Long-term follow-up of elite controllers: Higher risk of complications with HCV coinfection, no association with HIV disease progression

Impact of hepatitis C cure on risk of mortality and morbidity in people with HIV after antiretroviral therapy initiation

OBJECTIVE

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in people with HIV (PWH). Sustained virological response (SVR) decreases the risk of HCV-associated morbidity. We compared mortality, risk of AIDS-defining events, and non-AIDS nonliver (NANL) cancers between HCV-co-infected PWH who reached SVR and mono-infected PWH.

DESIGN

Adult PWH from 21 cohorts in Europe and North America that collected HCV treatment data were eligible if they were HCV-free at the time of ART initiation.

METHODS

Up to 10 mono-infected PWH were matched (on age, sex, date of ART start, HIV acquisition route, and being followed at the time of SVR) to each HCV-co-infected PWH who reached SVR. Cox models were used to estimate relative hazards (hazard ratio) of all-cause mortality, AIDS-defining events, and NANL cancers after adjustment.

RESULTS

Among 62 495 PWH, 2756 acquired HCV, of whom 649 reached SVR. For 582 of these, at least one mono-infected PWH could be matched, producing a total of 5062 mono-infected PWH. The estimated hazard ratios comparing HCV-co-infected PWH who reached SVR with mono-infected PWH were 0.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.73] for mortality, 0.85 [0.42-1.74] for AIDS-defining events, and 1.21 [0.86-1.72] for NANL cancer.

CONCLUSION

PWH who reached SVR a short time after HCV acquisition were not at higher risk of overall mortality compared with mono-infected PWH. However, the apparent higher risk of NANL cancers in HCV-co-infected PWH who reached SVR after a DAA-based treatment compared with mono-infected PWH, though compatible with a null association, suggests a need for monitoring of those events following SVR.

Approach to the management of paediatric HIV spontaneous controllers

Paediatric HIV spontaneous controllers (HSCs) are a unique and understudied population with potential to inform alternative treatment options for patients living with HIV. As HSCs are so rare and often not recognised prior to antiretroviral treatment (ART) initiation, it can be difficult for clinicians to optimally manage this group. We describe the diagnosis, history and management of three paediatric HSCs, two girls and a boy who were followed for 2, 1.25 and 10.4 years, respectively, before starting ART. All had low but detectable viral loads throughout follow-up but mostly marginally low CD4:CD8 ratios. The reason for starting ART in all was a gradual tendency to poorer virological control. This case series should assist in recognising paediatric HSCs. Clinical dilemmas arising in the management of paediatric HSCs include arriving at a correct HIV-positive diagnosis, correct diagnosis as an HSC, as well as whether to initiate ART. Decision-making for initiation of ART in paediatric HSCs should be individualised. Factors supporting ART initiation in these patients included increased frequency of viral load blips, increasing detectable viral load, CD4 percentage and CD4:CD8 ratio. Other factors included Hepatitis C serology and highly sensitive C-reactive protein. All three patients ultimately required ART, which supports universal initiation of ART in paediatric HSCs, but further research is required.

High rates of long-term progression in HIV-1-positive elite controllers

INTRODUCTION

Elite controllers (EC) are a rare group of HIV-1-positive individuals who suppress viral loads (VL) to undetectable levels with elevated CD4 T-cell counts in the absence of ART. While rates of short- and mid-term progression have been described in these patients, few studies have focused on their long-term outcome This study aims to describe the virological and immunological behaviour in a cohort of elite controllers followed up for a median of 17 years in the University Hospital, and to identify factors that may be related to disease progression.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive, prospective and single-centre study of all HIV-positive adults recorded in the University Hospital database who met the definition criteria for EC. EC were defined as patients having two consecutive undetectable VL without ART for at least one year. Patients were followed from baseline up to December 2019, to the development of a progression event (loss of VL control, CD4+ T cell decline, AIDS or death) or to the censoring date (lost to follow-up or initiation of ART). Predictive models of progression were calculated.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine EC were identified with a median follow-up of 17 years contributing 1033 PYFU. The median (95% CI) time duration from HIV-1 diagnosis to disease progression was four (1.7 to 6.3) years. Forty-nine (83%) presented progression to the composite end-point, 44 (74.6%) lost viral control, 39 (66.1%) lost immunological control, two developed AIDS and two died. Only 10 patients (16.9%) did not show progression of any kind. Independent predictors of virological progression were sexual risk of HIV-1 acquisition and VL blips during the first year of follow-up (baseline). The only independent predictor detected for progression to a composite end-point was VL blips during the first year of follow-up (baseline).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of long-term progression in EC was very high. Only a minority of patients did not show clinical progression after a median of 17 years of follow-up. These results should be taken in account when considering EC as a model of HIV-1 remission.

Assessment of drug interaction potential between the HCV direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir/grazoprevir and the HIV integrase inhibitors raltegravir and dolutegravir

BACKGROUND

Elbasvir/grazoprevir is a once-daily fixed-dose combination therapy for the treatment of chronic HCV infection, including HCV/HIV coinfection.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction of elbasvir and grazoprevir with raltegravir or dolutegravir.

METHODS

Three open-label trials in healthy adult participants were conducted. In the raltegravir trials, participants received a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg, a single dose of elbasvir 50 mg or grazoprevir 200 mg, and raltegravir with either elbasvir or grazoprevir. In the dolutegravir trial, participants received a single dose of dolutegravir 50 mg alone or co-administered with once-daily elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 200 mg.

RESULTS

The raltegravir AUC0-∞ geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% CI) was 1.02 (0.81-1.27) with elbasvir and 1.43 (0.89-2.30) with grazoprevir. Dolutegravir AUC0-∞ GMR (90% CI) was 1.16 (1.00-1.34) with elbasvir and grazoprevir. The elbasvir AUC0-∞ GMR (90% CI) was 0.81 (0.57-1.17) with raltegravir and 0.98 (0.93-1.04) with dolutegravir. The grazoprevir AUC0-24 GMR (90% CI) was 0.89 (0.72-1.09) with raltegravir and 0.81 (0.67-0.97) with dolutegravir.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbasvir or grazoprevir co-administered with raltegravir or dolutegravir resulted in no clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions and was generally well tolerated. These results support the assertion that no dose adjustments for elbasvir, grazoprevir, raltegravir or dolutegravir are needed for co-administration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

HIV controllers: to treat or not to treat? Is that the right question?

The term HIV controller refers to the small proportion of individuals infected with HIV who can spontaneously control viraemia to maintain very low viral loads. One major unresolved question is whether HIV controllers should receive antiretroviral therapy, given that international guidelines recommend treatment for all individuals who are infected with HIV. Differences in the definitions of a controller (in terms of the viral-load cutoff and the duration of viral control) and contrasting reports on CD4 T-cell decline, chronic immune activation, the cardiovascular risk, and loss of viral control in controllers have prevented the development of a consensus view.

Assessment of Drug Interaction Potential Between the Hepatitis C Virus Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and the Nucleotide Analog Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate

Treatment of individuals coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) requires careful consideration of potential drug-drug interactions. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction of the direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir coadministered with the nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Three open-label, multidose studies in healthy adults were conducted. In the first study (N = 10), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, elbasvir 50 mg once daily, and elbasvir coadministered with TDF. In the second study (N = 12), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, grazoprevir 200 mg once daily, and grazoprevir coadministered with TDF. In the third study (N = 14), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily and TDF 300 mg coadministered with coformulated elbasvir/grazoprevir 50 mg/100 mg once daily. Pharmacokinetics and safety were evaluated. Following coadministration, the tenofovir area under the plasma concentration-time curve to 24 hours and maximum plasma concentration geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for tenofovir and coadministered drug(s) versus tenofovir were 1.3 (1.2, 1.5) and 1.5 (1.3, 1.6), respectively, when coadministered with elbasvir; 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.2), respectively, when coadministered with grazoprevir; and 1.3 (1.2, 1.4) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.4), respectively, when coadministered with the elbasvir/grazoprevir coformulation. TDF had minimal effect on elbasvir and grazoprevir pharmacokinetics. Elbasvir and/or grazoprevir coadministered with TDF resulted in no clinically meaningful tenofovir exposure increases and was generally well tolerated, with no deaths, serious adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, or laboratory AEs reported. No dose adjustments for elbasvir/grazoprevir or TDF are needed for coadministration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions between the Hepatitis C Virus Inhibitors Elbasvir and Grazoprevir and HIV Protease Inhibitors Ritonavir, Atazanavir, Lopinavir, and Darunavir in Healthy Volunteers

The combination of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor elbasvir and the NS3/4A protease inhibitor grazoprevir is a potent, once-daily therapy indicated for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We explored the pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir and grazoprevir with ritonavir and ritonavir-boosted HIV protease inhibitors in three phase 1 trials. Drug-drug interaction trials with healthy participants were conducted to evaluate the effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of grazoprevir (n = 10) and the potential two-way pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir (n = 30) or grazoprevir (n = 39) when coadministered with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, lopinavir, or darunavir. Coadministration of ritonavir with grazoprevir increased grazoprevir exposure; the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for grazoprevir plus ritonavir versus grazoprevir alone area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC_0-24) was 1.91 (90% confidence interval [CI]; 1.31 to 2.79). Grazoprevir exposure was markedly increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for grazoprevir AUC_0-24 of 10.58 (90% CI, 7.78 to 14.39), 12.86 (90% CI, 10.25 to 16.13), and 7.50 (90% CI, 5.92 to 9.51), respectively. Elbasvir exposure was increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for elbasvir AUC_0-24 of 4.76 (90% CI, 4.07 to 5.56), 3.71 (90% CI, 3.05 to 4.53), and 1.66 (90% CI, 1.35 to 2.05), respectively. Grazoprevir and elbasvir had little effect on atazanavir, lopinavir, and darunavir pharmacokinetics. Coadministration of elbasvir-grazoprevir with atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or darunavir-ritonavir is contraindicated, owing to an increase in grazoprevir exposure. Therefore, HIV treatment regimens without HIV protease inhibitors should be considered for HCV/HIV-coinfected individuals who are being treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir.

When do co-infections matter?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Advances in diagnostic methods mean that co-infections are increasingly being detected in clinical practice, yet their significance is not always obvious. In parallel, basic science studies are increasingly investigating interactions between pathogens to try to explain real-life observations and elucidate biological mechanisms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Co-infections may be insignificant, detrimental, or even beneficial, and these outcomes can occur through multiple levels of interactions which include modulation of the host response, altering the performance of diagnostic tests, and drug-drug interactions during treatment. The harmful effects of chronic co-infections such as tuberculosis or Hepatitis B and C in association with HIV are well established, and recent studies have focussed on strategies to mitigate these effects. However, consequences of many acute co-infections are much less certain, and recent conflicting findings simply highlight many of the challenges of studying naturally acquired infections in humans.

SUMMARY

Tackling these challenges, using animal models, or careful prospective studies in humans may prove to be worthwhile. There are already tantalizing examples where identification and treatment of relevant co-infections seems to hold promise for improved health outcomes.

Current Treatment Options for HIV Elite Controllers: a Review

Opinion statement

Initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) elite controllers remains controversial, because current evidence does not definitively demonstrate that the benefits of ART outweigh risk in this patient population. However, it is the opinion of the authors that in developed countries, where first-line ART regimens have minimal toxicities, treatment of elite controllers should be strongly considered. Treatment of elite controllers has the potential to minimize the size of the HIV reservoir, which benefits elite controllers who choose to pursue future cure, dampen immune activation, diminish risk of transmission, and encourage linkage and engagement in care allowing HIV providers the opportunity to address HIV-associated non-AIDS conditions and other co-morbidities.

Purpose of review

This review aims to summarize literature relevant to the management of elite controllers for clinicians caring for patients living with HIV. Key topics include timing of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and ART in the unique populations of elite controllers with concomitant cardiovascular disease and hepatitis C co-infection, and undergoing immunosuppressive therapy for other co-morbidities.

Recent findings

The persistent HIV reservoir in elite controllers has two main implications. First, increased immune activation appears to adversely impact clinical outcomes in elite controllers, but the role of ART in addressing this effect remains unclear. Second, elite control duration can be limited, but certain factors may help to predict disease progression with implications on timing of ART.

Summary

Initiation of ART during elite control remains controversial, although there are multiple theoretical benefits. Elite controllers comprise a heterogeneous population of patients living with HIV, and optimal management involves weighing the risk and benefit of ART as well as monitoring of clinical consequences of increased immune activation.