robust genetic barrier are the main factors justifying the successful clinical use of INSTIs. Based on these unique features, novel INSTIs-based treatment modalities are being developed, including the reduction of antiretroviral regimens to two drugs only.

Long-term use of darunavir/ritonavir-containing regimens in daily practice in Belgium: retrospective observational cohort data of 1701 HIV-patients

Background Once daily (QD) ritonavir or cobicistat-boosted darunavir (DRV/b), in combination with other antiretrovirals (ARVs), is recommended as a first-line option for human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients in European and USA guidelines. The objective of this study was to analyse the outcomes of DRV/r QD-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in real-life settings. Methods This is an observational, non-interventional, non-comparative, retrospective, multicentre cohort study. Data were collected from the databases of eight Belgian AIDS Reference Centres. All patients who received at least one dose of DRV/r QD, regardless of background ARV regimen, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. Results Data from 1701 subjects were collected. Most were male (66.5%) with a mean age of 42.9 years, 33.1% were treatment-naïve and 66.9% were ART experienced. During a median follow-up of 2.45 years (95% CI: 1.50-3.34), the probability to remain on treatment was 87% for the first year, 79% for the second year. DRV/r was well tolerated with few discontinuations due to adverse events (6.9%) or virological failure (0.8%). Among the 1138 treatment-experienced patients, 111 (9.8%) patients received DRV/r QD monotherapy. Conclusions This retrospective cohort analysis confirms the long-term effectiveness and good tolerability of DRV/r QD in a real-life setting. No unexpected adverse events were reported.

Darunavir for the treatment of HIV infection

INTRODUCTION

Darunavir (DRV) was the last approved protease inhibitor (PI) and has been extensively used for the treatment of HIV in both naïve and experienced subjects due to its high genetic barrier and efficacy. The introduction in clinical practice of integrase strand transfer inhibitors limited its role in the management of naïve subjects and in antiretroviral treatment simplification strategies. However, recent data from trials that have investigated the new DRV/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) combination showed an excellent efficacy and tolerability of this coformulation both in naïve patients and in those with viral suppression, making D/C/F/TAF a new option for the treatment of HIV infection. Areas covered: The authors present and discuss the efficacy and safety data of DRV when used in antiretroviral-naïve, multiexperienced subjects and in the setting of treatment deintensification in subjects with viral suppression. Moreover, the authors evaluate the recent data from two different Phase III trials on D/C/F/TAF both in treatment-naïve and virologically suppressed subjects. Expert opinion: Although novel antiretroviral drugs may become available over time, DRV continues to represent a valuable option for multiexperienced subjects and has a role in simplification regimens. In addition, the convenience of D/C/F/TAF coformulation may be useful for the future management of HIV-infected subjects.

Switching to dual/monotherapy determines an increase in CD8+ in HIV-infected individuals: an observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

The CD4/CD8 ratio has been associated with the risk of AIDS and non-AIDS events. We describe trends in immunological parameters in people who underwent a switch to monotherapy or dual therapy, compared to a control group remaining on triple antiretroviral therapy (ART).

METHODS

We included patients in Icona who started a three-drug combination ART regimen from an ART-naïve status and achieved a viral load ≤ 50 copies/mL; they were subsequently switched to another triple or to a mono or double regimen. Standard linear regression at fixed points in time (12-24 months after the switch) and linear mixed model analysis with random intercepts and slopes were used to compare CD4 and CD8 counts and their ratio over time according to regimen types (triple vs. dual and vs. mono).

RESULTS

A total of 1241 patients were included; 1073 switched to triple regimens, 104 to dual (72 with 1 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), 32 NRTI-sparing), and 64 to monotherapy. At 12 months after the switch, for the multivariable linear regression the mean change in the log₁₀ CD4/CD8 ratio for patients on dual therapy was -0.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05, -0.0002), and the mean change in CD8 count was +99 (95% CI +12.1, +186.3), taking those on triple therapy as reference. In contrast, there was no evidence for a difference in CD4 count change. When using all counts, there was evidence for a significant difference in the slope of the ratio and CD8 count between people who were switched to triple (points/year change ratio = +0.056, CD8 = -25.7) and those to dual regimen (ratio = -0.029, CD8 = +110.4).

CONCLUSIONS

We found an increase in CD8 lymphocytes in people who were switched to dual regimens compared to those who were switched to triple. Patients on monotherapy did not show significant differences. The long-term implications of this difference should be ascertained.

Darunavir/cobicistat showing similar effectiveness as darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy despite lower trough concentrations

INTRODUCTION

When darunavir (DRV) 800 mg is boosted with 150 mg cobicistat (DRVcobi ), DRV trough concentration (Ctrough ) is about 30% lower as compared to 100 mg ritonavir (DRVrtv ). DRVcobi shows similar virological efficacy as DRVrtv when combined with two nucleos(t)ide analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, but it is unknown whether a lower DRV Ctrough would undermine the effectiveness of DRVcobi when given as monotherapy (mtDRVcobi ).

METHODS

Prospective observational study on virologically suppressed HIV-infected subjects who switched to mtDRVcobi . Virological failure was defined as two consecutive HIV-RNA >200 copies/mL. Efficacy was evaluated by intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) analyses, and compared with data from a previous cohort of subjects on mtDRVrtv conducted at our centre. Plasma DRV Ctrough was measured using LC-MS/MS.

RESULTS

A total of 234 subjects were enrolled. At week 96, the efficacy rates were 67.8% (CI95 , 61.8 to 73.7) by ITT and 86.9% (CI95 , 78.0 to 87.7) by OT analyses. The corresponding rates in our historical DRVrtv controls were 67.6% (CI95 , 60.0 to 75.2) and 83.6% (CI95 : 77.2 to 90.0). A total of 135 DRV determinations were performed in 83 subjects throughout the follow-up period, with a median plasma DRV Ctrough of 1305 ng/mL (range, 150 to 5895) compared with 1710 ng/mL (range, 200 to 3838) in subjects on monotherapy with DRVrtv (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

DRV Ctrough was lower in HIV-infected subjects receiving DRVcobi than with DRVrtv . However, this did not appear to influence the efficacy of DRVcobi , when administered as monotherapy.

Switch to maraviroc with darunavir/r, both QD, in patients with suppressed HIV-1 was well tolerated but virologically inferior to standard antiretroviral therapy: 48-week results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Primary study outcome was absence of treatment failure (virological failure, VF, or treatment interruption) per protocol at week 48.

METHODS

Patients on 3-drug ART with stable HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and CCR5-tropic virus were randomized 1:1 to maraviroc with darunavir/ritonavir qd (study arm) or continue current ART (continuation arm).

RESULTS

In June 2015, 115 patients were evaluable for the primary outcome (56 study, 59 continuation arm). The study was discontinued due to excess of VF in the study arm (7 cases, 12.5%, vs 0 in the continuation arm, p = 0.005). The proportion free of treatment failure was 73.2% in the study and 59.3% in the continuation arm. Two participants in the study and 10 in the continuation arm discontinued therapy due to adverse events (p = 0.030). At VF, no emergent drug resistance was detected. Co-receptor tropism switched to non-R5 in one patient. Patients with VF reported lower adherence and had lower plasma drug levels. Femoral bone mineral density was significantly improved in the study arm.

CONCLUSION

Switching to maraviroc with darunavir/ritonavir qd in virologically suppressed patients was associated with improved tolerability but was virologically inferior to 3-drug therapy.

Budget impact analysis of the simplification to atazanavir + ritonavir + lamivudine dual therapy of HIV-positive patients receiving atazanavir-based triple therapies in Italy starting from data of the Atlas-M trial

Background

This analysis aimed at evaluating the impact of a therapeutic strategy of treatment simplification of atazanavir (ATV)+ ritonavir (r) + lamivudine (3TC) in virologically suppressed patients receiving ATV+r+2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) on the budget of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Methods

A budget impact model with a 5-year time horizon was developed based on the clinical data of Atlas-M trial at 48 weeks (in terms of percentage of patients experiencing virologic failure and adverse events), from the Italian NHS perspective. A scenario in which the simplification strategy was not considered was compared with three scenarios in which, among a target population of 1,892 patients, different simplification strategies were taken into consideration in terms of percentage of patients simplified on a yearly basis among those eligible for simplification. The costs considered were direct medical costs related to antiretroviral drugs, adverse events management, and monitoring activities.

Results

The percentage of patients of the target population receiving ATV+r+3TC varies among the scenarios and is between 18.7% and 46.9% in year 1, increasing up to 56.3% and 84.4% in year 5. The antiretroviral treatment simplification strategy considered would lead to lower costs for the Italian NHS in a 5-year time horizon between −28.7 million € and −16.0 million €, with a reduction of costs between −22.1% (−3.6 million €) and −8.8% (−1.4 million €) in year 1 and up to −39.9% (−6.9 million €) and −26.6% (−4.6 million €) in year 5.

Conclusion

The therapy simplification for patients receiving ATV+r+2 NRTIs to ATV+r+3TC at a national level would lead to a reduction of direct medical costs over a 5-year period for the Italian NHS.

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a protease inhibitor monotherapy strategy for long-term management of human immunodeficiency virus infection

BACKGROUND

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection uses a combination of drugs, until now considered essential to minimise treatment failure and development of drug resistance. Protease inhibitors (PIs) are potent with a high genetic barrier to resistance and have the potential for use as monotherapy after viral load (VL) suppression achieved on combination therapy. However, longer-term resistance and toxicity risks are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, toxicity profile and cost-effectiveness of PI monotherapy with those of standard-of-care triple therapy in a pragmatic long-term clinical trial.

DESIGN

Open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Forty-three HIV clinical centres in the UK NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

HIV-positive adults taking standard combination ART with a suppressed VL for ≥ 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy (PI-mono), with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of VL rebound.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-/high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was considered to be sensitive at trial entry (non-inferiority comparison, 10% margin). Secondary outcomes included confirmed virological rebound, serious drug- or disease-related complications, total grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), neurocognitive function change, cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell count change, change in health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk change, health-care costs and health economic analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 587 participants were randomised (77% male, 68% white) to OT (n = 291) or PI-mono (n = 296) and followed for a median of 44 months, of whom 2.7% withdrew/were lost to follow-up. One or more episodes of confirmed VL rebound were observed in eight patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3.2%) in the OT group and 95 patients (35.0%) in the PI-mono group [absolute risk difference 31.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6% to 39.0%; p < 0.001]. PI-mono patients who changed to ART after VL rebound all resuppressed (median 3.5 weeks). The proportions with loss of a future drug option at 3 years were 0.7% in the OT group and 2.1% in the PI-mono group (difference 1.4%, (95% CI -0.4% to 3.4%); non-inferiority demonstrated). There were no significant differences in serious disease complications between groups or in the frequency of grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs (16.8% OT group vs. 22% PI-mono group; absolute risk difference 5.1%, 95% CI -1.3% to 11.5%; p = 0.12). Overall, the PI-mono strategy was shown to be cost-effective compared with OT under most scenarios explored. PI-mono was cost saving because of the large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years in the within-trial analysis and only marginally less effective when extrapolated to lifetime outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PI monotherapy, with prompt reintroduction of combination therapy for VL rebound, was non-inferior to combination therapy in preserving future treatment options and is an acceptable and cost-effective alternative for long-term management of HIV infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04857074.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Virological efficacy of PI monotherapy for HIV-1 in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials of PI monotherapy indicate that most participants maintain viral suppression and emergent protease resistance is rare. However, outcomes among patients receiving PI monotherapy for clinical reasons, such as toxicity or adherence issues, are less well studied.

METHODS

An observational study of patients attending an HIV treatment centre in London, UK, who had received PI monotherapy between 2004 and 2013, was conducted using prospectively collected clinical data and genotypic resistance reports. Survival analysis techniques were used to examine the times to virological failure and treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients had PI monotherapy treatment for a median duration of 126 weeks. Virological failure occurred during 64% of episodes and 8% of patients developed emergent protease mutations. We estimate failure occurs in half of episodes within 2 years following initiation. Where PI monotherapy was continued following virological failure, 68% of patients achieved viral re-suppression. Despite a high incidence of virological failure, many patients continued PI monotherapy and 79% of episodes were ongoing at the end of the study. The type of PI used, the presence of baseline protease mutations and the plasma HIV RNA at initiation did not have a significant impact on treatment outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a higher incidence of virological failure and emerging resistance in our UK clinical setting than described in PI monotherapy clinical trials and other European observational studies. Despite this, many patients continued PI monotherapy and regained viral suppression, indicating this strategy remains a viable option in certain individuals following careful clinical evaluation.

Switching to boosted protease inhibitor plus a second antiretroviral drug (dual therapy) for treatment simplification: a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Aim of the study was to assess predictors of discontinuation/toxicity of boosted PI-based (PI/r) dual therapy (DT).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective switch study in patients successfully treated with triple drugs regimen. Patients switched to PI/r based DT [darunavir (DRV/r), lopinavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir (ATV/r)] plus a second drug: [raltegravir (RAL), maraviroc (MVC) etravirine (ETR), lamivudine (3TC) or tenofovir (TDF)] between 2009 and 2014 were included. The effect of each drug as well as other clinical and virological cofactors over treatment discontinuation (TD) was assessed using survival analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 376 patients were included with mean follow-up of 73 weeks. The most commonly used drugs in DT were DRV/r (63.0 %) and RAL (53.7 %). TD was observed in 77 (20,4 %) patients: 38 (10,1 %) virological failure, 35 (9,3 %) toxicity/intolerance (4 deaths) and 4 (1 %) interruptions for patients decision. At Cox Model, adjusted by demographic and laboratory variables, DRV/r and ATV/r significantly reduced the likelihood of TD and longer treatment was associated with lower risk, while low CD4 count at baseline and number of previous regimens with a higher risk. Moreover, RAL and 3TC use were significantly associated with lower TD by toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In our clinical practice experience, switching virologically suppressed patients to PI/r based DT showed adequate safety and efficacy, so that it may be used in selected patients with specific medical needs.

Week 96 efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy vs. darunavir/ritonavir with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in the PROTEA trial

OBJECTIVES

PROTEA is a randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy as an alternative to triple therapy.

METHODS

Patients fully suppressed on first-line antiretrovirals (viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) were switched to DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n = 137) or with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (n = 136). Treatment failure was HIV-1 RNA level ≥ 50 copies/mL at week 96 or discontinuation of study treatment [Food and Drug Administration (FDA) snapshot algorithm].

RESULTS

Patients were mainly male and white, with mean age 44 years. In the primary efficacy analysis, the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL by week 96 [intent to treat (ITT)] was lower in the DRV/r monotherapy arm (103 of 137 patients; 75%) than in the triple therapy arm (116 of 136 patients; 85%) [difference -10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -19.5, -0.7%]. In the switch-included analysis, monotherapy was noninferior to triple therapy. In a post hoc analysis, for patients with nadir CD4 count ≥ 200 cells/μL, rates of HIV-1 RNA suppression were 82 of 96 patients (85%) in the DRV/r monotherapy arm and 88 of 106 patients (83%) in the triple therapy arm. No treatment-emergent primary protease inhibitor mutations were detected in either arm. The frequency of adverse events was similar in the two arms; however, one patient in the monotherapy arm was hospitalized with HIV encephalitis and elevated cerebrospinal fluid HIV-1 RNA.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, in patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at baseline, switching to DRV/r monotherapy showed lower efficacy vs. triple therapy at week 96 in the primary ITT switch-equals-failure analysis, particularly in patients with CD4 counts < 200 cells/μL.

Atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy: 96 week efficacy, safety and bone mineral density from the MODAt randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To report the 96 week results on efficacy, safety and bone mineral density (BMD) in subjects with HIV-1 that were virologically suppressed and treated with atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy.

METHODS

MODAt is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, 96 week trial (NCT01511809) comparing efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy. Treatment success was defined as no occurrence of confirmed viral rebound (two consecutive HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL) or discontinuation for any cause of the ongoing regimen.

RESULTS

The 96 week treatment success was 64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 63% in the triple-therapy arm (difference 1.3%, 95% CI: -17.5 to 20.1). In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, no PI- or NRTI-associated resistance mutations were observed at virological failure and all patients re-suppressed after re-intensification. In the monotherapy arm, treatment failure was more frequent in patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus [64% versus 28% (difference 35.4%, 95% CI: 3.7-67.2)]. Drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 3 (6%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 11 (21.5%) in the triple-therapy arm (P = 0.041). The 96 week adjusted mean percentage change in total proximal femur (not at lumbar spine) BMD was +1.16% and -1.64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and the triple-therapy arm, respectively (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The 96 week analyses suggested that long-term efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy was inferior as compared with atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy, particularly when administered in subjects coinfected with hepatitis C virus. In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, reintroduction of nucleosides, as needed, was always effective with no new resistance mutation; monotherapy was also associated with a lower incidence of adverse events and improvement in femur BMD.

Effectiveness of Ritonavir-Boosted Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy in Clinical Practice Even with Previous Virological Failures to Protease Inhibitor-Based Regimens

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Significant controversy still exists about ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (mtPI/rtv) as a simplification strategy that is used up to now to treat patients that have not experienced previous virological failure (VF) while on protease inhibitor (PI) -based regimens. We have evaluated the effectiveness of two mtPI/rtv regimens in an actual clinical practice setting, including patients that had experienced previous VF with PI-based regimens.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 1060 HIV-infected patients with undetectable viremia that were switched to lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. In cases in which the patient had previously experienced VF while on a PI-based regimen, the lack of major HIV protease resistance mutations to lopinavir or darunavir, respectively, was mandatory. The primary endpoint of this study was the percentage of participants with virological suppression after 96 weeks according to intention-to-treat analysis (non-complete/missing = failure).

RESULTS

A total of 1060 patients were analyzed, including 205 with previous VF while on PI-based regimens, 90 of whom were on complex therapies due to extensive resistance. The rates of treatment effectiveness (intention-to-treat analysis) and virological efficacy (on-treatment analysis) at week 96 were 79.3% (CI95, 76.8-81.8) and 91.5% (CI95, 89.6-93.4), respectively. No relationships were found between VF and earlier VF while on PI-based regimens, the presence of major or minor protease resistance mutations, the previous time on viral suppression, CD4+ T-cell nadir, and HCV-coinfection. Genotypic resistance tests were available in 49 out of the 74 patients with VFs and only four patients presented new major protease resistance mutations.

CONCLUSION

Switching to mtPI/rtv achieves sustained virological control in most patients, even in those with previous VF on PI-based regimens as long as no major resistance mutations are present for the administered drug.

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.

Late treatment failures in cerebrospinal fluid in patients on long-term maintenance ART with ritonavir-boosted protease PI monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral treatment (ART) with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (rb-PMT) remains a potentially attractive strategy for treatment simplification in HIV-infected individuals. However, long-term follow-up in particular with respect to HIV-RNA suppression in cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) is still lacking.

METHODS

Patients who participated in one of the three monotherapy trials [indinavir/r, ATARITMO (atazanavir/r), MOST (lopinavir/r)] at our HIV clinic and remained successfully suppressed during the entire trial (plasma < 50 copies/mL, CSF < 100 copies/mL) were offered to continue their monotherapy under close monitoring. While on rb-PMT, patients were asked to provide CSF samples in yearly or 2-yearly intervals. All patients fully suppressed in plasma and CSF for at least 12 months were included in the analysis. Patients demonstrating any failure in plasma or CSF resumed triple combined ART.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (5 women and 22 men) fulfilled the entry criteria. The median follow-up time was 4.8 (1.1-10.9) years with an overall experience of 139 patient-years on monotherapy. Eleven of 27 (41 %) patients (2 women and 9 men) developed virologic failure (1 in plasma only, 4 in CSF only, 4 both in plasma and CSF and 2 in plasma with CSF not available). Plasma failure occurred in 7 patients after a median follow-up of 25 (13-32) months, and CSF failure in 8 patients after a median follow-up of 30 (14-64) months. Seven patients are still on rb-PMT with atazanavir/r. Failure was associated with shorter duration of fully suppressed plasma viral load prior to starting (p < 0.022).

CONCLUSION

For selected patients, rb-PMT might be a valid long-term treatment strategy. Nevertheless, even after 12 months of full HIV-RNA suppression, more than 1/3 of patients may still develop failure in either plasma or CSF. Given the observation of isolated CSF failure, treatment monitoring with regular lumbar puncture should be recommended in rb-PMT. Only monotherapy with atazanavir/r was successful beyond 39 months. Monotherapy failure was significantly associated with a shorter duration of complete HIV-RNA suppression in plasma prior to rb-PMT start. Further investigation is needed to better identify predictors for patients that will qualify for successful long-term rb-PMT.

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.

Differential effects of viremia and microbial translocation on immune activation in HIV-infected patients throughout ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the evolution of microbial translocation (MT) and its role in CD4 and CD8 T cells immune activation (IA) in HIV-1-infected patients on ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy (mtDRV/rtv).Prospective study of consecutive HIV-1-infected patients switched to mtDRV/rtv as a simplification regimen. Subjects were classified according to the virological behavior during a 24-month follow-up as continuous undetectable viral load, blips, intermittent viremia, and virological failure (VF). MT was evaluated by plasma LPS and 16S genomic rDNA (16S rDNA) levels, whereas IA was assessed by the coexpression of HLA-DR and CD38 in CD4 and CD8 T cells, and plasma sCD14 levels.Seventy-one patients were included in this substudy of the MonDar cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01505722). At baseline, CD4 (ρ = -0.352, P = 0.01) and CD8 T-cell activation (ρ = -0.468, P < 0.001) were correlated with time with viral suppression, but not with MT markers. A significant decrease in plasma LPS levels was found only in patients without VF (baseline, 77.8 vs month 24, 60.4 pg/mL; P < 0.001]. Both plasma 16S rDNA and sCD14 levels were unchanged irrespective of the viral behavior. The only variable independently associated with a decrease in CD4 and CD8 T cells activation was an undetectable HIV-1 viremia (β = 4.78, P < 0.001 and β = 2.93, P = 0.005, respectively).MT does not have a pivotal role in T-cell activation, at least in patients with long-term viral suppression. The viremic episodes and VF are the main factors related to CD4 and CD8 T-cells IA, even during mtDRV/rtv.

Darunavir-based dual therapy of treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: analysis from a national multicenter database

BACKGROUND

We assessed the virological response of dual therapy with DRV/r, plus raltegravir, maraviroc or etravirine, in virological failure patients and in virologically suppressed patients collected in the Italian Antiretroviral Resistance Database (ARCA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients remaining free of virological failure (confirmed >50 copies/mL or any change in the regimen). Subjects had a resistance test and at least one follow-up visit. Observation was censored at last visit under dual therapy and survival analysis and proportional hazard models were used.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of the 221 patients started DRV/r with RAL, 20.4 % with ETV, and 12.2 % with MAR; 31.2 % virological failures were observed. At survival analysis, the overall proportion of failure was 29.2 % at 1 year and 33.8 % at 2 years. The proportion of failure was lower in patients starting with undetectable vs. detectable viral load (13.3 and 25.2 % vs. 37.4 and 38.8 % at 1 and 2 years, respectively, p = 0.001 for both analyses) and in patients treated with DRV 600 BID vs. 800 QD (HR: 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.31-0.99, p < 0.05). By regimen, the adjusted proportional model showed no significant difference among the three regimens. A significant lower risk of failure was associated with higher GSS (HIV-DB HR: 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.32-0.88, p = 0.014; Rega 0.60, 0.40-0.88, p < 0.01; ANRS 0.55, 0.34-0.90, p = 0.017), while a higher risk of failure with detectable HIV-RNA (3.02, 1.70-5.72, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among experienced patients, the best candidates for dual-therapy regimens including DRV/r are those with undetectable viral load and higher GSS.

Monotherapy with boosted PIs as an ART simplification strategy in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy of simplifying therapy using darunavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in clinical practice remain limited.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre study including patients initiating darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with a plasma HIV-1 viral load (pVL) <50 copies/mL and at least one subsequent follow-up visit. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients remaining free of virological failure (VF; defined as a confirmed pVL >50 copies/mL or as any change in the regimen after a single determination with a pVL >50 copies/mL) during the follow-up. We also evaluated the percentage of patients remaining free of treatment failure (TF; defined as VF or the early discontinuation of monotherapy for any reason) and compared the effectiveness of the two regimens. Effectiveness was evaluated using cumulative survival analysis (at Weeks 48 and 96). Factors associated with VF and TF were analysed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 522 patients were included (309 receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and 213 receiving darunavir/ritonavir). The median follow-up was 64.3 (30.5-143.0) weeks. The percentage of patients free of VF and TF was 94% (95% CI 91%-96%) and 79% (95% CI 75%-82%) at 48 weeks, respectively, and 86% (95% CI 81%-89%) and 62% (95% CI 57%-67%) at 96 weeks, respectively. The risk of VF was similar for the two regimens (HR=1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.8; P=0.962). Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy was associated with a 1.5-fold greater risk of TF (95% CI 1.1-2.1; P=0.012) and a 2.3-fold greater risk of discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events (95% CI 1.3-3.9; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The virological efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy is high in clinical practice. Treatment discontinuation due to safety issues is more frequent with lopinavir/ritonavir.

Resistance mutations in protease gene at baseline are not related to virological failure in patients treated with darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Monotherapy with darunavir plus ritonavir (DRV/r) is a good maintenance strategy for suppressed HIV-infected patients. The clinical trials designed to prove the efficacy of PI/r do not include patients with resistance mutation in protease gene [1,2]. Sometimes in routine practice, basically to avoid NRTIs toxicity, monotherapy with DRV/r is used despite PI resistance mutations. The aim of this study is to know the effect of previous protease resistance mutation on DRV/r monotherapy efficacy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed an observational cohort study of adults in treatment with DRV/r monotherapy in a tertiary Spanish hospital since 2011 to 2014. Demographic data and clinical outcomes were described. The analysis of efficacy was done according to the snapshot algorithm (defining virological failure as viral load >50 copies/mL, ITTe, at 48 and 96 weeks). We analyzed the difference of efficacy between patients with and without baseline resistance mutations at 48 and 96 weeks by using the χ(2) test; and during the follow-up by using the Kaplan-Meier test. The statistical analysis was done with SPSS 17.0.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were included in the cohort but 14 were excluded because they had not reached more than six months with monotherapy. The cohort was composed mainly by men (78%), the medium age was 51 years (SD±10), 35% were MSM and 19% were former IDU. Twenty-four patients (35%) had a previous diagnosis of AIDS. The mean time taking NRTIs was 10.5 years (SD±5.4). Sixty-four patients (85%) had been treated with PI in the past. Previous failure with PI had been reported in 15 (20%). A resistance mutation test had been done at baseline in 45 patients (51%). Twenty-two patients (29%) had some mutations in protease gene, 10 patients (13%) had major mutations and 1 patient had some mutations of resistance for darunavir (I64V). At 48 weeks, 93% (CI 95% 86-98%) had VL<50 copies/mL, and 79% (CI 95% 67-89%) at 96 weeks. There were not differences between patients with or without resistance mutations (p=0.53). After a median follow-up of 70 weeks, 88% of patients remain free of virological failure and there were not differences between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

According to these data, previous resistance mutations in the protease gene, which do not affect darunavir, are not related with the efficacy in patients treated with DRV/r monotherapy.

A mechanistic theory to explain the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy

In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, a diagnosis of HIV-1 infection was equivalent to a death sentence. The development of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in the 1990s to combat HIV-1 infection was one of the most impressive achievements of medical science. Today, patients who are treated early with cART can expect a near-normal lifespan. In this Opinion article, we propose a fundamental theory to explain the mechanistic basis of cART and why it works so well, including a model to assess and predict the efficacy of antiretroviral drugs alone or in combination.

Budget impact analysis of antiretroviral less drug regimen simplification in HIV-positive patients on the Italian National Health Service

Background

Deintensification and less drug regimen (LDR) antiretroviral therapy (ART) strategies have proved to be effective in terms of maintaining viral suppression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients, increasing tolerability, and reducing toxicity of antiretroviral drugs administered to patients. However, the economic impact of these strategies have not been widely investigated. The aim of the study is to evaluate the economic impact that ART LDR could have on the Italian National Health Service (INHS) budget.

Methods

A budget impact model was structured to assess the potential savings for the INHS by the use of ART LDR for HIV-positive patients with a 3 year perspective. Data concerning ART cost, patient distribution within different ARTs, and probabilities for patients to change ART on a yearly basis were collected within four Italian infectious diseases departments, providing ART to 13.7% of the total number of patients receiving ART in Italy.

Results

The LDR investigated (protease inhibitor-based dual and monotherapies) led to savings for the hospitals involved when compared to the “do nothing” scenario on a 3 year basis, between 6.7% (23.11 million €) and 12.8% (44.32 million €) of the total ART expenditures. The mean yearly cost per patient is reduced from 9,875 € in the do nothing scenario to a range between 9,218 € and 8,615 €. The use of these strategies within the four departments involved would have led to a reduction of ART expenditures for the INHS of between 1.1% and 2.1% in 3 years.

Conclusion

ART LDR simplification would have a significant impact in the reduction of ART-related costs within the hospitals involved in the study. These strategies could therefore be addressed as a sustainable answer to the public financing reduction observed within the INHS in the last year, allowing therapies to be dispensed without affecting the quality of the services provided.

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is not associated with increased viral replication in lymph nodes

There are concerns about residual viremia in sanctuary sites among patients on protease inhibitor monotherapy, so we aimed to study viro-immunological parameters in tonsil's lymphoid tissue of patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and on protease inhibitor monotherapy. Despite fully suppressed serum HIV viral load, we found viral replication in both groups; in addition, more patients had detectable proviral DNA among those on HAART, compared to those on protease inhibitor monotherapy (P = 0.08), supporting the absence of a deleterious effect of protease inhibitor monotherapy.

Switch strategies in antiretroviral therapy regimens

Despite great advances in antiretroviral therapy in the last decade, several limitations still remain such as adverse effects, lack of adherence and drug-drug interactions. Switching antiretroviral therapy in stable, virologically suppressed patients with the aim of improving tolerability and convenience is an expanding strategy in clinical practice. Several factors need to be taken into consideration when switching a suppressive regimen, such as previous virologic failure, genetic barrier of the new regimen, prior duration of virologic suppression and expected level of adherence. The most frequently used strategies include reductions in the number of pills, drugs or doses. Although switching strategies may be useful, not all the regimens used in clinical practice are based on data from randomized clinical trials and some may not be the best option for certain patients; therefore, therapy should be individualized taking into consideration available information as well as patient and drug characteristics.

Assessment of second-line antiretroviral regimens for HIV therapy in Africa

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and toxic effects of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are uncertain when these agents are used with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in resource-limited settings. Removing the NRTIs or replacing them with raltegravir may provide a benefit.

METHODS

In this open-label trial in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 1277 adults and adolescents with HIV infection and first-line treatment failure to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI group, 426 patients), a protease inhibitor plus raltegravir in a superiority comparison (raltegravir group, 433 patients), or protease-inhibitor monotherapy after 12 weeks of induction therapy with raltegravir in a noninferiority comparison (monotherapy group, 418 patients). The primary composite end point, good HIV disease control, was defined as survival with no new World Health Organization stage 4 events, a CD4+ count of more than 250 cells per cubic millimeter, and a viral load of less than 10,000 copies per milliliter or 10,000 copies or more with no protease resistance mutations at week 96 and was analyzed with the use of imputation of data (≤4%).

RESULTS

Good HIV disease control was achieved in 60% of the patients (mean, 255 patients) in the NRTI group, 64% of the patients (mean, 277) in the raltegravir group (P=0.21 for the comparison with the NRTI group; superiority of raltegravir not shown), and 55% of the patients (mean, 232) in the monotherapy group (noninferiority of monotherapy not shown, based on a 10-percentage-point margin). There was no significant difference in rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events among the three groups (P=0.82). The viral load was less than 400 copies per milliliter in 86% of patients in the NRTI group, 86% in the raltegravir group (P=0.97), and 61% in the monotherapy group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

When given with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy, NRTIs retained substantial virologic activity without evidence of increased toxicity, and there was no advantage to replacing them with raltegravir. Virologic control was inferior with protease-inhibitor monotherapy. (Funded by European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; EARNEST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN37737787, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988039.).

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of boosted once-daily darunavir

The ability to dose antiretroviral agents once daily simplifies the often complex therapeutic regimens required for the successful treatment of HIV infection. Thus, once-daily dosing can lead to improved patient adherence to medication and, consequently, sustained virological suppression and reduction in the risk of emergence of drug resistance. Several trials have evaluated once-daily darunavir/ritonavir in combination with other antiretrovirals (ARTEMIS and ODIN trials) or as monotherapy (MONET, MONOI and PROTEA trials) in HIV-1-infected adults. Data from ARTEMIS and ODIN demonstrate non-inferiority of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir against a comparator and, together with pharmacokinetic data, have established the suitability of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations. The findings of ARTEMIS and ODIN have led to recent updates to treatment guidelines, whereby once-daily darunavir/ritonavir, given with other antiretrovirals, is now a preferred treatment option for antiretroviral-naive adult patients and a simplified treatment option for antiretroviral-experienced adults who have no darunavir resistance-associated mutations. Once-daily dosing with darunavir/ritonavir is an option for treatment-naive and for treatment-experienced paediatric patients with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations based on the findings of the DIONE trial and ARIEL substudy. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily boosted darunavir. The feasibility of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy as a treatment approach for some patients is also discussed. Finally, data on a fixed-dose combination of 800/150 mg of darunavir/cobicistat once daily are presented, showing comparable darunavir bioavailability to that obtained with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily.

Immune activation throughout a boosted darunavir monotherapy simplification strategy

Our aim was to assess the evolution and the impact that blips, intermittent low-level viraemia and virological failure (VF) episodes have on patients' immune activation (IA) profiles during ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy (mtDRV/rtv). A prospective cohort of human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients who switched to mtDRV/rtv was followed for 2 years. Cellular IA was assessed according to HLA-DR and CD38 expression in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cells and their naïve, effector memory and central memory subpopulations, and systemic IA was evaluated according to sCD14 and D-dimer levels. Seventy-five patients from the MonDAR cohort were selected for this substudy, and classified according to viral outcome as having continuous undetectable viraemia (n = 19), blips (n = 19), intermittent viraemia (n = 21), and VF (n = 16). The IA profile was closely linked to viral behaviour. Patients on viral suppression for 24 months showed a significant decrease in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell activation and sCD14 and D-dimer levels. Patients with transient low-level viraemia episodes (blips and intermittent viraemia) showed cellular and systemic IA similar to baseline values. In contrast, significant increases in T-cell activation and sCD14 and D-dimer levels were observed in patients with VF. Baseline levels of HLA-DR(+)CD38(+)CD8(+) T-cells of >6.4% were independently associated with the emergence of VF. Therefore, mtDRV/rtv might be considered as a safe simplification strategy, on the basis of the IA results, whenever viral replication is under medium-term and long-term control. Transient low-level viraemia episodes do not affect patients' IA status. Moreover, HLA-DR(+)CD38(+)CD8(+) T-cell baseline levels should be considered when patients are switched to mtDRV/rtv.

Cellular HIV reservoir replenishment is not affected by blip or intermittent viremia episodes during darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of blips and persistent viremia episodes on cell-associated HIV-DNA reservoir in extensively pretreated patients receiving ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy (MtDRV/rtv) for 24 months.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients from the MonDAR prospective study (NCT01606722) who received at least 6 months of MtDRV/rtv and had at least two available peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) samples were selected and classified according to the viral outcome as continuous undetectable viremia (cUV; n = 40), blips (n = 31), intermittent viremia (IV; n = 23), and virological failure (VF, two consecutive viral loads >200 copies/ml; n = 20). Proviral HIV-DNA was quantified by real-time PCR in PBMCs samples at baseline, and months 6, 12, 18 and 24. Additionally, HIV-DNA levels were exhaustively analyzed at virological failure and blip episodes.

RESULTS

The HIV-DNA levels remained constant during the 24 months in every group. Neither blips nor intermittent viremia influenced the HIV-DNA levels at short-term or at middle term. By contrast, virological failure episodes gave rise to a significant increase in proviral DNA (2.15 vs. 2.32 log10 HIV-DNA copies/10 PBMCs; P = 0.042). Basal proviral DNA levels more than 2 log10 copies/10 PBMCs predicted the time to viral rebound at any given cut-off point (>20, >50, and >200 copies/ml. HR: 3.02, 2.61, and 3.02, respectively; P ≤ 0.03. Besides, an adherence less than 95% was also strongly associated with virological failure (HR, 3.17; P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

Blip episodes and intermittent viremia did not affect the cellular HIV reservoir dynamic during MtDRV/rtv. Higher adherence and an HIV-DNA levels less than 2 log10 copies/10 PBMCs at baseline were associated with a lower risk of virological failure.

[Consensus Statement by GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat on antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2013)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) guidelines for HIV-1 infected adult patients.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel composed of members of the GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat (Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the Secretaría del Plan Nacional sobre el Sida) reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals (PubMed and Embase) or presented in medical scientific meetings. The strength of the recommendations and the evidence which support them are based on a modification of the criteria of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

cART is recommended in patients with symptoms of HIV infection, in pregnant women, in serodiscordant couples with high risk of transmission, in hepatitisB co-infection requiring treatment, and in HIV nephropathy. cART is recommended in asymptomatic patients if CD4 is <500cells/μl. If CD4 are >500cells/μl cART should be considered in the case of chronic hepatitisC, cirrhosis, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >100.000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, neurocognitive deficits, and in people aged >55years. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. The first cART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI) nucleoside analogs and a third drug (a non-analog RTI, a ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected some drug combinations, for the first cART and specific criteria for cART in acute HIV infection, in tuberculosis and other HIV related opportunistic infections, for the women and in pregnancy, in hepatitisB or C co-infection, in HIV-2 infection, and in post-exposure prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines update previous recommendations related to first cART (when to begin and what drugs should be used), how to monitor, and what to do in case of viral failure or adverse drug reactions. cART specific criteria in comorbid patients and special situations are similarly updated.

Abacavir-based triple nucleoside regimens for maintenance therapy in patients with HIV

BACKGROUND

Regimen simplification can be defined as a change in established effective therapy to reduce pill burden and dosing frequency, to enhance tolerability, or to decrease specific food and fluid requirements. Many patients on suppressive antiretroviral therapy may be considered candidates for a simplification strategy and, among them, those who have achieved virologic suppression. Several clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of triple nucleoside combination as a simplification therapy in patients who achieved virologic suppression

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to combine randomised, controlled trials to examine whether in patients with undetectable viraemia on a Protease inhibitor (PI) based regimen simplification treatment with abacavir (ABC)-based triple-nucleoside combinations has similar rates of efficacy and tolerability compared with a PI regimen or simplification with a NNRTIs (efavirenz-EFV- or nevirapine-NVP) containing regimen. Studies were included if they had at least two of the three interventions, including one 3NRTI arm.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic databases and conference proceedings were searched (1996-2012) with relevant search terms without limits to language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only are included in this review. Patients population is represented by HIV-infected adult patients treated with a PI-containing regimen (PI or boosted PI),  with undetectable viral load. Patients on a PI-containing regimen had three possibilities: continue the PI regimen or switch to a simplification maintenance regimen, including switch to a NNRTI (EFV or NVP) containing regimen, or switch to a triple-NRTI regimen (ABC-zidovudine-lamivudine)

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were: proportion of patients discontinuing or switching antiretroviral therapy due to virologic failure or to adverse events; death (all cause) and AIDS defining illness; occurrence of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular disease. Secondary outcomes  were: proportion of patients maintaining an undetectable viral load (e.g. HIV-RNA <50 or <400 copies/mm(3)); change in mean CD4+ cell count; occurrence of lipodystrophy. We applied Cochrane Collaboration tools to assess each individual study for risk for bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCT, for a total of 1,610 patients. All the studies included HIV-1 infected patients virologically suppressed after a successful treatment with PI containing ART. Articles included in the analysis were published between 2001 and 2010, and could be classified as low risk of bias trials in most of the domains considered. Overall, there was no significant difference between the participants on triple nucleoside combination and controls, either PI-based or NNRTI based in terms of overall failures, death and AIDS related events, and rates of patients with viral load below the detectability cut-off. For the outcomes discontinuation for adverse events and virologic failures, the RRs were not significant , albeit  being not far from the alpha level of 0.05, thus suggesting a weak evidence of lower incidence of side effects  and an higher incidence of virologic failure in the 3NRTI group compared to controls . Change in lipids and in CD4 cells from baselines were reported in 7 studies, but inconsistency in reporting these data did not allow quantitative analysis. However, all agreed that simplification with ABC had a favourable and significant impact on lipid metabolism compared to control group. An increase in CD4 cells count from baseline was evident in all analysed studies, without significant differences between ABC and controls in individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strategy of switching to triple nucleoside regimens shows weak evidence of lower incidence of side effects and a higher incidence of virologic failure in the 3NRTI group compared to controls. Simplification with 3NRTI holds the advantages of preserving other classes of antiretroviral drugs, to lower blood lipids, and to be cost effective and simple to administer.Thus, simplification with triple nucleoside regimens AZT + 3TC + ABC should be still considered for individuals who are unable to tolerate or have contraindications to NNRTI or PI based regimens. Additional data are needed on longer-term efficacy of triple NRTI regimens, particularly on the development of antiretroviral resistance. Though studies in the current review were conducted between 2001 and 2010, the large majority of patients from studies analysed received old PI regimens (e.g., indinavir, ritonavir, nelfinavir, saquinavir) not longer recommended by International Guidelines. Since current guidelines recommend new "lipid -friendly" PI, future studies should compare regimens containing these news PIs to triple NRTI regimens. More realistically, however, there are opportunities to examine these issues in existing cohorts.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of 150 mg of maraviroc dosed with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir all once daily, with and without nucleoside analogues, in HIV-infected subjects

BACKGROUND

Once-daily nucleoside-sparing combination antiretroviral therapy regimens are attractive options for the treatment of HIV infection. However, the pharmacokinetic profiles of such regimens are often not established.

METHODS

HIV-infected subjects receiving 245/200 mg of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily with plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL were eligible. On day 1 (period 1), 150 mg of maraviroc daily was added and on day 11 (period 2), tenofovir/emtricitabine discontinued. At steady-state (days 10 and 20), intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was undertaken. We assessed (i) the number of subjects with trough (C(trough)) and average (C(avg)) maraviroc concentrations <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively; (ii) geometric mean (GM) ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters for period 2 versus period 1; and (iii) factors associated with total maraviroc exposure.

RESULTS

Eleven subjects completed the study procedures (mean age 49 years; range 35-59 years). In three subjects, maraviroc C(trough) and C(avg) were <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively (C(avg), 68 ng/mL and C(trough), 14 and 21 ng/mL). Although not statistically significant, a trend was observed towards lower maraviroc, darunavir and ritonavir concentrations in period 2 versus period 1; total maraviroc exposure was 3579 ng· h/mL (95% CI: 2983-4294) and 2996 ng· h/mL (95% CI: 2374-3782) in periods 1 and 2, respectively, and the GM ratio was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-1.05). Only total ritonavir exposure was significantly associated with total maraviroc exposure (P=0.049; 95% CI: 0.01-0.91). No clinical safety concerns were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this novel nucleoside-sparing regimen, maraviroc exposure is dependent on ritonavir exposure, which was slightly reduced in the absence of tenofovir/emtricitabine.

The choreography of HIV-1 proteolytic processing and virion assembly

HIV-1 has been the target of intensive research at the molecular and biochemical levels for >25 years. Collectively, this work has led to a detailed understanding of viral replication and the development of 24 approved drugs that have five different targets on various viral proteins and one cellular target (CCR5). Although most drugs target viral enzymatic activities, our detailed knowledge of so much of the viral life cycle is leading us into other types of inhibitors that can block or disrupt protein-protein interactions. Viruses have compact genomes and employ a strategy of using a small number of proteins that can form repeating structures to enclose space (i.e. condensing the viral genome inside of a protein shell), thus minimizing the need for a large protein coding capacity. This creates a relatively small number of critical protein-protein interactions that are essential for viral replication. For HIV-1, the Gag protein has the role of a polyprotein precursor that contains all of the structural proteins of the virion: matrix, capsid, spacer peptide 1, nucleocapsid, spacer peptide 2, and p6 (which contains protein-binding domains that interact with host proteins during budding). Similarly, the Gag-Pro-Pol precursor encodes most of the Gag protein but now includes the viral enzymes: protease, reverse transcriptase (with its associated RNase H activity), and integrase. Gag and Gag-Pro-Pol are the substrates of the viral protease, which is responsible for cleaving these precursors into their mature and fully active forms (see Fig. 1A).

Similar evolution of cellular HIV-1 DNA level in darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus triple therapy in MONOI-ANRS136 trial over 96 weeks

Background

A higher proportion of intermittent viremia (to have a HIV-1 RNA viral load>50 copies/mL not confirmed) was reported in the boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy arm in some studies including MONOI trial, and that could have an impact on the replenishment of the HIV-1 DNA reservoirs. The HIV-1 DNA level is an interesting marker which reflects the size of cellular HIV reservoir. Our objectives were to study the impact of 96 weeks of Darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus a triple standard combination on the HIV-1 blood reservoir and factors associated with HIV-1 plasma DNA at baseline in MONOI trial sub-study.

Methodology/Principal Findings

This sub-study is focused on 160 patients (79 patients in monotherapy arm and 81 in tritherapy arm) for whom blood cells were available both at baseline and at week 96 (W96). Baseline HIV-1 plasma DNA was associated with CD4 nadir, pre therapeutic HIV-1 RNA viral load and baseline HIV-1 RNA measured by ultrasensitive assay. A similar median delta HIV-DNA was observed between D0 and W96 in both arms; 0.35 log copies/10⁶ leucocytes in monotherapy arm versus 0.51 log copies/10⁶ leucocytes in tritherapy arm.

Conclusion/Significance

Despite a higher proportion of intermittent viremia in monotherapy arm, a similar evolution of cellular HIV-1 DNA level was observed between mono and triple therapy arm.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials. gov NCT00421551 <NCT00421551>

[Consensus document of Gesida and Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) regarding combined antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (January 2012)]

This consensus document has been prepared by a panel consisting of members of the AIDS Study Group (Gesida) and the Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) after reviewing the efficacy and safety results of clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals, or presented in medical scientific meetings. Gesida has prepared an objective and structured method to prioritise combined antiretroviral treatment (cART) in naïve patients. Recommendations strength (A, B, C) and the evidence which supports them (I, II, III) are based on a modification of the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. The current antiretroviral treatment (ART) of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs. ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection, in pregnancy, in serodiscordant couples with high transmission risk, hepatitis B fulfilling treatment criteria, and HIV nephropathy. Guidelines on ART treatment in patients with concurrent diagnosis of HIV infection and an opportunistic type C infection are included. In asymptomatic patients ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts <350 cells/μL; 2) when CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/μL, therapy will be recommended and only delayed if patient is reluctant to take it, the CD4 are stabilised, and the plasma viral load is low; 3) therapy could be deferred when CD4 counts are above 500 cells/μL, but should be considered in cases of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >10(5) copies/mL, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, and in people aged >55 years. ART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors nucleoside analogues and a third drug (non-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor, ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor or integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected and given priority to using the Gesida score for some drug combinations, some of them co-formulated. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures, but an undetectable viral load may be possible nowadays. Adverse events are a fading problem of ART. Guidelines in acute HIV infection, in women, in pregnancy, and to prevent mother-to-child transmission and pre- and post-exposition prophylaxis are commented upon. Management of hepatitis B or C co-infection, other co-morbidities, and the characteristics of ART in HIV-2 infection are included.