Switch from enfuvirtide to raltegravir in patients with undetectable viral load: efficacy and safety at 24 weeks in a Montreal cohort

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.

Short communication: Effectiveness at 48 weeks of switching from enfuvirtide to raltegravir in virologically suppressed multidrug-resistant HIV type 1-infected patients in a Brazilian cohort

The effectiveness of switching from enfuvirtide to raltegravir in HIV-1-infected patients on a suppressive antiretroviral regimen has been poorly studied in the clinical practice of developing countries. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study in HIV-1-infected, multidrug-experienced adults (≥18 years old) with plasma HIV-1-RNA <400 copies/ml for at least 4 months on an enfuvirtide-containing therapy between 2005 and 2010, in whom the attending physician switched from enfuvirtide to raltegravir. Effectiveness endpoints were measured at week 48 after switch. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis and two strategies for handling missing outcome data were used (hereafter, strategies 1 and 2). Overall, 87 patients were eligible for analysis. At baseline, the median CD4(+) T cell count was 400 cells/μl and 91.9% of patients had <50 HIV-1-RNA copies/ml. At week 48, the proportions of patients with plasma HIV-1-RNA <50 and <400 copies/ml were, respectively, 86.2% (95% CI=77.1; 92.7%) and 88.5% (95% CI=79.9; 94.3%) (strategies 1 and 2) and 89.7% (95% CI=81.3; 95.2%) and 90.8% (95% CI=82.7; 95.9%) (strategies 1 and 2). This was a -10.3% (95% CI=-2.8; -17.9%) and -9.2% (95% CI=-2; -16.4%) difference from baseline in the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1-RNA <400 copies/ml. The median increase in CD4(+) T cell counts was 41 and 64 cells/μl (p<0.001) (strategies 1 and 2). No patient withdrew raltegravir or developed opportunistic infections, but one was diagnosed with HIV-related dementia. In conclusion, switching from enfuvirtide to raltegravir in patients on a virologically suppressive regimen is an effective strategy even in a Brazilian clinical setting.

[Consensus Statement by GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat on antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2013)]

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 GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat (Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the Secretaría del 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. The strength of the recommendations and the evidence which support them are based on a modification of the criteria of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

cART is recommended in patients with symptoms of HIV infection, in pregnant women, in serodiscordant couples with high risk of transmission, in hepatitisB co-infection requiring treatment, and in HIV nephropathy. cART is recommended in asymptomatic patients if CD4 is <500cells/μl. If CD4 are >500cells/μl cART should be considered in the case of chronic hepatitisC, cirrhosis, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >100.000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, neurocognitive deficits, and in people aged >55years. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. The first cART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI) nucleoside analogs and a third drug (a non-analog RTI, a ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected some drug combinations, for the first cART and specific criteria for cART in acute HIV infection, in tuberculosis and other HIV related opportunistic infections, for the women and in pregnancy, in hepatitisB or C co-infection, in HIV-2 infection, and in post-exposure prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

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

Clinical use of HIV integrase inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Optimal regimen choice of antiretroviral therapy is essential to achieve long-term clinical success. Integrase inhibitors have swiftly been adopted as part of current antiretroviral regimens. The purpose of this study was to review the evidence for integrase inhibitor use in clinical settings.

Methods

MEDLINE and Web-of-Science were screened from April 2006 until November 2012, as were hand-searched scientific meeting proceedings. Multiple reviewers independently screened 1323 citations in duplicate to identify randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials and cohort studies on integrase inhibitor use in clinical practice. Independent, duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted.

Results

48 unique studies were included on the use of integrase inhibitors in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients and treatment-experienced patients with either virological failure or switching to integrase inhibitors while virologically suppressed. On the selected studies with comparable outcome measures and indication (n = 16), a meta-analysis was performed based on modified intention-to-treat (mITT), on-treatment (OT) and as-treated (AT) virological outcome data. In therapy-naive patients, favorable odds ratios (OR) for integrase inhibitor-based regimens were observed, (mITT OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59–0.86). However, integrase inhibitors combined with protease inhibitors only did not result in a significant better virological outcome. Evidence further supported integrase inhibitor use following virological failure (mITT OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11–0.66), but switching to integrase inhibitors from a high genetic barrier drug during successful treatment was not supported (mITT OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.89–2.31). Integrase inhibitor-based regimens result in similar immunological responses compared to other regimens. A low genetic barrier to drug-resistance development was observed for raltegravir and elvitegravir, but not for dolutegravir.

Conclusion

In first-line therapy, integrase inhibitors are superior to other regimens. Integrase inhibitor use after virological failure is supported as well by the meta-analysis. Careful use is however warranted when replacing a high genetic barrier drug in treatment-experienced patients switching successful treatment.

Monitoring the emergence of resistance mutations in patients infected with HIV-1 under salvage therapy with raltegravir in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: a follow-up study

The present study describes a follow-up of a prospective and observational cohort of patients infected with HIV-1 and treated with raltegravir for salvage therapy in Brazil. Two groups of patients were analyzed: switching from T20 to RAL (Group 1, n = 9) and salvage therapy containing RAL (Group 2, n = 10). Blood samples were drawn for CD4(+) T-cell counts and HIV-1 viral load determinations. Protease, reverse transcriptase, and integrase genotyping were performed at baseline and at the time of virologic failure. CD4(+) T-cells increased at 6 and 12 months in both groups; HIV-1 viral load was continuously suppressed for Group 1, and for Group 2 it significantly decreased after starting a RAL-containing regimen. Three out of 10 patients from Group 2 could not suppress HIV-1 viral load. The mutations Q148H + G140S were observed for two patients and for the third patient only mutations to PR/RT inhibitors were detected. The genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) was analyzed for all patients of Group 2 and both patients who developed resistance to raltegravir presented a GSS < 2.0 for the RAL-containing scheme, which could be associated to the lack of effectiveness of the proposed scheme. The present study describes, for the first time in Brazil, the close follow-up of a series of patients using a raltegravir-containing HAART, showing the safety of the enfuvirtide switch to RAL and the effectiveness of a therapeutic regimen with RAL in promoting immune reconstitution and suppressing HIV replication, as well as documenting the occurrence of resistance to integrase inhibitors in the country.

[Consensus document of Gesida and Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) regarding combined antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (January 2012)]

This consensus document has been prepared by a panel consisting of members of the AIDS Study Group (Gesida) and the Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) after reviewing the efficacy and safety results of clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals, or presented in medical scientific meetings. Gesida has prepared an objective and structured method to prioritise combined antiretroviral treatment (cART) in naïve patients. Recommendations strength (A, B, C) and the evidence which supports them (I, II, III) are based on a modification of the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. The current antiretroviral treatment (ART) of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs. ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection, in pregnancy, in serodiscordant couples with high transmission risk, hepatitis B fulfilling treatment criteria, and HIV nephropathy. Guidelines on ART treatment in patients with concurrent diagnosis of HIV infection and an opportunistic type C infection are included. In asymptomatic patients ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts <350 cells/μL; 2) when CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/μL, therapy will be recommended and only delayed if patient is reluctant to take it, the CD4 are stabilised, and the plasma viral load is low; 3) therapy could be deferred when CD4 counts are above 500 cells/μL, but should be considered in cases of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >10(5) copies/mL, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, and in people aged >55 years. ART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors nucleoside analogues and a third drug (non-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor, ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor or integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected and given priority to using the Gesida score for some drug combinations, some of them co-formulated. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures, but an undetectable viral load may be possible nowadays. Adverse events are a fading problem of ART. Guidelines in acute HIV infection, in women, in pregnancy, and to prevent mother-to-child transmission and pre- and post-exposition prophylaxis are commented upon. Management of hepatitis B or C co-infection, other co-morbidities, and the characteristics of ART in HIV-2 infection are included.

Impact on health-related quality of life of a switch from enfuvirtide to raltegravir among multidrug-resistant HIV-1-infected patients: a randomized open-label trial (EASIER-ANRS 138)

BACKGROUND

among multidrug-resistant HIV-1-infected patients, enfuvirtide has demonstrated sustained efficacy, but long-term use is inconvenient due to twice-daily subcutaneous injections which often induce injection-site reactions. We investigated whether a switch from enfuvirtide to raltegravir, an orally available HIV-integrase inhibitor, may improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

170 multidrug-resistant HIV-1-infected patients who were receiving enfuvirtide-based regimens were randomised to the maintenance of enfuvirtide or the switch to raltegravir at day 0. At week 24, all patients received raltegravir up to week 48. HRQoL was assessed at baseline and weeks 24 and 48 using a self-report MOS-HIV questionnaire. HRQoL scores were compared between arms using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models.

RESULTS

at week 24, least-squares means changes from baseline for the maintenance and the substitution arms were -5.3 and +5.8 (P = .001) for the pain score, -4.7 and +4.8 (P = .02) for the social functioning score, and -1.3 and +2.0 (P = .003) for the physical summary score, respectively.

CONCLUSION

among multidrug-resistant HIV-1-infected patients, a switch from enfuvirtide to raltegravir resulted in statistically significant improvements in multiple HRQoL dimensions over 24 weeks in comparison to the maintenance under enfuvirtide.

Clinical use of raltegravir: a review

In the last 5 years there have been important achievements in the field of HIV therapy with the availability of new classes of antiretrovirals together with a new generation of old classes. Among them, the development of raltegravir, the first commercially available component of integrase inhibitors, brought an extraordinary improvement in salvage therapy for HIV-infected patients, allowing for virologic suppression even in multi-experienced subjects, who until recently had limited treatment options. It was subsequently approved for initial treatment combined with a nucleoside/nucleotide backbone, and also became an interesting option for naive HIV-infected populations. Its unique characteristics, the limited potential for significant pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs and excellent safety profile have increased interest in its use in different settings.

[AIDS Study Group/Spanish AIDS Plan consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection (updated January 2010)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of antiretroviral therapy recommendations for adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel made up of members of the Grupo de Estudio de Sida (Gesida, AIDS Study Group) and the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS, Spanish AIDS Plan) reviewed the advances in the current understanding of the pathophysiology of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the efficacy and safety of clinical trials, and cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in biomedical journals or presented at scientific meetings. Three levels of evidence were defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), cohort or case-control studies (level B), and expert opinion (level C). The decision to recommend, consider or not to recommend ART was established in each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, the treatment of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs of two different classes, including 2 nucleosides or nucleotide analogs (NRTI) plus 1 non-nucleoside (NNRTI) or 1 boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r), but other combinations are possible. Initiation of ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection. In asymptomatic patients, initiation of ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts below 350 cells/microl; 2) When CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/microl, therapy should be started in case of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, HIV nephropathy, HIV viral load above 100,000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells under 14%, and in people aged over 55; 3) Therapy should be deferred when CD4 are above 500 cells/microl, but could be considered if any of previous considerations concurs. Treatment should be initiated in case of hepatitis B requiring treatment and should be considered for reduce sexual transmission. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures but undetectable viral loads maybe possible with the new drugs even in highly drug experienced patients. Genotype studies are useful in these situations. Drug toxicity of ART therapy is losing importance as benefits exceed adverse effects. Criteria for antiretroviral treatment in acute infection, pregnancy and post-exposure prophylaxis are mentioned as well as the management of HIV co-infection with hepatitis B or C.

CONCLUSIONS

CD4 cells counts, viral load and patient co-morbidities are the most important reference factors to consider when initiating ART in asymptomatic patients. The large number of available drugs, the increased sensitivity of tests to monitor viral load, and the ability to determine viral resistance is leading to a more individualized therapy approach in order to achieve undetectable viral load under any circumstances.

The SWITCHMRK studies: substitution of lopinavir/ritonavir with raltegravir in HIV-positive individuals

Protease inhibitors potently suppress HIV viral load but are often associated with metabolic disturbances such as dyslipidemias and lipodystrophy. In addition to exercise, diet modification and anti-lipid therapies, one potential management strategy for HIV-positive patients with dyslipidemia is to switch any antiretrovirals that may be exacerbating the condition to more lipid-neutral drugs. The SWITCHMRK studies examined the effects of substituting lopinavir/ritonavir, a protease inhibitor known to cause dyslipidemias, with the integrase inhibitor raltegravir. Participants who switched from lopinavir/ritonavir to raltegravir experienced an improvement in cholesterol and triglycerides at 12 weeks; however, a large proportion of patients in the raltegravir arms did not maintain HIV virologic suppression at less than 50 copies/ml at week 24. Further analyses are underway to determine why more patients in the raltegravir arms experienced increased virologic failure and to determine whether switching lopinavir/ritonavir with raltegravir may be appropriate for specific subgroups of patients.

Switch from enfuvirtide to raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected patients: effects on level of residual viremia and quality of life

BACKGROUND

Raltegravir is a potential treatment option for virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected patients on enfuvirtide with injection site reactions.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize safety and efficacy of an enfuvirtide to raltegravir switch including changes in T-cells, quality of life, and residual viremia.

STUDY DESIGN

In patients with viral load <50 copies/mL and injection site reactions, enfuvirtide was switched to raltegravir without additional changes to the antiretroviral regimen. Virologic failure was defined as a viral load >1000 copies/mL or two consecutive viral load measurements between 50 and 1000 copies/mL (low-level viremia). Over the 24 week study, we compared changes in T-cells, injection site reactions, quality of life, and residual viremia, as measured through the single-copy assay which can detect plasma virus down to a single copy, using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 420 cells/microL were enrolled. After the switch, two patients experienced virologic failure due to confirmed low-level viremia. However, both patients subsequently were re-suppressed, one without any changes to his regimen. There was no change in CD4+ T-cell count. Injection site reactions resolved. However, there was little reported change in quality of life. The baseline median level of residual viremia was 6 copies/mL and did not change after the switch to raltegravir.

CONCLUSIONS

A switch to raltegravir in virologically suppressed patients on enfuvirtide is effective in maintaining immunologic and virologic control at 24 weeks but did not result in a change in residual viremia.