Switching to lopinavir/ritonavir with or without abacavir/lamivudine in lipoatrophic patients treated with zidovudine/abacavir/lamivudine

AIDS Clinical Research in Spain-Large HIV Population, Geniality of Doctors, and Missing Opportunities

The first cases of AIDS in Spain were reported in 1982. Since then over 85,000 persons with AIDS have been cumulated, with 60,000 deaths. Current estimates for people living with HIV are of 145,000, of whom 20% are unaware of it. This explains the still high rate of late HIV presenters. Although the HIV epidemic in Spain was originally driven mostly by injection drug users, since the year 2000 men having sex with men (MSM) account for most new incident HIV cases. Currently, MSM represent over 80% of new yearly HIV diagnoses. In the 80s, a subset of young doctors and nurses working at Internal Medicine hospital wards became deeply engaged in attending HIV-infected persons. Before the introduction of antiretrovirals in the earlier 1990s, diagnosis and treatment of opportunistic infections was their major task. A new wave of infectious diseases specialists was born. Following the wide introduction of triple combination therapy in the late 1990s, drug side effects and antiretroviral resistance led to built a core of highly devoted HIV specialists across the country. Since then, HIV medicine has improved and currently is largely conducted by multidisciplinary teams of health care providers working at hospital-based outclinics, where HIV-positive persons are generally seen every six months. Antiretroviral therapy is currently prescribed to roughly 75,000 persons, almost all attended at clinics belonging to the government health public system. Overall, the impact of HIV/AIDS publications by Spanish teams is the third most important in Europe. HIV research in Spain has classically been funded mostly by national and European public agencies along with pharma companies. Chronologically, some of the major contributions of Spanish HIV research are being in the field of tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis, leishmaniasis, HIV variants including HIV-2, drug resistance, pharmacology, antiretroviral drug-related toxicities, coinfection with viral hepatitis, design and participation in clinical trials with antiretrovirals, immunopathogenesis, ageing, and vaccine development.

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.

HIV-1 replication in central nervous system increases over time on only protease inhibitor therapy

There are concerns about central nervous system (CNS)-replication of HIV-1 in patients on boosted protease inhibitors. Purpose of this study was to compare HIV-1 viral loads (VLs) from patients treated with only boosted dual protease inhibitor (bdPI), versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART group), containing two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and a third partner. All patients from a large German HIV-treatment cohort with available medication, clinical and demographic data, including results from simultaneous HIV-1 viral load (VL) assessments in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood plasma, were retrospectively evaluated as controlled cross-sectional study. CSF had been obtained from patients with variable neurological symptoms during 2005-2014. Statistical analysis comprised nonparametric tests, regression and correlation techniques accounting for undetectable quantifications. Statistical analysis comprised nonparametric tests, regression and correlation techniques accounting for undetectable quantifications. Overall, 155 patients were evaluable (bdPI: 24; cART: 131). At time of CSF-collection, both groups were comparable in age, gender, CD4-cell counts, or primary HIV-transmission risks, though bdPI patients were clinically more advanced. The proportion of patients with undetectable HIV-1 (<50 copies/ml) in CSF was lower for bdPI group (25 vs 49.6 %; p = 0.026), but similar in plasma (46 vs 41 %). Median CSF-VL was higher in bdPI group (600 vs 50 copies/ml; p = 0.027) and similar in plasma. Mean VL CSF/plasma ratio was 342.91 for bdPI- and 54.48 for cART patients (p < 0.001). Pearson's regression analysis revealed a trend for an elevated VL-ratio over time within bdPI group. HIV-1 replication was higher and more frequently detectable in CSF from bdPI patients, indicating a worse CNS penetration effectiveness of used boosted PI. Within bdPI group, measured CNS-viral replication was increasing over time, suggesting an over time impaired HIV-1 suppression in CSF.

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.

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.

Is there a higher risk of CNS adverse events for PI monotherapy versus triple therapy? A review of results from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy for treatment could avoid the adverse events, drug resistance, and additional costs associated with other antiretrovirals that are normally used, particularly the nucleoside analogues. PI monotherapy has mainly been compared with standard triple therapy in randomized clinical trials of patients who have HIV RNA suppression at screening and no history of virological failure.

METHODS

This review included 11 randomized clinical trials of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy versus triple therapy in 1,267 patients with HIV RNA suppression at baseline who were studied between 48 and 144 weeks.

RESULTS

There was no clear difference in the risk of central nervous system (CNS) adverse events between PI monotherapy (either DRV/r or LPV/r) and standard triple drug treatment. There were 2 clinical trials - MONOI (DRV/r) and MOST (LPV/r) - that showed CNS symptoms and detectable HIV RNA levels in the cerebrospinal fluid in a small number of individuals taking PI monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistent evidence from the randomized trials currently available for an additional risk of HIV CNS disease during monotherapy with either LPV/r or DRV/r versus standard triple drug therapy. However, the information on CNS adverse events has not been reported using standardized definitions in the studies. In addition, few randomized studies included detailed analysis of neurocognitive function or detection of HIV RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid.

An update on the pharmacological strategies in the treatment of HIV-1-associated adipose redistribution syndromes

INTRODUCTION

With the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV infection in the mid-1990s, descriptions of morphological changes and metabolic disturbances in treated patients began to emerge. HIV-1/highly active ART-associated lipodystrophy syndrome (HALS) involves metabolic abnormalities and diverse forms of anomalous fat distribution. The current review focuses on the pathophysiological basis and the clinical evidence for the use of several medical strategies in the management of HALS.

AREAS COVERED

We have covered the most relevant studies related to the pharmacological strategies in the treatment of HALS, with attention to the current and novel antiretroviral agents.

EXPERT OPINION

The most commonly used strategies for HALS reversion have included modification of host-dependent factors, including those related to HIV-1 infection and those associated with ART. Preventive and medical strategies have been associated with moderate success. The only intervention that offers an immediate aesthetical improvement for patients with HALS so far has been plastic surgery.

HIV-associated lipodystrophy: impact of antiretroviral therapy

In the late 1990s, reports of unusual changes in body fat distribution named 'lipodystrophy' (LD) began to appear in HIV patients mitigating the enormous enthusiasm about improvement of survival and quality of life provided by the combinations of antiretroviral (ARV) drug classes, the so-called highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which had just become available at that time. The objective of this paper is to critically review the literature on LD and to discuss the impact of newer ARV agents, namely atazanavir, darunavir and raltegravir, as well as strategies of the late HAART era, including single-tablet regimens and nucleoside-sparing regimens. Studies in which LD was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or by abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan only, were included. We were unable to identify studies depicting a negative impact of drugs or ARV regimens on limb fat loss. On the contrary, a few studies identified a negative impact of atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir on trunk fat increase. It should be noted that this anthropometric measure is a poor instrument since it cannot distinguish between subcutaneous and visceral fat. We conclude that presumably the body fat changes currently observed in HIV-infected patients is the net result of competing phenomena: on one side the natural history of lipohypertrophy as a result of HIV and HAART impact, and on the other side the physiological body fat changes observed in the aging population.