Characteristics associated with virologic failure in high-risk HIV-positive participants with prior failure: a post hoc analysis of ACTG 5251

Patients with prior virologic failure (VF) are at an increased risk of subsequent failure, emergence of resistance, and death. This analysis identifies outcomes and correlates of VF in a high-risk population.

METHODS

A5251 was designed to evaluate an enhanced adherence counseling intervention delivered by nurses from a central call site on virologic suppression. Due to slow enrollment, the study was closed prematurely and revised study endpoints were evaluated (week 24 VF (HIV-1 RNA ≥200 copies/ml) and non-perfect adherence (<100% self-reported using both the ACTG adherence questionnaire and visual analog scale (VAS)).

RESULTS

Fifty-nine participants were enrolled, 43 (73%) black non-Hispanic and 23 (39%) women. Median prior antiretroviral regimen changes were three and the co-morbidity in this population was higher than typical for HIV clinical trials. At week 24 (n = 41), 24 (59%) failed to reach virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/ml) and 25 (63%) reported non-perfect adherence. Higher depression (CES-D10) and adverse illness perceptions (IPQ-B) were associated with week 24 non-adherence. Early clinical assessments (week 12 HIV-RNA ≥200 copies/mL and non-perfect adherence) as well as higher depression and adverse illness perceptions were associated with week 24 VF.

DISCUSSION

In this high-risk population, the proportion of participants with suboptimal adherence and VF was unacceptably high. Interventions to address this treatment gap are clearly needed. Depression and a higher illness perception score, failure to achieve virologic suppression by week 12, and less than perfect adherence could be used to target individuals for early interventions in treatment-experienced, high-risk individuals at high risk for VF.

Efficacy and Safety of Abacavir Plus Lamivudine Versus Didanosine Plus Stavudine When Combined with a Protease Inhibitor, a Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor, or Both in HIV-1 Positive Antiretroviral-Naive Persons

PURPOSE

The combination of abacavir + lamivudine (ABC+3TC) versus didanosine + stavudine (ddI+d4T), each combined with other classes of antiretrovirals (ARVs) in ARV-naive patients, was compared for the combined endpoint of time to plasma HIV RNA >50 copies/mL (at or after the 8-month visit) or death (primary endpoint) in a nested substudy of an ongoing multicenter randomized trial.

METHOD

The substudy enrolled 182 patients; mean HIV RNA and CD4+ cell counts at baseline were 5.1 log10 copies/mL and 212 cells/mm3, respectively.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 28 months, rates of primary endpoint were 57.2 and 67.8 per 100 person-years for the ABC+3TC and ddI+d4T groups (hazard ratio [HR]=0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.14, p=.23).

CONCLUSION

There was a trend for treatments containing ABC+3TC to be better than treatments containing ddI+d4T with respect to HIV RNA decreases, CD4+ cell count increases, and tolerability.

Pharmacogenomics of HIV therapy: summary of a workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Approximately 1 million people in the United States and over 30 million worldwide are living with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). While mortality from untreated infection approaches 100%, survival improves markedly with use of contemporary antiretroviral therapies (ART). In the United States, 25 drugs are approved for treating HIV-1, and increasing numbers are available in resource-limited countries. Safe and effective ART is a cornerstone in the global struggle against the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Variable responses to ART are due at least in part to human genetic variants that affect drug metabolism, drug disposition, and off-site drug targets. Defining effects of human genetic variants on HIV treatment toxicity, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics has far-reaching implications. In 2010, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored a workshop entitled, Pharmacogenomics – A Path Towards Personalized HIV Care. This article summarizes workshop objectives, presentations, discussions, and recommendations derived from this meeting.

Nurse versus doctor management of HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (CIPRA-SA): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Expanded access to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-poor settings is dependent on task shifting from doctors to other health-care providers. We compared outcomes of nurse versus doctor management of ART care for HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

This randomised non-inferiority trial was undertaken at two South African primary-care clinics. HIV-positive individuals with a CD4 cell count of less than 350 cells per microL or WHO stage 3 or 4 disease were randomly assigned to nurse-monitored or doctor-monitored ART care. Patients were randomly assigned by stratified permuted block randomisation, and neither the patients nor those analysing the data were masked to assignment. The primary objective was a composite endpoint of treatment-limiting events, incorporating mortality, viral failure, treatment-limiting toxic effects, and adherence to visit schedule. Analysis was by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of the nurse versus doctor group for cumulative treatment failure was prespecified as an upper 95% CI for the hazard ratio that was less than 1.40. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00255840.

FINDINGS

408 patients were assigned to doctor-monitored ART care and 404 to nurse-monitored ART care; all participants were analysed. 371 (46%) patients reached an endpoint of treatment failure: 192 (48%) in the nurse group and 179 (44%) in the doctor group. The hazard ratio for composite failure was 1.09 (95% CI 0.89-1.33), which was within the limits for non-inferiority. After a median follow-up of 120 weeks (IQR 60-144), deaths (ten vs 11), virological failures (44 vs 39), toxicity failures (68 vs 66), and programme losses (70 vs 63) were similar in nurse and doctor groups, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Nurse-monitored ART is non-inferior to doctor-monitored therapy. Findings from this study lend support to task shifting to appropriately trained nurses for monitoring of ART.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health; United States Agency for International Development; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Nurse versus doctor management of HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (CIPRA-SA): a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Expanded access to combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-poor settings is dependent on task shifting from doctors to other health-care providers. We compared outcomes of nurse versus doctor management of ART care for HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

This randomised non-inferiority trial was undertaken at two South African primary-care clinics. HIV-positive individuals with a CD4 cell count of less than 350 cells per microL or WHO stage 3 or 4 disease were randomly assigned to nurse-monitored or doctor-monitored ART care. Patients were randomly assigned by stratified permuted block randomisation, and neither the patients nor those analysing the data were masked to assignment. The primary objective was a composite endpoint of treatment-limiting events, incorporating mortality, viral failure, treatment-limiting toxic effects, and adherence to visit schedule. Analysis was by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of the nurse versus doctor group for cumulative treatment failure was prespecified as an upper 95% CI for the hazard ratio that was less than 1.40. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00255840.

FINDINGS

408 patients were assigned to doctor-monitored ART care and 404 to nurse-monitored ART care; all participants were analysed. 371 (46%) patients reached an endpoint of treatment failure: 192 (48%) in the nurse group and 179 (44%) in the doctor group. The hazard ratio for composite failure was 1.09 (95% CI 0.89-1.33), which was within the limits for non-inferiority. After a median follow-up of 120 weeks (IQR 60-144), deaths (ten vs 11), virological failures (44 vs 39), toxicity failures (68 vs 66), and programme losses (70 vs 63) were similar in nurse and doctor groups, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

Nurse-monitored ART is non-inferior to doctor-monitored therapy. Findings from this study lend support to task shifting to appropriately trained nurses for monitoring of ART.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health; United States Agency for International Development; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Comparison of once-daily versus twice-daily combination antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naive patients: results of AIDS clinical trials group (ACTG) A5073, a 48-week randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dosing frequency is an important determinant of regimen effectiveness. Methods. To compare efficacy of once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) antiretroviral therapy, we randomized human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive, treatment-naive patients to lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) administered at a dosage of 400 mg of lopinavir and 100 mg of ritonavir BID (n = 160) or 800 mg of lopinavir and 200 mg of ritonavir QD (n = 161), plus either emtricitabine 200 mg QD and extended-release stavudine at a dosage of 100 mg QD or tenofovir at a dosage of 300 mg QD. Randomization was stratified by screening HIV RNA level <100,000 copies/mL versus > or = 100,000 copies/mL. The primary efficacy end point was sustained virologic response (SVR; defined as reaching and maintaining an HIV RNA level <200 copies/mL) through week 48.

RESULTS

Subjects were 78% male, 33% Hispanic, and 34% black. A total of 82% of subjects completed the study, and 71% continued to receive the initially assigned dosage schedule. The probability of SVR did not differ significantly for the BID versus QD comparison, with an absolute proportional difference of 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.07 to 0.12). The comparison depended on the screening RNA stratum (P=.038); in the higher RNA stratum, the probability of SVR was significantly better in the BID arm than in the QD arm: 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79-0.94) versus 0.76 (95% CI, 0.64-0.84), a difference of 0.13 (95% CI, 0.01-0.25). Lopinavir trough plasma concentrations were higher with BID dosing. Adherence to prescribed doses of LPV/r was 90.6% in the QD arm versus 79.9% in the BID arm (P<.001). Conclusions. Although subjects assigned to QD regimens had better adherence, overall treatment outcomes were similar in the QD and BID arms. Subjects with HIV RNA levels > or =100,000 copies/mL had better SVR with BID regimens at 48 weeks, which suggests a possible advantage in this setting for more frequent dosing. Clinical trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00036452.

Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen

OBJECTIVES

Complex antiretroviral regimens can be associated with increased toxicity and poor adherence. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to two simplified, class-sparing antiretroviral regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label study in 236 patients with virologic suppression who were taking a three- or four-drug protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimen for > or = 18 months. Patients received lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 533 mg/133 mg twice daily + efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily or EFV + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI). Primary study endpoint was time to first virologic failure (VF, confirmed HIV-1 RNA > 200 copies/ml) or discontinuation because of study drug-related toxicity.

RESULTS

After 2.1 years of follow up, patients receiving LPV/r + EFV discontinued treatment at a greater rate than patients receiving EFV + NRTI (P < 0.001). Twenty-one patients developed VF (14 receiving LPV/r + EFV and seven receiving EFV + NRTI) and 26 discontinued because of a study drug-related toxicity (20 receiving LPV/r + EFV and six receiving EFV + NRTI). Time to VF or study drug related-toxicity discontinuation was significantly shorter for LPV/r + EFV than EFV + NRTIs (P = 0.0015). A significantly higher risk of drug-related toxicity occurred with LPV/r + EFV, mainly for increased triglycerides (P = 0021). A trend toward a higher VF rate occurred with LPV/r + EFV in an intent-to-treat and as-treated analyses (P = 0.088 and P = 0.063 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to EFV + NRTI resulted in better outcomes, fewer drug-related toxicity discontinuations and a trend to fewer virologic failures compared to switching to LPV/r + EFV.

A comparison of three highly active antiretroviral treatment strategies consisting of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors, or both in the presence of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as initial therapy (CPCRA 058 FIRST Study): a long-term randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Long-term data from randomised trials on the consequences of treatment with a protease inhibitor (PI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), or both are lacking. Here, we report results from the FIRST trial, which compared initial treatment strategies for clinical, immunological, and virological outcomes.

METHODS

Between 1999 and 2002, 1397 antiretroviral-treatment-naive patients, presenting at 18 clinical trial units with 80 research sites in the USA, were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1 to a protease inhibitor (PI) strategy (PI plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI]; n=470), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) strategy (NNRTI plus NRTI; n=463), or a three-class strategy (PI plus NNRTI plus NRTI; n=464). Primary endpoints were a composite of an AIDS-defining event, death, or CD4 cell count decline to less than 200 cells per mm3 for the PI versus NNRTI comparison, and average change in CD4 cell count at or after 32 months for the three-class versus combined two-class comparison. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This study is registered ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00000922.

FINDINGS

1397 patients were assessed for the composite endpoint. A total of 388 participants developed the composite endpoint, 302 developed AIDS or died, and 188 died. NNRTI versus PI hazard ratios (HRs) for the composite endpoint, for AIDS or death, for death, and for virological failure were 1.02 (95% CI 0.79-1.31), 1.07 (0.80-1.41), 0.95 (0.66-1.37), and 0.66 (0.56-0.78), respectively. 1196 patients were assessed for the three-class versus combined two-class primary endpoint. Mean change in CD4 cell count at or after 32 months was +234 cells per mm3 and +227 cells per mm3 for the three-class and the combined two-class strategies (p=0.62), respectively. HRs (three-class vs combined two-class) for AIDS or death and virological failure were 1.15 (0.91-1.45) and 0.87 (0.75-1.00), respectively. HRs (three-class vs combined two-class) for AIDS or death were similar for participants with baseline CD4 cell counts of 200 cells per mm3 or less and of more than 200 cells per mm3 (p=0.38 for interaction), and for participants with baseline HIV RNA concentrations less than 100 000 copies per mL and 100,000 copies per mL or more (p=0.26 for interaction). Participants assigned the three-class strategy were significantly more likely to discontinue treatment because of toxic effects than were those assigned to the two-class strategies (HR 1.58; p<0.0001).

INTERPRETATION

Initial treatment with either an NNRTI-based regimen or a PI-based regimen, but not both together, is a good strategy for long-term antiretroviral management in treatment-naive patients with HIV.

A randomized trial of 2 different 4-drug antiretroviral regimens versus a 3-drug regimen, in advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease

To compare long-term virologic benefits of antiretroviral regimens in persons with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease, a randomized, open-label study was conducted of 517 subjects with no or limited previous experience with antiretroviral therapy. Subjects received lamivudine plus zidovudine and indinavir (indinavir group), efavirenz plus indinavir (efavirenz + indinavir group), or nelfinavir plus indinavir (nelfinavir + indinavir group) and were monitored for 2.1 years. Virologic failure was lower in the efavirenz + indinavir group (P=.04) and higher in the nelfinavir + indinavir group (P=.006), compared with that in the indinavir group. No difference in grade 3 or 4 adverse event rates in the efavirenz + indinavir group (P=.97) and a trend toward an increased rate in the nelfinavir + indinavir group (P=.07), compared with the indinavir group, were noted. A 4-drug regimen containing efavirenz plus indinavir resulted in a superior virologic response, whereas one containing nelfinavir plus indinavir resulted in an inferior response and a greater likelihood of toxicity.

Nelfinavir, efavirenz, or both after the failure of nucleoside treatment of HIV infection

BACKGROUND

The optimal antiretroviral treatment for patients who have human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viremia despite treatment with nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (nucleoside analogues) remains uncertain. We studied treatment with regimens that combined two nucleoside analogues, at least one of which was new, with the protease inhibitor nelfinavir, the nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor efavirenz, or both.

METHODS

The study included 195 patients who had been treated with nucleoside analogues only, and had a plasma HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of at least 500 copies per milliliter. Patients were randomly assigned to receive, in addition to two nucleoside analogues, nelfinavir, efavirenz, or nelfinavir plus efavirenz. The primary end point was a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of less than 500 copies per milliliter at week 16. A secondary end point was the composite of the HIV-1 RNA levels measured at weeks 40 and 48.

RESULTS

At week 16 and at weeks 40 and 48, the proportions of patients in whom a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of less than 500 copies per milliliter was achieved were, respectively, 81 percent and 74 percent in the nelfinavir-plus-efavirenz group, 69 percent and 60 percent in the efavirenz group, and 64 percent and 35 percent in the nelfinavir group. Quadruple therapy resulted in a higher rate of viral suppression in both the short term (P=0.03) and the long term (P=0.001) than did triple therapy with nelfinavir. Triple therapy with efavirenz conferred a higher rate of long-term suppression than triple therapy with nelfinavir (P=0.004). Quadruple therapy also achieved a higher rate of virologic suppression than triple therapy with efavirenz (P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

In HIV-infected patients previously treated with nucleoside analogues, treatment with nelfinavir plus efavirenz and at least one new nucleoside analogue achieves a higher rate of viral suppression than do regimens with nucleoside analogues and nelfinavir or efavirenz alone.

In vivo additive antiretroviral effect of combined zidovudine and foscarnet therapy for human immunodeficiency virus infection (ACTG Protocol 053)

Zidovudine and foscarnet each have antiretroviral activity against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and, when combined in vitro, inhibit HIV replication in an additive or synergistic fashion. To determine if an in vivo additive or synergistic antiretroviral effect might result from combined therapy, six symptomatic HIV-infected patients were studied who had persistently quantifiable serum HIV p24 antigen despite 9-27 weeks of full-dose oral zidovudine therapy (1200 mg/day). These patients were given intravenous foscarnet (30 mg/kg every 8h) for 2 weeks with continued oral zidovudine for 14 days, followed by zidovudine alone for 6 months. Serum p24 antigen concentrations decreased in all six patients during the period of combined therapy by a mean 53% (P = .005). Subsequently, serum p24 antigen levels rose to the baseline value in four patients after 4-14 weeks. As predicted from in vitro studies, combined treatment with zidovudine and foscarnet resulted in an additive in vivo effect, but the effect was transient.