MIV-310 reduces HIV viral load in patients failing multiple antiretroviral therapy: results from a 4-week phase II study

The thymidine dideoxynucleoside analog, alovudine, inhibits the mitochondrial DNA polymerase γ, impairs oxidative phosphorylation and promotes monocytic differentiation in acute myeloid leukemia

Mitochondrial DNA encodes 13 proteins that comprise components of the respiratory chain that maintain oxidative phosphorylation. The replication of mitochondrial DNA is performed by the sole mitochondrial DNA polymerase γ. As acute myeloid leukemia (AML) cells and stem cells have an increased reliance on oxidative phosphorylation, we sought to evaluate polymerase γ inhibitors in AML. The thymidine dideoxynucleoside analog, alovudine, is an inhibitor of polymerase γ. In AML cells, alovudine depleted mitochondrial DNA, reduced mitochondrial encoded proteins, decreased basal oxygen consumption, and decreased cell proliferation and viability. To evaluate the effects of polymerase γ inhibition with alovudine in vivo, mice were xenografted with OCI-AML2 cells and then treated with alovudine. Systemic administration of alovudine reduced leukemic growth without evidence of toxicity and decreased levels of mitochondrial DNA in the leukemic cells. We also showed that alovudine increased the monocytic differentiation of AML cells. Genetic knockdown and other chemical inhibitors of polymerase γ also promoted AML differentiation, but the effects on AML differentiation were independent of reductions in oxidative phosphorylation or respiratory chain proteins. Thus, we have identified a novel mechanism by which mitochondria regulate AML fate and differentiation independent of oxidative phosphorylation. Moreover, we highlight polymerase γ inhibitors, such as alovudine, as novel therapeutic agents for AML.

The Effect of a Methyl or 2-fluoroethyl Substituent at the N-3 Position of Thymidine, 3′-fluoro-3′-deoxythymi-dine and 1-β-D-arabinosylthymine on Their Antiviral and Cytostatic Activity in Cell Culture

Thymidine (Thd), 1-β-D-arabinosylthymine (ara-T) and 3′-fluoro-3′-deoxythymidine (FLT) have been substituted at N-3 by a methyl or a 2-fluoroethyl group. FLT and ara-T are markedly inhibitory against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and HIV-2, and herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and HSV-2, respectively. Modification at N-3 of these compounds markedly decreases both the antiviral and cytostatic activity of the parent compounds FLT and ara-T except for N-3-(methyl)-Thd that proved highly cytostatic for murine leukaemia L1210 cells. The decreased biological activity of the N-3-substituted pyrimidine nucleo-side analogues coincides with a significantly lower affinity of the modified Thd analogues for the cellular and viral (activating) nucleoside kinases.

Nucleoside and nucleotide HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors: 25 years after zidovudine

Twenty-five years ago, nucleoside analog 3'-azidothymidine (AZT) was shown to efficiently block the replication of HIV in cell culture. Subsequent studies demonstrated that AZT acts via the selective inhibition of HIV reverse transcriptase (RT) by its triphosphate metabolite. These discoveries have established the first class of antiretroviral agents: nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Over the years that followed, NRTIs evolved into the main component of antiretroviral drug combinations that are now used for the treatment of all populations of HIV infected patients. A total of thirteen NRTI drug products are now available for clinical application: eight individual NRTIs, four fixed-dose combinations of two or three NRTIs, and one complete fixed-dose regimen containing two NRTIs and one non-nucleoside RT inhibitor. Multiple NRTIs or their prodrugs are in various stages of clinical development and new potent NRTIs are still being identified through drug discovery efforts. This article will review basic principles of the in vitro and in vivo pharmacology of NRTIs, discuss their clinical use including limitations associated with long-term NRTI therapy, and describe newly identified NRTIs with promising pharmacological profiles highlighting those in the development pipeline. This article forms part of a special issue of Antiviral Research marking the 25th anniversary of antiretroviral drug discovery and development, volume 85, issue 1, 2010.

Mitochondrial DNA depletion in rat liver induced by fosalvudine tidoxil, a novel nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor prodrug

Fosalvudine tidoxil is a prodrug derived from the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor 3-deoxy-3-fluorothymidine (FLT; alovudine). FLT effectively inhibits resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1, but its clinical development was stopped due to bone marrow and liver toxicity. In this study, we examined the long-term in vivo effects of fosalvudine tidoxil on the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) contents in rats. Sprague-Dawley rats received fosalvudine tidoxil (15, 40, or 100 mg/kg of body weight/day) by oral gavage during a period of 8 weeks. Didanosine (100 mg/kg/day) was used as a positive control for mitochondrial toxicity. mtDNA levels in liver, gastrocnemius muscle, sciatic nerve, and inguinal fat pad tissues were quantified by real-time PCR. In hepatic mitochondria, fosalvudine tidoxil induced significant mtDNA depletion. At doses of 15, 40, and 100 mg/kg, the mean hepatic mtDNA values were 62, 64, and 47% of control values, respectively. Rats exposed to 100 mg/kg of fosalvudine tidoxil, unlike all other groups, had slightly elevated levels of glutamate pyruvate transaminase in sera. Didanosine induced a loss of mtDNA (to 48% of the control level) similar to that induced by fosalvudine tidoxil. mtDNA levels in skeletal, neural, and adipose tissues in the negative control and treatment groups were similar. Our results suggest that fosalvudine tidoxil induces mitochondrial hepatotoxicity and that this effect warrants scrutiny in clinical trials.

Antiviral Chemistry & Chemotherapy's Current Antiviral Agents FactFile (2nd Edition): Retroviruses and Hepadnaviruses

There are at present exactly 25 compounds that have been formally approved for the treatment of retrovirus (that is HIV) infections: seven nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), one nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI), four non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), 10 protease inhibitors (PIs), one core-ceptor inhibitor (CRI), one fusion inhibitor (FI) and one integrase inhibitor (INI). Other compounds expected to be approved for the treatment of HIV infections in the near future are the NNRTI rilpivirine, the CRI vicriviroc and the INI elvitegravir. To obtain synergistic activity, enable lower dosage levels, thus minimizing toxic side effects, and particularly to reduce the risk of drug resistance development, common wisdom dictates that the HIV inhibitors should be used in drug combination regimens. Although, given the number of compounds available, the drug combinations that could be concocted are uncountable, only one triple-drug combination has so far been formulated as single pill to be taken orally once daily, namely Atripla® containing the NtRTI tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, the NRTI emtricitabine and the NNRTI efavirenz. Here, we document these approved compounds along with other HIV-active compounds and, for the first time, compounds whose principal activity is against hepatitis B virus. The logic of this new division being the enzymatic similarity between the reverse transcriptase of HIV and hepatitis B virus; the strategies for the development of antiviral agents to combat them have much in common.

Antiviral activity of low-dose alovudine in antiretroviral-experienced patients: results from a 4-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-ranging trial

BACKGROUND

Alovudine inhibits replication of highly nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-resistant HIV strains in vitro. However, dose-dependent safety concerns resulted in its initial development being halted. Recently, a 4-week course of alovudine 7.5 mg/day added to a stavudine-free failing regimen yielded a significant decrease in viral load by -1.88 log(10) HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. The magnitude of the reduction in viral load suggested that lower doses might still be effective while offering adequate safety during long-term use.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether lower dosages of alovudine still provide significant antiviral activity in patients with broad NRTI resistance.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating three doses of alovudine (0.5, 1 and 2 mg) or placebo added for 4 weeks to a failing regimen in patients with evidence of NRTI-resistant HIV strains [>or=2 thymidine-associated mutations (TAMs)]. The primary endpoint was the mean viral load reduction between baseline and week 4.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study: 21, 13, 18 and 20 in the placebo and 0.5, 1 and 2 mg arms, respectively. Baseline median CD4 count and viral load were 298 cells/microL (range 44-692 cells/microL) and 3.9 log(10) copies/mL (range 2.5-5.2 log(10) copies/mL), respectively. Baseline viral isolates harboured a median of four TAMs. Alovudine was added to a median four-drug failing regimen. At week 4, compared with placebo, mean viral load changes were -0.42 log(10) [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.67 to -0.18] and -0.30 log(10) (-0.55 to -0.06) in the 2 and 1 mg arms, respectively. There was no significant change in CD4 cell count. Alovudine was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

A 4-week course of alovudine 2 mg/day provided a modest but significant viral load reduction in patients harbouring viruses with a median of four TAMs.

An Update and Review of Antiretroviral Therapy

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was discovered in 1982, but treatment strategies were not introduced until 5 years later. Early regimens consisted of one or two drugs and often led to treatment failure. Since the advent in 1995 of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which consists of at least three agents, a dramatic improvement has been seen in the number of patients attaining undetectable viral loads, improved CD4 counts, and improved survival. However, early HAART often consisted of drugs with complex dosing schedules, strict food requirements, treatment-limiting adverse effects, and the need to take 16-20 pills/day. These treatment barriers often led to patient nonadherence, with subsequent treatment failure and development of resistant strains. The CD4 count and viral load are the most important surrogate markers used to determine if treatment is indicated. Current guidelines suggest starting treatment in patients who are symptomatic with an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining illness regardless of CD4 count or viral load, as well as in asymptomatic patients with a CD4 count of 350 cells/mm(3) or below. In patients with CD4 counts above 350 cells/mm(3) and viral loads above 100,000 copies/ml, some clinicians prefer to defer treatment, whereas others will consider starting therapy; treatment is deferred in patients with CD4 counts above 350 cells/mm(3) and viral load s below 100,000 copies/ml. If therapy is started, the selection of appropriate agents is based on comorbidities (liver disease, depression, cardiovascular disease), pregnancy status, adherence potential (dosage regimen, pill burden, dosing frequency), food restrictions (dosing with regard to meals), adverse drug effects, and potential drug-drug interactions. Within the last 8 years, newer antiretroviral agents have focused on ways to improve adherence, such as convenient dosing (fewer pills), pharmacokinetic and formulation changes to reduce dosing frequency or pill burden, and coformulated dosage forms that contain two or three drugs in one convenient pill. Other improvements include increased potency of newer agents, agents sensitive to a highly resistant virus, improved adverse-effect profile (e.g., less gastrointestinal effects, improved lipid profiles), as well as protease inhibitor boosting with ritonavir, which takes advantage of the potent cytochrome P450 inhibitory action of ritonavir. This review focuses on the concepts of antiretroviral therapy, barriers to successful antiretroviral treatment, developments to limit treatment barriers, and new drug entities for the treatment of HIV.

Emerging reverse transcriptase inhibitors for the treatment of HIV infection in adults

A combination of three or more antiretroviral drugs, commonly called 'highly active antiretroviral therapy' (HAART), has become the standard-of-care treatment for HIV-infected patients in the developed world. There are now 21 licensed anti-HIV drugs to choose from when starting a HAART regimen. The currently approved antiretroviral drugs fall into four categories: nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors and fusion inhibitors. Novel compounds currently in preclinical or clinical development are either focusing on new viral proteins or the same specific viral elements targeted by the available drugs. When developing new anti-HIV drugs of an already existing class, focus should be held on maximising potency, minimising toxicity, diminishing the risk for resistance development and producing effective drugs for patients who already have resistance to currently available drugs. In addition, pill burden should be ideally reduced to once-daily dosing, thereby enhancing a patient's adherence and reducing treatment costs. The present review focuses on emerging drugs to inhibit the reverse transcriptase of HIV.

Efficacy and safety of tenofovir double-dose in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: The tenoplus study

Drug resistance is an increasing problem in the treatment of HIV infection. Tenofovir has been shown to inhibit HIV replication even with thymidine-associated resistance mutations (TAMs) if they are limited to two or less. Double-dose of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (600 mg QD) was used to determine weather the drug could be virologically effective in patients harbouring HIV-strains resistant to nucleoside analogues (NRTI). A pilot, open, non-comparative add-on study, where patients failing a current antiretroviral regimen, with at least two TAMs, and naive for tenofovir, were given tenofovir 600 mg once-daily for 4 weeks, in addition to their current failing antiretroviral regimen. The primary end-point was the percentage of patients with plasma viral load (VL) reduction of at least 0.8 log(10) between baseline and week 4 (W4). Ten patients were enrolled. At baseline, the median viral load was 3.66 log(10) copies/ml (range 3.13-4.03) and the median CD4 cell count was 407/mm(3) (range 136-1102). The percentage of patients with reduction the viral load > or =0.8 log(10) was 40% at W4. After 4 weeks of treatment with tenofovir 600 mg, the median decrease in the viral load was -0.61 log(10) (range -0.05; -0.88) and the median gain of CD4 was +109/mm(3). Despite a twofold increase tenofovir plasma concentrations, no serious drug-related adverse event were recorded except for one patient experiencing an de Fanconi syndrome at week 2. This add-on pilot study supports the concept of double dose tenofovir to virologically overcome the decreased sensitivity of NRTI-resistant viruses. However, the safety of this regimen needs to be considered carefully.

Resistance to New Anti-HIV Agents: Problems in the Pathway of Drug Registration

Resistance data are now requested by the regulatory agencies as an integral part of the approval process of new antiretroviral drugs. We examined the means by which resistance data was gathered during pre-clinical and clinical Phases I, II and III of drug development, and how the public and academic experts access these proprietary data. The analysis identified various opportunities for improvement of the current process, in particular the need for standards in generating and reporting resistance data on new antiretroviral drugs, and the need to enforce warnings in the product labelling on the drug combinations that can potentially lead to resistance and treatment failure.

Challenges for the Clinical Development of New Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors for HIV Infection

There is a need for new antiretroviral drugs with activity against HIV isolates resistant to currently available agents and improved short and long-term tolerability profiles. Clinical trial designs for nucleotide and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are restricted by the characteristics of these agents (for example, their cross-resistance, resistance threshold and interaction profiles), the ethical need to ensure that patients are not maintained on suboptimal regimens, and regulatory requirements (for example, with regards to trial designs and patient populations). For example, consideration of cross-resistance profiles must influence the way in which an NRTI in development is sequenced to minimize any impact on future treatment options. The resistance threshold is determined by the number of mutations required to diminish sensitivity to a given drug. Pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interactions restrict how NRTIs may be combined during clinical development. Doses may be selected on the basis of results from short-term monotherapy studies in treatment-naive patients, but such studies cannot establish the long-term efficacy or tolerability of new agents used in combination regimens. Confirmatory studies in treatment-naive populations do not meet the medical and regulatory needs for clinical data in treatment-experienced populations, while studies in treatment-experienced populations are subject to numerous clinical and logistical difficulties. Intensification, switch and hybrid study designs all offer suitable approaches to the evaluation of NRTIs with novel resistance profiles. Switch studies are particularly useful for agents with resistance profiles that suggest a specific sequencing approach in treatment and for those with the potential, based on pharmacokinetic data, for interactions with other agents. The successful development of new NRTIs will depend upon a thorough appreciation of these many and complex issues, not only among those involved in the design of clinical studies, but also those contributing to their review and conduct.