Lopinavir-Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Lopinavir-Ritonavir and 2 Nucleosides for Maintenance Therapy of HIV: 96-Week Analysis

Individualized Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy: The Role of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacogenetics in an Aged and Heavily Treated HIV-Infected Patient

Antiretroviral therapy has changed the history of HIV infection from a lethal disease to a chronic infection, with the emergence of long-term adverse effects. Herein we present a case of a heavily treated HIV-infected man in whom antiretroviral toxicity had been observed. The lopinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations at standard doses were significantly above the recommended levels. Pharmacogenetic analysis revealed a polymorphism in the DRD3 gene associated with a decrease in the rate of drug metabolism. Additionally, the patient's low body mass index could have contributed to a greater degree of patient exposure to the drug. After the withdrawal of tenofovir disoproxil and the establishment of individualized protease inhibitor monotherapy at reduced doses, a decrease in the intensity of adverse events was observed, while the clinical outcomes were maintained. The pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic analysis was shown to be a tool of huge interest for the management and durability of antiretroviral therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine and boosted darunavir in treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV infection: a preliminary 24 week analysis (RIDAR study)

Background

The objective was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine plus boosted-darunavir (RPV + bDRV) in real-life patients.

Methods

Observational, retrospective, multi-center study in HIV+ patients who had received RPV + bDRV for 24 weeks to optimize/simplify their previous antiretroviral treatment. We determined the percentage of patients without virologic failure (2 consecutive viral loads > 50 copies/mL) at 24 weeks of treatment.

Results

The study included 161 patients from 15 hospitals with median age of 49 years; 29.3% had previous AIDS stage and median CD4+ lymphocyte nadir of 170 cells/uL. They had been diagnosed with HIV for a median of 17 years and had received 14 years of ART, with five previous treatment combinations, and 36.6% had a history of virological failure. The reasons for the switch were simplification/optimization (49.7%), toxicity/intolerance (17.4%), or inadequate effectiveness of previous ART (10.6%).

Baseline VL of 50–1000 copies/mL was recorded in 25.5% of the patients. In the“intention-to-treat” analysis at 24 weeks, 87.6% of 161 patients continued the study treatment without virologic failure criteria.

In the “on treatment” analysis (excluding patients who discontinued treatment with dual therapy for any reason other than virologic failure) the efficacy was 94.6% (141/149 patients).

Conclusions

Dual therapy with RPV + DRVb proved to be effective and safe in patients with advanced HIV infection, long exposure to ART, low CD4 nadir, previous virologic failure, and/or history of ineffective ART.

High quality of life, treatment tolerability, safety and efficacy in HIV patients switching from triple therapy to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy: A randomized clinical trial

Trial design

The QoLKAMON study evaluated quality of life, efficacy and treatment safety in HIV patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir in monotherapy (MT) versus continuing combined antiretroviral triple treatment with a boosted protease inhibitor (TT).

Methods

This was a 24-week, open-label, multicentre study in virologically-suppressed HIV-infected participants (N = 225) with a 2:1 randomization: 146 patients who switched to MT were compared with 79 patients who remained on a TT regimen. The primary endpoint was change in patient-reported outcomes in quality of life as measured by the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D questionnaires. Secondary endpoints included treatment adherence, patient satisfaction, incidence of adverse events and differences in plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) and CD4 cell counts.

Results

Baseline quality of life, measured with the MOS-HIV score, was very good (overall score of 83 ± 10.5 in the MT arm and 82.3 ± 11.3 in the TT arm) and suffered no change during the study in any of the arms (at week 24, 83.5 ± 12.2 in MT arm and 81.9 ± 12.7 in TT arm), without statistically significant differences when compared. In regards to adherence to therapy and patient satisfaction, some aspects (number of doses forgotten in the last week and satisfaction of treatment measured with the CESTA score, dimension 1) improved significantly with MT. There were also no differences in the incidence and severity of adverse events, even though 22.8% of those in the MT arm switched their treatment when they were included in the study. Moreover, there was also no significant difference between the immunological and virological evolution of MT and TT. In the MT arm, the VL was always undetectable in 83% of patients (vs 90.7% in the TT arm) and there were only 6.7% of virological failures with VL > 50 copies/mL (vs 2.3% in the TT arm), without resistance mutations and with resuppression of VL after switching back to TT.

Conclusions

In a new clinical trial, monotherapy as a treatment simplification strategy in HIV-1 infected patients with sustained viral suppression has demonstrated quality of life, safety and efficacy profiles comparable to those of conventional triple therapy regimens.

Darunavir/cobicistat showing similar effectiveness as darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy despite lower trough concentrations

INTRODUCTION

When darunavir (DRV) 800 mg is boosted with 150 mg cobicistat (DRVcobi ), DRV trough concentration (Ctrough ) is about 30% lower as compared to 100 mg ritonavir (DRVrtv ). DRVcobi shows similar virological efficacy as DRVrtv when combined with two nucleos(t)ide analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, but it is unknown whether a lower DRV Ctrough would undermine the effectiveness of DRVcobi when given as monotherapy (mtDRVcobi ).

METHODS

Prospective observational study on virologically suppressed HIV-infected subjects who switched to mtDRVcobi . Virological failure was defined as two consecutive HIV-RNA >200 copies/mL. Efficacy was evaluated by intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) analyses, and compared with data from a previous cohort of subjects on mtDRVrtv conducted at our centre. Plasma DRV Ctrough was measured using LC-MS/MS.

RESULTS

A total of 234 subjects were enrolled. At week 96, the efficacy rates were 67.8% (CI95 , 61.8 to 73.7) by ITT and 86.9% (CI95 , 78.0 to 87.7) by OT analyses. The corresponding rates in our historical DRVrtv controls were 67.6% (CI95 , 60.0 to 75.2) and 83.6% (CI95 : 77.2 to 90.0). A total of 135 DRV determinations were performed in 83 subjects throughout the follow-up period, with a median plasma DRV Ctrough of 1305 ng/mL (range, 150 to 5895) compared with 1710 ng/mL (range, 200 to 3838) in subjects on monotherapy with DRVrtv (p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

DRV Ctrough was lower in HIV-infected subjects receiving DRVcobi than with DRVrtv . However, this did not appear to influence the efficacy of DRVcobi , when administered as monotherapy.

Economic Outcomes of First-Line Regimen Switching Among Stable Patients with HIV

BACKGROUND

Although switching of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is a valid approach for addressing treatment failure in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), ART changes among those who are well maintained on their current regimens may lead to the development of new side effects or resistance.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of first-line regimen switching on subsequent health care utilization and cost among stable HIV patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims data study of adult patients with HIV who initiated ART between 2007 and 2013 and had been treated with their initial regimens for at least 6 continuous months. Those with evidence of pregnancy or HIV-2 were excluded. Patients who underwent an ART change were assigned to a switcher cohort; a nonswitcher cohort was then generated by matching up to 20 nonswitchers for each switcher, with replacement. The index date was the date of the first ART change for switchers and was the claim date closest to the corresponding switcher's switch date for nonswitchers. Patient characteristics at baseline and post-index annualized health care utilization and costs were analyzed descriptively and with multivariable models. Analyses were performed in the full population and among patients designated as virologically stable (had undetectable viral ribonucleic acid [RNA] for 90 days pre-index) and virologically and clinically stable (had undetectable viral RNA and no apparent clinical reason for switching ART).

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 6,983 individuals, which included 927 switchers (168 virologically stable; 55 virologically+clinically stable), who were matched with replacement with 18,511 nonswitcher comparators. The switcher cohort was 88.8% male (mean age 43.8 years). Mean preindex and follow-up treatment durations for switchers and nonswitchers were 1.8 years and 1.5 years, respectively; demographic characteristics, pre-index treatment duration, and follow-up duration were similar between cohorts. Significantly more nonswitchers than switchers had a first-line efavirenz-based regimen (67.2% vs. 47.8%, P < 0.001). In the virologically stable subset, follow-up annualized health care utilization for switchers versus nonswitchers, respectively, was 14.8 versus 12.3 ambulatory visits (P < 0.05), 0.8 versus 0.9 emergency department visits (P = 0.652), and 0.05 versus 0.05 inpatient hospitalizations (P = 0.915). Follow-up annualized health care costs were $37,120 for switchers versus $31,771 for nonswitchers (P < 0.05), with the difference driven largely by pharmacy costs. Multivariable-adjusted follow-up annualized health care costs were 8.9% higher among switchers versus nonswitchers (P < 0.01), and switchers also had a shorter time to subsequent ART regimen change (P < 0.001). Results were similar for the virologically+clinically stable subset.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, real-world population, stable patients with HIV who switched from their first-line ART regimens had significantly higher health care costs than those who did not change therapies, suggesting that ART regimen changes may be costly and should be undertaken only when clinically warranted.

DISCLOSURES

This work was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), which participated in the design of the study, interpretation of the data, revision of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Rosenblatt is an employee and stock owner of BMS; Villasis-Keever was an employee of BMS at the time this study was conducted and is currently an employee of Janssen. Buikema is an employee and stock owner of Optum, and Seare, Bengston, Johnson, and Cao are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BMS to conduct the study. Optum contracts with pharmaceutical companies, such as Janssen, Merck, EMD Serano, GlaxoSmithKline, and Gilead, to conduct research in HIV. Optum is also a subsidiary of a health plan that has interest in managing the health and associated costs of patients with HIV. Study concept and design were contributed by Rosenblatt and Buikema, along with the other authors. Cao and Johnson took the lead in data collection, along with Buikema, Seare, and Bengston. Data interpretation was performed by Buikema, Seare, Bengston, and Villasis-Keever. The manuscript was written by Buikema and Bengston, along with Rosenblatt, Seare, Johnson and Villasis-Keever, and revised by Rosenblatt, Villasis-Keever, and Johnson, along with the other authors.

Refining criteria for selecting candidates for a safe lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy in HIV-infected virologically suppressed patients

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to estimate the incidence of treatment failure (TF) to protease inhibitor monotherapies (PI/r-MT) with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r).

Design

A multicenter cohort of HIV-infected patients with viral load (VL) ≤50 copies/mL, who underwent a switch from any triple combination therapy to PI/r-MT with either LPV/r or DRV/r.

Methods

VL was assessed in each center according to local procedures. Residual viremia was defined by any HIV-RNA value detectable below 50 copies/mL by a Real-Time PCR method. Standard survival analysis was used to estimate the rate of TF (defined by virological failure or interruption of monotherapy or reintroduction of combination therapy). A multivariable Cox regression analysis with automatic stepwise procedures was used to identify factors independently associated with TF among nadir and baseline CD4+ counts, residual viremia, time spent with <50 HIV-RNA copies/mL before switch, history of virological failure, HCV co-infection, being on a PI/r and hemoglobin concentrations at baseline.

Results

Six hundred ninety patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this analysis. Their median follow-up was 20 (10–37) months. By month 36, TF occurred in 176 (30.2%; 95% CI:25.9–34.5) patients. Only CD4+ nadir counts (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.03 [95% CI: 1.35, 3.07] for counts ≤100 vs. >100 cells/μL) and residual viremia (aHR = 1.48 [95% CI: 1.01–2.17] vs. undetectable VL) were independently associated to TF.

Conclusions

Residual viremia and nadir CD4+ counts <100 cells/μL should be regarded as the main factors to be taken into account before considering switching to a PI/r-MT.

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.

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.

Effect of Monotherapy with Darunavir/Ritonavir on Viral Load in Seminal Fluid, and Quality Parameters of Semen in HIV-1-Positive Patients

Patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) who receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) often achieve increased survival and improved quality of life. In this respect, monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir (mDRV/r) can be a useful treatment strategy. This prospective study analyses the effect of mDRV/r on sperm quality and viral load in a group of 28 patients who had previously been given conventional ART and who had recorded a viral load <20 copies/mL for at least six months. These patients were given mDRV/r at a dose of 800/100 mg for 48 weeks. At baseline (V0), CD4, CD8, FSH, LH and testosterone levels were measured, together with HIV-1 viral load in plasma and semen. In addition, seminal fluid quality was studied before mDRV/r treatment was prescribed. At week 48 (V1), HIV-1 viral load in plasma and semen and the quality of the seminal fluid were again measured. The results obtained indicate that at V0, 10% of the patients with ART had a positive viral load in seminal fluid (>20 copies/ml), and that at V1, after mDRV/r treatment, this figure had fallen to 3%. The quality of seminal fluid was close to normal in 57% of patients at V0 and in 62% at V1. We conclude that, similar to ART, mDRV/r maintains HIV-1 viral load in most patients, and that there is no worsening in seminal fluid quality.

Switching antiretroviral regimes for the treatment of HIV: safety implications

INTRODUCTION

There are multiple reasons to switch from a virologically successful antiretroviral regimen. Some of them are related to toxicity. Lately, combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) switches have often been related to drug-drug interactions which may also eventually entail safety issues as well.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this review is to analyze causes of switching between virologically successful cART regimes related to safety issues. The most relevant papers were selected and summarized.

EXPERT OPINION

Switching cART has been a popular strategy to address safety issues throughout the antiretroviral era. The myriad of switching studies have paralleled the study and release into clinical practice of new antiretroviral drugs with different and often improved safety profiles. Most of them have been successful in improving antiretroviral toxicity while keeping HIV replication under control. However, it should be taken into account that, whenever a new drug is given, there is a possibility of new drug-related toxicity. Notwithstanding that, an increase in cART switching is foreseen, given the fact that we have a wide antiretroviral drug armamentarium and that people living with HIV are ageing and thus more prone to developing age-related co-morbidities whose therapies may entail new interactions and eventually new toxicities.

Atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy: 96 week efficacy, safety and bone mineral density from the MODAt randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To report the 96 week results on efficacy, safety and bone mineral density (BMD) in subjects with HIV-1 that were virologically suppressed and treated with atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy.

METHODS

MODAt is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, 96 week trial (NCT01511809) comparing efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy. Treatment success was defined as no occurrence of confirmed viral rebound (two consecutive HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL) or discontinuation for any cause of the ongoing regimen.

RESULTS

The 96 week treatment success was 64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 63% in the triple-therapy arm (difference 1.3%, 95% CI: -17.5 to 20.1). In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, no PI- or NRTI-associated resistance mutations were observed at virological failure and all patients re-suppressed after re-intensification. In the monotherapy arm, treatment failure was more frequent in patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus [64% versus 28% (difference 35.4%, 95% CI: 3.7-67.2)]. Drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 3 (6%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 11 (21.5%) in the triple-therapy arm (P = 0.041). The 96 week adjusted mean percentage change in total proximal femur (not at lumbar spine) BMD was +1.16% and -1.64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and the triple-therapy arm, respectively (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The 96 week analyses suggested that long-term efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy was inferior as compared with atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy, particularly when administered in subjects coinfected with hepatitis C virus. In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, reintroduction of nucleosides, as needed, was always effective with no new resistance mutation; monotherapy was also associated with a lower incidence of adverse events and improvement in femur BMD.

Effectiveness of Ritonavir-Boosted Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy in Clinical Practice Even with Previous Virological Failures to Protease Inhibitor-Based Regimens

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Significant controversy still exists about ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (mtPI/rtv) as a simplification strategy that is used up to now to treat patients that have not experienced previous virological failure (VF) while on protease inhibitor (PI) -based regimens. We have evaluated the effectiveness of two mtPI/rtv regimens in an actual clinical practice setting, including patients that had experienced previous VF with PI-based regimens.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 1060 HIV-infected patients with undetectable viremia that were switched to lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. In cases in which the patient had previously experienced VF while on a PI-based regimen, the lack of major HIV protease resistance mutations to lopinavir or darunavir, respectively, was mandatory. The primary endpoint of this study was the percentage of participants with virological suppression after 96 weeks according to intention-to-treat analysis (non-complete/missing = failure).

RESULTS

A total of 1060 patients were analyzed, including 205 with previous VF while on PI-based regimens, 90 of whom were on complex therapies due to extensive resistance. The rates of treatment effectiveness (intention-to-treat analysis) and virological efficacy (on-treatment analysis) at week 96 were 79.3% (CI95, 76.8-81.8) and 91.5% (CI95, 89.6-93.4), respectively. No relationships were found between VF and earlier VF while on PI-based regimens, the presence of major or minor protease resistance mutations, the previous time on viral suppression, CD4+ T-cell nadir, and HCV-coinfection. Genotypic resistance tests were available in 49 out of the 74 patients with VFs and only four patients presented new major protease resistance mutations.

CONCLUSION

Switching to mtPI/rtv achieves sustained virological control in most patients, even in those with previous VF on PI-based regimens as long as no major resistance mutations are present for the administered drug.

Efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy vs. triple therapy: meta-analysis of data from 2303 patients in 13 randomized trials

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this analysis was to review the evidence and update a meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety results from randomized controlled trials of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy.

METHODS

A PubMed/EMBASE search was conducted to find randomized trials of PI/r monotherapy vs. triple therapy in patients with HIV-1 RNA suppression at baseline (<50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL). Rates of virological suppression were analysed using switch-equals-failure and intensification-included endpoints [intent-to-treat (ITT)]. The rate of treatment-emergent resistance mutations, neurocognitive function endpoints, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) HIV-1 RNA were also analysed by treatment arm.

RESULTS

There were 2303 patients from 13 different randomized clinical trials of darunavir/r monotherapy (n = 784: MONET, MONOI, Monarch and PROTEA), lopinavir/r monotherapy (n = 829: OK pilot, OK-04, KalMo, KALESOLO, KRETA, MOST and DREAM), atazanavir/r monotherapy (n = 103: MODAT), or all three (n = 587: PIVOT). HIV-1 RNA plasma suppression was lower in the PI/r monotherapy arm compared with the triple therapy arm in the switch-equals-failure analysis [difference -8.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -11.9 to -4.8%], but not when intensification was included (difference 0.5%; 95% CI -2.5 to 3.6%). Rates of resistance mutations were similar between arms, as was overall neurocognitive function.

CONCLUSIONS

PI/r monotherapy showed a higher risk of plasma HIV-1 RNA elevations. However, there was no increased risk of treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive endpoints did not differ, and HIV-1 RNA suppression rates after intensification were similar between PI/r monotherapy and triple therapy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evidence for Reduced Drug Susceptibility without Emergence of Major Protease Mutations following Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Failure in the SARA Trial

Background

Major protease mutations are rarely observed following failure with protease inhibitors (PI), and other viral determinants of failure to PI are poorly understood. We therefore characterized Gag-Protease phenotypic susceptibility in subtype A and D viruses circulating in East Africa following viral rebound on PIs.

Methods

Samples from baseline and treatment failure in patients enrolled in the second line LPV/r trial SARA underwent phenotypic susceptibility testing. Data were expressed as fold-change in susceptibility relative to a LPV-susceptible reference strain.

Results

We cloned 48 Gag-Protease containing sequences from seven individuals and performed drug resistance phenotyping from pre-PI and treatment failure timepoints in seven patients. For the six patients where major protease inhibitor resistance mutations did not emerge, mean fold-change EC₅₀ to LPV was 4.07 fold (95% CI, 2.08–6.07) at the pre-PI timepoint. Following viral failure the mean fold-change in EC₅₀ to LPV was 4.25 fold (95% CI, 1.39–7.11, p = 0.91). All viruses remained susceptible to DRV. In our assay system, the major PI resistance mutation I84V, which emerged in one individual, conferred a 10.5-fold reduction in LPV susceptibility. One of the six patients exhibited a significant reduction in susceptibility between pre-PI and failure timepoints (from 4.7 fold to 9.6 fold) in the absence of known major mutations in protease, but associated with changes in Gag: V7I, G49D, R69Q, A120D, Q127K, N375S and I462S. Phylogenetic analysis provided evidence of the emergence of genetically distinct viruses at the time of treatment failure, indicating ongoing viral evolution in Gag-protease under PI pressure.

Conclusions

Here we observe in one patient the development of significantly reduced susceptibility conferred by changes in Gag which may have contributed to treatment failure on a protease inhibitor containing regimen. Further phenotype-genotype studies are required to elucidate genetic determinants of protease inhibitor failure in those who fail without traditional resistance mutations whilst PI use is being scaled up globally.

Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) uses a combination of drugs deemed essential to minimise treatment failure and drug resistance. Protease inhibitors are potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance, and have potential use as monotherapy after viral load suppression is achieved with combination treatment. We aimed to assess clinical risks and benefits of protease inhibitor monotherapy in long-term clinical use: in particular, the effect on drug resistance and future treatment options.

Methods

In this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years of age) positive for HIV attending 43 public sector treatment centres in the UK who had suppressed viral load (<50 copies per mL) for at least 24 weeks on combination ART with no change in the previous 12 weeks and a CD4 count of more than 100 cells per μL. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or to switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (PI-mono); we recommended ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted darunavir (800 mg) once daily or ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted lopinavir (400 mg) twice daily, with prompt return to combination treatment if viral load rebounded. All treatments were oral. Randomisation was with permuted blocks of varying size and stratified by centre and baseline ART; we used a computer-generated, sequentially numbered randomisation list. The primary outcome was loss of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-level or high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was deemed sensitive at trial entry (assessed at 3 years; non-inferiority margin of 10%). We estimated probability of rebound and resistance with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN04857074.

Findings

Between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010, we randomly allocated 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296). At 3 years, one or more future drug options had been lost in two participants (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·7%) in the OT group and six (2·1%) in the PI-mono group: difference 1·4% (−0·4 to 3·4); non-inferiority shown. 49 (16·8%) participants in the OT group and 65 (22·0%) in the PI-mono group had grade 3 or 4 clinical adverse events (difference 5·1% [95% CI −1·3 to 11·5]; p=0·12); 45 (six treatment related) and 56 (three treatment related) had serious adverse events.

Interpretation

Protease inhibitor monotherapy, with regular viral load monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment for rebound, preserved future treatment options and did not change overall clinical outcomes or frequency of toxic effects. Protease inhibitor monotherapy is an acceptable alternative for long-term clinical management of HIV infection.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

CYP3A4 polymorphism and lopinavir toxicity in an HIV-infected pregnant woman

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 has been considered to be the most important enzyme system for metabolism of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), a widely used HIV protease inhibitor (PI) recommended during pregnancy. Herein we present a clinical case of a pregnant HIV-infected woman who was taking standard doses of LPV/r, 400/100 mg twice daily. The trough plasma concentrations for LPV were fourfold above that recommended for PI-pretreated patients and toxicity associated with LPV/r and PI regimens was observed. These high concentrations continued after delivery in spite of a dosage reduction. The pharmacogenetic analysis revealed a genetic polymorphism in the CYP3A4 gene that encodes a non-functional protein. The pharmacokinetic study could indicate the occurrence of a phenomenon of non-linear pharmacokinetics which would justify why dosage reduction after pregnancy did not proportionally affect the patient's degree of exposure to the drug. In addition, an increment in CYP3A activity during pregnancy could explain lower LPV/r exposure during this period compared to postpartum, despite the impaired activity of CYP3A4 caused by the polymorphism.

[GESIDA/National AIDS Plan: Consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2015)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) guidelines and recommendations for HIV-1 infected adult patients.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations, a panel composed of members of the AIDS Study Group and the AIDS National Plan (GeSIDA/Plan Nacional sobre el Sida) reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, and cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals (PubMed and Embase) or presented in medical scientific meetings. The strength of the recommendations, and the evidence that supports them, are based on modified criteria of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

In this update, cART is recommended for all patients infected by type 1 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). The strength and level of the recommendation depends on the CD4+T-lymphocyte count, the presence of opportunistic diseases or comorbid conditions, age, and prevention of transmission of HIV. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable plasma viral load. Initial cART should always comprise a combination of 3 drugs, including 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and a third drug from a different family. Three out of the ten recommended regimes are regarded as preferential (all of them with an integrase inhibitor as the third drug), and the other seven (based on a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor) as alternatives. This update presents the causes and criteria for switching cART in patients with undetectable plasma viral load, and in cases of virological failure where rescue cART should comprise 3 (or at least 2) drugs that are fully active against the virus. An update is also provided for the specific criteria for cART in special situations (acute infection, HIV-2 infection, and pregnancy) and with comorbid conditions (tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections, kidney disease, liver disease, and cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines update previous recommendations related to cART (when to begin and what drugs should be used), how to monitor and what to do in case of viral failure or drug adverse reactions. cART specific criteria in comorbid patients and special situations are equally updated.

Differential effects of viremia and microbial translocation on immune activation in HIV-infected patients throughout ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the evolution of microbial translocation (MT) and its role in CD4 and CD8 T cells immune activation (IA) in HIV-1-infected patients on ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy (mtDRV/rtv).Prospective study of consecutive HIV-1-infected patients switched to mtDRV/rtv as a simplification regimen. Subjects were classified according to the virological behavior during a 24-month follow-up as continuous undetectable viral load, blips, intermittent viremia, and virological failure (VF). MT was evaluated by plasma LPS and 16S genomic rDNA (16S rDNA) levels, whereas IA was assessed by the coexpression of HLA-DR and CD38 in CD4 and CD8 T cells, and plasma sCD14 levels.Seventy-one patients were included in this substudy of the MonDar cohort (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01505722). At baseline, CD4 (ρ = -0.352, P = 0.01) and CD8 T-cell activation (ρ = -0.468, P < 0.001) were correlated with time with viral suppression, but not with MT markers. A significant decrease in plasma LPS levels was found only in patients without VF (baseline, 77.8 vs month 24, 60.4 pg/mL; P < 0.001]. Both plasma 16S rDNA and sCD14 levels were unchanged irrespective of the viral behavior. The only variable independently associated with a decrease in CD4 and CD8 T cells activation was an undetectable HIV-1 viremia (β = 4.78, P < 0.001 and β = 2.93, P = 0.005, respectively).MT does not have a pivotal role in T-cell activation, at least in patients with long-term viral suppression. The viremic episodes and VF are the main factors related to CD4 and CD8 T-cells IA, even during mtDRV/rtv.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

HIV-1 subtype influences susceptibility and response to monotherapy with the protease inhibitor lopinavir/ritonavir

OBJECTIVE

PI susceptibility results from a complex interplay between protease and Gag proteins, with Gag showing wide variation across HIV-1 subtypes. We explored the impact of pre-treatment susceptibility on the outcome of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy.

METHODS

Treatment-naive individuals who experienced lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy failure from the MONARK study were matched (by subtype, viral load and baseline CD4 count) with those who achieved virological response ('successes'). Successes were defined by viral load <400 copies/mL after week 24 and <50 copies/mL from week 48 to week 96. Full-length Gag-protease was amplified from patient samples for in vitro phenotypic susceptibility testing, with susceptibility expressed as fold change (FC) relative to a subtype B reference strain.

RESULTS

Baseline lopinavir susceptibility was lower in viral failures compared with viral successes, but the differences were not statistically significant (median lopinavir susceptibility: 4.4 versus 8.5, respectively, P = 0.17). Among CRF02_AG/G patients, there was a significant difference in lopinavir susceptibility between the two groups (7.1 versus 10.4, P = 0.047), while in subtype B the difference was not significant (2.7 versus 3.4, P = 0.13). Subtype CRF02_AG/G viruses had a median lopinavir FC of 8.7 compared with 3.1 for subtype B (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We report an association between reduced PI susceptibility (using full-length Gag-protease sequences) at baseline and subsequent virological failure on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in antiretroviral-naive patients harbouring subtype CRF02_AG/G viruses. We speculate that this may be important in the context of suboptimal adherence in determining viral failure.

Is there a higher risk of CNS adverse events for PI monotherapy versus triple therapy? A review of results from randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy for treatment could avoid the adverse events, drug resistance, and additional costs associated with other antiretrovirals that are normally used, particularly the nucleoside analogues. PI monotherapy has mainly been compared with standard triple therapy in randomized clinical trials of patients who have HIV RNA suppression at screening and no history of virological failure.

METHODS

This review included 11 randomized clinical trials of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy versus triple therapy in 1,267 patients with HIV RNA suppression at baseline who were studied between 48 and 144 weeks.

RESULTS

There was no clear difference in the risk of central nervous system (CNS) adverse events between PI monotherapy (either DRV/r or LPV/r) and standard triple drug treatment. There were 2 clinical trials - MONOI (DRV/r) and MOST (LPV/r) - that showed CNS symptoms and detectable HIV RNA levels in the cerebrospinal fluid in a small number of individuals taking PI monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistent evidence from the randomized trials currently available for an additional risk of HIV CNS disease during monotherapy with either LPV/r or DRV/r versus standard triple drug therapy. However, the information on CNS adverse events has not been reported using standardized definitions in the studies. In addition, few randomized studies included detailed analysis of neurocognitive function or detection of HIV RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid.

Phenotypic characterization of virological failure following lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy using full-length Gag-protease genes

Objectives

Major protease mutations are rarely observed following first-line failure with PIs and interpretation of genotyping results in this context may be difficult. We performed extensive phenotyping of viruses from five patients failing lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in the MONARK study without major PI mutations by standard genotyping.

Methods

Phenotypic susceptibility testing and viral infectivity assessments were performed using a single-cycle assay and fold changes (FC) relative to a lopinavir-susceptible reference strain were calculated.

Results

>10-fold reduced baseline susceptibility to lopinavir occurred in two of five patients and >5-fold in another two. Four of five patients exhibited phylogenetic evidence of a limited viral evolution between baseline and failure, with amino acid changes at drug resistance-associated positions in one: T81A emerged in Gag with M36I in the protease gene, correlating with a reduction in lopinavir susceptibility from FC 7 (95% CI 6–8.35) to FC 13 (95% CI 8.11–17.8). Reductions in darunavir susceptibility (>5 FC) occurred in three individuals.

Discussion

This study suggests both baseline reduced susceptibility and evolution of resistance could be contributing factors to PI failure, despite the absence of classical PI resistance mutations by standard testing methods. Use of phenotyping also reveals lower darunavir susceptibility, warranting further study as this agent is commonly used following lopinavir failure.

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.

Assessment of second-line antiretroviral regimens for HIV therapy in Africa

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and toxic effects of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are uncertain when these agents are used with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in resource-limited settings. Removing the NRTIs or replacing them with raltegravir may provide a benefit.

METHODS

In this open-label trial in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 1277 adults and adolescents with HIV infection and first-line treatment failure to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI group, 426 patients), a protease inhibitor plus raltegravir in a superiority comparison (raltegravir group, 433 patients), or protease-inhibitor monotherapy after 12 weeks of induction therapy with raltegravir in a noninferiority comparison (monotherapy group, 418 patients). The primary composite end point, good HIV disease control, was defined as survival with no new World Health Organization stage 4 events, a CD4+ count of more than 250 cells per cubic millimeter, and a viral load of less than 10,000 copies per milliliter or 10,000 copies or more with no protease resistance mutations at week 96 and was analyzed with the use of imputation of data (≤4%).

RESULTS

Good HIV disease control was achieved in 60% of the patients (mean, 255 patients) in the NRTI group, 64% of the patients (mean, 277) in the raltegravir group (P=0.21 for the comparison with the NRTI group; superiority of raltegravir not shown), and 55% of the patients (mean, 232) in the monotherapy group (noninferiority of monotherapy not shown, based on a 10-percentage-point margin). There was no significant difference in rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events among the three groups (P=0.82). The viral load was less than 400 copies per milliliter in 86% of patients in the NRTI group, 86% in the raltegravir group (P=0.97), and 61% in the monotherapy group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

When given with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy, NRTIs retained substantial virologic activity without evidence of increased toxicity, and there was no advantage to replacing them with raltegravir. Virologic control was inferior with protease-inhibitor monotherapy. (Funded by European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; EARNEST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN37737787, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988039.).

Antiretroviral therapy: treatment-experienced individuals

Antiretroviral therapy (ART)-experienced individuals may choose to modify their regimens because of suboptimal virologic response, poor tolerability, convenience, or to minimize interactions with other medications or food. Constructing a new regimen for any of these reasons requires a thorough review of prior antiretroviral drug use and available drug resistance results. This article summarizes the strategies used in managing the ART-experienced individual who is considering a modification in therapy at the time of suboptimal virologic response or while virologically suppressed on a stable regimen.

[GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan: Consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2014)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) guidelines for HIV-1 infected adult patients.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel composed of members of the Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals (PubMed and Embase) or presented in medical scientific meetings. Recommendations strength and the evidence in which they are supported are based on modified criteria of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

In this update, antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all patients infected by type 1 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). The strength and grade of the recommendation varies with the clinical circumstances: CDC stage B or C disease (A-I), asymptomatic patients (depending on the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count: <350cells/μL, A-I; 350-500 cells/μL, A-II, and >500 cells/μL, B-III), comorbid conditions (HIV nephropathy, chronic hepatitis caused by HBV or HCV, age >55years, high cardiovascular risk, neurocognitive disorders, and cancer, A-II), and prevention of transmission of HIV (mother-to-child or heterosexual, A-I; men who have sex with men, A-III). The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable plasma viral load. Initial ART should always comprise a combination of 3 drugs, including 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a third drug from a different family (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, protease inhibitor, or integrase inhibitor). Some of the possible initial regimens have been considered alternatives. This update presents the causes and criteria for switching ART in patients with undetectable plasma viral load and in cases of virological failure where rescue ART should comprise 2 or 3 drugs that are fully active against the virus. An update is also provided for the specific criteria for ART in special situations (acute infection, HIV-2 infection, and pregnancy) and with comorbid conditions (tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections, kidney disease, liver disease, and cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines updates previous recommendations related to cART (when to begin and what drugs should be used), how to monitor and what to do in case of viral failure or drug adverse reactions. cART specific criteria in comorbid patients and special situations are equally updated.

When can HIV clinical trials detect treatment effects on drug resistance?

Methods of sampling patients for resistance testing, and statistical analyses of HIV drug resistance, have not been standardised in HIV clinical trials. We analysed methods of genotyping and rates of treatment-emergent drug resistance from 27 clinical trials identified from a MEDLINE search. Sample size calculations were conducted using NQUERY software, assuming 5% significance level, 80% power and 1:1 randomisation. The percentage of patients with treatment-emergent IAS-USA mutations after 96 weeks ranged from 1.8% to 9.1% for first-line 2NRTI/NNRTI treatments, 0.6% to 6.3% for first-line 2NRTI/PI/r treatments and 0.0% to 2.0% in switch trials of boosted PIs. The prevalence of drug resistance was higher in trials with no screening for drug resistance at baseline, where the HIV RNA cut-off for genotyping was >50 copies/mL, where patients were tested for drug resistance after discontinuation of treatment, and where follow-up times were 96 weeks or longer. HIV clinical trials could be designed to detect differences in the risk of HIV drug resistance between treatments, as an analysis supporting HIV RNA suppression as the primary endpoint. However, this would require a standardised approach, with intent-to-treat analyses, testing of all samples with HIV RNA>50 copies/mL and genotyping after drug discontinuation.

Baseline natural killer and T cell populations correlation with virologic outcome after regimen simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir alone (ACTG 5201)

Objectives

Simplified maintenance therapy with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) provides an alternative treatment option for HIV-1 infection that spares nucleoside analogs (NRTI) for future use and decreased toxicity. We hypothesized that the level of immune activation (IA) and recovery of lymphocyte populations could influence virologic outcomes after regimen simplification.

Methods

Thirty-four participants with virologic suppression ≥48 weeks on antiretroviral therapy (2 NRTI plus protease inhibitor) were switched to ATV/r alone in the context of the ACTG 5201 clinical trial. Flow cytometric analyses were performed on PBMC isolated from 25 patients with available samples, of which 24 had lymphocyte recovery sufficient for this study. Assessments included enumeration of T-cells (CD4/CD8), natural killer (NK) (CD3⁺CD56⁺CD16⁺) cells and cell-associated markers (HLA-DR, CD's 38/69/94/95/158/279).

Results

Eight of the 24 patients had at least one plasma HIV-1 RNA level (VL) >50 copies/mL during the study. NK cell levels below the group median of 7.1% at study entry were associated with development of VL >50 copies/mL following simplification by regression and survival analyses (p = 0.043 and 0.023), with an odds ratio of 10.3 (95% CI: 1.92–55.3). Simplification was associated with transient increases in naïve and CD25⁺ CD4⁺ T-cells, and had no impact on IA levels.

Conclusions

Lower NK cell levels prior to regimen simplification were predictive of virologic rebound after discontinuation of nucleoside analogs. Regimen simplification did not have a sustained impact on markers of IA or T lymphocyte populations in 48 weeks of clinical monitoring.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00084019

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.

Emergence of HIV drug resistance during first- and second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings

INTRODUCTION

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings has expanded in the last decade, reaching >8 million individuals and reducing AIDS mortality and morbidity. Continued success of ART programs will require understanding the emergence of HIV drug resistance patterns among individuals in whom treatment has failed and managing ART from both an individual and public health perspective. We review data on the emergence of HIV drug resistance among individuals in whom first-line therapy has failed and clinical and resistance outcomes of those receiving second-line therapy in resource-limited settings.

RESULTS

Resistance surveys among patients initiating first-line nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based therapy suggest that 76%-90% of living patients achieve HIV RNA suppression by 12 months after ART initiation. Among patients with detectable HIV RNA at 12 months, HIV drug resistance, primarily due to M184V and NNRTI mutations, has been identified in 60%-72%, although the antiretroviral activity of proposed second-line regimens has been preserved. Complex mutation patterns, including thymidine-analog mutations, K65R, and multinucleoside mutations, are prevalent among cases of treatment failure identified by clinical or immunologic methods. Approximately 22% of patients receiving second-line therapy do not achieve HIV RNA suppression by 6 months, with poor adherence, rather than HIV drug resistance, driving most failures. Major protease inhibitor resistance at the time of second-line failure ranges from 0% to 50%, but studies are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Resistance of HIV to first-line therapy is predictable at 12 months when evaluated by means of HIV RNA monitoring and, when detected, largely preserves second-line therapy options. Optimizing adherence, performing resistance surveillance, and improving treatment monitoring are critical for long-term prevention of drug resistance.

Antiretroviral treatment sequencing strategies to overcome HIV type 1 drug resistance in adolescents and adults in low-middle-income countries

Antiretroviral treatment (ART) is expanding to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected persons in low-middle income countries, thanks to a public health approach. With 3 available drug classes, 2 ART sequencing lines are programmatically foreseen. The emergence and transmission of viral drug resistance represents a challenge to the efficacy of ART. Knowledge of HIV-1 drug resistance selection associated with specific drugs and regimens and the consequent activity of residual drug options are essential in programming ART sequencing options aimed at preserving ART efficacy for as long as possible. This article determines optimal ART sequencing options for overcoming HIV-1 drug resistance in resource-limited settings, using currently available drugs and treatment monitoring opportunities. From the perspective of drug resistance and on the basis of limited virologic monitoring data, optimal sequencing seems to involve use of a tenofovir-containing nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line regimen, followed by a zidovudine-containing, protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line regimen. Other options and their consequences are explored by considering within-class and between-class sequencing opportunities, including boosted PI monotherapies and future options with integrase inhibitors. Nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor resistance pathways in HIV-1 subtype C suggest an additional reason for accelerating stavudine phase out. Viral load monitoring avoids the accumulation of resistance mutations that significantly reduce the activity of next-line options. Rational use of resources, including broader access to viral load monitoring, will help ensure 3 lines of fully active treatment options, thereby increasing the duration of ART success.

Neurocognitive impairment in patients treated with protease inhibitor monotherapy or triple drug antiretroviral therapy

Background

In patients who remain virologically suppressed in plasma with triple-drug ART a switch to protease inhibitor monotherapy maintains high rates of suppression; however it is unknown if protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated to a higher rate of neurocognitive impairment.

Methods

In this observational, cross-sectional study we included patients with plasma virological suppression (≥1 year) without concomitant major neurocognitive confounders, currently receiving for ≥1 year boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy or as triple ART. Neurocognitive impairment was defined as per the 2007 consensus of the American Association of Neurology. The association between neurocognitive impairment and protease inhibitor monotherapy, adjusted by significant confounders, was analysed.

Results

Of the 191 included patients - triple therapy: 96, 1–2 years of monotherapy: 40 and >2 years of monotherapy: 55 - proportions (95% CI) with neurocognitive impairment were: overall, 27.2% (20.9–33.6); triple therapy, 31.6% (22.1–41.0); short-term monotherapy, 25.0% (11.3–38.7); long-term monotherapy: 21.4% (10.5–32.3); p = 0.38. In all groups, neurocognitive impairment was mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic by self-report. There were not significant differences in Global Deficit Score by group. In the regression model confounding variables for neurocognitive impairment were years on ART, ethnicity, years of education, transmission category and the HOMA index. Adjusted by these variables the Odds Ratio (95% CI) for neurocognitive impairment of patients receiving short-term monotherapy was 0.85 (0.29–2.50) and for long-term monotherapy 0.40 (0.14–1.15).

Conclusions

Compared to triple drug antiretroviral therapy, monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir in patients with adequate plasma suppression was not associated with a higher rate of asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment than triple drug ART.

Abacavir-based triple nucleoside regimens for maintenance therapy in patients with HIV

BACKGROUND

Regimen simplification can be defined as a change in established effective therapy to reduce pill burden and dosing frequency, to enhance tolerability, or to decrease specific food and fluid requirements. Many patients on suppressive antiretroviral therapy may be considered candidates for a simplification strategy and, among them, those who have achieved virologic suppression. Several clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of triple nucleoside combination as a simplification therapy in patients who achieved virologic suppression

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review is to combine randomised, controlled trials to examine whether in patients with undetectable viraemia on a Protease inhibitor (PI) based regimen simplification treatment with abacavir (ABC)-based triple-nucleoside combinations has similar rates of efficacy and tolerability compared with a PI regimen or simplification with a NNRTIs (efavirenz-EFV- or nevirapine-NVP) containing regimen. Studies were included if they had at least two of the three interventions, including one 3NRTI arm.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic databases and conference proceedings were searched (1996-2012) with relevant search terms without limits to language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only are included in this review. Patients population is represented by HIV-infected adult patients treated with a PI-containing regimen (PI or boosted PI),  with undetectable viral load. Patients on a PI-containing regimen had three possibilities: continue the PI regimen or switch to a simplification maintenance regimen, including switch to a NNRTI (EFV or NVP) containing regimen, or switch to a triple-NRTI regimen (ABC-zidovudine-lamivudine)

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were: proportion of patients discontinuing or switching antiretroviral therapy due to virologic failure or to adverse events; death (all cause) and AIDS defining illness; occurrence of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular disease. Secondary outcomes  were: proportion of patients maintaining an undetectable viral load (e.g. HIV-RNA <50 or <400 copies/mm(3)); change in mean CD4+ cell count; occurrence of lipodystrophy. We applied Cochrane Collaboration tools to assess each individual study for risk for bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCT, for a total of 1,610 patients. All the studies included HIV-1 infected patients virologically suppressed after a successful treatment with PI containing ART. Articles included in the analysis were published between 2001 and 2010, and could be classified as low risk of bias trials in most of the domains considered. Overall, there was no significant difference between the participants on triple nucleoside combination and controls, either PI-based or NNRTI based in terms of overall failures, death and AIDS related events, and rates of patients with viral load below the detectability cut-off. For the outcomes discontinuation for adverse events and virologic failures, the RRs were not significant , albeit  being not far from the alpha level of 0.05, thus suggesting a weak evidence of lower incidence of side effects  and an higher incidence of virologic failure in the 3NRTI group compared to controls . Change in lipids and in CD4 cells from baselines were reported in 7 studies, but inconsistency in reporting these data did not allow quantitative analysis. However, all agreed that simplification with ABC had a favourable and significant impact on lipid metabolism compared to control group. An increase in CD4 cells count from baseline was evident in all analysed studies, without significant differences between ABC and controls in individual studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strategy of switching to triple nucleoside regimens shows weak evidence of lower incidence of side effects and a higher incidence of virologic failure in the 3NRTI group compared to controls. Simplification with 3NRTI holds the advantages of preserving other classes of antiretroviral drugs, to lower blood lipids, and to be cost effective and simple to administer.Thus, simplification with triple nucleoside regimens AZT + 3TC + ABC should be still considered for individuals who are unable to tolerate or have contraindications to NNRTI or PI based regimens. Additional data are needed on longer-term efficacy of triple NRTI regimens, particularly on the development of antiretroviral resistance. Though studies in the current review were conducted between 2001 and 2010, the large majority of patients from studies analysed received old PI regimens (e.g., indinavir, ritonavir, nelfinavir, saquinavir) not longer recommended by International Guidelines. Since current guidelines recommend new "lipid -friendly" PI, future studies should compare regimens containing these news PIs to triple NRTI regimens. More realistically, however, there are opportunities to examine these issues in existing cohorts.

Long-term lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in HIV-infected children

BACKGROUND

Long-term data are limited on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy (mLPV/r) as a treatment simplification strategy in virologically suppressed children.

METHODS

Children with confirmed plasma HIV viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL while receiving double protease inhibitors (dPI) were switched to mLPV/r therapy. Virologic failure (VF) was defined as 2 consecutive VL ≥ 500 or 3 consecutive VL ≥ 50 copies/mL. dPI was resumed within 4 weeks in children with VF. Primary endpoint was the proportion of children with VL < 50 copies/mL while still receiving mLPV/r at week 144.

RESULTS

Forty children were enrolled; 90% were receiving LPV/r + saquinavir and 10% LPV/r + indinavir before simplifying to mLPV/r. Median age was 11.7 years; 50% were female. Median CD4% was 27%. Four (10%) had VL > 50 copies/mL at entry. At week 144, the proportion of children still receiving mLPV/r who had VL < 50 copies/mL was 22 of 40 (55%). The proportion of all children with VL < 50 copies/mL at week 144 was 33 of 40 (82.5%). Among 16 children who had VF and resumed dPI, 11 (69%) achieved VL < 50 copies/mL at week 144. No children with VF had major LPV/r mutations. Having detectable VL at entry and adherence by pill count <95% for >3 times at any visits during the study period significantly predicted VF on mLPV/r (both P = 0.025). The proportion of children with elevated total cholesterol (>200 mg/dL) decreased from 65% at baseline to 40% at week 144 (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

About half of children maintained virologic suppression on mLPV/r for almost 3 years. VF was common but the majority achieved suppression after resuming dPI and none had major LPV/r mutations. mLPV/r should only be considered for simplified maintenance therapy if frequent VL monitoring to detect VF is available.

Short communication: lamivudine plus a boosted-protease inhibitor as simplification strategy in HIV-infected patients: proof of concept

There are scarce data about the use of a dual therapy with lamivudine plus a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) as simplification strategy. We performed a retrospective cohort study of 44 HIV-infected patients on suppressive triple therapy PI/r-based HAART, HBV negative, who discontinued one nucleoside analogue (NA) due to toxicity, and continued dual therapy with lamivudine plus the PI/r. The median time of HIV infection was 18.6 years, and CD4(+) count nadir was 150 cells/μl (6-470). They had received a mean of four regimens before (2-20), and 55% had a previous AIDS diagnosis. In eight cases, a previous resistance test showed two to seven secondary mutations in the protease gene, without resistance to the PI/r. The 184V mutation was not observed, but previous failure with a lamivudine-including regimen had been observed in four patients (9%). At baseline, patients had viral suppression (<50 copies/ml) for a median time of 794 days (235-2344), while receiving atazanavir/r in five cases, lopinavir/r in 14, and darunavir/r in 25. They discontinued mainly tenofovir (19, 43%) and didanosine (15, 34%). During 101.5 patient-years of follow-up, only two patients failed (5%), because of incomplete adherence. CD4(+) count increase at 48 weeks was 55 cells/μl. No new adverse events were observed, although total cholesterol and triglycerides increased significantly during the first 6 months after simplification. In conclusion, dual therapy with lamivudine plus a boosted PI was safe and effective as simplification strategy in patients with toxicity to NA. This combination could be an alternative to mono or triple therapy in hard-to-treat patients.

CSF penetration by antiretroviral drugs

Severe HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), such as HIV-associated dementia, and opportunistic CNS infections are now rare complications of HIV infection due to comprehensive highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). By contrast, mild to moderate neurocognitive disorders remain prevalent, despite good viral control in peripheral compartments. HIV infection seems to provoke chronic CNS injury that may evade systemic HAART. Penetration of antiretroviral drugs across the blood-brain barrier might be crucial for the treatment of HAND. This review identifies and evaluates the available clinical evidence on CSF penetration properties of antiretroviral drugs, addressing methodological issues and discussing the clinical relevance of drug concentration assessment. Although a substantial number of studies examined CSF concentrations of antiretroviral drugs, there is a need for adequate, well designed trials to provide more valid drug distribution profiles. Neuropsychological benefits and neurotoxicity of potentially CNS-active drugs require further investigation before penetration characteristics will regularly influence therapeutic strategies and outcome.

Simplification to monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir in adolescents with vertically acquired HIV-1 infection

In recent years, the use of boosted protease inhibitors monotherapy has become increasingly important, especially considering the advantages in terms of costs, tolerability, and simplification. Despite that, knowledge about the efficacy and safety of this approach in HIV-1-infected adolescents who have acquired HIV-1 infection through perinatal transmission is still limited. We report here our experience with two adolescents who have been successfully treated with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy.