Interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein levels after 3 years of treatment with darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy or darunavir/ritonavir + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in the MONET trial

Dual Antiretroviral Therapy-All Quiet Beneath the Surface?

Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is characterized by progressive depletion of CD4+ lymphocytes cells as a result of chronic immune activation. Next to the decreases in the number of CD4+ cells which leads to opportunistic infections, HIV-related immune activation is associated with several prevalent comorbidities in the HIV-positive population such as cardiovascular and bone disease. Traditionally, combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) consists of three drugs with activity against HIV and is highly effective in diminishing the degree of immune activation. Over the years, questions were raised whether virological suppression could also be achieved with fewer antiretroviral drugs, i.e., dual- or even monotherapy. This is an intriguing question considering the fact that antiretroviral drugs should be used lifelong and their use could also induce cardiovascular and bone disease. Therefore, the equilibrium between drug-induced toxicity and immune activation related comorbidity is delicate. Recently, two large clinical trials evaluating two-drug cART showed non-inferiority with respect to virological outcomes when compared to triple-drug regimens. This led to adoption of dual antiretroviral therapy in current HIV treatment guidelines. However, it is largely unknown whether dual therapy is also able to suppress immune activation to the same degree as triple therapy. This poses a risk for an imbalance in the delicate equilibrium. This mini review gives an overview of the current available evidence concerning immune activation in the setting of cART with less than three antiretroviral drugs.

Development of darunavir over the entire spectrum of HIV infection

Darunavir is the gold standard protease inhibitor in antiretroviral treatment. It has undergone complete development through randomised clinical trials throughout the entire spectrum of HIV infection, with 2 different dosages and clear indications of when to use each one of them. It has been studied in mono, dual and triple therapy. It can also be administered boosted with either ritonavir or cobicistat. The data indicate that it is the antiretroviral with the greatest barrier against resistance development and that it is the drug with the longest residence time bound to its receptor (protease), thus having the longest dissociation time. Its limited impact on selected mutations in the protease by other inhibitors and its high barrier against resistance have resulted in its widespread commercial use being associated with a steady decrease in the mutations circulating in the protease having an impact on its activity. Supplement information: This article is part of a supplement entitled "Co-formulated cobicistat-boosted darunavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide for the treatment of HIV infection", which is sponsored by Janssen.

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.

[GESIDA/National AIDS Plan: Consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2015)]

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations, a panel composed of members of the AIDS Study Group and the AIDS National Plan (GeSIDA/Plan Nacional sobre el Sida) reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, and 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 that supports them, are based on modified criteria of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

In this update, cART is recommended for all patients infected by type 1 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). The strength and level of the recommendation depends on the CD4+T-lymphocyte count, the presence of opportunistic diseases or comorbid conditions, age, and prevention of transmission of HIV. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable plasma viral load. Initial cART should always comprise a combination of 3 drugs, including 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and a third drug from a different family. Three out of the ten recommended regimes are regarded as preferential (all of them with an integrase inhibitor as the third drug), and the other seven (based on a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor) as alternatives. This update presents the causes and criteria for switching cART in patients with undetectable plasma viral load, and in cases of virological failure where rescue cART should comprise 3 (or at least 2) drugs that are fully active against the virus. An update is also provided for the specific criteria for cART in special situations (acute infection, HIV-2 infection, and pregnancy) and with comorbid conditions (tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections, kidney disease, liver disease, and cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

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

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a higher level of monocyte activation, bacterial translocation and inflammation

Introduction

Monotherapy with protease-inhibitors (MPI) may be an alternative to cART for HIV treatment. We assessed the impact of this strategy on immune activation, bacterial translocation and inflammation.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study comparing patients on successful MPI (n=40) with patients on cART (n=20). Activation, senescence, exhaustion and differentiation stage in CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocyte subsets, markers of monocyte activation, microbial translocation, inflammation, coagulation and low-level viremia were assessed.

Results

CD4+ or CD8+ T lymphocyte subset parameters were not significantly different between both groups. Conversely, as compared with triple cART, MPI patients showed a higher proportion of activated monocytes (CD14+ CD16−CD163+ cells, p=0.031), soluble markers of monocyte activation (sCD14 p=0.004, sCD163 p=0.002), microbial translocation (lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein; LBP p=0.07), inflammation (IL-6 p=0.04) and low-level viremia (p=0.035). In a multivariate model, a higher level of CD14+ CD16−CD163+ cells and sCD14, and presence of very low-level viremia were independently associated with MPI. Monocyte activation was independently associated with markers of inflammation (IL-6, p=0.006), microbial translocation (LBP, p=0.01) and low-level viremia (p=0.01).

Conclusions

Patients on MPI showed a higher level of monocyte activation than patients on standard therapy. Microbial translocation and low-level viremia were associated with the high level of monocyte activation observed in patients on MPI. The long-term clinical consequences of these findings should be assessed.

Inflammatory, procoagulant markers and HIV residual viremia in patients receiving protease inhibitor monotherapy or triple drug therapy: a cross-sectional study

Background

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated with more frequent episodes of viral rebounds above 50 copies/mL than triple therapy. Objective: To evaluate if, compared to triple-drug therapy, protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated with increased levels of inflammatory/procoagulant markers and more frequent plasma residual viremia detection.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we included patients treated for ≥ 1 year with darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir as monotherapy (n = 72) or with two nucleos(t)ides (n = 74). All samples were tested for CRP, IL-6, fibrinogen and D-dimer. Residual viremia was determined using an ultrasensitive qualitative nested-PCR of the HIV pol gene with a limit of detection of 1 copy of HIV-RNA.

Results

We found no differences in levels of inflammatory/procoagulant markers or in the proportion of patients with plasma residual viremia detection by treatment group.

Conclusion

The long-term treatment with protease inhibitor monotherapy in the setting of routine clinical practice is not associated with a higher prevalence of plasma residual viremia or more elevated inflammatory/procoagulant markers levels than triple drug therapy.

[GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan: Consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2014)]

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 Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the 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. Recommendations strength and the evidence in which they are supported are based on modified criteria of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

In this update, antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all patients infected by type 1 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). The strength and grade of the recommendation varies with the clinical circumstances: CDC stage B or C disease (A-I), asymptomatic patients (depending on the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count: <350cells/μL, A-I; 350-500 cells/μL, A-II, and >500 cells/μL, B-III), comorbid conditions (HIV nephropathy, chronic hepatitis caused by HBV or HCV, age >55years, high cardiovascular risk, neurocognitive disorders, and cancer, A-II), and prevention of transmission of HIV (mother-to-child or heterosexual, A-I; men who have sex with men, A-III). The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable plasma viral load. Initial ART should always comprise a combination of 3 drugs, including 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a third drug from a different family (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, protease inhibitor, or integrase inhibitor). Some of the possible initial regimens have been considered alternatives. This update presents the causes and criteria for switching ART in patients with undetectable plasma viral load and in cases of virological failure where rescue ART should comprise 2 or 3 drugs that are fully active against the virus. An update is also provided for the specific criteria for ART in special situations (acute infection, HIV-2 infection, and pregnancy) and with comorbid conditions (tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections, kidney disease, liver disease, and cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

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