Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen

Rilpivirine plus cobicistat-boosted darunavir as a two-drug switch regimen in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed subjects on steady standard three-drug therapy: a randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial (PROBE 2)

BACKGROUND

We explored the combination of rilpivirine plus cobicistat-boosted darunavir [a two-drug regimen (2DR)] when switching from standard triple combined ART.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial, participants had an HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL on a stable (>6 months) three-drug regimen. The primary endpoint was proportion with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL at Week 24 (snapshot algorithm), with a -12% non-inferiority margin. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04064632.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty patients were allocated (1:1) to 2DR or to continue current ART (CAR). At Week 24, 72 (90.0%) of participants with 2DR and 75 (93.8%) with CAR maintained HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL [difference -3.75% (95% CI = -11.63 to 5.63)], confirming non-inferiority. Non-inferiority was confirmed considering an HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL (0% for 2DR; 3.7% for CAR; 95% CI = -0.4 to 7.9). Four patients reported adverse events not leading to treatment discontinuation (one patient in the 2DR group and three patients in the CAR group); eight subjects discontinued therapy in the 2DR group and three in the CAR group. With 2DR, lipid serum concentrations increased, but differences were statistically significant only for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing CAR and in 2DR patients receiving a pre-switch regimen including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Median bone stiffness decreased in the CAR group from 86.1 g/cm2 (IQR = 74-98) to 83.2 g/cm2 (IQR = 74-97) and increased in the 2DR group from 84.9 g/cm2 (IQR = 74-103) to 85.5 g/cm2 (IQR = 74-101). The reduction within the CAR group was significant (P = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily rilpivirine plus cobicistat-boosted darunavir is an effective 2DR that combines a high virological efficacy with a potential to avoid major NRTI toxicities.

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.

Dual Therapy Treatment Strategies for the Management of Patients Infected with HIV: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence in ARV-Naive or ARV-Experienced, Virologically Suppressed Patients

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed the current literature regarding antiretroviral (ARV)-sparing therapy strategies to determine whether these novel regimens can be considered appropriate alternatives to standard regimens for the initial treatment of ARV-naive patients or as switch therapy for those patients with virologically suppressed HIV infection.

METHODS

A search for studies related to HIV dual therapy published from January 2000 through April 2014 was performed using Biosis, Derwent Drug File, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Medline, Pascal, SciSearch, and TOXNET databases; seven major trial registries, and the abstracts of major conferences. Using predetermined criteria for inclusion, an expert review committee critically reviewed and qualitatively evaluated all identified trials for efficacy and safety results and potential limitations.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies of dual therapy regimens were critiqued for the ARV-naive population. Studies of a protease inhibitor/ritonavir in combination with the integrase inhibitor raltegravir or the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor lamivudine provided the most definitive evidence supporting a role for dual therapy. In particular, lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir combined with raltegravir and lopinavir/ritonavir combined with lamivudine demonstrated noninferiority to standard of care triple therapy after 48 weeks of treatment. Thirteen trials were critiqued in ARV-experienced, virologically suppressed patients. The virologic efficacy outcomes were mixed. Although overall data regarding toxicity are limited, when compared with standard triple therapy, certain dual therapy regimens may offer advantages in renal function, bone mineral density, and limb fat changes; however, some dual combinations may elevate lipid or bilirubin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential benefits of dual therapy regimens include reduced toxicity, improved tolerability and adherence, and reduced cost. Although the data reviewed here provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and tolerability of dual therapy regimens, it remains unclear whether these potential benefits can be maintained long-term. Appropriately powered studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to more definitively assess potential toxicity reduction advantages with dual therapy.

The effect of the different treatment protocols on virological and immunological responses in patients with HIV/AIDS

This study analyzed the differences between the virological and immunological responses in patients with HIV/AIDS subjected to different treatment protocols. The cases treated with HAART were divided into groups on the basis of treatment protocols. The groups were evaluated with respect to the differences by comparing the virological and immunological responses prior to treatment and at 12 and 24 weeks of therapy. Six different treatment protocols were applied in the treated patients. As the largest clusters, the lopinavir/ritonavir-based patient group (Group 1, n = 29) and efavirenz-based patient group (Group 2, n = 18) were compared. The mean CD4 and HIV-RNA values of Groups 1 and 2 were 184 and 243 h/μl and 422,266 and 317,684 copies/ml, respectively. At 24 weeks of treatment, the HIV-RNA levels were below detectable values in 86% and 78% of the patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (p > 0.001). The striking outcomes observed in this study demonstrated that the pretreatment HIV-RNA level, CD4 value, gender, age, and protease inhibitor- or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based combined treatment protocols do not cause a significant difference and that patient compliance to treatment is the most important factor associated with treatment success.

Barriers to antiretroviral therapy adherence and plasma HIV RNA suppression among AIDS clinical trials group study participants

We conducted a secondary data analysis of 11 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) studies to examine longitudinal associations between 14 self-reported antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence barriers (at 12 weeks) and plasma HIV RNA (at 24 weeks) and to discern the relative importance of these barriers in explaining virologic detectability. Studies enrolled from 1997 to 2003 and concluded between 2002 and 2012. We included 1496 (54.2% of the original sample) with complete data. The most commonly selected barriers were "away from home" (21.9%), "simply forgot" (19.6%), "change in daily routine" (19.5%), and "fell asleep/slept through dosing time" (18.9%). In bivariate analyses, "too many pills to take" (OR=0.43, p<0.001), "wanted to avoid side effects" (OR=0.54, p=0.001), "felt drug was toxic/harmful" (OR=0.44, p<0.001), "felt sick or ill" (OR=0.49, p<0.001), "felt depressed/overwhelmed" (OR=0.58, p=0.004), and "problem taking pills at specified time" (OR=0.71, p=0.04) were associated with a lower odds of an undetectable HIV RNA. "Too many pills to take," "wanted to avoid side effects," "felt drug was toxic/harmful," "felt sick/ill,", and "felt depressed/overwhelmed" had the highest relative importance in explaining virologic detectability. "Simply forgot" was not associated with HIV RNA (OR=0.99, p=0.95) and was ninth in its relative importance. Adherence interventions should prioritize barriers with highest importance in explaining virologic outcomes rather than focusing on more commonly reported barriers.

Antiretroviral regimens sparing agents from the nucleoside(tide) reverse transcriptase inhibitor class: a review of the recent literature

The nucleoside(tide) reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) have traditionally been an important 'back-bone' of an antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen. However all agents have been associated with both short- and long-term toxicity. There have also been concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of a treatment sequencing strategy in which those with past exposure and/or resistance to one or more NRTIs are re-exposed to 'recycled' NRTIs in subsequent ART regimens. Newer, potent and possible safer, agents from various ART classes continue to become available. There has therefore been growing interest in evaluating NRTI-sparing regimens. In this review, we examined studies of NRTI-sparing regimens in adult HIV-positive patients with varying degrees of ART experience. We found that in treatment experienced patients currently on a failing regimen with detectable viral load, there now exists a robust evidence for the use of NRTI-sparing regimens including raltegravir with a boosted-protease inhibitor with or without a third agent. In those on a virologically suppressive regimen switching to a NRTI-sparing regimen or in those ART-naïve patients initiating an NRTI-sparing regimen, evidence is sparse and largely comes from small exploratory trials or observational studies. Overall, these studies suggest that caution needs to be exercised in carefully selecting the right candidate and agents, especially in the context of a dual-therapy regimen, to minimise the risks of virological failure. There is residual toxicity conferred by the ritonavir boost in protease-inhibitor containing NRTI-sparing regimens. Fully-powered studies are needed to explore the place of N (t)RTI-sparing regimens in the sequencing of ART. Additionally research is required to explore how to minimise the adverse effects associated with ritonavir-based pharmacoenhancement.

Viral suppression rates in salvage treatment with raltegravir improved with the administration of genotypic partially active or inactive nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are often administered in salvage therapy even if genotypic resistance tests (GRTs) indicate high-level resistance, but little is known about the benefit of these additional NRTIs.

METHODS

The effect of <2 compared with 2 NRTIs on viral suppression (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) at week 24 was studied in salvage patients receiving raltegravir. Intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed; last observation carried forward imputation was used to deal with missing information. Logistic regressions were weighted to create a pseudopopulation in which the probability of receiving <2 and 2 NRTIs was unrelated to baseline factors predicting treatment response.

RESULTS

One-hundred thirty patients were included, of whom 58.5% (n = 76) received <2 NRTIs. NRTIs were often replaced by other drug classes. Patients with 2 NRTIs received less additional drug classes compared with patients with <2 NRTIs [median (IQR): 1 (1-2) compared with 2 (1-2), P Wilcoxon < 0.001]. The activity of non-NRTI treatment components was lower in the 2 NRTIs group compared with the <2 NRTIs group [median (IQR) genotypic sensitivity score: 2 (1.5-2.5) compared with 2.5 (2-3), P Wilcoxon < 0.001]. The administration of <2 NRTIs was associated with a worse viral suppression rate at week 24. The odds ratios were 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.13 to 0.89, P = 0.027) and 0.19 (95% confidence interval: 0.05 to 0.79, P = 0.023) when performing the last observation carried forward and the per-protocol approach, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed that partially active or inactive NRTIs contribute to treatment response, and thus the use of 2 NRTIs in salvage regimens that include raltegravir seems warranted.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of the lopinavir/ritonavir tablet 500/125 mg twice daily coadministered with efavirenz in healthy adult participants

A study was conducted in healthy adults (n = 19) to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir when coadministered with efavirenz. Participants were administered lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg alone twice daily (bid) from the morning of day 1 through the morning of day 10, and then lopinavir/ritonavir 500/125 mg bid was coadministered with efavirenz 600 mg every evening (qhs) from the evening of day 10 through day 20. Lopinavir and ritonavir exposures when administered alone versus with efavirenz were determined on days 10 and 20 and compared using point estimates and 90% confidence intervals. The point estimates for the ratios of lopinavir maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)), plasma concentration prior to morning dosing (C(trough)), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over a dosing interval (AUC(12)) were 1.121, 0.954, and 1.060, respectively. The lopinavir/ritonavir dose of 500/125 mg bid administered with efavirenz most closely approximates the pharmacokinetic exposure of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid administered alone.

Lopinavir/Ritonavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV-1 infection

Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra®) is an orally administered coformulated ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) comprising lopinavir and low-dose ritonavir. It is indicated, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults, adolescents and children. Lopinavir/ritonavir is available as a tablet, soft-gel capsule and an oral solution for patients with difficulty swallowing. In well designed, randomized clinical trials, lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with other antiretroviral therapies (ART), provided durable virological suppression and improved immunological outcomes in both ART-naive and -experienced adult patients with virological failure. Furthermore, lopinavir/ritonavir demonstrated a high barrier to the development of resistance in ART-naive patients. More limited data indicate that it is effective in reducing plasma HIV-1 RNA levels in paediatric patients. Lopinavir/ritonavir has served as a well established benchmark comparator for the noninferiority of other ritonavir-boosted PI regimens. Although generally well tolerated, lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with generally manageable adverse gastrointestinal side effects and hypertriglyceridaemia and hypercholesterolaemia, which may require coadministration of lipid-lowering agents to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with other ART agents, is a well established and cost-effective treatment for both ART-naive and -experienced patients with HIV-1 infection and, with successful management of adverse events, continues to have a role as an effective component of ART regimens for the control of HIV-1 infection.

Switch from protease inhibitor- to efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy improves quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adherence with low rates of virological failure in virologically suppressed patients

Regimen selection in antiretroviral therapy can impact treatment adherence, quality of life (QoL) and treatment satisfaction, and may influence clinical outcome. We evaluated the effect of regimen switching on virological, safety and patient-reported outcomes. In this 48-week, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority study, 262 HIV-1-infected adult patients with a viral load <50 copies/mL on protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens were switched to either once-daily efavirenz, lamivudine and enteric-coated didanosine (efavirenz-A [QD]) or once-daily efavirenz plus continuation of current nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (efavirenz-B). In the primary outcome of patients who maintained virological suppression at week 48, efavirenz-A (QD) was non-inferior to efavirenz-B (81% versus 79%, respectively). Both regimens were associated with low virological failure rates and significant improvements in treatment satisfaction, adherence and QoL after switching from PI-based therapy, with no differences between regimens. Switching from a PI- to an efavirenz-based regimen was generally safe and well tolerated.

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.

Cardiovascular complications in HIV management: past, present, and future

Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has significantly improved the prognosis for many individuals with HIV infection. Consequently, HIV infection has become a chronic and manageable disease. The focus on long-term management of patients with HIV infection has broadened to include comorbid conditions, most notably cardiovascular disease. Patients with HIV infection share many cardiovascular risk factors with the general population, and HIV infection itself may increase cardiovascular risk. Changes in lipid profiles associated with increased cardiovascular risk that have been observed with some HAART regimens have been a cause for concern among clinicians who treat HIV-infected patients. However, the lipid effects of HAART seem to depend on the type and duration of regimens employed. They can be managed effectively according to current guidelines that recommend lifestyle changes (eg, improved diet, increased exercise, smoking cessation) and pharmacologic therapy described in established treatment paradigms for patients on antiretroviral therapy and similar to measures currently used by the general population. A review of the clinical data indicates that the virologic and immunologic benefits of HAART clearly outweigh any metabolic effects observed in some patients over time and that preexisting, established cardiovascular risk factors contribute significantly to the potential development of cardiovascular events. These benefits of antiretroviral therapy have been demonstrated in studies comparing the superior efficacy of continuous vs. intermittent HAART.

Stochastic modelling of genotypic drug-resistance for human immunodeficiency virus towards long-term combination therapy optimization

MOTIVATION

Several mathematical models have been investigated for the description of viral dynamics in the human body: HIV-1 infection is a particular and interesting scenario, because the virus attacks cells of the immune system that have a role in the antibody production and its high mutation rate permits to escape both the immune response and, in some cases, the drug pressure. The viral genetic evolution is intrinsically a stochastic process, eventually driven by the drug pressure, dependent on the drug combinations and concentration: in this article the viral genotypic drug resistance onset is the main focus addressed. The theoretical basis is the modelling of HIV-1 population dynamics as a predator-prey system of differential equations with a time-dependent therapy efficacy term, while the viral genome mutation evolution follows a Poisson distribution. The instant probabilities of drug resistance are estimated by means of functions trained from in vitro phenotypes, with a roulette-wheel-based mechanisms of resistant selection. Simulations have been designed for treatments made of one and two drugs as well as for combination antiretroviral therapies. The effect of limited adherence to therapy was also analyzed. Sequential treatment change episodes were also exploited with the aim to evaluate optimal synoptic treatment scenarios.

RESULTS

The stochastic predator-prey modelling usefully predicted long-term virologic outcomes of evolved HIV-1 strains for selected antiretroviral therapy combinations. For a set of widely used combination therapies, results were consistent with findings reported in literature and with estimates coming from analysis on a large retrospective data base (EuResist).

Randomization to once-daily stavudine extended release/lamivudine/efavirenz versus a more frequent regimen improves adherence while maintaining viral suppression

BACKGROUND

In antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, pill burden, dosing frequency, and regimen complexity adversely affect adherence. We sought to evaluate the effect of regimen simplification on maintenance of virologic suppression and treatment adherence.

METHOD

In this 48-week, open-label, randomized study, 320 HIV-1-infected adult patients with a viral load of <50 copies/mL on a twice-daily or more frequent ARV regimen were either switched to a once-daily regimen of efavirenz, extended-release stavudine, and lamivudine (QD arm) or continued on existing therapy (BID+ arm). Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) caps, AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG)-validated questionnaire, and pill counts were used to evaluate adherence. Treatment satisfaction and preference were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The QD arm was noninferior to the BID+ arm in the primary efficacy measure (proportion of patients who maintained virologic suppression at Week 48; QD arm, 80.0% vs. BID+ arm, 75.8%). Adherence and treatment satisfaction significantly favored the QD arm, in which 91.0% of patients preferred the simpler regimen. Overall, the majority of adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and resulted in a low rate of treatment discontinuations.

CONCLUSIONS

Simplifying twice-daily or more frequent ARV therapy to a once-daily efavirenz-containing regimen in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients maintains virologic suppression while improving adherence and patient satisfaction.

Current and future antiretroviral treatment options in paediatric HIV infection

Because of a lack of prevention policies or problems in implementing prevention of mother-to-child transmission (P-MTCT), most of the 1500 daily new HIV infections in children aged<15 years are caused by MTCT. Fifteen percent of all HIV-infected individuals are children, but the vast majority lack access to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which can drastically reduce morbidity and mortality. There are 22 antiretroviral drugs currently approved by the US FDA for use in the treatment of HIV-infected adults and adolescents, but only 12 of these drugs are approved for use in children. Antiretroviral drugs belong to four major classes: nucleoside and nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors and fusion inhibitors. According to international guidelines developed by organizations including WHO, the Paediatric European Network for Treatment of AIDS (PENTA) and the US National Institutes of Health (US-NIH), the treatment of choice for HIV-infected children and adults is a combination of two NRTIs (backbone treatment) plus a third potent agent from a different class, either an NNRTI or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor. There are specific challenges in treating HIV-infected children, including uncertainty about the best time to start treatment, the need for more paediatric formulations, the lack of pharmacokinetic studies for new drugs, and incomplete dosing guidelines. Furthermore, the most appropriate regimen for an individual child depends on a variety of factors, including the age of the child; the availability of appropriate drug formulations; the potency, complexity and toxicity of the drug regimen; the home situation; the child and caregiver's ability to adhere to the regimen; and the child's antiretroviral treatment history. In addition, antiretroviral drugs are not licensed for all age groups and the drugs are often not affordable. This review describes NNRTI and protease inhibitors as key components of first- and second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), focusing on the rationale for choosing an NNRTI- versus protease inhibitor-based regimen based on the results of available phase II and III studies. Some of the new agents available for children as second-line and salvage therapy both on- and off-label are also discussed. The drug regimens described in this review are relevant to clinicians in developed and developing countries. The availability of new, potent compounds with different resistance and toxicity profiles may represent an alternative option to interclass switching and could redefine ART strategy, including the option of first-line NRTI-sparing regimens.

Lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of HIV-1 infection: a review

Lopinavir/ritonavir is the first and only coformulated HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI). Large clinical trials have demonstrated lopinavir/ritonavir's clinical efficacy in both antiretroviral-naïve and -experienced patients. The immunologic and virologic benefits of treatment with this agent have been proven in HIV-infected adults, adolescents, and children. Smaller studies support the use of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy as a therapeutic option in certain patients. The drug is characterized by a high genetic barrier to resistance, and appears to be more forgiving of non-adherence than earlier, unboosted PIs. The most frequent side effects observed are diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. These gastrointestinal adverse effects are generally mild to moderate. Metabolic derangements, including hyperlipidemia and glucose intolerance, have also been observed in lopinavir/ritonavir recipients. As the menu of available antiretroviral agents continues to expand, lopinavir/ritonavir remains a proven and effective drug for the treatment of HIV infection.

Initial therapy with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing regimens is more effective than with regimens that spare them with no difference in short-term fat distribution: Hippocampe-ANRS 121 Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact on body fat of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing regimens compared with NRTI-containing therapy in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients.

METHODS

A randomized, multicentre, open-label trial in ARV-naive patients. Subjects were randomized (2:1:1) to receive: (i) an NRTI-sparing regimen consisting of a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) plus a boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r); or (ii) an NRTI-containing regimen of (a) a PI/r plus two NRTIs or (b) an NNRTI plus two NRTIs. The primary endpoint was the change in subcutaneous limb fat measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at week (W) 96. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients with treatment failure, plasma HIV-RNA (pVL) <50 copies/mL and safety.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen patients were enrolled between November 2003 and May 2004: 26% female; 42% from sub-Saharan Africa; median plasma HIV-RNA (pVL) 5.1 log(10) copies/mL; median CD4 count 207 cells/mm(3). A planned interim analysis demonstrated significantly lower treatment and virological responses with the NRTI-sparing strategy, resulting in premature study termination on 19 July 2005. The proportion of patients who remained on their assigned treatment strategy and had pVL <50 copies/mL on the NRTI-sparing regimen was 60.0%, compared with 82.5% on the NRTI-containing regimen at W24 (P = 0.009) and 66.7% and 82.5%, respectively, at W48 (P = 0.059). Treatment failure was associated with the NRTI-sparing strategy in patients with suboptimal adherence and with being from sub-Saharan Africa. No differences in fat distribution were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

An initial NRTI-sparing regimen is less successful and virologically less potent than standard NRTI-containing regimen and should not therefore be used as the first line of treatment.