Maraviroc once-daily nucleoside analog-sparing regimen in treatment-naive patients: randomized, open-label pilot study

Risk of failure in dual therapy versus triple therapy in naïve HIV patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Several attempts have been made to test different drug-sparing strategies to reduce the drug-burden and drug-related toxicities. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of failure of dual therapies compared to triple therapies in HIV-naïve patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. The following criteria were used: present data from original articles comparing the two treatment regimens; published from January 2007 up to January, 2020. No language or study design restriction was applied. Subjects were HIV-positive naïve patients treated with dual or triple antiretroviral therapy (ART). A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Treatment failure (TF) was the primary outcome evaluated; heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I².

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included, allowing a meta-analysis on 5205 patients. The meta-analysis performed on studies that presented data at 48 weeks showed that the RR of TF (RR > 1 favouring triple therapy) in 10 studies was 1.20 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-1.59, I²: 49.2%); the RR of virological failure (VF) in eight studies was 1.54 (95% CI: 0.84-2.86, I²: 54%); the RR of adverse drug reaction leading to discontinuation of the regimen at 48 weeks in eight studies was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.43-1.33, I²: 17.7%). In patients with less than 200 CD4+, the RR of TF in two studies without maraviroc was 2.09 (95% CI: 1.05-4.17, I²: 0.0%). Regarding the studies at 96 weeks there was no difference except in rate of development of resistance, RR 1.94 (95% CI: 1.06-3.53, I²: 6.2%).

CONCLUSION

Dual therapies are as effective as those with three drugs, showing no difference according to the different dual therapies, except in patients with less than 200 CD4; however, they are associated with a higher selection of resistance-associated mutations at 96 weeks of therapy.

New Strategies of ARV: the Road to Simplification

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Simplification of antiretroviral therapy is a strategy aiming to reduce pill burden, drug interactions, and toxicity. This review focuses on the most recent and important studies evaluating a reduction on the number of drugs for HIV treatment, both in naive and virologically suppressed patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Interesting studies have been performed in the past years testing dual therapy and monotherapy, with variable rates of virological control. Novel therapeutics like immunotherapy or long-acting antiretrovirals can also be considered for simplification. Reducing the number of drugs for HIV treatment can be an option for selected patients. Current available evidence favors dual therapy over monotherapy. Future research should seek to identify the best candidates for simplification.

Clonal analysis of HIV-1 genotype and function associated with virologic failure in treatment-experienced persons receiving maraviroc: Results from the MOTIVATE phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled trials

Detailed clonal phenotypic/genotypic analyses explored viral-escape mechanisms during maraviroc-based therapy in highly treatment-experienced participants from the MOTIVATE trials. To allow real-time assessment of samples while maintaining a blind trial, the first 267 enrolled participants were selected for evaluation. At failure, plasma samples from 20/50 participants (16/20 maraviroc-treated) with CXCR4-using virus and all 38 (13 maraviroc-treated) with CCR5-tropic virus were evaluated. Of those maraviroc-treated participants with CXCR4-using virus at failure, genotypic and phenotypic clonal tropism determinations showed >90% correspondence in 14/16 at Day 1 and 14/16 at failure. Phylogenetic analysis of clonal sequences detected pre-treatment progenitor CXCR4-using virus, or on-treatment virus highly divergent from the Day 1 R5 virus, excluding possible co-receptor switch through maraviroc-mediated evolution. Re-analysis of pre-treatment samples using the enhanced-sensitivity Trofile® assay detected CXCR4-using virus pre-treatment in 16/20 participants failing with CXCR4-using virus. Post-maraviroc reversion of CXCR4-use to CCR5-tropic occurred in 7/8 participants with follow-up, suggesting selective maraviroc inhibition of CCR5-tropic variants in a mixed-tropic viral population, not emergence of de novo mutations in CCR5-tropic virus, as the main virologic escape mechanism. Maraviroc-resistant CCR5-tropic virus was observed in plasma from 5 treated participants with virus displaying reduced maximal percent inhibition (MPI) but no evidence of IC50 change. Env clones with reduced MPI showed 1-5 amino acid changes specific to each V3-loop region of env relative to Day 1. However, transferring on-treatment resistance-associated changes using site-directed mutagenesis did not always establish resistance in Day 1 virus, and key 'signature' mutation patterns associated with reduced susceptibility to maraviroc were not identified. Evolutionary divergence of the CXCR4-using viruses is confirmed, emphasizing natural selection not influenced directly by maraviroc; maraviroc simply unmasks pre-existing lineages by inhibiting the R5 virus. For R5-viral failure, resistance development through drug selection pressure was uncommon and manifested through reduced MPI and with virus strain-specific mutational patterns.

Two-drug regimens for treatment of naïve HIV-1 infection and as maintenance therapy

As people live longer with HIV infection, there has been a resurgence of interest in challenging the use of three-drug therapy, including two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus a third drug, as initial treatment of HIV infection or for maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed individuals. Although initial studies showed poor efficacy and/or substantial toxicity, more recent regimens have held greater promise. The SWORD-1 and -2 studies were pivotal trials of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine as maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed patients with no history of drug resistance, leading to the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the regimen as a small, single tablet. More recently, the GEMINI-1 and -2 studies demonstrated that dolutegravir plus lamivudine is as safe and effective as the same regimen when combined with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naïve individuals. Together, these and other studies of novel two-drug regimens offer the potential for improved tolerability and simplicity, as well as a reduction in cost. We will review historical and recent trials of two-drug therapy for the treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Increased CD127+ and decreased CD57+ T cell expression levels in HIV-infected patients on NRTI-sparing regimens

BACKGROUND

NRTIs-sparing regimens exert favourable profiles on T-cell homeostasis associated parameters. Our aim was to analyze the effect of NRTIs sparing regimen (NRTI-sparing-cART) vs NRTIs-containing regimen (NRTI-cART), on T-cell homeostasis associated parameters in naive HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

Biomarkers of cell survival (CD127) and replicative senescence (CD57), were measured by multiparametric flow cytometry for T-cell phenotyping on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) samples just before (baseline) and after 48 weeks of undetectable viral load in patients on NRTI-sparing-cART (N = 13) and NRTI-cART (N = 14). After 48 weeks a subgroup of patients (n = 5) on NRTI-cART switched to NRTI-sparing-cART for another additional 48 weeks. In vitro assays were performed on PBMCs from HIV-uninfected healthy donors exposed or not to HIV. To analyze the independent factors associated with type of cART bivariate and stepwise multivariate analysis were performed after adjusting for basal CD4+, CD8+ and nadir CD4+ T-cell counts.

RESULTS

After 48 weeks of a NRTI-sparing-cART vs NRTI-cART patients have higher effector memory (EM) CD4+ CD127+ T-cell levels, lower EM CD4+ CD57+ T-cell levels, higher CD8+ CD127+ T-cell levels, lower CD8+ CD57+ T-cell levels and higher memory CD8+ T-cell levels. This effect was confirmed in the subgroup of patients who switched to NRTI-sparing-cART. In vitro assays confirmed that the deleterious effect of a NRTIs-containing regimen was due to NRTIs.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of NRTI-sparing regimens, with a favourable profile in CD127 and CD57 T-cell expression, could benefit cART-patients. These results could have potential implications in a decrease in the number of Non-AIDS events.

Analysis of Clinical HIV-1 Strains with Resistance to Maraviroc Reveals Strain-Specific Resistance Mutations, Variable Degrees of Resistance, and Minimal Cross-Resistance to Other CCR5 Antagonists

Maraviroc (MVC) is an allosteric inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) entry, and is the only CCR5 antagonist licensed for use as an anti-HIV-1 therapeutic. It acts by altering the conformation of the CCR5 extracellular loops, rendering CCR5 unrecognizable by the HIV-1 envelope (Env) glycoproteins. This study aimed to understand the mechanisms underlying the development of MVC resistance in HIV-1-infected patients. To do this, we obtained longitudinal plasma samples from eight subjects who experienced treatment failure with phenotypically verified, CCR5-tropic MVC resistance. We then cloned and characterized HIV-1 Envs (n = 77) from plasma of pretreatment (n = 36) and treatment failure (n = 41) samples. Our results showed variation in the magnitude of MVC resistance as measured by reductions in maximal percent inhibition of Env-pseudotyped viruses, which was more pronounced in 293-Affinofile cells compared to other cells with similar levels of CCR5 expression. Amino acid determinants of MVC resistance localized to the V3 Env region and were strain specific. We also observed minimal cross-resistance to other CCR5 antagonists by MVC-resistant strains. We conclude that 293-Affinofile cells are highly sensitive for detecting and measuring MVC resistance through a mechanism that is CCR5-dependent yet independent of CCR5 expression levels. The strain-specific nature of resistance mutations suggests that sequence-based diagnostics and prognostics will need to be more sophisticated than simple position scoring to be useful for managing resistance in subjects taking MVC. Finally, the minimal levels of cross-resistance suggests that recognition of the MVC-modified form of CCR5 does not necessarily lead to recognition of other antagonist-modified forms of CCR5.

Switch to maraviroc with darunavir/r, both QD, in patients with suppressed HIV-1 was well tolerated but virologically inferior to standard antiretroviral therapy: 48-week results of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Primary study outcome was absence of treatment failure (virological failure, VF, or treatment interruption) per protocol at week 48.

METHODS

Patients on 3-drug ART with stable HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and CCR5-tropic virus were randomized 1:1 to maraviroc with darunavir/ritonavir qd (study arm) or continue current ART (continuation arm).

RESULTS

In June 2015, 115 patients were evaluable for the primary outcome (56 study, 59 continuation arm). The study was discontinued due to excess of VF in the study arm (7 cases, 12.5%, vs 0 in the continuation arm, p = 0.005). The proportion free of treatment failure was 73.2% in the study and 59.3% in the continuation arm. Two participants in the study and 10 in the continuation arm discontinued therapy due to adverse events (p = 0.030). At VF, no emergent drug resistance was detected. Co-receptor tropism switched to non-R5 in one patient. Patients with VF reported lower adherence and had lower plasma drug levels. Femoral bone mineral density was significantly improved in the study arm.

CONCLUSION

Switching to maraviroc with darunavir/ritonavir qd in virologically suppressed patients was associated with improved tolerability but was virologically inferior to 3-drug therapy.

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-reducing strategies in HIV treatment: assessing the evidence

Antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, comprising a backbone of two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus another ARV, is the recognized standard of care (SOC), which has helped extend life expectancy in people living with HIV. In a quest to reduce lifelong drug exposure and minimize or avoid the toxicity of NRTIs, "NRTI-reducing" regimens have been investigated. This descriptive review assessing the results of NRTI-reducing strategies from the largest randomized trials focuses on virological efficacy, resistance, regimen safety (in terms of bone mineral density, renal function, lipids and central nervous system function) and simplicity. The review considers efficacy across various NRTI-sparing strategies, for example an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) plus a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) or PI/r + lamivudine (3TC), in both naïve and switch regimes. Of 10 key studies in treatment-naïve adults assessing five NRTI-reducing strategies, only four studies demonstrated noninferiority vs. SOC [GARDEL, NEAT 001, AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5142 and PROGRESS]. In switch settings, 17 studies (10 randomized) were reviewed that used four strategies, including three studies assessing an INSTI plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor . Noninferiority of the NRTI-reducing arm was shown in six of 10 studies (ATLAS-M, SALT, DUAL, OLE, LATTE-2 and SWORD). In general, NRTI-reducing therapy did not always result in an improvement in short- or long-term adverse events; however, in many cases, these endpoints were not reported. Some of these studies reported higher virological failure rates with more frequent emergence of resistance mutations. None of these NRTI-reducing strategies has been compared against a single-pill regimen, including those containing tenofovir alafenamide. Only strategies demonstrating noninferior efficacy, a benefit in safety/tolerability, and a favourable cost-efficacy ratio, preferably in a single pill, will eventually match the current SOC of triple ARV therapy.

Dual antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection

INTRODUCTION

For two decades, triple combinations of antiretrovirals have been the standard treatment for HIV infection. The challenges of such lifelong therapy include long-term side effects, high costs and reduced drug adherence. The recent advent of more potent and safer antiretrovirals has renewed the interest for simpler HIV regimens. Areas covered: We discuss the pros and cons of dual antiretroviral therapies in both drug-naïve and in treatment-experienced patients with viral suppression (switch strategy). Expert opinion: Some dual antiretroviral regimens are safe and efficacious, particularly as maintenance therapy. At this time, combinations of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine represent the best dual regimen. Longer follow-up and larger study populations are needed before supporting dolutegravir plus lamivudine. In contrast, dual therapy based on maraviroc is less effective. Although dual regimens with boosted protease inhibitors plus either lamivudine or raltegravir may be effective, they are penalized by metabolic side effects and risk for drug interactions. The newest dual regimens could save money, reduce toxicity and spare drug options for the future. For the first time in HIV therapeutics, less can be more. Dual therapy switching has set up a new paradigm in HIV treatment that uses induction-maintenance.

Strategic use of dual regimens of boosted protease inhibitors plus maraviroc in poorly adherent subjects in view of long-acting drugs: A retrospective study

In view of the forthcoming long-acting antiretrovirals, measures should be taken to prevent the selection of HIV drug resistance mutations. All subjects who had been switched to boosted protease inhibitors plus maraviroc (bPIs/MVC) with baseline HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/mL between June, 2014, and April, 2015, were retrospectively evaluated. HIV-1 RNA, CD4+ T-cells, serum glucose, creatinine, ALT, and adverse events were controlled every 3 to 4 months. We retrospectively analyzed 44 patients: 18 were taking darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) and 26 atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) once daily, plus MVC 300 mg once daily. Seven subjects were in CDC stage C. All had a follow-up of at least 24 weeks, 28 exceeded 48 weeks, and 21 exceeded 72 weeks. All had experienced at least 1 viral failure and had selected at least 1 resistance-associated mutation (RAM). At baseline, 38 had plasma HIV-1 RNA 50-499 copies/mL and 6 had ≥500. At week 24, none had viremia >500 and 30 (68.2%) had suppressed HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/mL. Of the subgroup with 48 weeks' follow-up, 23 had HIV-1 RNA 50-499 copies/mL, 5 had ≥500, and 20/28 suppressed to <50 copies/mL. Of the longest observed subgroup (72 weeks), 17 had HIV-1 RNA 50-499 copies/mL, and 4 had ≥500 copies/mL and 15/21 (71.4%) suppressed to <50 copies/mL. This combination allowed fair suppression of viral replication, with minor genotypic evolution in 6 subjects, and seems to be a feasible strategy to prevent damaging future options.

Effectiveness, safety, durability and immune recovery in a retrospective, multicentre, observational cohort of ART-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients receiving maraviroc

The aim of this retrospective, multicentre, observational study was to assess the durability, safety, immune recovery and effectiveness on viral suppression of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in a maraviroc (MVC)-based cohort. We collected clinical, demographical, immunological and virological parameters of adult HIV patients who were infected by CCR5-tropic virus and started an ART regimen containing MVC from 2005 to 2012. We created a longitudinal mixed model to assess the change over time of data. We enrolled 126 drug-experienced patients; the median duration of MVC treatment was 25 months. The probability of stopping ART at one year was 13.3%, and at three years was 27.3%. Statistically significant changes were observed for CD4+ cell count increase ( p < 0.001), HIV-RNA decrease ( p < 0.001) and total cholesterol decrease ( p = 0.005). Ninety-four patients (79.7%) had CD4 ≥ 200 cells/mm³ at baseline while nine of them reached this threshold at nine months (7.6%), 17 (13%) after nine months and six (5%) remained below 200 cells/mm³ at the end of the study. Overall, 114 patients (90.5%) achieved an HIV-RNA ≤ 50 cp/ml. A majority of patients maintained CD4 cell counts of ≥ 200 cells/mm³ and achieved an undetectable HIV viral load within three months. MVC-containing regimens are safe and appear to be a feasible therapeutic option for ART.

Two-Drug Treatment Approaches in HIV: Finally Getting Somewhere?

The advent of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) has significantly decreased AIDS-related morbidity and mortality. Nevertheless, the benefits of ART are only realized through adherence to lifelong treatment. Though contemporary antiretroviral (ARV) drugs have fewer adverse effects in comparison to older ARV drugs, many agents are associated with negative or unknown long-term effects. There is increasing evidence that two-drug (dual-therapy) regimens may be an effective alternative to the currently recommended three-drug (triple-therapy) regimens. In this review, we provide a comprehensive and critical review of recently completed and ongoing trials of dual-therapy regimens in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We also review current HIV/AIDS society recommendations regarding dual therapy as well as future therapeutic possibilities.

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

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

Once-daily maraviroc versus tenofovir/emtricitabine each combined with darunavir/ritonavir for initial HIV-1 treatment

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of maraviroc along with darunavir/ritonavir, all once daily, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected individuals.

Design:

MODERN was a multicentre, double-blind, noninferiority, phase III study in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral-naive adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA at least 1000 copies/ml and no evidence of reduced susceptibility to study drugs.

Methods:

At screening, participants were randomized 1 : 1 to undergo either genotypic or phenotypic tropism testing. Participants with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 were randomized 1 : 1 to receive maraviroc 150 mg once daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine once daily each with darunavir/ritonavir once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) at Week 48. A substudy evaluated bone mineral density, body fat distribution and serum bone turnover markers.

Results:

Seven hundred and ninety-seven participants were dosed (maraviroc, n = 396; tenofovir/emtricitabine, n = 401). The Data Monitoring Committee recommended early study termination due to inferior efficacy in the maraviroc group. At Week 48, the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml was 77.3% for maraviroc and 86.8% for tenofovir/emtricitabine [difference of −9.54% (95% confidence interval: −14.83 to −4.24)]. More maraviroc participants discontinued for lack of efficacy, which was not associated with non-R5 tropism or resistance. Discontinuations for adverse events, Category C events, Grade 3/4 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar between groups.

Conclusion:

A once-daily nucleos(t)ide-sparing two-drug regimen of maraviroc and darunavir/ritonavir was inferior to a three-drug regimen of tenofovir/emtricitabine and darunavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive adults.

Comparative effectiveness of tenofovir in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Benefits and harms of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in HIV-infected, antiretroviral treatment (ART)-naïve patients of any age have not been systematically reviewed since recent milestone trials were published.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, SCI, LILACS, WHO GHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TDF-based treatments with any other ART-regimen (last search 01/2015). Trial characteristics and results were extracted, risks of bias systematically assessed, and treatment effects synthesized in meta-analyses using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (8297 patients). We found no differences between groups for mortality, AIDS, fractures, CD4 cell count, and virological failure; and inconclusive information due to inadequate reporting for cardiovascular events, renal failure, proteinuria, rash, and quality of life. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimens significantly reduced total cholesterol (mean difference -18.42 mg/dl; 95% confidence interval [CI] -22.80 to -14.0), LDL-cholesterol (-9.53 mg/dl; -12.16 to -6.89), HDL-cholesterol (-2.97 mg/dl; -4.41 to -1.53), and triglycerides (-29.77 mg/dl; -38.61 to -20.92), bone mineral density (BMD) (hip: -1.41%; -1.87 to -0.94), and glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (-3.47 ml/minute; -5.89 to -1.06) over 48 weeks of follow-up. Effects were similar in trials comparing fixed-dose TDF/FTC-based regimens with ABC/3TC-based regimens. We found no influence of baseline viral load on virological failure.

DISCUSSION

Moderate-quality evidence suggests similar effects of TDF-based treatment regimens and other ART on virological failure. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimens are associated with a more favorable lipid profile, but with increased risk of reduced BMD and eGFR. Improved reporting quality is vital to allow assessment of clinical outcomes in future trials.

Maraviroc: a review of its use in HIV infection and beyond

The human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) enters target cells by binding its envelope glycoprotein gp120 to the CD4 receptor and/or coreceptors such as C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5; R5) and C-X-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CXCR4; X4), and R5-tropic viruses predominate during the early stages of infection. CCR5 antagonists bind to CCR5 to prevent viral entry. Maraviroc (MVC) is the only CCR5 antagonist currently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, the European Commission, Health Canada, and several other countries for the treatment of patients infected with R5-tropic HIV-1. MVC has been shown to be effective at inhibiting HIV-1 entry into cells and is well tolerated. With expanding MVC use by HIV-1-infected humans, different clinical outcomes post-approval have been observed with MVC monotherapy or combination therapy with other antiretroviral drugs, with MVC use in humans infected with dual-R5- and X4-tropic HIV-1, infected with different HIV-1 genotype or infected with HIV-2. This review discuss the role of CCR5 in HIV-1 infection, the development of the CCR5 antagonist MVC, its pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, drug–drug interactions, and the implications of these interactions on treatment outcomes, including viral mutations and drug resistance, and the mechanisms associated with the development of resistance to MVC. This review also discusses available studies investigating the use of MVC in the treatment of other diseases such as cancer, graft-versus-host disease, and inflammatory diseases.

Maraviroc Clinical Test (MCT) as an alternative tool to decide CCR5-antagonists prescription in naïve HIV-infected patients

Our aim was to analyze the virological response to a combined antiretroviral therapy started after Maraviroc Clinical Test (MCT) in naïve HIV-infected patients. Forty-one patients were exposed to MCT, based on an 8-day MVC monotherapy. If undetectability or a viral load reduction >1 log10 HIV-RNA copies/ml was achieved, a MVC-containing cART was prescribed. Forty patients showed a positive MCT; undetectability after 48weeks on cART was achieved in 34/41 (82.9%) patients. The result of MCT was compared with a genotypic tropism method and with Trofile®, showing 10.7% and 18.75% discordance rates, respectively. MCT is a reliable tool to decide CCR5-antagonists prescription, also in the naïve scenario where most patients show a virological response to MVC independently the tropism result reported by genotypic or phenotypic methods.

Safety, efficacy and indications of prescription of maraviroc in clinical practice: Factors associated with clinical outcomes

Maraviroc is approved for treatment-experienced HIV+ adults in twice-daily administration. Limited data are available on safety, efficacy and use in routine clinical practice, outside of restrictive clinical trials. This retrospective multicenter (27 centers) study included 667 subjects starting a regimen with maraviroc. The primary endpoint was plasma HIV-RNA <50copies/mL and CD4(+) cell count change at 48 and 96weeks (FDA snapshot analysis). 94.4% had CCR5 tropism (58.3% Trofile™, 29.2% population genotype, and 12% genotyping proviral DNA). Half of the subjects received the drug in scenarios or dosages outside the initial approval. Maraviroc was prescribed for salvage in 346 (51.9%) individuals, as a switch strategy due to toxicity in 135 (38.7%), for immune discordance in 75 (11.2%), and for simplification in 48 (7.2%). After salvage therapy, 223 (64.5%) subjects had HIV-RNA <50copies/mL at 48weeks, and 178 (51.4%) at 96weeks. Darunavir/r was included in 224 (64.7%) subjects and associated with higher rates of virological and immunologic efficacy (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis MSM (OR 2.25; 95%CI 1.29-3.94) and baseline HIV-RNA <100,000copies/mL (OR 1.96; 1.06-3.70) were associated with virological suppression. An increase in CD4(+) counts was seen at 48 and 96weeks in subjects with immune discordance (p<0.001). Maraviroc was used once-daily in 142 (21.3%) subjects overall, and 68 (57.4%) in switch/simplification. No new safety signals were identified. Besides in salvage regimens, maraviroc was frequently used in switch due to toxicity, simplification, and immune discordance. The efficacy in salvage in clinical practice was higher than in phase III clinical trials, likely due to availability of new active drugs in the regimen. These results increase our understanding of the efficacy, safety, and conditions of prescription of maraviroc beyond the initial registrational trials and the early manufacturer pharmacovigilance programs.

Clinical practice guideline for the management of chronic kidney disease in patients infected with HIV: 2014 update by the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.

Maintenance of virologic efficacy and decrease in levels of β2-microglobulin, soluble CD40L and soluble CD14 after switching previously treated HIV-infected patients to an NRTI-sparing dual therapy

Novel strategies are necessary to decrease inflammatory parameters in successfully treated HIV-infected patients. Our aim was to evaluate the maintenance of viral suppression and potential changes in inflammatory, immune-activation and coagulation biomarkers in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients switched to a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing (NRTI) and maraviroc (MVC)-containing combined antiretroviral therapy (cART). Fifty-eight HIV-infected patients were observed after their treatment regimens were changed to MVC 150mg/once daily plus ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor therapy. Activation-, inflammation- and coagulation-associated biomarkers and mitochondrial (mt)DNA were analyzed after a median of 24weeks of follow-up. We observed that after changing to an NRTI-sparing regimen, 96.6% of HIV-patients on viral suppressive cART maintained viral suppression and their CD4+ T cell counts did not change significantly (median of 31weeks of follow-up). This cART switch reduced soluble CD40 ligand (p=0.002), beta-2 microglobulin (p=0.025), and soluble CD14 (p=0.009) in patients with higher baseline levels of these inflammation biomarkers after a median of 24weeks of follow-up. The results of our study show that changing to NRTI-sparing dual therapy decreased the levels of inflammatory biomarkers and maintained the immune-virologic efficacy. The potential benefits of this regimen warrant further investigation to uncover the association of this therapy with the potential decrease in the morbidity and mortality of HIV-infected patients from non-AIDS-defining illnesses.

Moving away from Ritonavir, Abacavir, Tenofovir, and Efavirenz (RATE)--agents that concern prescribers and patients: a feasibility study and call for a trial

Objectives

Regimens sparing RATE (ritonavir, abacavir, tenofovir, efavirienz) agents might have better long-term safety. We conducted a feasibility exercise to assess the potential for a randomised trial evaluating RATE-sparing regimens.

Design

Observational.

Methods

We first calculated RATE-sparing options available to an average patient receiving RATE agents. We reviewed treatment history and all resistance assays from patients attending the St. Vincent’s Hospital (Sydney) clinic and receiving ≥2 RATE agents (n = 120). A viable RATE-sparing regimen with 2 or 3 fully-active agents was constructed from the following six ‘safer’ agents: rilpivirine or etravirine; atazanavir; raltegravir; maraviroc; and lamivudine. Activity for each drug was predicted as 1 (full-activity), 0.5 or 0 (no activity) using the Stanford mutation database. The utility of maraviroc was calculated assuming both maraviroc activity and inactivity where unknown. The analysis was restricted to regimens for which supporting evidence was identified in the literature or conference proceedings. Finally, we calculated the proportion of patients in the nationally representative Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD) cohort receiving ≥2 RATE agents (n = 1473) to measure the potential population-level uptake of RATE-sparing agents.

Results

Assuming full maraviroc activity, 117(97.5%) and 107(89.2%) individuals had at least one option with 2 or 3 active RATE-sparing agents, respectively. Assuming no maraviroc activity this decreased to 113(94.2%) and 104(86.7%), respectively. In AHOD, 837(56.8%) patients were receiving ≥2 RATE agents.

Conclusion

Feasible treatment switch options sparing RATE agents exist for the majority of patients. Understanding the pros and cons of switching stable patients onto new RATE-sparing regimens requires evidence derived from randomised controlled trials.

Nucleoside-sparing antiretroviral regimens

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) were the first drugs approved for use as antiretroviral therapy in patients infected with HIV. Despite the introduction of other classes of antiretroviral drugs, they remain an important component of combination regimens as recommended by many treatment guidelines. They also continue to be used in prevention of disease from mother to child, postexposure prophylaxis, and more recently for preexposure prophylaxis. Unfortunately, the toxicities associated with this class of drugs can limit their use. Although NRTI-sparing regimens are not currently recommended for first-line therapy there is an increasing amount of data supporting their use in both treatment-naive and in treatment-experienced patients.

HIV-associated lipodystrophy: impact of antiretroviral therapy

In the late 1990s, reports of unusual changes in body fat distribution named 'lipodystrophy' (LD) began to appear in HIV patients mitigating the enormous enthusiasm about improvement of survival and quality of life provided by the combinations of antiretroviral (ARV) drug classes, the so-called highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which had just become available at that time. The objective of this paper is to critically review the literature on LD and to discuss the impact of newer ARV agents, namely atazanavir, darunavir and raltegravir, as well as strategies of the late HAART era, including single-tablet regimens and nucleoside-sparing regimens. Studies in which LD was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or by abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan only, were included. We were unable to identify studies depicting a negative impact of drugs or ARV regimens on limb fat loss. On the contrary, a few studies identified a negative impact of atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir on trunk fat increase. It should be noted that this anthropometric measure is a poor instrument since it cannot distinguish between subcutaneous and visceral fat. We conclude that presumably the body fat changes currently observed in HIV-infected patients is the net result of competing phenomena: on one side the natural history of lipohypertrophy as a result of HIV and HAART impact, and on the other side the physiological body fat changes observed in the aging population.

Maraviroc reduces the regulatory T-cell frequency in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected subjects

BACKGROUND

Maraviroc is the first antiretroviral (ART) drug to target a human protein, the CCR5 coreceptor; however, the mechanisms of maraviroc-associated immunomodulation in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects remain to be elucidated. Regulatory T cells (Tregs) play a key role in HIV-associated immunopathology and are susceptible to maraviroc-mediated CCR5 blockade. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of maraviroc on Tregs.

METHODS

We compared the effect of maraviroc-containing or -sparing combination ART (cART) on Tregs in ART-naive, HIV-infected subjects. Tregs were characterized as CD4(+)CD25(hi)FoxP3(+) on day 0, 8, and 30. Additional analysis on week 48 was performed in a subgroup of patients. The potential reduction in the frequency of Tregs among maraviroc-treated peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was also tested in vitro. The suppressive function of Tregs was also analyzed in maraviroc-treated Tregs.

RESULTS

We found that maraviroc significantly reduced the Treg frequency in both the short term and 1 year after treatment initiation. In vitro experiments showed a dose-dependent reduction in the Treg frequency after treatment of PBMCs with maraviroc, although their in vitro suppressive function was not altered.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings partially explain maraviroc-associated immunomodulatory effects and open new therapeutic expectations for the development of Treg-depleting immunotherapies.

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.

Entry inhibitors and their use in the treatment of HIV-1 infection

Entry of HIV into target cells is a complex, multi-stage process involving sequential attachment and CD4 binding, coreceptor binding, and membrane fusion. HIV entry inhibitors are a complex group of drugs with multiple mechanisms of action depending on the stage of the viral entry process they target. Two entry inhibitors are currently approved for the treatment of HIV-infected patients. Maraviroc, a CCR5 antagonist, blocks interactions between the viral envelope proteins and the CCR5 coreceptor. Enfuvirtide, a fusion inhibitor, disrupts conformational changes in gp41 that drive membrane fusion. A wide array of additional agents are in various stages of development. This review covers the entry inhibitors and their use in the treatment of HIV-infected patients.