Efficacy and safety of nevirapine extended-release once daily versus nevirapine immediate-release twice-daily in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients

Structure-based non-nucleoside inhibitor design: Developing inhibitors that are effective against resistant mutants

Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) inhibit reverse transcription and block the replication of HIV-1. Currently, NNRTIs are usually used as part of a three-drug combination given to patients as antiretroviral therapy. These combinations involve other classes of anti-HIV-1 drugs, commonly nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, attempts are being made to develop two-drug maintenance therapies, some of which involve an NNRTI and an integrase strand transfer inhibitor. This has led to a renewed interest in developing novel NNRTIs, with a major emphasis on designing compounds that can effectively inhibit the known NNRTI-resistant mutants. We have generated and tested novel rilpivirine (RPV) analogs. The new compounds were designed to exploit a small opening in the upper right periphery of the NNRTI-binding pocket. The best of the new compounds, 12, was a more potent inhibitor of the NNRTI-resistant mutants we tested than either doravirine or efavirenz but was inferior to RPV. We describe the limitations on the modifications that can be appended to the "upper right side" of the RPV core and the effects of substituting other cores for the central pyrimidine core of RPV and make suggestions about how this information can be used in NNRTI design.

Current and emerging non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) for HIV-1 treatment

Introduction: Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) are essential components of highly active antiretroviral therapy against HIV-1 infections. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of approved and emerging NNRTIs. Areas covered: This review covers the latest trend of NNRTIs regarding their pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, mechanisms of drug action, drug resistance as well as new applications such as two-drug regimens and long-acting formulations. Expert opinion: Since the first NNRTI, nevirapine, was approved in 1996, antiviral drug discovery led to the approval of seven NNRTIs, including nevirapine, delavirdine (discontinued), etravirine, elsulfavirine, efavirenz, rilpivirine, and doravirine. The latter three compounds with favorable pharmacodynamic profiles and minimal adverse effects are often combined with one integrase inhibitor or two NRTIs in once-daily fixed-dose tablets. NNRTI-anchored regimens have been approved as initial therapies in treatment-naïve patients (efficacy: 72% to 86%) or maintaining therapies in virologically-suppressed patients (efficacy: 91% to 95%). Future development of NNRTIs includes: (i) better resistance and cross-resistance profiles; (ii) reduction of drug burden by optimizing two-drug or three-drug combinations; and (iii) improvement of patient adherence by novel long-acting formulations with weekly or monthly administration. Overall, NNRTIs play an important role in the management of HIV-1 infections, especially in resource-limited countries.

Pharmacokinetic analysis of nevirapine extended release 400 mg once daily vs nevirapine immediate release 200 mg twice daily formulation in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection

BACKGROUND

VERxVE data showed non-inferior virologic efficacy with extended release nevirapine (NVP-XR) dosed 400 mg once daily (QD) versus immediate release nevirapine (NVP-IR) 200 mg twice daily in a double-blind, non-inferiority study in treatment-naïve HIV-1-positive patients.

OBJECTIVE

To study the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the NVP formulations and identify possible associations with demographic factors.

METHODS

Patients with viral load ≥1000 copies/mL and CD4+ count > 50- <400 cells/mm³ (males) and >50- <250 cells/mm³ (females) at screening received NVP-IR 200 mg QD during a 14-day lead-in and were then stratified by baseline viral load and randomized to NVP-XR or -IR. NVP trough concentrations at steady state (SS) (C_pre,ss,N) were measured up to week 48 for all participating patients. In a PK sub-study, SS parameters - AUC_0-24, C_max, C_min, and peak-to-trough fluctuation were obtained and analyzed with relative bioavailability assessed at week 4 by plasma collection over 24 h.

RESULTS

Trough concentrations were stable from week 4 to week 48 for all patients (n = 1011) with both formulations, with NVP-XR/IR ratios of 0.77-0.82. Overall, 49 patients completed the PK sub-study: 24 XR and 25 IR. NVP-XR showed less peak-to-trough fluctuation (34.5%) than IR (55.2%), and lower AUC_0-24, C_min, C_max, and trough concentrations than IR. However, no effect of SS trough concentrations was found on the virologic response proportion at least up to 1000 ng/mL. No significant association was found between NVP PK and gender, race, and viral load.

CONCLUSION

These data suggest NVP-XR achieves lower but effective NVP exposure compared with NVP-IR.

Efficacy and safety of switching from nevirapine immediate-release twice daily to nevirapine extended-release once daily in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients: a retrospective cohort study in Taiwan

Background

Whether the non-inferior efficacy and safety results of switching virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients from nevirapine immediate-release (NVP-IR) to NVP extended-release (NVP-XR) demonstrated in the TRANxITION study conducted in Europe and North America are also applicable to virologically suppressed HIV-infected Taiwanese patients remains unknown. We evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of continuing NVP-IR versus switching to NVP-XR in virologically suppressed HIV-infected Taiwanese adults receiving combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimens.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at Kaohsiung Veterans General Hospital from April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2015. Eighty-four virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults receiving NVP-IR cART were split into two groups: those continuing with NVP-IR (n = 49) and those being switched to NVP-XR (n = 35). Demographic characteristics, clinical variables, and laboratory findings were compared. Therapeutic drug monitoring of steady-state plasma NVP concentrations and genotype analysis of CYP2B6 516 were also performed in 22 participants. The primary endpoint was continued virological suppression at the end of the study. Secondary endpoints were time to loss of virological response and adverse events.

Results

During a mean follow-up of 18.4 months, the NVP-XR group demonstrated similar success at maintaining virological response compared with the NVP-IR group (82.9% vs. 85.7%; P = 0.72). Cox regression analysis indicated that there were no significant differences between NVP regimens for time to loss of virological response (hazard ratio: 0.940; P = 0.754). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in adverse events between these two groups. In the 22 participants, there was a non-significantly lower level of steady-state plasma NVP concentrations in the NVP-XR group than in NVP-IR recipients (5145.0 ng/mL vs. 6775.0 ng/mL; P = 0.267). The prevalence of CYP2B6 516 GT was 86.6%, and there was no significant difference in the distribution of CYP2B6 516 between these two groups.

Conclusions

We found that switching from NVP-IR to NVP-XR appeared to have similar safety and efficacy compared with continuing NVP-IR among virologically suppressed, HIV-infected Taiwanese patients. Our finding of higher C_trough levels in both groups compared with other studies conducted in Caucasian populations and the high prevalence of CYP2B6 516 GT requires further investigation in a larger Taiwanese cohort.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2371-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the 2016 GESIDA/Spanish AIDS National Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults

INTRODUCTION

GESIDA and the AIDS National Plan panel of experts suggest preferred (PR), alternative (AR), and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for the year 2016. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficacy of initiating treatment with these regimens.

METHODS

Economic assessment of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) based on decision tree analyses. Efficacy was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50copies/mL at week 48 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2016. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable, and least favourable.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 4663 Euros for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) to 10,894 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL (PR). The efficacy varies from 0.66 for ABC/3TC+ATV/r (AR) and ABC/3TC+LPV/r (OR), to 0.89 for TDF/FTC+DTG (PR) and TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR). The efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, ranges from 5280 to 12,836 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for 3TC+LPV/r (OR), and RAL+DRV/r (OR), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite the overall most efficient regimen being 3TC+LPV/r (OR), among the PR and AR, the most efficient regimen was ABC/3TC/DTG (PR). Among the AR regimes, the most efficient was TDF/FTC/RPV.

Dried plasma/blood spots for monitoring antiretroviral treatment efficacy and pharmacokinetics: a cross-sectional study in rural Burundi

AIMS

In limited resource settings monitoring antiretroviral (ARV) treatment efficacy is restrained by the lack of access to technological equipment. The aim of the study was to assess the use of dried plasma (DPS) and blood spots (DBS) to facilitate ARV monitoring in remote settings where clinical monitoring is the primary strategy.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study in HIV-positive ARV-treated patients in Kiremba, Burundi was performed. DBS were used for HIV-1 viral load (limit of the assay 250 copies ml(-1)) and genotypic drug resistance tests and dried plasma spots were used for concentration measurements.

RESULTS

Three hundred and seven patients [201 female (88.6%), 14 children (4.5%)] were enrolled. HIV-1 viral load was <250, 250-1000 and >1000 copies ml(-1) in 250 (81.7%), 33 (10.8%) and 23 patients (7.5%). Eleven samples out of 23 were successfully amplified revealing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-resistance associated mutations [in seven (58.3%) and six patients (50%)]. Nevirapine trough concentrations were <3000 ng ml(-1) in 28/189 patients (14.8%) and efavirenz 12 h concentrations were <1000 ng ml(-1) in 2/16 patients (12.5%). Children and patients with nevirapine exposure <3000 ng ml(-1) presented a higher risk of viral replication.

CONCLUSIONS

Viral loads <250 copies ml(-1) were observed in 81.7% of patients (83.6% adults and 42.9% children). Children and patients with low nevirapine concentrations had higher risk of viral replication. Dried blood and plasma spots may be useful for monitoring HIV-positive patients including viral load and drug level measurement as part of treatment management in remote areas.

Presence of Tablet Remnants of Nevirapine Extended-Release in Stools and Its Impact on Virological Outcome in HIV-1-Infected Patients: A Prospective Cohort Study

Background

Nevirapine extended-release (NVP-XR) taken once daily remains an effective antiretroviral agent for patients infected with HIV-1 strains that do not harbor resistance mutations. Presence of tablet remnants of NVP XR in stools was reported in 1.19% and 3.05% of subjects in two clinical trials. However, the prevalence may have been underestimated because the information was retrospectively collected in the studies.

Methods

Between April and December 2014, we prospectively inquired about the frequency of noticing tablet remnants of NVP XR in stools in HIV-1-infected patients who switched to antiretroviral regimens containing NVP XR plus 2 nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. Patients were invited to participate in therapeutic drug monitoring of plasma concentrations of NVP 12 or 24 hours after taking the previous dose (C12 and C24, respectively) of NVP XR using high-performance liquid chromatography. The information on clinical characteristics, including plasma HIV RNA load and CD4 lymphocyte count, at baseline and during follow-up was recorded.

Results

During the 9-month study period, 272 patients switched to NVP XR-based regimens and 60 (22.1%) noticed tablet remnants of NVP XR in stools, in whom 54.2% reported noticing the tablet remnants at least once weekly. Compared with patients who did not notice tablet remnants, those who noticed tablet remnants had a higher mean CD4 lymphocyte count (629 vs 495 cells/mm³, P = 0.0002) and a similar mean plasma HIV RNA load (1.57 vs 1.61 log₁₀ copies/mL, P = 0.76) on switch. At about 12 and 24 weeks after switch, patients who noticed tablet remnants continued to have a similar mean plasma HIV RNA load (1.39 vs 1.43 log₁₀ copies/mL, P = 0.43; and 1.30 vs 1.37 log₁₀ copies/mL, P = 0.26, respectively), but had a lower median NVP C12 (3640 vs 4730 ng/mL, P = 0.06), and a similar median NVP C24 (3220 vs 3330 ng/ml, P = 0.95) when compared with those who did not notice tablet remnants.

Conclusions

The presence of tablet remnants of NVP XR in stools is not uncommon in HIV-1-infected Taiwanese patients receiving NVP XR-based antiretroviral regimens, which does not have an adverse impact on the virological and immunological outcomes.

Costs and cost-effectiveness analysis of 2015 GESIDA/Spanish AIDS National Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults

INTRODUCTION

GESIDA and the AIDS National Plan panel of experts suggest a preferred (PR), alternative (AR) and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for 2015. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the effectiveness of initiating treatment with these regimens.

METHODS

Economic assessment of costs and effectiveness (cost/effectiveness) based on decision tree analyses. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2015. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable and least favourable.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 4663 Euros for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) to 10,902 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL (PR). The effectiveness varies from 0.66 for ABC/3TC+ATV/r (AR) and ABC/3TC+LPV/r (OR), to 0.89 for TDF/FTC+DTG (PR) and TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR). The efficiency, in terms of cost/effectiveness, ranges from 5280 to 12,836 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) and RAL+DRV/r (OR), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The most efficient regimen was 3TC+LPV/r (OR). Among the PR and AR, the most efficient regimen was TDF/FTC/RPV (AR). Among the PR regimes, the most efficient was ABC/3TC+DTG.

Outcome of neuropsychiatric symptoms related to an antiretroviral drug following its substitution by nevirapine: the RELAX study

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to evaluate the improvement in neuropsychiatric symptoms attributed to an antiretroviral drug after that drug was substituted with nevirapine. The secondary objective was to evaluate the impact on patient adherence and quality of life.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study was carried out that included patients with HIV-1 plasma suppression for whom an antiretroviral drug was substituted with nevirapine because of central nervous system (CNS) side effects, a Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) score > 5 or a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score ≥ 10, and who had not initiated psychoactive drug treatment during the prior 6 weeks. Evaluations were carried out at baseline and 1 and 3 months after the switch using the PSQI, HADS, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Medical Outcomes Study-Short Form 30 items (MOS-SF-30) and Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ).

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were included in the study. The drug substituted was mainly efavirenz (89.9%), and reasons for the switch included sleep disturbances (75.2%), anxiety (65.1%), depression (38.7%), attention disturbances (31%), and other reasons (31%), with a mean of 2.4 neuropsychiatric disturbances per patient. A statistically significant improvement was observed in all the tests evaluating neuropsychiatric symptoms and adherence at 1 and 3 months. The CD4 lymphocyte count remained stable (P = 0.096). Three (2.3%) patients had a detectable plasma HIV-1 RNA at the end of the study. Nine patients (6.9%) withdrew because of nevirapine-related toxicity (rash in seven patients and hypertransaminasaemia in two patients, none of which were > grade 2).

CONCLUSIONS

The switch to nevirapine from a drug causing neuropsychiatric disturbances (primarily efavirenz) in subjects with virological suppression was effective in resolving those disturbances, with an improvement in all the parameters studied. This led to better adherence to treatment and quality of life, with no detrimental effect on their immunological and virological control.

Effectiveness of a Treatment Switch to Nevirapine plus Tenofovir and Emtricitabine (or Lamivudine) in Adults with HIV-1 Suppressed Viremia

BACKGROUND

Switching subjects with persistently undetectable HIV-1 viremia under antiretroviral treatment (ART) to once-daily tenofovir/emtricitabine (or lamivudine) + nevirapine is a cost-effective and well-tolerated strategy. However, the effectiveness of this approach has not been established.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study evaluating the rates of treatment failure, virological failure (VF), and variables associated, in all subjects initiating this switch combination in our clinic since 2001. Analyses were performed by a modified intention to treat, where switch due to toxicity equalled failure. The main endpoint was plasma HIV-RNA < 50 copies/mL.

RESULTS

341 patients were treated for a median of 176 (57; 308) weeks. At week 48, 306 (89.7%) subjects had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL, 10 (2.9%) experienced VF, and 25 (7.4%) discontinued the treatment due to toxicity. During the whole follow-up 23 (6.7%) individuals (17 on lamivudine, 6 on emtricitabine; p = 0.034) developed VF and treatment modification due to toxicity occurred in 36 (10.7%). Factors independently associated with VF in a multivariate analysis were: intravenous drug use (HR 1.51; 95%CI 1.12, 2.04), time with undetectable viral load before the switch (HR 0.98; 0.97, 0.99), number of prior NRTIs (HR 1.49; 1.15, 1.93) or NNRTIs (HR 3.22; 1.64, 6.25), and previous NVP (HR 1.54; 1.10, 2.17) or efavirenz (HR 5.76; 1.11, 29.87) unscheduled interruptions. VF was associated with emergence of usual nevirapine mutations (Y181C/I/D, K103N and V106A/I), M184V (n = 16; 12 with lamivudine vs. 4 with emtricitabine, p = 0.04), and K65R (n = 7).

CONCLUSIONS

The rates of treatment failure at 48 weeks, or long-term toxicity or VF with this switch regimen are low and no unexpected mutations or patterns of mutations were selected in subjects with treatment failure.

HIV research trials versus standard clinics for antiretroviral-naïve patients: the outcomes differ but do the patients?

Exclusion criteria for HIV treatment-naïve drug trials can be stringent and selection bias exists, making it difficult to extrapolate results into the 'real world' clinical situation. We aim to compare the demographics, virological outcomes and psychosocial complexity in adult HIV-infected treatment-naïve patients from our cohort initiating combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in research trials versus standard clinics. In our unit from 2006 to 2011, 1202 standard clinic and 69 research trial patients initiated cART; every eighth standard clinics patient was included to create a standard clinics:research trials patient ratio of 2:1. Notes were retrospectively reviewed for patient demographics, attendance rates and virological outcomes. Data from 221 antiretroviral-naïve patients starting cART were analysed: 152 standard clinic patients and 69 from research trials. In the research trials group, there was an overrepresentation of men (p = 0.041), men who have sex with men (p < 0.001), patients of white ethnicity (p = 0.01), employed patients (p = 0.01) and patients using excessive alcohol (p = 0.02). There was equal representation of drug use, depression and referral to psychology, psychiatry and social work in both groups. The research trials group at baseline had significantly higher CD4 counts (p < 0.001), lower viral loads (p = 0.01) and more patients achieved undetectable viral loads at three (p < 0.001), six (p < 0.001) and 24 months (p = 0.033). There is a prevailing common preconception that participants in clinical trials are uncomplicated, unlike their 'real-life' counterparts. We demonstrated important similarities in psychosocial complexity as well as differences in demographics and virological outcomes in trial and non-trial patients. Clinicians need to be aware of these discrepancies to ensure the facilitation of a heterogeneous population participating in research trials.

Improving bioavailability and biodistribution of anti-HIV chemotherapy

In the context of the treatment of HIV/AIDS, many improvements have been achieved since the introduction of the combination therapy (HAART). Nevertheless, no cure for this disease has been so far possible, because of some particular features of the therapies. Among them, two important ones have been selected and will be the subject of this review. The first main concern in the treatments is the poor drug bioavailability, resulting in repeated administrations and therefore a demanding compliance (drug regimens consist of multiple drugs daily intake, and non-adherence to therapy is among the important reasons for treatment failure). A second important challenge is the need to target the drugs into the so-called reservoirs and sanctuaries, i.e. cells or body compartments where drugs cannot penetrate or are distributed in sub-active concentrations. The lack of antiviral action in these regions allows the virus to lie latent and start to replicate at any moment after therapy suspension. Recent drug delivery strategies addressing these two limitations will be presented in this review. In the first part, strategies to improve the bioavailability are proposed in order to overcome the absorption or the target cell barrier, or to extend the efficacy time of drugs. In the second section, the biodistribution issues are considered in order to target the drugs into the reservoirs and the sanctuaries, in particular the mononuclear phagocyte system and the brain.

Nevirapine extended-release formulation tablets in HIV-1-infected children--long-term follow-up

In the optional extension of clinical trial 1100.1518 39/40, human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients (aged 3 to <18 years) received ≥48 weeks of treatment with extended-release nevirapine. By last visit, all patients had undetectable viral loads and no new safety signals, demonstrating the safety and efficacy of a once-daily antiretroviral regimen.

Pharmacokinetics of injectable, long-acting nevirapine for HIV prophylaxis in breastfeeding infants

Mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV-1 remains a global health problem. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations advise the administration of a once-daily, oral, prophylactic regimen of the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor nevirapine (NVP) from birth until 4 to 6 weeks of age for infants born to HIV-infected mothers in regions without access to safe and nutritionally adequate alternatives to breast milk. A critical factor driving the successful implementation of the WHO guidelines involves sustaining high adherence to the frequent dosing. With these challenges in mind, we have developed the first injectable, sustained-release NVP formulations with the goal of providing, for 6 weeks or longer, preventative plasma drug levels from a single subcutaneous administration at birth. The long-acting NVP consists of large (>50 μm), monodisperse NVP particles coated with biocompatible polymers that control the drug release kinetics. Two lead formulations exhibiting burst-free, sustained-release kinetics for up to 75 days in vitro were developed. Subsequent in vivo studies in rats demonstrated no toxicity related to the formulations. Rat plasma NVP concentrations were above the analytical assay's limit of quantification for up to 28 days. Pharmacokinetic analysis of the rat plasma NVP concentration-time data allowed absorption rate constants to be calculated. These data then were used to simulate infant NVP exposure from a single injected dose (<200 mg) of our long-acting formulations, demonstrating preliminary feasibility of the technology to maintain safe, preventative NVP plasma levels (0.2 to 3.0 μg ml(-1)) for 6 weeks or longer.

Post-marketing experience with nevirapine extended release (XR) tablets: effectiveness and tolerability in a population-based cohort in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Nevirapine 400 mg extended release tablets (nevirapine-XR) are a once-daily alternative to nevirapine 200 mg immediate release tablets (nevirapine-IR). Study objectives were to describe the effectiveness and tolerability of nevirapine-XR in clinical practice and, for patients who switched from once daily 2×200 mg nevirapine-IR to nevirapine-XR, compare virological suppression and plasma nevirapine concentrations during each treatment period.

METHODS

HIV-1-infected adults entered the study cohort if they initiated nevirapine-XR in British Columbia (BC) Canada between 1 April 2012 and 30 September 2012 and were followed until 30 September 2013. Demographic and clinical variables were abstracted from the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS databases. Patients who switched from once daily nevirapine-IR to nevirapine-XR were monitored for 6 months pre- and post-switch with comparison of virological suppression (McNeamer's test) and median random plasma nevirapine concentrations (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test) in each period.

RESULTS

The 536 nevirapine-XR-treated patients were 96% male, median (IQR) age 49.9 (44.0-56.9) years. Median follow-up was 15.6 (14.7-16.5) months, with 474/536 (88%) maintaining virological suppression. Emergent drug resistance developed in 5/536 (1%), adverse drug reactions in 17/536 (3%) and, although 31/536 (6%) reported 'whole' tablets in their stools, this was not associated with adverse outcomes. Among the 305 patients who switched from nevirapine-IR to nevirapine-XR, median (IQR) random plasma nevirapine concentration was higher during nevirapine-IR 5,000 (3,690-6,090) ng/ml than nevirapine-XR 3,930 (3,050-5,150) ng/ml (P<0.001), but there was no difference in virological suppression, 89% and 87% respectively (P=0.414).

CONCLUSIONS

This post-marketing study affirms the effectiveness and tolerability of nevirapine-XR as an alternative to nevirapine-IR in adults.

Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the 2014 GESIDA/Spanish National AIDS Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults

INTRODUCTION

GESIDA and the National AIDS Plan panel of experts suggest preferred (PR) and alternative (AR) regimens of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for 2014. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficiency of initiating treatment with these regimens.

METHODS

An economic assessment was made of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) based on decision tree analyses. Efficacy was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied by considering only differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and costs correspond to those of 2014. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable and least favourable.

RESULTS

In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 5133 Euros for ABC/3TC+EFV to 11,949 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The efficacy varies between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and ABC/3TC+ATV/r, and 0.89 for TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI. Efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, ranges from 7546 to 13,802 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for ABC/3TC+EFV and TDF/FTC+RAL respectively.

CONCLUSION

Considering ART official prices, the most efficient regimen was ABC/3TC+EFV (AR), followed by the non-nucleoside containing PR (TDF/FTC/RPV and TDF/FTC/EFV). The sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these findings.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of nevirapine extended-release tablets in HIV-1-infected children and adolescents: an open-label, multiple-dose, cross-over study

BACKGROUND

To compare steady-state (ss) pharmacokinetic targets of nevirapine extended-release (NVP-XR) tablets once-daily (QD) with immediate-release (NVP-IR) tablet or oral suspension twice-daily in HIV-1-infected children and adolescents.

METHODS

Phase I, open-label, multidose, cross-over study with optional extension phase, in 85 patients 3 to <18 years of age, previously on an NVP-IR-based regimen for ≥18 weeks with baseline viral load <50 copies/mL. Patients were stratified by age, treated with NVP-IR twice-daily for 11 days, then NVP-XR QD for 10 days. Cpre,ss (steady-state, predose concentrations) was obtained from all, and 12-hour NVP-IR and 24-hour NVP-XR steady-state pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained in the pharmacokinetic substudy. Viral loads, CD4 counts and adverse events (AEs) were monitored.

RESULTS

Eighty patients completed the trial. Adjusted geometric mean (gMean) Cpre,ss for NVP-XR and NVP-IR exceeded the target of 3000 ng/mL, and the adjusted gMean NVP-XR:NVP-IR ratio (90% confidence interval) for QD normalized and un-normalized Cpre,ss were 91.2% (83.5-99.6%) and 91.8% (83.7-100.7%). gMean 24-hour area under the curve at steady-state NVP-XR:NVP-IR for un-normalized dose was 90.4% and un-normalized Cpre,ss NVP-XR:NVP-IR were 91.0%, 81.9% and 103.7% for the 3 age groups, 3 to <6, 6 to <12 and 12 to <18 years, respectively. gMean values indicated no exposure to subtherapeutic NVP concentrations and viral suppression was adequate and maintained in all QD groups. Most AEs were mild and similar between age groups. No serious or Division of AIDS Grade 4 AEs or AE related treatment discontinuations occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

NVP-XR exhibited adequate trough concentrations with equivalent area under the curve at steady-state relative to NVP-IR. NVP-XR was well-tolerated and is a valuable treatment option for HIV-infected children and adolescents.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

Etravirine as a Switching Option for Patients with HIV RNA Suppression: A Review of Recent Trials

Unlike other nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, etravirine is only approved for use in treatment-experienced patients. In the DUET 1 and 2 trials, 1203 highly treatment-experienced patients were randomized to etravirine or placebo, in combination with darunavir/ritonavir and optimized background treatment. In these trials, etravirine showed significantly higher rates of HIV RNA suppression when compared with placebo (61% versus 40% at Week 48). There was no significant rise of lipids or neuropsychiatric adverse events, but there was an increase in the risk of rash with etravirine treatment. In the SENSE trial, which evaluated etravirine and efavirenz in 157 treatment-naïve patients in combination with 2 nucleoside analogues, there was a lower risk of lipid elevations and neuropsychiatric adverse events with etravirine when compared to efavirenz. Etravirine has been evaluated in three randomized switching studies. In the SSAT029 switch trial, 38 patients who had neuropsychiatric adverse events possibly related to efavirenz showed an improvement in these after switching to etravirine. The Swiss Switch-EE recruited 58 individuals without neuropsychiatric adverse events who were receiving efavirenz, and no benefit was shown when switching to etravirine. In the Spanish ETRA-SWITCH trial (n = 46), there were improvements in lipids when individuals switched from a protease inhibitor to etravirine. These switching trials were conducted in patients with full HIV RNA suppression: <50 copies/mL and with no history of virological failure or resistance to therapy. The results from these three randomized switching studies suggest a possible new role for etravirine, in combination with two nucleoside analogues, as a switching option for those with HIV RNA suppression but who are reporting adverse events possibly related to antiretroviral therapy. However a large well-powered trial would need to be conducted to strengthen the evidence from the pilot studies conducted so far.

Advances in antiretroviral therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent data about advances in ART.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the last 2 years, clinical trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of three integrase transfer inhibitors [raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir (EVG) and dolutegravir (DTG)], one new nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [rilpivirine (RIL)] and a new extended release formulation of nevirapine in antiretroviral-naive and experienced patients. Cobicistat (COBI), a new pharmacologic enhancer without antiretroviral activity has been studied as a booster of EVG and atazanavir (ATV). Two new single-pill fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been approved by regulatory agencies: RIL/tenofovir (TDF) difumarate/emtricitabine and elvitegravir/COBI/TDF difumarate/emtricitabine. A new prodrug of TDF is going to be evaluated in phase III clinical trials with the goal of showing less bone and renal toxicity. Ongoing trials are evaluating the use of nucleoside sparing regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients. Generic formulations of multiple antiretrovirals would become available in the immediate future. The efficacy and price reduction associated with generic antiretrovirals remains to be elucidated.

SUMMARY

In the last 2 years, the antiretroviral armamentarium has been significantly expanded by the advent of the integrase transfer inhibitors RAL, EVG and DTG, by a new nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, RIL and by two new single-pill FDCs.

[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.

[Analysis of costs and cost-effectiveness of preferred GESIDA/National AIDS Plan regimens for initial antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus infected adult patients in 2013]

INTRODUCTION

The GESIDA and National AIDS Plan panel of experts have proposed "preferred regimens" of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV infected patients for 2013. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and effectiveness of initiating treatment with these "preferred regimens".

METHODS

An economic assessment of costs and effectiveness (cost/effectiveness) was performed using decision tree analysis models. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of having viral load <50copies/mL at week48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regime was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regime and drug resistance analyses) during the first 48weeks. The perspective of the analysis is that of the National Health System was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, resistance studies, and determination of HLA B*5701. The setting is Spain and the costs are those of 2013. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was performed, constructing three scenarios for each regimen: baseline, most favourable, and most unfavourable cases.

RESULTS

In the baseline case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 6,747euros for TDF/FTC+NVP to 12,059euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The effectiveness ranges between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and ABC/3TC+ATV/r, and 0.87 for TDF/FTC+RAL and ABC/3TC+RAL. Effectiveness, in terms of cost/effectiveness, varies between 8,396euros and 13,930euros per responder at 48weeks, for TDF/FTC/RPV and TDF/FTC+RAL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Taking ART at official prices, the most effective regimen was TDF/FTC/RPV, followed by the rest of non-nucleoside containing regimens. The sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these findings.

Deficient reporting and interpretation of non-inferiority randomized clinical trials in HIV patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Non-inferiority (NI) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) commonly evaluate efficacy of new antiretroviral (ARV) drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients. Their reporting and interpretation have not been systematically evaluated. We evaluated the reporting of NI RCTs in HIV patients according to the CONSORT statement and assessed the degree of misinterpretation of RCTs when NI was inconclusive or not established.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were reviewed until December 2011. Selection and extraction was performed independently by three reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 42 RCTs (n = 21,919; range 41-3,316) selected, 23 were in ARV-naïve and 19 in ARV-experienced patients. Twenty-seven (64%) RCTs provided information about prior RCTs of the active comparator, and 37 (88%) used 2-sided CIs. Two thirds of trials used a NI margin between 10 and 12%, although only 12 explained the method to determine it. Blinding was used in 9 studies only. The main conclusion was based on both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) analyses in 5 trials, on PP analysis only in 4 studies, and on ITT only in 31 studies. Eleven of 16 studies with NI inconclusive or not established highlighted NI or equivalence, and distracted readers with positive secondary results.

CONCLUSIONS

There is poor reporting and interpretation of NI RCTs performed in HIV patients. Maximizing the reporting of the method of NI margin determination, use of blinding and both ITT and PP analyses, and interpreting negative NI according to actual primary findings will improve the understanding of results and their translation into clinical practice.

Considerations on the New Nevirapine

Nevirapine (NVP) was the first nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) approved for the treatment of HIV infection. NVP can provide safe and efficacious viral suppression for treatment-naive patients and for virologically controlled patients “switching” from other NNRTI or protease inhibitor–based regimens. Formulations allowing once-daily dosing of antiretrovirals can significantly improve regimen adherence, which is important for maintaining virologic control, especially for NNRTI-based regimens with low barriers for genetic resistance. Randomized and controlled clinical trials have established the clinical noninferiority of a new, extended-release formulation (XR) of NVP, in both treatment-naive (VERxVE) and treatment-experienced patients (TRANxITION), where patients already stable on the immediate-release formulation of NVP were safely transitioned directly to NVP XR. As a potentially more convenient once-daily option, NVP XR may improve adherence and reduce the risk of mutant viruses, attendant virologic failure, and the spread of drug resistance.

The nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors in the treatment of HIV infections (AIDS)

The majority of the drugs currently used for the treatment of HIV infections (AIDS) belong to either of the following three classes: nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), and protease inhibitors (PIs). At present, there are 7 NRTIs, 5 NNRTIs, and 10 PIs approved for clinical use. They are discussed from the following viewpoints: (i) chemical formulae; (ii) mechanism of action; (iii) drug combinations; (iv) clinical aspects; (v) preexposure prophylaxis; (vi) prevention of mother-to-child transmission; (vii) their use in children; (viii) toxicity; (ix) adherence (compliance); (x) resistance; (xi) new NRTIs, NNRTIs, or PIs in (pre)clinical development; and (xii) the prospects for a "cure" of the disease.

Impact of baseline HIV-1 RNA levels on initial highly active antiretroviral therapy outcome: a meta-analysis of 12,370 patients in 21 clinical trials*

BACKGROUND

Individual randomized trials of first-line antiretroviral treatment do not consistently show an association between higher baseline HIV-1 RNA and lower efficacy.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search identified 21 HIV clinical trials with published analyses of antiretroviral efficacy by baseline HIV-1 RNA, using a standardized efficacy endpoint of HIV-1 RNA suppression <50 copies/mL at week 48.

RESULTS

Among 21 clinical trials identified, eight evaluated only nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based combinations, eight evaluated only protease inhibitor-based regimens and five compared different treatment classes. Ten of the trials included tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) as only nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone, in addition but not restricted to abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC) (n = 7), zidovudine (ZDV)/3TC (n = 4) and stavudine (d4T)/3TC (n = 1). Across trials, the mean percentage of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 48 was 81.5% (5322 of 6814) for patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA < 100 000, vs. 72.6% (3949 of 5556) for patients with HIV-1 RNA > 100 000 copies/mL. In the meta-analysis, the absolute difference in efficacy between low and high HIV-1 RNA subgroups was 7.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-8.9%; P < 0.001]. This difference was consistent in trials of NNRTI-based treatments (difference = 6.9%; 95% CI 4.3-9.6%), protease inhibitor-based treatments (difference = 8.4%; 95% CI 6.0-10.8%) and integrase or chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5 (CCR5)-based treatments (difference = 6.0%; 95% CI 2.1-9.9%) and for trials using TDF/FTC (difference = 8.4%; 95% CI 6.0-10.8%); there was no evidence for heterogeneity of this difference between trials (Cochran's Q test; not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

In this meta-analysis of 21 first-line clinical trials, rates of HIV-1 RNA suppression at week 48 were significantly lower for patients w ith baseline HIV-1 RNA > 100 000 copies/mL (P < 0.001). This difference in efficacy was consistent across trials of different treatment classes and NRTI backbones.

Pharmacological and clinical evidence of nevirapine immediate- and extended-release formulations

We reviewed the current information available on nevirapine immediate- and extended-release formulations and its role in single-dose and combination antiretroviral therapy. Nevirapine was approved in 1996 and was the first non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor available for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Nevirapine has demonstrated good efficacy and a well-characterized safety profile. A major drawback is the low genetic barrier, allowing the emergence of resistance in the presence of single mutations in the reverse-transcriptase gene. This shortcoming is particularly relevant when nevirapine is administered in a single dose to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 infection, compromising the efficacy of future non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase-inhibitor regimens. Studies published recently have probed the noninferiority of nevirapine compared to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir with both tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in antiretroviral treatment-naïve patients. In 2011, a new formulation of nevirapine (nevirapine extended release) that allowed once-daily dosing was approved by the Food and Drug Administration and by the European Medicines Agency. VERxVe, a study comparing nevirapine extended release with nevirapine immediate release in antiretroviral treatment-naïve patients, and TRANxITION, a study carried out in antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients who switched therapy from nevirapine immediate release to nevirapine extended release, provided data on the noninferiority of the new formulation of nevirapine compared with nevirapine immediate release in terms of efficacy and safety. Nevirapine extended release will further increase the durability and persistence of nevirapine-containing antiretroviral therapy, allowing once-daily dosing regimens.

Once-daily nevirapine XR: a brief overview of the safety and efficacy of a new formulation

Nevirapine (NVP) was the first nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1996, for the treatment of HIV infection. Current treatment guidelines include NVP as a component of a recommended alternative NNRTI regimen, which may be the preferred regimen for patients with established cardiovascular risk factors since NVP has minimal untoward effects on serum lipids. Two randomized and controlled clinical trials established the noninferior virologic efficacy of twice-daily NVP versus ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r), a protease inhibitor with limited effects on serum lipids, each drug on a background regimen of once-daily (QD) tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC). An extended-release (XR) formulation of NVP was developed since QD dosing and reduced pill burdens have been shown to improve regimen adherence. This formulation (Viramune XR 400 mg) was recently FDA approved based on the results of 2 randomized, controlled clinical trials. The XR formulation will provide additional treatment options for patients who may benefit from NVP-based regimens.

A review of the virological efficacy of the 4 World Health Organization-recommended tenofovir-containing regimens for initial HIV therapy

We systematically reviewed studies of the virological efficacy of the 4 new tenofovir (TDF)-containing regimens recommended for initial antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in the 2010 World Health Organization ARV Treatment Guidelines. Thirty-three studies assessed the efficacy of 1 or more TDF-containing regimens: TDF/lamivudine (3TC)/nevirapine (NVP) (n = 3), TDF/ emtricitabine (FTC)/NVP (n = 9), TDF/3TC/efavirenz (EFV) (n = 6), and TDF/FTC/EFV (n = 19). TDF/3TC/NVP was the least well-studied and appeared the least efficacious of the 4 regimens. In 2 comparative studies, TDF/3TC/NVP was associated with significantly more virological failure than AZT/3TC/NVP; a third study was terminated prematurely because of early virological failure. TDF/FTC/NVP was either equivalent or inferior to its comparator arms. TDF/3TC/EFV was equivalent to its comparator arms. TDF/FTC/EFV was equivalent or superior to its comparator arms. Possible explanations for these findings include the greater antiviral activity of EFV versus NVP and longer intracellular half-life of FTC-triphosphate versus 3TC-triphosphate. Further study of TDF/3TC/NVP is required before it is widely deployed for initial ARV therapy.

[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.

[Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the preferred treatments by GESIDA/National Plan for AIDS for the initial antiretroviral therapy in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected patients in 2012]

INTRODUCTION

The GESIDA and National AIDS Plan panel of experts propose «preferred regimens» of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV infected patients for 2012. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficiency of initiating treatment with these «preferred regimens».

METHODS

Economic assessment of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) using decision tree analysis model. Efficacy was defined as the probability of having a viral load <50 copies/ml at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regime was defined as the costs of ART and all its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regime, and drug resistance analyses) during the first 48 weeks. The perspective of the analysis is that of the National Health System, considering only differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance and determination of HLA B 5701. The setting is Spain and the costs are those of 2012. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regime: baseline, most favourable, and most unfavourable cases.

RESULTS

In the baseline case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 6,895 euros for TDF/FTC+NVP to 12,067 euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The efficacy ranges between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and 0.87 for TDF/FTC+RAL. Efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, varies between 9,387 and 13,823 euros per responder at 48 weeks, for TDF/FTC/EFV and TDF/FTC+RAL, respectively. In the most unfavourable scenario, the most efficient regime is TDF/FTC+NVP (9,742 per responder).

CONCLUSION

Considering the official prices of ART, the most efficient regimens are TDF/FTC/EFV (baseline case and most favourable scenarios), and TDF/FTC+NVP (most unfavourable scenario).

Twenty-four-week efficacy and safety of switching virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients from nevirapine immediate release 200 mg twice daily to nevirapine extended release 400 mg once daily (TRANxITION)

OBJECTIVES

Once-daily (qd) antiretroviral therapies improve convenience and adherence. If found to be effective, nevirapine extended release (NVP XR) will confer this benefit. The TRANxITION trial examined the efficacy and safety of switching virologically suppressed patients from NVP immediate release (NVP IR) 200 mg twice daily to NVP XR 400 mg qd.

METHODS

An open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority, randomized (2:1 NVP XR:NVP IR) study was performed. Adult HIV-1-infected patients receiving NVP IR plus a fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) combination of lamivudine (3TC)/abacavir (ABC), tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) or 3TC/zidovudine (ZDV) with undetectable viral load (VL) were enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint was continued virological suppression with VL < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL up to week 24 (calculated using a time to loss of virological response algorithm). Cochran's statistic (background regimen adjusted) was used to test noninferiority. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Among 443 randomized patients, continued virological suppression was observed in 93.6% (276 of 295) of NVP XR- and 92.6% (137 of 148) of NVP IR-treated patients, an observed difference of 1% [95% confidence interval (CI) -4.3, 6.0] at 24 weeks of follow-up. Noninferiority (adjusted margin of -10%) of NVP XR to NVP IR was robust and further supported by SNAPSHOT analysis. Division of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (DAIDS) grade 3 and 4 events were similar for the NVP XR and NVP IR groups (3.7 vs. 4.1%, respectively), although overall AEs were higher in the NVP XR group (75.6 vs. 60.1% for the NVP-IR group).

CONCLUSIONS

NVP XR administered once daily resulted in continued virological suppression at week 24 that was noninferior to that provided by NVP IR, with similar rates of moderate and severe AEs. The higher frequency of overall AEs with NVP XR may be a consequence of the open-label design.

Industry Update: The latest developments in therapeutic delivery

The present Industry Update covers the period 6 September to 5 October 2011, with information sourced from company press releases, media newswires, regulatory agencies and relevant patent offices. The previously announced merger between Alkermes and Elan Drug Technologies has finally taken place following shareholder approval on 8 September. Notable regulatory approvals include Gilenya® as a once-daily treatment in Japan for the prevention of relapse and delay of progression of physical disability in adults with multiple sclerosis, while the topline BOLERO-2 clinical trial results presented at the 2011 European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress in Stockholm, Sweden showed Afinitor® significantly enhances benefit from exemestane hormonal therapy, representing an important advance for women with postmenopausal ER+ breast cancer.

Phase 2 double-blind, randomized trial of etravirine versus efavirenz in treatment-naive patients: 48-week results

BACKGROUND

The Study of Etravirine Neuropsychiatric Symptoms versus Efavirenz (SENSE) trial compared etravirine with efavirenz in treatment-naive patients. The primary endpoint was neuropsychiatric adverse events up to week 12; HIV RNA suppression at week 48 was a secondary endpoint.

METHODS

Patients with HIV RNA more than 5000  copies/ml were randomized to etravirine 400  mg once daily (n = 79) or efavirenz (n = 78), plus two nucleoside analogues. HIV RNA less than 50  copies/ml at week 48 was analysed using the time to loss of virological response (TLOVR) algorithm. Drug resistance at treatment failure and safety endpoints were also evaluated.

RESULTS

At baseline, the median CD4 cell count was 302  cells/μl and HIV RNA was 4.8 log10  copies/ml. In the intent to treat TLOVR analysis at week 48, 60 of 79 (76%) patients on etravirine versus 58 of 78 (74%) on efavirenz had HIV RNA less than 50  copies/ml. In the on-treatment analysis, 60 of 65 (92%) taking etravirine had HIV RNA les than 50 copies/ml versus 58 of 65 (89%) for efavirenz: etravirine showed noninferior efficacy versus efavirenz in both analyses (P < 0.05). Four patients had virological failure in the etravirine arm: none developed resistance to nucleoside analogues or nonnucleosides. Seven patients had virological failure in the efavirenz arm: three developed treatment-emergent resistance to nucleoside analogues and/or nonnucleosides. At the week 48 visit, the percentage with ongoing neuropsychiatric adverse events was 6.3% for etravirine and 21.5% for efavirenz (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

First-line treatment with etravirine 400 mg once daily and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) led to similar rates of HIV RNA suppression, compared with efavirenz and two NRTIs. None of the patients with virological failure in the etravirine arm developed resistance to nonnucleosides.

Guidelines for the use of extended-release nevirapine in HIV-infected patients

INTRODUCTION

Nevirapine (NVP) was the first non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) approved for the treatment of HIV infection and quickly became one of the most extensively used antiretrovirals (ARVs) worldwide. A new extended-formulation of the drug has now been FDA approved for once-daily use.

AREAS COVERED

Two recent, randomized and controlled clinical trials have established the clinical noninferiority of a new, extended-release formulation of NVP (NVP XR), in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. VERxVE demonstrated the noninferiority of NVP XR in treatment-naive patients. Treatment-experienced patients already stable on the NVP immediate-release formulation (NVP IR) were safely transitioned directly to NVP XR in the TRANxITION study.

EXPERT OPINION

The advantage of the extended release formulation of NVP is that it permits once-daily dosing, while demonstrating safety and efficacy results that are noninferior to that of the twice-daily formulation. It is expected that patients who are on NVP IR at present will consider switching to NVP XR to achieve regimen simplification by reducing their daily dosing and pill burden. In addition, treatment-naive patients who are considering starting on an NVP-based ARV regimen will probably transition to the extended-release formulation once they have successfully initiated NVP therapy according to current guidelines.

Bioavailability of extended-release nevirapine 400 and 300 mg in HIV-1: a multicenter, open-label study

BACKGROUND

Nevirapine (NVP) is a widely used non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. A once-daily extended-release (XR) formulation would potentially increase adherence and thus efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the steady-state bioavailability of 2 once-daily tablet formulations of NVP XR (containing 25% or 20% hypromellose; NVP XR25 and NVP XR20, respectively) in 400- or 300-mg tablets compared with twice-daily immediate-release (IR) NVP 200-mg tablets.

METHODS

This Phase Ib multinational, multicenter, open-label trial was conducted in patients aged 18 to 60 years, infected with HIV-1 (viral load, ≤50 copies/mL), and treated for ≥12 weeks with twice-daily NVP IR 200 mg. Patients were switched to NVP XR25 400 or 300 mg or NVP XR20 400 or 300 mg for 19 days. Plasma samples were collected over 24-hour periods at steady state. Primary end points were AUC(0-24,ss), C(max,ss), and C(min,ss), analyzed using an ANOVA statistical model on the logarithmic scale and 2-sided 90% CI. Sample size was determined assuming an intrasubject %CV of 20% for C(max). Adverse events (AEs) and viral loads were monitored.

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were enrolled (NVP XR25 400 mg, 24 patients; NVP XR20 400 mg, 24; NVP XR25 300 mg, 21; NVP XR20 300 mg, 23). Compared with NVP IR, the AUC(0-24,ss) values of the NVP XR formulations were lower (test/reference ratios: 79.5% [90% CI, 73.0-86.7; P = 0.544], 71.0% [90% CI, 63.3-79.7; P = 0.956], 90.3% [90% CI, 80.4-101.4; P = 0.044], and 83.7% [90% CI, 77.9-89.9; P = 0.148] with NVP XR25 400 mg, NVP XR20 400 mg, NVP XR25 300 mg, and NVP XR20 300 mg, respectively). The relative bioavailability of NVP XR25 was greater compared with that of NVP XR20. C(max,ss) values were lower with all NVP XR formulations compared with NVP IR. For C(min,ss), NVP XR25 400 and 300 mg were not significantly different from NVP IR, with 90% CIs within the range of 80% to 125% (P = 0.039 and P = 0.017, respectively). All AEs were mild or moderate, with no significant differences between treatment groups. No virologic failures (viral load, >50 copies/mL over 2 consecutive readings) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Extent of bioavailability was lower and t(max,ss) was delayed with all NVP XR formulations compared with NVP IR. The bioavailability of the NVP XR25 formulations was greater than that of the NVP XR20 formulations. C(min,ss) with NVP XR25 was similar to that with NVP IR. All of the NVP XR formulations were well tolerated. The 400-mg NVP XR25 formulation was selected for further development.

Twice-daily versus once-daily antiretroviral therapy and coformulation strategies in HIV-infected adults: benefits, risks, or burden?

The recent development of once-daily antiretroviral agents and fixed-dose combination formulations has been an important development in antiretroviral regimen simplification. Recent studies indicate that once-daily antiretroviral regimens improve adherence, especially in antiretroviral-naïve patients and in difficult-to-treat populations, such as the homeless or marginally housed. However, there are potential risks with the higher peak and lower trough plasma drug concentrations that may result from certain once-daily formulations. Due to the multifactorial and complex nature of adherence behavior, clinicians' efforts to improve patient adherence should not be limited to prescribing once-daily regimens, but should also consider social support, side effect management, and adherence support tools, such as pillbox organizers and other targeted interventions. Additional research will clarify the benefits of once-daily and fixed-dose combination regimens on clinical and virologic outcomes. Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of regimen simplification could help facilitate evidence-based decisions regarding antiretroviral regimen choices.