Simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy for HIV-1 treated individuals on virological suppression: 48-week efficacy and safety results

Inflammation burden score in multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection

OBJECTIVES

Four-class drug-resistant (4DR) people living with HIV (PLWH) are a fragile population with a high burden of disease. No data on their inflammation and T-cell exhaustion markers are currently available.

METHODS

Inflammation, immune activation and microbial translocation biomarkers were measured through ELISA in 30 4DR-PLWH with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL, 30 non-viremic 4DR-PLWH and 20 non-viremic non-4DR-PLWH. Groups were matched by age, gender and smoking habit. T-cell activation and exhaustion markers were assessed by flow cytometry in 4DR-PLWH. An inflammation burden score (IBS) was calculated from soluble marker levels and associated factors were estimated through multivariate regression.

RESULTS

The highest plasma biomarker concentrations were observed in viremic 4DR-PLWH, the lowest ones in non-4DR-PLWH. Endotoxin core immunoglobulin G showed an opposite trend. Among 4DR-PLWH, CD38/HLA-DR and PD-1 were more expressed on CD4+ (p = 0.019 and 0.034, respectively) and CD8+ (p = 0.002 and 0.032, respectively) cells of viremic compared to non-viremic subjects. An increased IBS was significantly associated with 4DR condition, higher values of viral load and a previous cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Multidrug-resistant HIV infection is associated with a higher IBS, even when viremia is undetectable. Therapeutic approaches aimed to reduce inflammation and T-cell exhaustion in 4DR-PLWH need to be investigated.

Treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine versus maintenance of atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week results from a randomized trial (ATLAS-M)

Background

Combination ART (cART)-related toxicities and costs have prompted the need for treatment simplification. The ATLAS-M trial explored 48 week non-inferior efficacy of simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir  +  lamivudine versus maintaining three-drug atazanavir/ritonavir-based cART in virologically suppressed patients.

Methods

We performed an open-label, multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority study, enrolling HIV-infected adults on atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs, with stable HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL and CD4 + >200 cells/mm 3 . Main exclusion criteria were hepatitis B virus coinfection, past virological failure on or resistance to study drugs, recent AIDS and pregnancy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to either switch to 300 mg of atazanavir/100 mg of ritonavir once daily and 300 mg of lamivudine once daily (atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm) or to continue the previous regimen (atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm). The primary study outcome was the maintenance of HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL at week 48 of the ITT-exposed (ITT-e) analysis with switch = failure. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01599364.

Results

Between July 2011 and June 2014, 266 patients were randomized (133 to each arm). After 48 weeks, the primary study outcome was met by 119 of 133 patients (89.5%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm and 106 of 133 patients (79.7%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm [difference atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine versus atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm: +9.8% (95% CI + 1.2 to + 18.4)], demonstrating non-inferiority and superior efficacy of the atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm. Virological failure occurred in two (1.5%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm and six (4.5%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm, without resistance selection. A similar proportion of adverse events occurred in both arms.

Conclusions

Treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine showed non-inferior efficacy (superiority on post-hoc analysis) and a comparable safety profile over continuing atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs in virologically suppressed patients.

Impact of monotherapy on HIV-1 reservoir, immune activation, and co-infection with Epstein-Barr virus

Objectives

Although monotherapy (mART) effectiveness in maintaining viral suppression and CD4 cell count has been extensively examined in HIV-1-infected patients, its impact on HIV-1 reservoir, immune activation, microbial translocation and co-infection with Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is unclear.

Methods

This retrospective study involved 32 patients who switched to mART; patients were studied at baseline, 48 and 96 weeks after mART initiation. Thirty-two patients who continued combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) over the same period of time were included in the study. Markers of HIV-1 reservoir (HIV-1 DNA and intracellular HIV-1 RNA) were quantified by real-time PCR. Markers of T-(CD3⁺CD8⁺CD38⁺) and B-(CD19⁺CD80/86⁺ and CD19⁺CD10^-CD21^lowCD27⁺) cell activation were evaluated by flow cytometry. Plasma levels of microbial translocation markers were quantified by real-time PCR (16S ribosomal DNA and mitochondrial [mt]DNA) or by ELISA (LPS and sCD14). EBV was typed and quantified by multiplex real-time PCR.

Results

At baseline, no differences were found between mART and cART groups. Three (10%) mART-treated patients had a virological failure vs none in the cART group. Levels of HIV-1 DNA, intracellular HIV-1 RNA and EBV-DNA remained stable in the mART group, while decreased significantly in the cART group. Percentages of T- and B-activated cells significantly increased in the mART-treated patients, while remained at low levels in the cART-treated ones (p = 0.014 and p<0.001, respectively). Notably, levels of mtDNA remained stable in the cART group, but significantly rose in the mART one (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Long-term mART is associated with higher levels of T- and B-cell activation and, conversely to cART, does not reduce the size of HIV-1 reservoir and EBV co-infection.

Factors associated with virological rebound in HIV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitor monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial found that protease inhibitor monotherapy as a simplification strategy is well tolerated in terms of drug resistance but less effective than combination therapy in suppressing HIV viral load. We sought to identify factors associated with the risk of viral load rebound in this trial.

METHODS

PIVOT was a randomized controlled trial in HIV-positive adults with suppressed viral load for at least 24 weeks on combination therapy comparing a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus ongoing triple therapy. In participants receiving monotherapy, we analysed time to confirmed viral load rebound and its predictors using flexible parametric survival models.

RESULTS

Of 290 participants initiating protease inhibitor monotherapy (80% darunavir, 14% lopinavir, and 6% other), 93 developed viral load rebound on monotherapy. The risk of viral load rebound peaked at 9 months after starting monotherapy and then declined to approximately 5 per 100 person-years from 18 months onwards. Independent predictors of viral load rebound were duration of viral load suppression before starting monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.81 per additional year <50 copies/ml; P < 0.001), CD4 cell count (hazard ratio 0.73 per additional 100 cells/μl for CD4 nadir; P = 0.008); ethnicity (hazard ratio 1.87 for nonwhite versus white, P = 0.025) but not the protease inhibitor agent used (P = 0.27). Patients whose viral load was analysed with the Roche TaqMan-2 assay had a 1.87-fold risk for viral load rebound compared with Abbott RealTime assay (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

A number of factors can identify patients at low risk of rebound with protease inhibitor monotherapy, and this may help to better target those who may benefit from this management strategy.

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.

Modifying Antiretroviral Therapy in Virologically Suppressed HIV-1-Infected Patients

HIV-1-infected patients with suppressed plasma viral loads often require changes to their antiretroviral (ARV) therapy to manage drug toxicity and intolerance, to improve adherence, and to avoid drug interactions. In patients who have never experienced virologic failure while receiving ARV therapy and who have no evidence of drug resistance, switching to any of the acceptable US Department of Health and Human Services first-line therapies is expected to maintain virologic suppression. However, in virologically suppressed patients with a history of virologic failure or drug resistance, it can be more challenging to change therapy while still maintaining virologic suppression. In these patients, it may be difficult to know whether the discontinuation of one of the ARVs in a suppressive regimen constitutes the removal of a key regimen component that will not be adequately supplanted by one or more substituted ARVs. In this article, we review many of the clinical scenarios requiring ARV therapy modification in patients with stable virologic suppression and outline the strategies for modifying therapy while maintaining long-term virologic suppression.

NRTI Sparing Therapy in Virologically Controlled HIV-1 Infected Subjects: Results of a Controlled, Randomized Trial (Probe)

Dual treatments could help clinicians to avoid drawbacks and toxicities due to the nucleosidic backbone, while maintaining the efficacy and convenience of robust combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We explored the combination of rilpivirine plus boosted darunavir (DRV) as an option when switching from standard cART in patients who are virologically suppressed. In this randomized, open-label, proof-of-concept, noninferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with chronic HIV-1 infection and on a stable, effective (>6 months) protease inhibitor-based cART including a nucleosidic backbone. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of the virological response between treatment groups, according to FDA snapshot approach. Sixty patients were randomly allocated to dual treatment with rilpivirine plus boosted DRV or to continue their ongoing triple treatment. Noninferiority was shown at the prespecified level of -12% both at 24 and 48 weeks. At week 24, 100% of patients in the dual arm presented a blood HIV-RNA level <50 copies per milliliter compared with 90.1% in the triple drug arm (difference 9.9%, 95% CI: -0.7 to 20.7), whereas, at 48 weeks, the same proportions were 96.7% and 93.4%, respectively (difference 3.3%, 95% CI: -7.15 to 13.5). The mean change in CD4 cell count from baseline was 6.0 cells per microliter (SD, 184) for dual treatment and 16.5 cells per microliter (SD, 142) for triple treatment. A relevant decrement in CD838HLADR cells was observed in both arms. The reduction was, however, significantly more pronounced in the dual-therapy arm. At week 48, the CD838HLADR cell count was 3.4% (SD, 2.2) in the dual-therapy arm and 5.2% (SD, 3.1) in the triple arm (P = 0.018). None of the patients developed severe adverse events nor had to stop treatment because of adverse events or presented grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities. A greater reduction of bone stiffness (-2.25; SD, 7.1) was observed in patients randomized to continue triple therapy compared with patients switched to dual therapy (-0.32; SD, 8.8). Finally, baseline HIV-DNA content directly correlated with pre-cART viral load of patients (P = 0.021), but not with time on cART or time with HIV-RNA below 50 copies per milliliter. Independently of the study arm, patients with a n HIV-RNA level constantly above 3 copies per milliliter or showing viral blips had baseline HIV-DNA levels significantly higher (64,656 copies per 10 cells; SD, 93057) compared with patients who constantly presented a HIV-RNA level below the detection limit of 3 copies per milliliter (14,457 copies per 10 cells; SD, 14098) (P = 0.001). A rilpivirine-boosted plus ritonavir-boosted DRV therapy was not inferior over 48 weeks to a standard boosted protease inhibitor-based triple cART. The dual therapy did not negatively affect lipid profile and renal function and was more friendly on bone metabolism. This approach constitutes an alternative for patients experiencing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-related toxicities.

HIV-1 drug resistance and resistance testing

The global scale-up of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (ART) has led to dramatic reductions in HIV-1 mortality and incidence. However, HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) poses a potential threat to the long-term success of ART and is emerging as a threat to the elimination of AIDS as a public health problem by 2030. In this review we describe the genetic mechanisms, epidemiology, and management of HIVDR at both individual and population levels across diverse economic and geographic settings. To describe the genetic mechanisms of HIVDR, we review the genetic barriers to resistance for the most commonly used ARVs and describe the extent of cross-resistance between them. To describe the epidemiology of HIVDR, we summarize the prevalence and patterns of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) and acquired drug resistance (ADR) in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also review to two categories of HIVDR with important public health relevance: (i) pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR), a World Health Organization-recommended HIVDR surveillance metric and (ii) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)-related drug resistance, a type of ADR that can impact clinical outcomes if present at the time of treatment initiation. To summarize the implications of HIVDR for patient management, we review the role of genotypic resistance testing and treatment practices in both high-income and LMIC settings. In high-income countries where drug resistance testing is part of routine care, such an understanding can help clinicians prevent virological failure and accumulation of further HIVDR on an individual level by selecting the most efficacious regimens for their patients. Although there is reduced access to diagnostic testing and to many ARVs in LMIC, understanding the scientific basis and clinical implications of HIVDR is useful in all regions in order to shape appropriate surveillance, inform treatment algorithms, and manage difficult cases.

Switching to boosted protease inhibitor plus a second antiretroviral drug (dual therapy) for treatment simplification: a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

Aim of the study was to assess predictors of discontinuation/toxicity of boosted PI-based (PI/r) dual therapy (DT).

METHODS

Observational, retrospective switch study in patients successfully treated with triple drugs regimen. Patients switched to PI/r based DT [darunavir (DRV/r), lopinavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir (ATV/r)] plus a second drug: [raltegravir (RAL), maraviroc (MVC) etravirine (ETR), lamivudine (3TC) or tenofovir (TDF)] between 2009 and 2014 were included. The effect of each drug as well as other clinical and virological cofactors over treatment discontinuation (TD) was assessed using survival analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 376 patients were included with mean follow-up of 73 weeks. The most commonly used drugs in DT were DRV/r (63.0 %) and RAL (53.7 %). TD was observed in 77 (20,4 %) patients: 38 (10,1 %) virological failure, 35 (9,3 %) toxicity/intolerance (4 deaths) and 4 (1 %) interruptions for patients decision. At Cox Model, adjusted by demographic and laboratory variables, DRV/r and ATV/r significantly reduced the likelihood of TD and longer treatment was associated with lower risk, while low CD4 count at baseline and number of previous regimens with a higher risk. Moreover, RAL and 3TC use were significantly associated with lower TD by toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

In our clinical practice experience, switching virologically suppressed patients to PI/r based DT showed adequate safety and efficacy, so that it may be used in selected patients with specific medical needs.

Cerebrospinal fluid analysis for HIV replication and biomarkers of immune activation and neurodegeneration in long-term atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy treated patients

BACKGROUND

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) viral escape is a concern in ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors monotherapy. The aim was to assess HIV-RNA, biomarkers of immune activation and neurodegeneration, and atazanavir concentrations in CSF of patients on successful long-term atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) monotherapy.

METHODS

This is a substudy of the multicentric, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial monotherapy once a day with atazanavir/ritonavir (NCT01511809), comparing the ongoing ATV/r along with 2 nucleoside retrotranscriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) regimen to a simplified ATV/r monotherapy. Patients with plasma HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL after at least 96 study weeks were eligible.We assessed HIV-RNA, soluble (s)CD14, sCD163, CCL2, CXCL10, interleukin-6, and YKL40 by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; neopterin, tryptophan, kynurenine, and neurofilament by immunoassays; and ATV concentrations by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in paired plasma and CSF samples. Variables were compared with Wilcoxon rank-sum or Fisher exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

HIV-RNA was detected in the CSF of 1/11 patients on ATV/r monotherapy (114 copies/mL), without neurological symptoms, who was successfully reintensified with his previous 2NRTIs, and in none of the 12 patients on ATV/r + 2NRTIs. CSF biomarkers and ATV concentrations did not differ between the 2 arms.

CONCLUSIONS

CSF escape was uncommon in patients on long-term ATV/r monotherapy and was controlled with reintensification.

CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio progression in HIV-HCV infected patients after achievement of SVR

BACKGROUND

In HIV-HCV co-infected patients, the long-term effects of HCV eradication on HIV disease progression are still unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine if CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio slopes improved after anti-HCV treatment in patients achieving a sustained virological response (SVR).

STUDY DESIGN

A total of 116 HIV-HCV co-infected patients, previously treated with Peg-IFN/RBV, were divided into two groups: SVR (55 patients who had achieved SVR), and non-SVR (61 patients). Retrospective data before and after anti-HCV therapy were obtained for all patients, with a median 8 year-follow-up. Multilevel mixed models were fitted to assess the trends over time of FIB-4 score, APRI score, CD4, CD8 cell count and CD4/CD8 ratio.

RESULTS

Median HIV-infection duration, HCV-RNA and GGT baseline levels were higher in non-SVR compared to the SVR group. A significantly decreased FIB-4 (p<0.001) and APRI trend (p<0.001) after SVR was observed in SVR patients compared to those non-SVR. After adjustment for HIV duration, there was no significant difference between the two groups for absolute CD4 (p=0.08) or percentage CD4 slope (p=0.6) over time. The CD4/CD8 ratio trend also demonstrated a similar progressive increase in both groups (p=0.2). During follow-up, six deaths were reported in the non-SVR group versus no death for the SVR group, while no difference in AIDS and non-AIDS events was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Achievement of SVR determines an important beneficial impact in terms of liver-related mortality and fibrosis regression, but does not seem to alter neither the slope of long term CD4 gain nor the CD4/CD8 ratio evolution in ART-treated HIV-HCV co-infected patients.

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.

Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy: first experiences in HIV-1 patients

BACKGROUND

Dolutegravir is recommended as part of combination ART (cART) for HIV-1-infected patients. Toxicities, drug interactions and costs related to cART still warrant the search for improved treatment options. Dolutegravir's high resistance barrier might make it suitable as antiretroviral maintenance monotherapy. The feasibility of this strategy is currently unknown.

METHODS

This is a prospective case series on five consecutive HIV-1-infected patients on cART without previous virological failure who switched to dolutegravir monotherapy. All were HIV-RNA suppressed <50 copies/mL and had contraindications to current and alternative combinations of antiretroviral drugs. HIV-RNA was measured at baseline, week 4, week 8, week 12 and every 6 weeks thereafter. Patients would be switched back to their original cART upon confirmed HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL.

RESULTS

The five patients had been HIV-RNA suppressed <50 copies/mL for ≥1.5 years prior to the initiation of dolutegravir monotherapy. All were on NNRTI-containing regimens at the switch. HIV-RNA remained <50 copies/mL at all timepoints in four patients. One patient, with end-stage renal disease and on calcium supplements, had a pre-cART HIV-RNA of 625 000 copies/mL with a CD4 nadir of 120 cells/mm(3) and had HIV-RNA of 8150 copies/mL at week 30. The dolutegravir Ctrough was 0.18 mg/L. This patient did not have acquired resistance or evidence of adherence problems and HIV-RNA was resuppressed after switching to his former cART.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series indicates that dolutegravir monotherapy might be a valuable maintenance option in selected HIV-infected patients who are well suppressed on cART, if confirmed by future randomized clinical trials.

HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations: Potential Applications for Point-of-Care Genotypic Resistance Testing

The increasing prevalence of acquired and transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance is an obstacle to successful antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) hardest hit by the HIV-1 pandemic. Genotypic drug resistance testing could facilitate the choice of initial ART in areas with rising transmitted drug resistance (TDR) and enable care-providers to determine which individuals with virological failure (VF) on a first- or second-line ART regimen require a change in treatment. An inexpensive near point-of-care (POC) genotypic resistance test would be useful in settings where the resources, capacity, and infrastructure to perform standard genotypic drug resistance testing are limited. Such a test would be particularly useful in conjunction with the POC HIV-1 viral load tests that are currently being introduced in LMICs. A POC genotypic resistance test is likely to involve the use of allele-specific point mutation assays for detecting drug-resistance mutations (DRMs). This study proposes that two major nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-associated DRMs (M184V and K65R) and four major NNRTI-associated DRMs (K103N, Y181C, G190A, and V106M) would be the most useful for POC genotypic resistance testing in LMIC settings. One or more of these six DRMs was present in 61.2% of analyzed virus sequences from ART-naïve individuals with intermediate or high-level TDR and 98.8% of analyzed virus sequences from individuals on a first-line NRTI/NNRTI-containing regimen with intermediate or high-level acquired drug resistance. The detection of one or more of these DRMs in an ART-naïve individual or in a individual with VF on a first-line NRTI/NNRTI-containing regimen may be considered an indication for a protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen or closer virological monitoring based on cost-effectiveness or country policy.

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.

Late treatment failures in cerebrospinal fluid in patients on long-term maintenance ART with ritonavir-boosted protease PI monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral treatment (ART) with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (rb-PMT) remains a potentially attractive strategy for treatment simplification in HIV-infected individuals. However, long-term follow-up in particular with respect to HIV-RNA suppression in cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) is still lacking.

METHODS

Patients who participated in one of the three monotherapy trials [indinavir/r, ATARITMO (atazanavir/r), MOST (lopinavir/r)] at our HIV clinic and remained successfully suppressed during the entire trial (plasma < 50 copies/mL, CSF < 100 copies/mL) were offered to continue their monotherapy under close monitoring. While on rb-PMT, patients were asked to provide CSF samples in yearly or 2-yearly intervals. All patients fully suppressed in plasma and CSF for at least 12 months were included in the analysis. Patients demonstrating any failure in plasma or CSF resumed triple combined ART.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (5 women and 22 men) fulfilled the entry criteria. The median follow-up time was 4.8 (1.1-10.9) years with an overall experience of 139 patient-years on monotherapy. Eleven of 27 (41 %) patients (2 women and 9 men) developed virologic failure (1 in plasma only, 4 in CSF only, 4 both in plasma and CSF and 2 in plasma with CSF not available). Plasma failure occurred in 7 patients after a median follow-up of 25 (13-32) months, and CSF failure in 8 patients after a median follow-up of 30 (14-64) months. Seven patients are still on rb-PMT with atazanavir/r. Failure was associated with shorter duration of fully suppressed plasma viral load prior to starting (p < 0.022).

CONCLUSION

For selected patients, rb-PMT might be a valid long-term treatment strategy. Nevertheless, even after 12 months of full HIV-RNA suppression, more than 1/3 of patients may still develop failure in either plasma or CSF. Given the observation of isolated CSF failure, treatment monitoring with regular lumbar puncture should be recommended in rb-PMT. Only monotherapy with atazanavir/r was successful beyond 39 months. Monotherapy failure was significantly associated with a shorter duration of complete HIV-RNA suppression in plasma prior to rb-PMT start. Further investigation is needed to better identify predictors for patients that will qualify for successful long-term rb-PMT.

[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.

Efficacy and safety of treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine in HIV-infected patients with virological suppression: 144 week follow-up of the AtLaS pilot study

OBJECTIVES

AtLaS was a single-arm pilot study that demonstrated promising efficacy and safety of treatment simplification to a dual regimen with atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine in virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients. Here, we report data from the 144 week follow-up.

METHODS

At baseline, patients treated with a three-drug atazanavir/ritonavir-based regimen were switched to 300/100 mg of atazanavir/ritonavir plus 300 mg of lamivudine once daily. Major clinical events, laboratory parameters, neurocognitive performance, bone composition and body fat distribution were monitored. Treatment failure was defined as a discontinuation/switch of the regimen or virological failure (HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL in two consecutive determinations or a single level above 1000 copies/mL).

RESULTS

After 144 weeks, 9/40 (22.5%) treatment failures occurred, including two virological failures (Weeks 48 and 53, without resistance). A significant increase in the CD4 count was observed at Week 96 (+124 cells/mm(3); P = 0.002) and Week 144 (+94 cells/mm(3); P = 0.008). After 144 weeks, a significant increase in total cholesterol (+25 mg/dL; P = 0.001), HDL cholesterol (+6 mg/dL; P = 0.024) and LDL cholesterol (+12 mg/dL; P = 0.008) was observed, without any change in triglyceride levels, total cholesterol/HDL ratio or LDL/HDL ratio. A significant increase in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (+25 mL/min/1.73 m(2); P < 0.001) and lumbar spine T-score and Z-score (+0.2, P = 0.011; and +0.35, P = 0.001, respectively) and a decrease in trunk fat (-1.898 g; P = 0.005) were also observed. Neurocognitive function did not decline over time. Concerning safety, 10 moderate to severe adverse events were recorded in eight patients; overall seven cases of renal colic (possibly treatment related) were observed, leading to a discontinuation of treatment in two patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from the 144 week follow-up suggested good long-term efficacy of the simplification strategy that was investigated, with rare virological failure and a potential for improvement of the CD4 count, renal function and bone mineral density. This strategy warrants further investigation in a randomized trial.