Clinical trial methodology and clinical cohorts: the importance of complete follow-up in trials evaluating the virological efficacy of anti-HIV medicines

The Effect of HIV-1 Resistance Mutations after First-Line Virological Failure on the Possibility to Sequence Antiretroviral Drugs in Second-Line Regimens

Background

One of the more vigorous debates in the field of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is how to start it and what the optimal drug sequence is.

Methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed. The aim was to evaluate which variables could influence the virological response to second-line genotypic-based HAART in patients with virological documented first-line HAART failure. A positive response was defined as a confirmed HIV RNA level <50 copies/ml.

Results

Two hundred and eight patients were included. Demographic characteristics, risk factors for HIV acquisition, and drugs included in the initial treatment did not significantly influence the considered outcome. According to a multiple logistic model, the presence of thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs) had a negative association with the virological outcome ( P=0.006), whereas the use of a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) in second-line HAART was positively associated with the endpoint ( P=0.001). Patients receiving a genotypic-based second-line HAART containing a boosted PI achieved a viral load <50 copies/ml in a 74.2% of cases compared with 52.2% of those whose therapy did not contain a boosted PI. This difference was statistically significant ( P=0.002) with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.63 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 1.46 to 4.76. This last variable positively influenced the outcome even when the analysis was restricted to patients harbouring a virus presenting TAMs. In this case, second-line HAART was successful in 66.7% of cases with an OR of 3.25 and a 95% CI ranging from 1.28 to 8.25 ( P=0.014).

Conclusions

the wider range of available therapeutic options has made resistance and drug-sequencing considerations a crucial point in selecting first-line HAART. Our data indicate that, by limiting the risk of selecting or accumulating TAMs, it could be possible to save further therapeutic options. In second-line regimens, the higher antiviral effect and genetic barrier of boosted PIs may overcome the limits of the use of NRTI backbones, which retain only a partial effectiveness.

HIV-1 Subtypes and Response to Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Europe

Background

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) may vary in ability to suppress viral load and increase CD4+ T-cell count in people infected with different HIV-1 subtypes, possibly due to differences in resistance development. Antiretroviral drugs have predominantly been developed in Western Europe/North America on the basis of the most prevalent subtype, B. However, non-B subtypes are increasingly spreading worldwide.

Objective

To compare virological and immunological response to cART between patients infected with B and non-B subtypes across Europe.

Design

EuroSIDA prospective, observational cohort with 11,928 HIV-1-infected patients.

Methods

Response to cART was analysed in patients with subtypes determined pre-cART, via multivariable logistic regression on the first measurements 6–12 months after starting cART. A virological response was defined as a viral load <500 copies/ml and immunological response as a CD4+ T-cell count increase of ≥100 cells/mm3.

Results

Forty-five percent of patients were antiretroviral naive at initiation of cART. Virological suppression was achieved by 58% of 689 subtype-B-infected patients and 66% of 102 non-B-infected patients ( P=0.159). After adjustment for potential confounders, there was no significant difference in odds of achieving virological suppression (non-B compared with B; odds ratio [OR]: 1.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58–1.93, P=0.866). An immunological response was achieved by 43% of 753 B-infected patients and 48% of 114 non-B-infected patients ( P=0.334). After adjustment, there was no significant difference in odds of an immunological response (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.73–1.87, P=0.524).

Conclusions

There was no evidence of significant differences in virological or immunological response to cART between patients infected with HIV-1 B and non-B subtypes.

Regional Changes Over Time in Initial Virologic Response Rates to Combination Antiretroviral Therapy Across Europe

BACKGROUND

Changes in virologic response to initial combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) over calendar time may indicate improvements in cART or emergence of primary resistance. Regional variations may identify differences in available antiretroviral drugs or patient management.

METHODS

Virologic response (viral load < 500 copies/mL) 6 to 12 months after starting cART was analyzed in antiretroviral-naive EuroSIDA patients. Analyses were stratified by region (south, central west, north, east) or time started cART (early, 1996-1997; mid, 1998-1999; late, 2000-1904).

RESULTS

Virologic suppression was achieved by 60% of 2102 patients: 57% south (n = 560), 61% central west (n = 466), 63% north (n = 606), 58% east (n = 470) (P = 0.091). An increase was observed over time: 52% early cART, 56% mid cART, 69% late cART (P < 0.001). Overall, there were significant effects of region (P = 0.026) and time (P < 0.001) on virologic response after adjustment for confounders. Stratified by period, regional differences were less evident (early cART, P = 0.967; mid cART, P = 0.291; late cART, P = 0.163). Stratified by region, temporal changes were observed (south, P = 0.061; central west, P < 0.001; north: P = 0.070; east, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There was some evidence of regional differences in initial virologic response to cART. Improvements over time were observed, suggesting that so far, the effect of primary resistance has not been of sufficient magnitude to prevent increasing suppression rates.

Exploratory analysis for the evaluation of lopinavir/ritonavir-versus efavirenz-based HAART regimens in antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive patients: results from the Italian MASTER Cohort

OBJECTIVE

This retrospective longitudinal cohort study compared the virological and immunological responses to highly active antiretroviral therapy containing either efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir in previously antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 472 patients were selected (348 efavirenz and 124 lopinavir/ritonavir). The primary endpoint of this study was virological success (HIV RNA <50 copies/mL). The immunological response was assessed on the basis of either CD4+ T cell count variations (absolute and percentage) with respect to baseline values or categorical endpoints (defined as either a CD4+ T cell increase of > or =1;50 cells/mm(3) at week 24 or of > or =1;75 cells/mm(3) at week 48).

RESULTS

At intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the adjusted odds ratio of virological success for patients who started lopinavir/ritonavir, compared with those who started efavirenz, was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89, P = 0.016) at week 24 and 0.40 (95% CI: 0.33-0.89, P = 0.002) at week 48. However, patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had a more pronounced CD4+ T cell recovery, demonstrating both a mean absolute and percentage increase up to week 48 (MANOVA P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although comparisons of drug efficacy in non-randomized studies should be viewed with caution, from a virological point of view efavirenz-containing regimens performed as well (on-treatment analysis) or better (ITT analysis) than those containing lopinavir/ritonavir. In contrast, immunological outcome appeared to favour lopinavir/ritonavir.