Early virologic rebound in a pilot trial of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir as maintenance monotherapy

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a protease inhibitor monotherapy strategy for long-term management of human immunodeficiency virus infection

BACKGROUND

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection uses a combination of drugs, until now considered essential to minimise treatment failure and development of drug resistance. Protease inhibitors (PIs) are potent with a high genetic barrier to resistance and have the potential for use as monotherapy after viral load (VL) suppression achieved on combination therapy. However, longer-term resistance and toxicity risks are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, toxicity profile and cost-effectiveness of PI monotherapy with those of standard-of-care triple therapy in a pragmatic long-term clinical trial.

DESIGN

Open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Forty-three HIV clinical centres in the UK NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

HIV-positive adults taking standard combination ART with a suppressed VL for ≥ 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy (PI-mono), with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of VL rebound.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-/high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was considered to be sensitive at trial entry (non-inferiority comparison, 10% margin). Secondary outcomes included confirmed virological rebound, serious drug- or disease-related complications, total grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), neurocognitive function change, cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell count change, change in health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk change, health-care costs and health economic analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 587 participants were randomised (77% male, 68% white) to OT (n = 291) or PI-mono (n = 296) and followed for a median of 44 months, of whom 2.7% withdrew/were lost to follow-up. One or more episodes of confirmed VL rebound were observed in eight patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3.2%) in the OT group and 95 patients (35.0%) in the PI-mono group [absolute risk difference 31.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6% to 39.0%; p < 0.001]. PI-mono patients who changed to ART after VL rebound all resuppressed (median 3.5 weeks). The proportions with loss of a future drug option at 3 years were 0.7% in the OT group and 2.1% in the PI-mono group (difference 1.4%, (95% CI -0.4% to 3.4%); non-inferiority demonstrated). There were no significant differences in serious disease complications between groups or in the frequency of grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs (16.8% OT group vs. 22% PI-mono group; absolute risk difference 5.1%, 95% CI -1.3% to 11.5%; p = 0.12). Overall, the PI-mono strategy was shown to be cost-effective compared with OT under most scenarios explored. PI-mono was cost saving because of the large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years in the within-trial analysis and only marginally less effective when extrapolated to lifetime outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PI monotherapy, with prompt reintroduction of combination therapy for VL rebound, was non-inferior to combination therapy in preserving future treatment options and is an acceptable and cost-effective alternative for long-term management of HIV infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04857074.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

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.

Immunovirological Efficacy of Once-Daily Maraviroc Plus Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir After 48 Weeks in Naive HIV-Infected Patients

Toxicities related to the use of nucleoside analogues have increased the interest in developing nucleoside-sparing regimens, mainly combining protease inhibitors with raltegravir. However, data regarding the use of CCR5-antagonists in this setting and in the naive scenario are scarce. The main objective was to analyze the immunovirological efficacy and tolerability of a low-dose, once-daily, maraviroc (MVC)-containing, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing dual therapy compared with standard triple therapy after 48 weeks for naive HIV-infected patients in the routine clinical practice setting. All naive HIV-infected patients with stable clinical condition that started antiretroviral treatment since February 1, 2008 to May 30,h 2012 were included. MVC clinical test was used to select candidate subjects to MVC therapy. Thirty-two subjects with MVC + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) and 66 with standard triple therapy were analyzed. A comparable virological efficacy between groups was found after 48 weeks (87.5% vs. 80.3% of HIV undetectability, p = 0.37, MVC + ATV/r and triple therapy groups, respectively). The CD4 recovery after 48 weeks was similar and more than 200 cells/mm³ in both groups. No need of therapy changes or treatment discontinuations was observed in the MVC + ATV/r group. Effect on lipid profile, high-sensitivity C reactive protein, and β2-microglobulin was similar for both groups. Noteworthy, a significant increase of erythrocyte mean corpuscular volume was observed only in the triple therapy group. A nucleoside-sparing MVC-containing dual therapy showed similar immunovirological efficacy and tolerability than standard triple therapy in naive HIV-infected patients.

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.

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.

Determinants of residual viraemia during combination HIV treatment: Impacts of baseline HIV RNA levels and treatment choice

OBJECTIVES

Effective HIV therapy reflects suppression of plasma HIV RNA levels below assay detection thresholds, although lower levels of "residual viraemia" have also been demonstrated over extended periods of effective antiretroviral treatment. Here we examine the determinants of HIV RNA suppression below the standard assay threshold (40 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) as well as factors associated with detectable HIV RNA below this reported detection limit.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2010, 11 575 consecutive viral load (VL) tests were obtained from 1540 patients, including 356 on effective antiretroviral therapy followed since initiation (1996-2001: n = 165; 2002-2009: n = 191). Analyses modelled the probability of an undetectable VL given successful suppression to < 200 copies/mL, and the probability of residual viraemia given an undetectable result.

RESULTS

Detectable HIV RNA amplification was demonstrated in 20% of samples with a VL result < 40 copies/mL. Longitudinal analyses from 356 patients revealed that the likelihood of achieving results < 40 copies/mL was increased with current nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) therapy [odds ratio (OR) 2.0; P < 0.05] and reduced with prior virological rebound (OR 0.5; P < 0.05). In contrast, the presence of detectable HIV RNA < 40 copies/mL was strongly associated with pretreatment HIV RNA levels among those on current protease inhibitor (PI) treatment (OR 1.5 per log10 copies/mL increase; P = 0.02) as well as those on NNRTIs (OR 1.7; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

While HIV treatment history was associated with plasma HIV RNA levels below the detection limit, residual viraemia results were dominantly determined by pretreatment VL. These findings support the concept of a stable, long-lived reservoir of latently infected cells as a source of residual viraemia despite effective HIV treatment.

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

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the 48-week virological efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) monotherapy vs. ATV/r along with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NRTIs) in HIV-1 treated individuals with HIV-RNA less than 50 copies/ml.

METHODS

A multicentre, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial. HIV-1 treated individuals on ATV/r 300/100 mg along with two NRTIs were randomized to receive ATV/r monotherapy or to maintain their antiretroviral regimen. The primary endpoint was the confirmed viral rebound (CVR: two consecutive HIV-RNA >50 copies/ml) or treatment discontinuation for any reason. Individuals who experienced CVR on ATV/r monotherapy reintroduced NRTIs and discontinued the study if HIV-RNA was more than 50 copies/ml after 12 weeks since reintensification.

RESULTS

One hundred and three patients enrolled. By week 48, 11 patients in ATV/r arm and two in ATV/r along with two NRTIs experienced CVR; four (8%) patients in ATV/r and eight (15%) in ATV/r along with two NRTIs discontinued. At the 48-week primary efficacy analysis (re-intensification = failure), treatment success was 73% in ATV/r arm and 85% in ATV/r along with two NRTIs [difference -12.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -27.8 to 2.1]. According to the analysis considering re-intensification is equal to success, treatment success was 92% in ATV/r arm and 85% in the ATV/r along with two NRTIs arm (difference 7.5%, 95% CI -4.7 to 19.8). At CVR, no mutation was observed in ATV/r arm and reintensification with NRTIs was effective in all individuals. Overall, Grade 3-4 (P = 0.003) and grade 3-4 drug-related (P = 0.027) adverse events were less frequent in ATV/r arm. A significant increase in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol was observed as well as a significant improvement in high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, fasting glucose, liver fibrosis and alkaline phosphatase was observed in ATV/r monotherapy in comparison with ATV/r along with two NRTIs.

CONCLUSION

ATV/r monotherapy treatment simplification showed lower virological efficacy in comparison with maintaining triple therapy; NRTIs reintroduction was effective in all the individuals.

Budget impact analysis of antiretroviral less drug regimen simplification in HIV-positive patients on the Italian National Health Service

Background

Deintensification and less drug regimen (LDR) antiretroviral therapy (ART) strategies have proved to be effective in terms of maintaining viral suppression in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients, increasing tolerability, and reducing toxicity of antiretroviral drugs administered to patients. However, the economic impact of these strategies have not been widely investigated. The aim of the study is to evaluate the economic impact that ART LDR could have on the Italian National Health Service (INHS) budget.

Methods

A budget impact model was structured to assess the potential savings for the INHS by the use of ART LDR for HIV-positive patients with a 3 year perspective. Data concerning ART cost, patient distribution within different ARTs, and probabilities for patients to change ART on a yearly basis were collected within four Italian infectious diseases departments, providing ART to 13.7% of the total number of patients receiving ART in Italy.

Results

The LDR investigated (protease inhibitor-based dual and monotherapies) led to savings for the hospitals involved when compared to the “do nothing” scenario on a 3 year basis, between 6.7% (23.11 million €) and 12.8% (44.32 million €) of the total ART expenditures. The mean yearly cost per patient is reduced from 9,875 € in the do nothing scenario to a range between 9,218 € and 8,615 €. The use of these strategies within the four departments involved would have led to a reduction of ART expenditures for the INHS of between 1.1% and 2.1% in 3 years.

Conclusion

ART LDR simplification would have a significant impact in the reduction of ART-related costs within the hospitals involved in the study. These strategies could therefore be addressed as a sustainable answer to the public financing reduction observed within the INHS in the last year, allowing therapies to be dispensed without affecting the quality of the services provided.

Switch strategies in antiretroviral therapy regimens

Despite great advances in antiretroviral therapy in the last decade, several limitations still remain such as adverse effects, lack of adherence and drug-drug interactions. Switching antiretroviral therapy in stable, virologically suppressed patients with the aim of improving tolerability and convenience is an expanding strategy in clinical practice. Several factors need to be taken into consideration when switching a suppressive regimen, such as previous virologic failure, genetic barrier of the new regimen, prior duration of virologic suppression and expected level of adherence. The most frequently used strategies include reductions in the number of pills, drugs or doses. Although switching strategies may be useful, not all the regimens used in clinical practice are based on data from randomized clinical trials and some may not be the best option for certain patients; therefore, therapy should be individualized taking into consideration available information as well as patient and drug characteristics.

French 2013 guidelines for antiretroviral therapy of HIV-1 infection in adults

Introduction

These guidelines are part of the French Experts’ recommendations for the management of people living with HIV/AIDS, which were made public and submitted to the French health authorities in September 2013. The objective was to provide updated recommendations for antiretroviral treatment (ART) of HIV-positive adults. Guidelines included the following topics: when to start, what to start, specific situations for the choice of the first session of antiretroviral therapy, optimization of antiretroviral therapy after virologic suppression, and management of virologic failure.

Methods

Ten members of the French HIV 2013 expert group were responsible for guidelines on ART. They systematically reviewed the most recent literature. The chairman of the subgroup was responsible for drafting the guidelines, which were subsequently discussed within, and finalized by the whole expert group to obtain a consensus. Recommendations were graded for strength and level of evidence using predefined criteria. Economic considerations were part of the decision-making process for selecting preferred first-line options. Potential conflicts of interest were actively managed throughout the whole process.

Results

ART should be initiated in any HIV-positive person, whatever his/her CD4 T-cell count, even when >500/mm³. The level of evidence of the individual benefit of ART in terms of mortality or progression to AIDS increases with decreasing CD4 cell count. Preferred initial regimens include two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz or rilpivirine), or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir). Raltegravir, lopinavir/r, and nevirapine are recommended as alternative third agents, with specific indications and restrictions. Specific situations such as HIV infection in women, primary HIV infection, severe immune suppression with or without identified opportunistic infection, and person who injects drugs are addressed. Options for optimization of ART once virologic suppression is achieved are discussed. Evaluation and management of virologic failure are described, the aim of any intervention in such situation being to reduce plasma viral load to <50 copies/ml.

Conclusion

These guidelines recommend that any HIV-positive individual should be treated with ART. This recommendation was issued both for the patient’s own sake and for promoting treatment as prevention.

Extended mathematical model for "in vivo" quantification of the interaction betweeen atazanavir and bilirubin

The objective of the present work was to conduct an "in vivo" analysis of the atazanavir-bilirubin interaction. We developed a new mathematical approach to PK/PDPK models for competitive interaction based on the Michaelis-Menten equation, which was applied to patients with polymorphisms in the gene for UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 (UGT1A1). Atazanavir is known to induce concentration-dependent increases in bilirubin plasma levels. Thus, we employed our mathematical model to analyse rises in steady state atazanavir and bilirubin concentrations, ultimately plotting a nomogram for detection of suboptimal atazanavir exposure. Application of our model revealed that an absolute value or a steady state increase in bilirubin falling below 3.8Φ µmol/L (where Φ is a correction factor, =1 for UGT1A1 wild type and ≠1 for UGT1A1 variants) could be used to predict suboptimal atazanavir exposure and treatment failure. Thus, we have successfully established a new mathematical approach for pharmacodynamic-pharmacokinetic modelling of the interaction between atazanavir and bilirubin, as it relates to genetic variants of UGT1A1. Taken together, our findings indicate that bilirubin plasma levels represent a valuable marker of atazanavir exposure.

Atazanavir-bilirubin interaction: a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model

Purpose

The aim of this work was to analyze the atazanavir–bilirubin relationship, using a new mathematical approach to pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic models, for competitive drug interactions based on Michaelis–Menten equations.

Patients and methods

Because atazanavir induces an increase of plasma bilirubin levels, in a concentration-dependent manner, we developed a mathematical model, based on increments of atazanavir and bilirubin concentrations at steady state, in HIV infected (HIV⁺) patients, and plotted the corresponding nomogram for detecting suboptimal atazanavir exposure.

Results

By applying the obtained model, the results indicate that an absolute value or an increment of bilirubin at steady state below 3.8 μmol/L, are predictive of suboptimal atazanavir exposure and therapeutic failure.

Conclusion

We have successfully implemented a new mathematical approach to pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model for atazanavir–bilirubin interaction. As a result, we found that bilirubin plasma levels constitute a good marker of exposure to atazanavir and of viral suppression.

Revealing the metabolic sites of atazanavir in human by parallel administrations of D-atazanavir analogs

Atazanavir (Reyataz(®)) is an important member of the HIV protease inhibitor class. Because of the complexity of its chemical structure, metabolite identification and structural elucidation face serious challenges. So far, only seven non-conjugated metabolites in human plasma have been reported, and their structural elucidation is not complete, especially for the major metabolites produced by oxidations. To probe the exact sites of metabolism and to elucidate the relationship among in vivo metabolites of atazanavir, we designed and performed two sets of experiments. The first set of experiments was to determine atazanavir metabolites in human plasma by LC-MS, from which more than a dozen metabolites were discovered, including seven new ones that have not been reported. The second set involved deuterium labeling on potential metabolic sites to generate D-atazanavir analogs. D-atazanavir analogs were dosed to human in parallel with atazanavir. Metabolites of D-atazanavir were identified by the same LC-MS method, and the results were compared with those of atazanavir. A metabolite structure can be readily elucidated by comparing the results of the analogs and the pathway by which the metabolite is formed can be proposed with confidence. Experimental results demonstrated that oxidation is the most common metabolic pathway of atazanavir, resulting in the formation of six metabolites of monooxidation (M1, M2, M7, M8, M13, and M14) and four of dioxidation (M15, M16, M17, and M18). The second metabolic pathway is hydrolysis, and the third is N-dealkylation. Metabolites produced by hydrolysis include M3, M4, and M19. Metabolites formed by N-dealkylation are M5, M6a, and M6b.

Identification and structural elucidation of in vitro metabolites of atazanavir by HPLC and tandem mass spectrometry

Atazanavir (marketed as Reyataz®) is an important member of the human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor class. LC-UV-MS(n) experiments were designed to identify metabolites of atazanavir after incubations in human hepatocytes. Five major (M1-M5) and seven minor (M7-M12) metabolites were identified. The most abundant metabolite, M1, was formed by a mono-oxidation on the t-butyl group at the non-prime side. The second most abundant metabolite, M2, was also a mono-oxidation product, which has not yet been definitively identified. Metabolites, M3 and M4, were structural isomers, which were apparently formed by oxidative carbamate hydrolysis. The structure of M5 comprises the non-prime side of atazanavir which contains a pyridinyl-benzyl group. Metabolite M6a was formed by the cleavage of the pyridinyl-benzyl side chain, as evidenced by the formation of the corresponding metabolic product, the pyridinyl-benzoic acid (M6b). Mono-oxidation also occurred on the pyridinyl-benzyl group to produce the low abundance metabolite M8. Oxidation of the terminal methyl groups produced M9 and M10, respectively, which have low chemical stability. Trace-level metabolites of di-oxidations, M11 and M12, were also detected, but the complexity of the molecule precluded identification of the second oxidation site. To our knowledge, metabolites M6b and M8 have not been reported.

External validation of the bilirubin-atazanavir nomogram for assessment of atazanavir plasma exposure in HIV-1-infected patients

Atazanavir increases plasma bilirubin levels in a concentration-dependent manner. Due to less costly and readily available assays, bilirubin has been proposed as a marker of atazanavir exposure. In this work, a previously developed nomogram for detection of suboptimal atazanavir exposure is validated against external patient populations. The bilirubin nomogram was validated against 311 matching bilirubin and atazanavir samples from 166 HIV-1-infected Norwegian, French, and Italian patients on a ritonavir-boosted regimen. In addition, the nomogram was evaluated in 56 Italian patients on an unboosted regimen. The predictive properties of the nomogram were validated against observed atazanavir plasma concentrations. The use of the nomogram to detect non-adherence was also investigated by simulation. The bilirubin nomogram predicted suboptimal exposure in the patient populations on a ritonavir-boosted regimen with a negative predictive value of 97% (95% CI 95–100). The bilirubin nomogram and monitoring of atazanavir concentrations had similar predictive properties for detecting non-adherence based on simulations. Although both methods performed adequately during a period of non-adherence, they had lower predictive power to detect past non-adherence episodes. Using the bilirubin nomogram for detection of suboptimal atazanavir exposure in patients on a ritonavir-boosted regimen is a rapid and cost-effective alternative to routine measurements of the actual atazanavir exposure in plasma. Its application may be useful in clinical settings if atazanavir concentrations are not available.

Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy as a maintenance strategy: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (BPIMT) initiated as a maintenance strategy in routine care and identify predictive factors of failure.

DESIGN

Observational study in the FHDH-ANRS CO4 cohort.

METHODS

Five hundred and twenty-nine virologically suppressed individuals switched to BPIMT in the period 2006-2010, 75% had at least 12 and 49% at least 24 months of follow-up. Virological failure (two consecutive HIV-RNA > 50 copies/ml or one HIV-RNA > 50 copies/ml followed by BPIMT discontinuation) and treatment failure (virological failure, antiretroviral reintensification or death) were analysed separately.

RESULTS

At baseline, 11% were protease inhibitor-naive, median duration on combined antiretroviral therapy was 84 months and median duration of suppressed viremia was 38 months. Nine percent had a history of virological failure, while on a protease inhibitor-containing regimen, and rates of virological failure were higher among those individuals [adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.9-2.9]. Compared to individuals with less than 1 year of sustained virological suppression before the switch to BPIMT, those with longer duration were less likely to experience virological failure [hazard ratio, 0.7; (95% CI, 0.4-1.2) and 0.6 (95%CI, 0.4-0.9)] for a duration of 12-23 months and 24 months or more, respectively. Rates of failure were similar for BPIMT with lopinavir-ritonavir (RTV) or darunavir-RTV, but increased for BPIMT with atazanavir-RTV. Same risk factors were associated with treatment failure.

CONCLUSION

The safety and efficacy of a maintenance strategy with BPIMT in a routine care setting matched the results of randomized clinical trials. A longer duration since last virological rebound before switching to BPIMT was associated with a decreased risk of subsequent failure.

Recent advances in antiretroviral treatment and prevention in HIV-infected patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss new antiretroviral agents (ARVs) and alternative ARV treatment strategies that are currently being evaluated, and to provide an overview of the most recent advances in HIV vaccine development.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is a continuous need for improvements in ARV therapy (ART) and several new ARVs are currently undergoing clinical investigation, including the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor rilpivirine, the integrase inhibitor elvitegravir, the chemokine receptor 5 co-receptor antagonist vicriviroc and the maturation inhibitor bevirimat. Strategies to optimize ART, such as treatment interruption, induction-maintenance and class-sparing regimens, are also being evaluated and have had varying success to date. However, vaccination still remains the optimal solution, and one second-generation preventative HIV vaccine has produced encouraging results in a recent phase III trial.

SUMMARY

Global prevention and treatment with ARVs that are effective, well tolerated and have high barriers to the development of HIV resistance are the main strategies to fight HIV/AIDS while we await the development of an effective vaccine.

Bilirubin-a potential marker of drug exposure in atazanavir-based antiretroviral therapy

The objective of this work was to examine the atazanavir-bilirubin relationship using a population-based approach and to assess the possible application of bilirubin as a readily available marker of atazanavir exposure. A model of atazanavir exposure and its concentration-dependent effect on bilirubin levels was developed based on 200 atazanavir and 361 bilirubin samples from 82 patients receiving atazanavir in the NORTHIV trial. The pharmacokinetics was adequately described by a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and lag-time. The maximum inhibition of bilirubin elimination rate constant (I(max)) was estimated at 91% (95% CI, 87-94) and the atazanavir concentration resulting in half of I(max) (IC50) was 0.30 μmol/L (95% CI, 0.24-0.37). At an atazanavir/ritonavir dose of 300/100 mg given once daily, the bilirubin half-life was on average increased from 1.6 to 8.1 h. A nomogram, which can be used to indicate suboptimal atazanavir exposure and non-adherence, was constructed based on model simulations.

Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV therapy

The advent of combination antiretroviral therapy has led to significant improvement in the care of HIV-infected patients. Originally designed as a protease inhibitor (PI), ritonavir is currently exclusively used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer of other protease inhibitors, predominantly due to ritonavir's potent inhibition of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme. Ritonavir-boosting of PIs decrease pill burden and frequency of dosing. Boosted PIs are recommended for first-line therapy in treatment and play a key role in the management of treatment-experienced patients. Potential problems associated with PIs include metabolic abnormalities (e.g. dyslipidemia), increased cardiovascular risk, and drug interactions.

Atazanavir/ritonavir-based combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults

In the past 15 years, improvements in the management of HIV infection have dramatically reduced morbidity and mortality. Similarly, rapid advances in antiretroviral medications have resulted in the possibility of life-long therapy with simple and tolerable regimens. Protease inhibitors have been important medications in regimens of combination antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV. One of the recommended and commonly used therapies in this class is once-daily-administered atazanavir, pharmacologically boosted with ritonavir (atazanavir/r). Clinical studies and practice have shown these drugs, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, to be potent, safe and easy to use in a variety of settings. Atazanavir/r has minimal short-term toxicity, including benign bilirubin elevation, and has less potential for long-term complications of hyperlipidemia and insulin resistance compared with other protease inhibitors. A high genetic barrier to resistance and a favorable resistance profile make it an excellent option for initial HIV treatment or as the first drug utilized in the protease inhibitors class. Atazanavir/r is also currently being studied in novel treatment strategies, including combinations with new classes of antiretrovirals to assess nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing regimens. In this article we review atazanavir/r as a treatment for HIV infection and discuss the latest information on its pharmacology, efficacy and toxicity.

Viral response in stable patients switching to fosamprenavir/ritonavir monotherapy (the FONT Study)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy of fosamprenavir/ritonavir (FPV/r) monotherapy in plasma and reservoirs in virologically suppressed patients.

METHODS

A 48-week, prospective, single-arm pilot trial was carried out (trial registration: ISRCTN78584791). Patients receiving triple therapy [FPV/r plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for at least the previous month], with viral load (VL) <40 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL and no previous virological failure (VF) on protease inhibitors (PIs), were included in the trial and received FPV/r monotherapy (700/100 mg/12 h). VL and FPV/r levels [by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS); limit of detection (LOD) 0.5 ng/mL] in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were determined at week 24. VF was defined as VL >40 copies/mL in three consecutive samples or >500 copies/mL in two samples.

RESULTS

Enrolment was prematurely stopped because of a high percentage of VF. Twenty patients (45% men; median age 43.5 years) were included in the trial. Nine patients (45%) presented therapeutic failure [seven (35%) had VF, and two discontinued therapy]. Resistance testing was available in five patients. One patient presented major PI mutations (54L, 32I and 47V) in addition to one minor mutation (13V), whereas two patients had minor PI mutations (10V+36I and 71T, respectively). The patient with major PI mutations switched from FPV/r to darunavir/r and VL was re-suppressed. In the other six patients with VF, VL was re-suppressed after the reintroduction of NRTIs. VL was <40 copies/mL in all CSF samples (n=10). Median amprenavir plasma levels were 2.5 μg/mL (range 0.7-8.6 μg/mL) at week 24 and 2.5 μg/mL (range 0.4-3.8 μg/mL) at VF. The CSF amprenavir concentration was 28.1 ng/mL (range 6.39-83.6 ng/mL), exceeding the reported 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50) ) range for CSF in nine of 11 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The high percentage of patients with VF in our study suggests that the use of FPV/r in a simplification monotherapy strategy should be discouraged. Adequate amprenavir levels and undetectable VL in CSF were documented in all samples evaluated.

Treatment simplification in HIV-infected adults as a strategy to prevent toxicity, improve adherence, quality of life and decrease healthcare costs

Since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has become more potent and better tolerated. While the current treatment regimens still have limitations, they are more effective, more convenient, and less toxic than regimens used in the early HAART era, and new agents, formulations and strategies continue to be developed. Simplification of therapy is an option for many patients currently being treated with antiretroviral therapy (ART). The main goals are to reduce pill burden, improve quality of life and enhance medication adherence, while minimizing short- and long-term toxicities, reducing the risk of virologic failure and maximizing cost-effectiveness. ART simplification strategies that are currently used or are under study include the use of once-daily regimens, less toxic drugs, fixed-dose coformulations and induction-maintenance approaches. Improved adherence and persistence have been observed with the adoption of some of these strategies. The role of regimen simplification has implications not only for individual patients, but also for health care policy. With increased interest in ART regimen simplification, it is critical to study not only implications for individual tolerability, toxicity, adherence, persistence and virologic efficacy, but also cost, scalability, and potential for dissemination and implementation, such that limited human and financial resources are optimally allocated for maximal efficiency, coverage and sustainability of global HIV/AIDS treatment.

Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus current treatment continuation for maintenance therapy of HIV-1 infection: the KALESOLO trial

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated a monotherapy maintenance regimen with lopinavir/ritonavir versus continuing current combined antiretroviral treatment (cART) in HIV patients with suppressed plasma HIV-1 RNA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre trial in 23 sites in France. Adults were randomized if they had no history of virological failure while receiving a protease inhibitor, maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for at least 6 months and did not change cART during the last 3 months. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at Week 48 (non-inferiority margin set at -12%) with missing data and treatment modification considered as failure. The trial has been registered in ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT00140751.

RESULTS

At Week 48, 84% (73/87) of patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy group met the primary endpoint compared with 88% (87/99) in the cART group [difference, -4.0%, lower limit of 90% two-sided confidence interval (CI) for difference, -12.4%]. In secondary analysis with success defined as plasma HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL, 87% (76/87) of patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy group were virologically suppressed compared with 88% (87/99) in the cART group (difference, -0.5%, lower limit of 90% two-sided CI for difference, -8.5%). If antiretroviral treatment intensification was taken into account, 91% (79/87) of patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy group met the primary endpoint compared with 88% (87/99) in the cART group (difference, +2.9%, lower limit of 90% two-sided CI for difference, -4.5%). Failures of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy did not show acquired resistance mutations in the protease gene.

CONCLUSIONS

Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy did not achieve non-inferiority versus cART for maintaining plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL. Nevertheless, the incidence of virological failure was low (mostly with HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL) and easily managed by treatment intensification.

Noninfectious HIV-related comorbidities and HAART toxicities: choosing alternative antiretroviral strategies

In the HAART era, clinicians are faced with the challenge of treating an aging HIV-infected population increasingly affected by severe comorbidities, which may compromise the tolerability of antiretroviral regimens. In this special population, it is imperative for physicians to carefully tailor antiretroviral treatment in order not to worsen patients’ underlying clinical conditions and to achieve both tolerability and immune–virologic efficacy. This article aims to explore the impact of standard HAART regimens on the different noninfectious HIV-related comorbidities: metabolic, cardiovascular, bone and renal diseases, in order to provide tools to fit the most appropriate antiretroviral combination according to individual clinical conditions. Clinical experience with alternative antiretroviral strategies, avoiding nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor toxicities and involving new antiretroviral classes, will be reviewed to obtain an overview on future perspectives.

The MONET trial: darunavir/ritonavir with or without nucleoside analogues, for patients with HIV RNA below 50 copies/ml

BACKGROUND

In virologically suppressed patients, darunavir-ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy could maintain virological suppression similarly to DRV/r and two nucleosides.

METHODS

Two hundred and fifty-six patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml for over 24 weeks on current antiretrovirals [non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based (43%), or protease inhibitor-based (57%)], switched to DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n = 127) or with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (n = 129). Treatment failure was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA levels above 50 copies/ml (TLOVR) by week 48, or switches off study treatment. The trial had 80% power to show noninferiority for the monotherapy arm (delta = -12%).

RESULTS

Patients were 81% male and 91% Caucasian, with mean age 44 years, and CD4 cell count of 574 cells/microl. In the primary efficacy analysis, HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml by week 48 (per protocol) was 86.2 versus 87.8% in the monotherapy and triple therapy arms; by intent-to-treat switch equals failure, efficacy was 84.3 versus 85.3%; by a switch-included analysis, efficacy was 93.5 versus 95.1%: all three comparisons showed noninferior efficacy for DRV/r monotherapy. CD4 cell counts remained stable during the trial in both arms. One patient per arm showed at least one protease inhibitor mutation, and one patient in the triple therapy arm showed an NRTI mutation. Nine patients per arm discontinued randomized treatment for either adverse events or other reasons. No new or unexpected safety signals were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study for patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml on other antiretrovirals at baseline, switching to DRV/r monotherapy showed noninferior efficacy versus triple antiretroviral therapy.

The relation between treatment outcome and efavirenz, atazanavir or lopinavir exposure in the NORTHIV trial of treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected patients

PURPOSE

The relation between treatment outcome and trough plasma concentrations of efavirenz (EFV), atazanavir (ATV) and lopinavir (LPV) was studied in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic substudy of the NORTHIV trial-a randomised phase IV efficacy trial comparing antiretroviral-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients treated with (1) EFV + 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (2NRTI) once daily, (2) ritonavir-boosted ATV + 2NRTI once daily or (3) ritonavir-boosted LPV + 2NRTI twice daily. The findings were related to the generally cited minimum effective concentration levels for the respective drugs (EFV 1,000 ng/ml, ATV 150 ng/ml, LPV 1,000 ng/ml). The relation between atazanavir-induced hyperbilirubinemia and virological efficacy was also studied.

METHODS

Drug concentrations were sampled at weeks 4 and 48 and optionally at week 12 and analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detector. When necessary, trough values were imputed by assuming the reported average half-lives for the respective drugs. Outcomes up to week 48 are reported.

RESULTS

No relation between plasma concentrations of EFV, ATV or LPV and virological failure, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects or antiviral potency (viral load decline from baseline to week 4) was demonstrated. Very few samples were below the suggested minimum efficacy cut-offs, and their predictive value for treatment failure could not be validated. There was a trend toward an increased risk of virological failure in patients on ATV who had an average increase of serum bilirubin from baseline of <25 micromol/l.

CONCLUSIONS

The great majority of treatment-naïve and adherent patients on standard doses of EFV, ritonavir-boosted ATV and ritonavir-boosted LPV have drug concentrations above that considered to deliver the maximum effect for the respective drug. The results do not support the use of routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for efficacy optimisation in treatment-naïve patients on these drugs, although TDM may still be of value in some cases of altered pharmacokinetics, adverse events or drug interactions. Serum bilirubin may be a useful marker of adherence to ATV therapy.

[Prognostic factors of virological response in patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy]

Nine clinical trials have analyzed whether the use of lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy could be a valid alternative to triple antiretroviral therapy. Four of these clinical trials included an analysis of risk factors for virological failure. The MONARK study evaluated monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients. The M03-613 trial evaluated monotherapy after a period of induction therapy with triple combination antiretroviral therapy. The study by Sprinz et al and the OK studies evaluated monotherapy as maintenance of virological suppression. The efficacy of monotherapy varied according to the scenario. In the scenario of induction-maintenance, the factors related to virological failure were suboptimal adherence and low baseline CD4 counts. In the scenario of maintenance, the factors related to virological failure were suboptimal adherence, nadir CD4 count and low hemoglobin. In treatment-naive patients, the risk of virological failure increased in patients who did not achieve a viral load of less than 400 copies/ml 4 weeks after initiating treatment and in those infected with non-B subtypes (a factor that was probably also related to suboptimal adherence).

[Monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients]

The development of antiretroviral therapy (ART) with current triple drug combinations has dramatically reduced morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients. However, there is a need for less toxic treatments without sacrificing efficacy, as well as for less expensive drugs to facilitate universal access to this therapy. The protease inhibitors (PI) administered with ritonavir have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile and high genetic barrier and consequently are ideal candidates for use in monotherapy, thus avoiding the toxicity and cost associated with nucleoside analogs, as well as preserving drugs for future options. The promising results of studies performed with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in induction-maintenance regimens in patients without prior failure to PIs encourage research into the cost-effectiveness of LPV/r in monotherapy from the beginning of ART. The few studies performed in this context seem to indicate the following: a) LPV/r monotherapy achieves undetectable viral loads in a large proportion of treatment-naïve patients, b) future treatment options are not compromised in patients not achieving undetectable viral loads since the likelihood of resistance mutations is low and treatment intensification achieves suppression of viral replication, and c) strategies for early detection can probably be considered in patients who will not achieve complete suppression with LPV/r monotherapy. Nevertheless, before LPV/r monotherapy can be considered a first-line option, new studies with larger samples and longer follow-up are required. These studies should pay particular attention to viral replication in areas where PI show less penetration.

Regimen simplification to atazanavir-ritonavir alone as maintenance antiretroviral therapy: final 48-week clinical and virologic outcomes

BACKGROUND

Simplified maintenance therapy with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/RTV) alone is attractive because of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing benefits, low pill burden, once-daily dosage, and safety.

METHODS

Subjects with virologic suppression after > or = 48 weeks of initial antiretroviral therapy with 2 NRTIs and a protease inhibitor (PI) were enrolled. Subjects switched to ATV/RTV at entry and discontinued NRTIs after 6 weeks. The primary end point was time to virologic failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA level > or = 200 copies/mL). Drug resistance at virologic failure was evaluated by standard genotyping and single-genome sequencing (SGS). Residual viremia (1.1-49 copies/mL) was measured by single-copy assay.

RESULTS

Thirty-four subjects simplified to ATV/RTV alone, of whom 30 (88%) did not experience virologic failure by 48 weeks after simplification. Residual viremia did not change significantly after NRTI discontinuation among those without virologic failure but did increase 4-12 weeks before confirmed virologic failure. No major PI-resistance mutations were identified at virologic failure by standard genotyping or SGS.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, simplified maintenance therapy with ATV/RTV alone maintained viral suppression in most subjects through 48 weeks. PI resistance was not detected among subjects experiencing virologic failure. Larger, randomized trials are warranted to further define the efficacy and safety of this strategy.

HIV monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Systematic review of all protease inhibitor-monotherapy studies published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at conferences to date. Data of randomized controlled trials were pooled to yield common odds ratios.

RESULTS

Twenty-two protease inhibitor-monotherapy studies were identified. In the intent-to-treat analysis, 395 out of 582 (67.9%) patients had undetectable HIV-RNA at the end of follow-up. In the six randomized controlled trials (all lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy), the risk of therapy failure was greater on monotherapy: 121 out of 364 (33.2%) patients on monotherapy against 64 out of 280 (22.9%) patients on HAART [pooled odds ratio 1.48 (95% confidence interval 1.02-2.13, P = 0.037)]. Regarding patients with successfully resuppressed HIV-RNA upon (re-)introducing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) as nonfailures, the risk of therapy failure was comparable: 98 out of 364 (26.9%) against 64 out of 280 (22.9%) patients [odds ratio 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.72-1.53, P = 0.81)].

CONCLUSION

The overall efficacy of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy is inferior to HAART. The efficacy improves in patients started on monotherapy after suppressed HIV-RNA for at least 6 months. Ten percent of patients have viral rebound with HIV-RNA levels between 50 and 500 copies/ml. Possible explanations are lack of HIV suppression in particular cells or compartments, alternative resistance mechanisms, and nonadherence. Once proven that reintroduction of NRTIs, in patients with loss of viral suppression, is safe and effective, a broader use of simplification of HAART to protease inhibitor monotherapy might be justified. This review supports that the majority of patients with prolonged viral suppression on HAART can successfully be treated with protease inhibitor monotherapy. Arguments for this strategy are NRTI/NNRTI side effects, NRTI/NNRTI resistance, and costs.

Simplification Strategies to Reduce Antiretroviral drug Exposure: Progress and Prospects

Current US guidelines for initial therapy of HIV type-1 (HIV-1) infection recommend daily, lifelong treatment with a combination of three antiretroviral drugs consisting of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or a protease inhibitor. Although this approach has been successful in reducing morbidity and mortality from HIV-1 infection, concerns remain about adverse events from chronic drug exposure, the requirement for daily medication adherence, the risk of HIV-1 drug resistance and high treatment costs. The availability of antiretrovirals that are coformulated and dosed once daily have reduced pill burden and have simplified dosing schedules, but have not lowered drug exposure or cost. These limitations have stimulated research into drug-sparing strategies including intermittent therapy and simplified maintenance regimens. Randomized clinical trials have shown greater mortality with intermittent therapy compared with continuous therapy leading to rejection of this strategy. Pilot studies of simplified maintenance therapy with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor alone have shown more promise, although concerns remain. This article reviews progress in the simplification of antiretroviral therapy, recent clinical trial results and prospects for the future.

[Viral resistance and genetic barrier of atazanavir]

Resistance to protease inhibitors (PI) is generally due to a mutation in the protease gene. Different changes have been described for each PI. The I 50L mutation is characteristic of resistance to atazanavir (ATV). It does not produce cross resistance to other PI; but it does increase susceptibility to all of them (hypersusceptibility). When PI are given concomitantly with low doses of ritonavir, the exposure to higher levels of PI requires that multiple resistance mutations have to be selected in the protease so that there is a significant loss of susceptibility. For the majority of PI/r, including ATV/r, >or=5 mutations in the protease are required to produce a compromise in the virological response. Despite having a moderate genetic barrier when not boosted with ritonavir, the prolonged half life of ATV minimises the risk of resistance in clinical practice.

Atazanavir: its role in HIV treatment

Azatanavir is a protease inhibitor (PI) approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Atazanavir is a substrate and inhibitor of cytochrome P450 isozyme 3A and an inhibitor and inducer of P-glycoprotein. It has similar virologic efficacy as efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in antiretroviral-naive individuals. Its impact on lipids is less than other PIs and it is suitable for those in whom hyperlipidemia is undesirable. Ritonavir boosting of atazanavir enhances the bioavailability of atazanavir but may result in some elevation of lipids and is recommended for treatment-experienced patients and those receiving efavirenz or tenofovir. Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir has similar antiviral activity as ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in both antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced patients. Atazanavir causes unconjugated bilirubinemia in over 40% of patients but results in less than 2% discontinuations. Atazanavir is licensed for once-daily use and atazanavir/ritonavir competes with lopinavir/ritonavir as the most commonly prescribed PI.

Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy or plus zidovudine and lamivudine in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents for HIV-1 infection recommend combining at least three agents. The toxicity, cost, and complexity of such regimens warrant the search for other options.

METHODS

MONARK is a prospective, open-label, randomized, 96-week trial comparing the safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with a standard lopinavir/ritonavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine regimen as an initial treatment regimen in HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA levels less than 100,000 copies/ml. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1-RNA levels below 400 copies/ml at week 24 and below 50 copies/ml at week 48.

RESULTS

Eight-three and 53 patients were randomly assigned and exposed in the monotherapy and triple-drug groups, respectively. At week 48, by an intent-to-treat analysis, 53 of 83 patients (64%) in the monotherapy group and 40 of 53 patients (75%) in the triple-drug group achieved the primary endpoint (P = 0.19). The on-treatment analysis indicates that 80 and 95% of patients reached the primary endpoint in the monotherapy and triple-drug groups, respectively (P = 0.02). In the monotherapy arm, protease inhibitor-associated resistance mutations were seen in three of the 21 patients qualifying for genotypic resistance testing, with a modest impact on lopinavir susceptibility. None of the serious reported adverse events were considered to be related to study treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy demonstrates lower rates of virological suppression when compared with lopinavir/ritonavir triple therapy and therefore should not be considered as a preferred treatment option for widespread use in antiretroviral-naive patients.

Potential risks and benefits of HIV treatment simplification: a simulation model of a proposed clinical trial

BACKGROUND

In recent studies, subjects who had achieved suppression of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA level while receiving an initial 3-drug antiretroviral regimen successfully maintained suppression while receiving treatment with a "boosted" protease inhibitor (PI) alone. We projected the long-term outcomes of this treatment simplification strategy to inform the design of a proposed multicenter, randomized clinical trial.

METHODS

We used published studies to estimate the efficacy, adverse effects, and cost of a sequence of HIV drug regimens for the simplification strategy, compared with those outcomes for the current standard-of-care (SOC) strategy. Using a published simulation model of HIV disease, we projected life expectancy, discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE), and discounted lifetime medical costs for each strategy.

RESULTS

Subjects who have not developed PI-resistant HIV infection at the time of failure of the simplification regimen have a greater life expectancy (27.9 vs. 27.1 years) and QALE (14.9 vs. 14.7 years), compared with SOC subjects, because they receive an additional line of therapy without negative consequences for future treatment options. The QALE for the simplification strategy remains higher than that for the SOC, unless a large proportion of patients experiencing virologic failure while receiving the simplification regimen develop PI resistance. Depending on the probability of simplification regimen failure, the advantage is maintained even if HIV develops PI resistance in 42%-70% of subjects. Projected lifetime costs are $26,500-$72,400 per person lower for the simplification strategy than for the SOC strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

An HIV treatment simplification strategy involving use of a boosted PI alone may lead to longer survival overall at lower cost, compared with the SOC combination therapy, because the simplification strategy potentially adds an additional line of therapy. The risk of emergence of PI resistance during treatment with a simplified regimen is a critical determinant of the viability of this strategy.