Efficacy of a nucleoside-sparing regimen of darunavir/ritonavir plus raltegravir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients (ACTG A5262)

The Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of 2-Drug Dolutegravir-Lamivudine Regimens for the Treatment of HIV Infection in the United States

BACKGROUND

Recommended human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment regimens in the United States contain 3 antiretroviral agents, costing >$30 000/person/year. Pilot studies are evaluating the efficacy of dual therapy with dolutegravir (DTG) and lamivudine (3TC). We examined the potential cost-effectiveness and budget impact of DTG + 3TC regimens in the United States.

METHODS

Using a mathematical model, we projected the clinical and economic outcomes of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive patients under 4 strategies: (1) no ART (for modeling comparison); (2) 2-drug: initial regimen of DTG + 3TC; (3) induction-maintenance: 48-week induction regimen of 3 drugs (DTG/abacavir [ABC]/3TC), followed by DTG + 3TC maintenance if virologically suppressed; and (4) standard of care: 3-drug regimen of DTG/ABC/3TC. Strategy-dependent model inputs, varied widely in sensitivity analyses, included 48-week virologic suppression (88%-93%), subsequent virologic failure (0.1%-0.6%/month), and Medicaid-discounted ART costs ($15 200-$39 600/year). A strategy was considered cost-effective if its incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was <$100 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

RESULTS

The 3 ART strategies had the same 5-year survival rates (90%). The ICER was $22 500/QALY for induction-maintenance and >$500 000/QALY for standard of care. Two-drug was the preferred strategy only when DTG + 3TC 48-week virologic suppression rate exceeded 90%. With 50% uptake of either induction-maintenance or 2-drug for ART-naive patients, cost savings totaled $550 million and $800 million, respectively, within 5 years; savings reached >$3 billion if 25% of currently suppressed patients were switched to DTG + 3TC maintenance.

CONCLUSIONS

Should DTG + 3TC demonstrate high rates of virologic suppression, this regimen will be cost-effective and would save >$500 million in ART costs in the United States over 5 years.

HIV infection

More than 75 million people worldwide have been infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and there are now approximately 37 million individuals living with the infection. Untreated HIV replication causes progressive CD4(+) T cell loss and a wide range of immunological abnormalities, leading to an increased risk of infectious and oncological complications. HIV infection also contributes to cardiovascular disease, bone disease, renal and hepatic dysfunction and several other common morbidities. Antiretroviral drugs are highly effective at inhibiting HIV replication, and for individuals who can access and adhere to these drugs, combination antiretroviral therapy leads to durable (and probably lifelong) suppression of viral replication. Viral suppression enables immune recovery and the near elimination of the risk for developing acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). Despite effective treatment, HIV-infected individuals have a higher than expected risk of heart, bone, liver, kidney and neurological disease. When used optimally by an infected (or by an uninfected) person, antiretroviral drugs can virtually eliminate the risk of HIV transmission. Despite major advances in prevention sciences, HIV transmission remains common in many vulnerable populations, including men who have sex with men, injection drug users and sex workers. Owing to a lack of widespread HIV testing and the costs and toxicities associated with antiretroviral drugs, the majority of the infected population is not on effective antiretroviral therapy. To reverse the pandemic, improved prevention, treatment and implementation approaches are necessary.

Virological failure in two patients with HIV-1 RNA viral loads >1,000,000 copies/ml initiated on elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

Very high baseline HIV-1 RNA viral loads require potent and robust antiretroviral regimens to achieve virological suppression. The coformulated single tablet regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF) is recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services for the treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive adults and adolescents regardless of baseline CD4(+) T-cell count and viral load. We report two cases of HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients, with baseline HIV-1 RNA viral loads >1,000,000 copies/ml who were initiated on the single tablet regimen EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, but failed to attain viral load suppression and developed resistance to the components of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir given at 2 doses of 400 mg by swallowing versus one dose of 800 mg by chewing in healthy volunteers: a randomized, open-label, 2-period, single-dose, crossover phase 1 study

BACKGROUND

The pharmacokinetics of raltegravir (RAL) in HIV patients is characterized by high interindividual and intraindividual variability. We documented previously that HIV patients taking RAL at 400 mg bid by chewing the tablets had significantly higher drug absorption and reduced pharmacokinetic variability than patients taking the drug by swallowing the tablets. This study extends our previous findings.

METHODS

An open-label, 2-period crossover study compared the pharmacokinetics of 2 doses of RAL given at 400 mg every 12 hours (that mimics a bid administration) by swallowing with 1 dose of 800 mg (that mimics a qd administration) by chewing the tablets in 12 healthy volunteers. RAL plasma concentrations were measured by a chromatographic method coupled with mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

Subjects taking RAL by chewing had significantly higher drug exposure (RAL area under the curve[AUC](0-24): 40722 ± 14843 versus 21753 ± 12229 ng · h/mL, P < 0.0001) and reduced pharmacokinetic variability compared with those taking the drug by swallowing the whole tablet, with no difference in the minimum RAL concentrations (RAL C(min): 36 ± 23 versus 43 ± 23 ng/mL, P = 0.298). Subjects taking RAL by chewing the tablets had significantly higher drug absorption and reduced pharmacokinetic variability compared with those taking the drug by swallowing. No differences were observed in the minimum RAL concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

RAL at 800 mg once daily by chewing the tablets may represent a novel therapeutic option for the treatment of HIV being associated with higher drug absorption, reduced pharmacokinetic variability, and potentially better compliance compared with patients swallowing the 400-mg bid intact tablets.

Beginning antiretroviral therapy for patients with HIV

In this article, we review the options for initial antiretroviral therapy, including the data from clinical trials to support these choices and the factors to consider in selection of a regimen to best fit each patient.

Darunavir-based dual therapy of treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: analysis from a national multicenter database

BACKGROUND

We assessed the virological response of dual therapy with DRV/r, plus raltegravir, maraviroc or etravirine, in virological failure patients and in virologically suppressed patients collected in the Italian Antiretroviral Resistance Database (ARCA).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients remaining free of virological failure (confirmed >50 copies/mL or any change in the regimen). Subjects had a resistance test and at least one follow-up visit. Observation was censored at last visit under dual therapy and survival analysis and proportional hazard models were used.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven percent of the 221 patients started DRV/r with RAL, 20.4 % with ETV, and 12.2 % with MAR; 31.2 % virological failures were observed. At survival analysis, the overall proportion of failure was 29.2 % at 1 year and 33.8 % at 2 years. The proportion of failure was lower in patients starting with undetectable vs. detectable viral load (13.3 and 25.2 % vs. 37.4 and 38.8 % at 1 and 2 years, respectively, p = 0.001 for both analyses) and in patients treated with DRV 600 BID vs. 800 QD (HR: 0.56, 95 % CI: 0.31-0.99, p < 0.05). By regimen, the adjusted proportional model showed no significant difference among the three regimens. A significant lower risk of failure was associated with higher GSS (HIV-DB HR: 0.53, 95 % CI: 0.32-0.88, p = 0.014; Rega 0.60, 0.40-0.88, p < 0.01; ANRS 0.55, 0.34-0.90, p = 0.017), while a higher risk of failure with detectable HIV-RNA (3.02, 1.70-5.72, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among experienced patients, the best candidates for dual-therapy regimens including DRV/r are those with undetectable viral load and higher GSS.

The Intelence aNd pRezista Once A Day Study (INROADS): a multicentre, single-arm, open-label study of etravirine and darunavir/ritonavir as dual therapy in HIV-1-infected early treatment-experienced subjects

OBJECTIVES

Following antiretroviral therapy failure, patients are often treated with a three-drug regimen that includes two nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs]. An alternative two-drug nucleoside-sparing regimen may decrease the pill burden and drug toxicities associated with the use of N(t)RTIs. The Intelence aNd pRezista Once A Day Study (INROADS; NCT01199939) evaluated the nucleoside-sparing regimen of etravirine 400 mg with darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg once-daily in HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced subjects or treatment-naïve subjects with transmitted resistance.

METHODS

In this exploratory phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, 48-week study, the primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who achieved HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 48 [confirmed virological response (CVR), non-virological failure (VF) censored]. Key secondary endpoints included assessments of changes from baseline to week 48 in viral load, immunological response, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, tolerability, metabolic and bone markers and body fat.

RESULTS

Forty-one of the 54 enrolled subjects completed the study. Adverse events (7%) and VF (7%) were the most common reasons for discontinuation. The week 48 CVR rate in the intent-to-treat (ITT) non-VF censored population was 89% (primary endpoint). Seven subjects experienced VF. Common adverse events were diarrhoea (15%), rash (15%) and upper respiratory tract infection (11%). Mild/moderate lipid elevations, minimal changes in limb fat distribution and bone mineral density and no clinically relevant changes in glucose metabolism were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Etravirine 400 mg and darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg as a two-drug once-daily regimen in treatment-experienced subjects or treatment-naïve subjects with transmitted resistance was virologically efficacious and well tolerated.

Darunavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV-1 infection

The latest HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir (Prezista™) has a high genetic barrier to resistance development and is active against wild-type HIV and HIV strains no longer susceptible to some older PIs. Ritonavir-boosted darunavir, as a component of antiretroviral therapy (ART), is indicated for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adult and paediatric patients (aged ≥3 years), with or without treatment experience (details vary depending on region of approval). Several open-label or partially-blinded trials have evaluated the efficacy of ritonavir-boosted darunavir ART regimens for up to 192 weeks in these settings. In treatment-naïve adults, once-daily boosted darunavir was no less effective in establishing virological suppression than once- or twice-daily boosted lopinavir, yet was more effective at maintaining suppression long term. Moreover, treatment-experienced adults with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) had no less effective viral load suppression with once-daily than with twice-daily boosted darunavir. In treatment-experienced adults, including some with multiple major PI RAMs, twice-daily boosted darunavir was more effective than twice-daily boosted lopinavir or boosted control PIs in reducing viral load, and provided virological benefit as part of a salvage regimen in those with few remaining treatment options. Boosted darunavir also reduced viral load when administered once-daily in treatment-naïve adolescents or twice-daily in treatment-experienced children and adolescents. Boosted darunavir is generally well tolerated, with gastrointestinal disturbances and lipid abnormalities among the most common tolerability issues. It has a lipid profile more favourable than that of boosted lopinavir in terms of total cholesterol and triglyceride changes and, when administered once daily, its lipid effects are generally similar to those of boosted atazanavir. Thus, boosted darunavir is a useful option for the ART regimens of adult and paediatric patients with HIV-1 infection.

Outcomes of second-line combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients: a cohort study from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

BACKGROUND

World-wide, the notable expansion of HIV/AIDS treatment programs in resource-limited settings has lead to an increasing number of patients in need of second-line cART. To adequately address and prepare for this scenario, critical assessments of the outcomes of second-line cART are particularly relevant in settings where monitoring strategies may be inadequate. We evaluated virologic outcomes of second-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) among HIV-infected individuals from Brazil.

METHODS

This study was conducted at the Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, at Rio de Janeiro, Brazio. For this study we included all patients who started first-line and second-line cART between 2000 and 2013. Second-line cART required a switch in the anchor drug of first-line cART. We evaluated time from second-line start to virologic failure and factors associated with increased risk of failure using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models.

RESULTS

Among the 1,311 patients who started first-line cART a total of 386 patients (29.5%) initiated second-line cART, out of which 35.0% and 60.6% switched from their first-line to their second-line cART when their HIV RNA was undetectable and after documented virologic failure, respectively. At second line cART initiation, median age was 38 years [interquartile range (IQR): 31-45years]. Median CD4 count was significantly different for patients starting second-line cART undetectable [412 cells/mm3 (IQR: 240-617)] compared to those starting second-line cART after documented virologic failure [230 cells/mm3 (IQR: 118-322.5)] (p < 0.01). Median time from second-line cART initiation to failure was also significantly different for patients starting second-line cART undetectable compared to those who with documented virologic failure (log-rank test p < 0.01). Multivariable Cox models showed that younger age, lower education, and HIV RNA level were independently associated with an increased hazard of second-line failure among those with documented virologic failure at start of second-line cART.

CONCLUSIONS

We have shown that in a middle-income country with universal access to cART, having a detectable HIV RNA at the start of second-line cART as well as younger age and lower education negatively impact second-line outcomes. Our findings could guide HIV treatment efforts as to which strategies would help maximize the durability of these regimens.

Ritonavir-boosted darunavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir-emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive adults infected with HIV-1: 96 week results from the NEAT001/ANRS143 randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Standard first-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection includes two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs), but these drugs have limitations. We assessed the 96 week efficacy and safety of an NtRTI-sparing regimen.

METHODS

Between August, 2010, and September, 2011, we enrolled treatment-naive adults into this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in treatment-naive adults in 15 European countries. The composite primary outcome was change to randomised treatment before week 32 because of insufficient virological response, no virological response by week 32, HIV-1 RNA concentration 50 copies per mL or higher at any time after week 32; death from any cause; any new or recurrent AIDS event; or any serious non-AIDS event. Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral treatment with 400 mg raltegravir twice daily plus 800 mg darunavir and 100 mg ritonavir once daily (NtRTI-sparing regimen) or tenofovir-emtricitabine in a 245 mg and 200 mg fixed-dose combination once daily, plus 800 mg darunavir and 100 mg ritonavir once daily (standard regimen). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01066962.

FINDINGS

Of 805 patients enrolled, 401 received the NtRTI-sparing regimen and 404 the standard regimen, with median follow-up of 123 weeks (IQR 112-133). Treatment failure was seen in 77 (19%) in the NtRTI-sparing group and 61 (15%) in the standard group. Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of treatment failure by week 96 were 17·8% and 13·8%, respectively (difference 4·0%, 95% CI -0·8 to 8·8). The frequency of serious or treatment-modifying adverse events were similar (10·2 vs 8·3 per 100 person-years and 3·9 vs 4·2 per 100 person-years, respectively).

INTERPRETATION

Our NtRTI-sparing regimen was non-inferior to standard treatment and represents a treatment option for patients with CD4 cell counts higher than 200 cells per μL.

FUNDING

European Union Sixth Framework Programme, Inserm-ANRS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Laboratories.

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.

Is it time to revise antiretrovirals dosing? a pharmacokinetic viewpoint

We document our experience with therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antiretroviral agents (1807 determinations) carried out as day-by-day clinical practice for the optimization of drug dosing in HIV-infected patients. A significant proportion of patients had lopinavir, atazanavir and nevirapine trough concentrations exceeding the upper therapeutic threshold. Further studies are needed to identify good candidates/drugs for TDM, eventually allowing the selection of patients who may benefit from TDM-driven adjustments in antiretrovirals dosage.

Efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir plus etravirine dual regimen in antiretroviral therapy-experienced patients: a multicenter clinical experience

OBJECTIVES

To assess the outcome of a dual regimen combining darunavir/ritonavir plus etravirine in a cohort of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-experienced patients.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on all ART-experienced patients starting a darunavir/ritonavir plus etravirine regimen at the 3 clinics. Patients were stratified according to HIV RNA detectability (≥ 40 copies/mL) at baseline. Two efficacy endpoints were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox multivariable models: virological failure (confirmed HIV RNA ≥ 40 copies/mL after 6 months) and therapeutic failure (including virological failure and treatment discontinuation for any reason).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients were included in the study. They had a median of 10.8 years on ART and 5 previous ART regimens; 61.3% showed primary protease inhibitor (PI) mutations and 70% showed previous non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) exposure. HIV RNA was detectable in 34 (50%) patients. The median observation period was 21 (interquartile range [IQR], 11.9-25.1) months. After 24 months, 75.1% of the patients were still on the study regimen and 88.8% remained free from virological failure. Although a higher therapeutic failure rate was reported in patients with detectable viremia at baseline, only the immunological status revealed an independent predictive role. No differences in virological failure were observed according to HIV RNA detectability at baseline; a higher number of previous ART regimens was the only predictor. Discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 5.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Darunavir/ritonavir plus etravirine regimen proved virological efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated patients with a high rate of virological success, even in patients who switched during virological failure.

The RADAR study: week 48 safety and efficacy of RAltegravir combined with boosted DARunavir compared to tenofovir/emtricitabine combined with boosted darunavir in antiretroviral-naive patients. Impact on bone health

Background

NRTI-sparing regimens may avoid long-term mitochondrial, bone and renal toxicities and maintain viral suppression.

Methods

In the RADAR study, 85 antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected patients were randomized to receive either raltegravir (RAL) (n = 42) or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) (n = 43), each with ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r). Virologic efficacy was assessed at weeks 24 and 48. Bone mineral density (BMD) was assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan at baseline and week 48, and bone turnover markers (BTM) assessed at weeks 0, 16 and 48.

Results

Using an intention-to-treat analysis, 62.5% of RAL subjects and 83.7% of TDF/FTC subjects were responders (VL<48 copies/mL) at week 48 (p = 0.045; chi-square test). The proportions of patients achieving VL<200 copies/mL were similar: 72.5% and 86.0% (p = 0.175). Premature treatment discontinuation was the main cause for failure. No treatment-emergent resistance was observed. Changes from baseline in RAL vs. TDF/FTC for CD4⁺ (+199 vs. +216 cells/µL, p = 0.63), total cholesterol/HDL (−0.25 vs. −0.71 mg/dL (p = 0.270), and eGFR (−4.4 vs. −7.9 ml/min, p = 0.44) were comparable between groups. Changes in subtotal BMD to week 48 were: +9.2 with RAL vs. −7 g/cm² with TDF/FTC (p = 0.002). Mean CTX changes were +0.04 vs. +0.24 ng/mL (p = 0.001), and mean P1NP changes were +3.59 vs. +30.09 ng/mL (p = 0.023). BTM changes at week 16 predicted change in BMD by week 48 (R = −0.394, p = 0.003 for CTX; and R = −0.477, p<0.001 for P1NP).

Conclusion

The NRTI-sparing regimen RAL+DRV/r did not achieve similar week 48 virologic efficacy compared with TDF/FTC+DRV/r, but was better with regard to markers of bone health.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 00677300

Switch strategies in antiretroviral therapy regimens

Despite great advances in antiretroviral therapy in the last decade, several limitations still remain such as adverse effects, lack of adherence and drug-drug interactions. Switching antiretroviral therapy in stable, virologically suppressed patients with the aim of improving tolerability and convenience is an expanding strategy in clinical practice. Several factors need to be taken into consideration when switching a suppressive regimen, such as previous virologic failure, genetic barrier of the new regimen, prior duration of virologic suppression and expected level of adherence. The most frequently used strategies include reductions in the number of pills, drugs or doses. Although switching strategies may be useful, not all the regimens used in clinical practice are based on data from randomized clinical trials and some may not be the best option for certain patients; therefore, therapy should be individualized taking into consideration available information as well as patient and drug characteristics.

Significance and clinical management of persistent low-level viremia and very-low-level viremia in HIV-1-infected patients

A goal of HIV therapy is to sustain suppression of the plasma viral load below the detection limits of clinical assays. However, widely followed treatment guidelines diverge in their interpretation and recommended management of persistent viremia of low magnitude, reflecting the limited evidence base for this common clinical finding. Here, we review the incidence, risk factors, and potential consequences of low-level HIV viremia (LLV; defined in this review as a viremia level of 50 to 500 copies/ml) and very-low-level viremia (VLLV; defined as a viremia level of <50 copies/ml detected by clinical assays that have quantification cutoffs of <50 copies/ml). Using this framework, we discuss practical issues related to the diagnosis and management of patients experiencing persistent LLV and VLLV. Compared to viral suppression at <50 or 40 copies/ml, persistent LLV is associated with increased risk of antiretroviral drug resistance and overt virologic failure. Higher immune activation and HIV transmission may be additional undesirable consequences in this population. It is uncertain whether LLV of <200 copies/ml confers independent risks, as this level of viremia may reflect assay-dependent artifacts or biologically meaningful events during suppression. Resistance genotyping should be considered in patients with persistent LLV when feasible, and treatment should be modified if resistance is detected. There is a dearth of clinical evidence to guide management when genotyping is not feasible. Increased availability of genotypic assays for samples with viral loads of <400 copies/ml is needed.

Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results of the randomised, open label, non-inferiority GARDEL trial

BACKGROUND

Daily oral triple therapy is effective at halting HIV disease progression, but can have toxic effects and is costly. We investigated whether dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine is non-inferior to standard triple therapy.

METHODS

The GARDEL study (Global AntiRetroviral Design Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard therapy) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults (age ≥18 years) with documented HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL. The study was done at 19 centres in six countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dual therapy or triple therapy by sealed envelopes, in blocks of four, stratified by baseline viral load (<100,000 vs ≥100,000 copies per mL). Dual therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg plus lamivudine 150 mg, both twice daily. Triple therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily and lamivudine or emtricitabine plus another nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in fixed-dose combination. Efficacy was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was virological response rate, defined as the proportion of patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Dual therapy was classed as non-inferior to triple therapy if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between groups was no lower than -12%. Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01237444.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 10, 2010, and May 15, 2012, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the dual-therapy group and 209 to the triple-therapy group. 198 patients in the dual-therapy group and 175 in the triple-therapy group completed 48 weeks of treatment. At week 48, 189 patients (88·3%) in the dual-therapy group and 169 (83·7%) in the triple-therapy group had viral response (difference 4·6%, 95% CI -2·2 to 11·8; p=0·171). Patients with baseline viral load of at least 100,000 copies per mL showed similar results (87·2% vs 77·9%, respectively; difference 9·3%, 95% CI -2·8 to 21·5; p=0·145). Toxicity-related or tolerability-related discontinuations were more common in the triple-therapy group (n=10 [4·9%]) than in the dual-therapy group (n=1 [0·4%]; difference 4·5%, 95% CI -8·1 to -0·9; p=0·011). 65 adverse events in the dual-therapy group and 88 in the triple-therapy group were possibly or probably drug related (p=0·007). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the dual-therapy arm, one of which (a case of gastritis) was reported as possibly or probably related to drug treatment.

INTERPRETATION

Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine regimen warrants further clinical research and consideration as a potential therapeutic option for antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients.

FUNDING

Fundación Huésped and AbbVie.

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.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of boosted once-daily darunavir

The ability to dose antiretroviral agents once daily simplifies the often complex therapeutic regimens required for the successful treatment of HIV infection. Thus, once-daily dosing can lead to improved patient adherence to medication and, consequently, sustained virological suppression and reduction in the risk of emergence of drug resistance. Several trials have evaluated once-daily darunavir/ritonavir in combination with other antiretrovirals (ARTEMIS and ODIN trials) or as monotherapy (MONET, MONOI and PROTEA trials) in HIV-1-infected adults. Data from ARTEMIS and ODIN demonstrate non-inferiority of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir against a comparator and, together with pharmacokinetic data, have established the suitability of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations. The findings of ARTEMIS and ODIN have led to recent updates to treatment guidelines, whereby once-daily darunavir/ritonavir, given with other antiretrovirals, is now a preferred treatment option for antiretroviral-naive adult patients and a simplified treatment option for antiretroviral-experienced adults who have no darunavir resistance-associated mutations. Once-daily dosing with darunavir/ritonavir is an option for treatment-naive and for treatment-experienced paediatric patients with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations based on the findings of the DIONE trial and ARIEL substudy. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily boosted darunavir. The feasibility of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy as a treatment approach for some patients is also discussed. Finally, data on a fixed-dose combination of 800/150 mg of darunavir/cobicistat once daily are presented, showing comparable darunavir bioavailability to that obtained with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily.

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.

Comparison of illumina and 454 deep sequencing in participants failing raltegravir-based antiretroviral therapy

BACKGROUND

The impact of raltegravir-resistant HIV-1 minority variants (MVs) on raltegravir treatment failure is unknown. Illumina sequencing offers greater throughput than 454, but sequence analysis tools for viral sequencing are needed. We evaluated Illumina and 454 for the detection of HIV-1 raltegravir-resistant MVs.

METHODS

A5262 was a single-arm study of raltegravir and darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve patients. Pre-treatment plasma was obtained from 5 participants with raltegravir resistance at the time of virologic failure. A control library was created by pooling integrase clones at predefined proportions. Multiplexed sequencing was performed with Illumina and 454 platforms at comparable costs. Illumina sequence analysis was performed with the novel snp-assess tool and 454 sequencing was analyzed with V-Phaser.

RESULTS

Illumina sequencing resulted in significantly higher sequence coverage and a 0.095% limit of detection. Illumina accurately detected all MVs in the control library at ≥0.5% and 7/10 MVs expected at 0.1%. 454 sequencing failed to detect any MVs at 0.1% with 5 false positive calls. For MVs detected in the patient samples by both 454 and Illumina, the correlation in the detected variant frequencies was high (R2 = 0.92, P<0.001). Illumina sequencing detected 2.4-fold greater nucleotide MVs and 2.9-fold greater amino acid MVs compared to 454. The only raltegravir-resistant MV detected was an E138K mutation in one participant by Illumina sequencing, but not by 454.

CONCLUSIONS

In participants of A5262 with raltegravir resistance at virologic failure, baseline raltegravir-resistant MVs were rarely detected. At comparable costs to 454 sequencing, Illumina demonstrated greater depth of coverage, increased sensitivity for detecting HIV MVs, and fewer false positive variant calls.

Pharmacokinetic study of dual therapy with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily and Darunavir/Ritonavir 800/100 mg once daily in HIV-1-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Combinations of new classes of antiretroviral drugs are attractive options to avoid toxicity associated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and to provide a full active regimen in patients with some degree of resistance to NRTIs. However, data on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of these regimens are limited. We explore the plasma PK profile of raltegravir (RAL) at a dose of 400 mg twice a day plus darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/RTV) at a dose of 800/100 mg once a day in HIV-1-infected patients.

METHODS

This was a pilot, open-label, fixed-sequence, prospective, single-center single-arm PK study. The treating physician chose an NRTI-sparing regimen because of toxicity or resistance mutations to NRTIs, which included DRV/RTV 800/100 mg once daily plus RAL 400 mg twice daily. All patients were RAL and DRV naive and had no evidence of protease inhibitor mutations. After at least 15 days on therapy, patients were admitted for a 24-hour PK study. Laboratory tests to assess efficacy and safety were performed at all study visits.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were included. The geometric mean values for DRV were AUC0-24 68,730 ng·h·mL [95% confidence interval (CI): 58,970-86,480], Ctrough 1330 ng/mL (95% CI: 1110-1760; IC-50 for wild-type and resistant HIV-1 strains was 55 and 550 ng/mL, respectively), Cmax 7630 ng/mL (95% CI: 6740-9000), and t1/2 10.9 hours (95% CI: 9.20-13.99). Geometric mean values for RAL were AUC0-12 3050 ng·h·mL (95% CI: 2530-5180); Ctrough 40 ng/mL (95% CI: 30-80), Cmax 970 ng/mL (95% CI: 840-2270), t1/2 2.68 hours (95% CI: 1.97-4.40). No adverse effects including rash or laboratory test abnormalities were noted. At week 24, the HIV-1 viral load was below 37 copies/mL in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that dual therapy with RAL 400 mg twice daily plus DRV/RTV 800/100 mg once daily had a favorable PK profile for both drugs and that short-term efficacy and tolerability of this combination were adequate.

Inhibiting the HIV integration process: past, present, and the future

HIV integrase (IN) catalyzes the insertion into the genome of the infected human cell of viral DNA produced by the retrotranscription process. The discovery of raltegravir validated the existence of the IN, which is a new target in the field of anti-HIV drug research. The mechanism of catalysis of IN is depicted, and the characteristics of the inhibitors of the catalytic site of this viral enzyme are reported. The role played by the resistance is elucidated, as well as the possibility of bypassing this problem. New approaches to block the integration process are depicted as future perspectives, such as development of allosteric IN inhibitors, dual inhibitors targeting both IN and other enzymes, inhibitors of enzymes that activate IN, activators of IN activity, as well as a gene therapy approach.

Inhibiting the HIV integration process: past, present, and the future

HIV integrase (IN) catalyzes the insertion into the genome of the infected human cell of viral DNA produced by the retrotranscription process. The discovery of raltegravir validated the existence of the IN, which is a new target in the field of anti-HIV drug research. The mechanism of catalysis of IN is depicted, and the characteristics of the inhibitors of the catalytic site of this viral enzyme are reported. The role played by the resistance is elucidated, as well as the possibility of bypassing this problem. New approaches to block the integration process are depicted as future perspectives, such as development of allosteric IN inhibitors, dual inhibitors targeting both IN and other enzymes, inhibitors of enzymes that activate IN, activators of IN activity, as well as a gene therapy approach.

Bone mineral density effects of randomized regimen and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor selection from ACTG A5142

OBJECTIVE

To compare the longitudinal changes in total bone mineral density (TBMD) across antiretroviral (ARV) regimens.

METHODS

A5142 was an open-label study comparing 3 ARV regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1. Subjects were randomized equally to efavirenz (EFV) plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) plus 2 NRTIs, or LPV/r plus EFV without NRTI. The NRTI regimen (lamivudine [3TC] plus zidovudine [ZDV], stavudine [d4T], or tenofovir [TDF]) was selected prior to randomization. TBMD was assessed via whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at baseline and 48 and 96 weeks. Analysis was modified intent-to-treat (ITT) ignoring regimen changes using all evaluations.

RESULTS

Significant mean declines in TBMD at week 48 were observed among subjects. In repeated-measures analysis of changes (including randomized regimen, NRTI used, and time), there was a significant difference in the NRTI-containing arms in mean percentage change in TBMD at week 48 according to NRTI used (P < .001). Subjects taking ZDV had similar changes to those taking d4T (P = .970), whereas those taking TDF had larger declines (P < .001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward greater mean declines among subjects taking LPV/r versus EFV (P = .080). Overall, TDF-containing regimens demonstrated the greatest losses in TBMD, while EFV regimens without TDF had lesser TBMD reductions even compared to the NRTI-sparing arm. From week 48 to 96, all treatment groups continued to lose TBMD at similar rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Among NRTI-containing arms, NRTI selection, especially use of TDF, had a greater effect on TBMD change than randomized regimen. The long-term clinical significance remains to be demonstrated.

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.

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.

Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitors in HIV Therapy

HIV drug resistance has been one of the major obstacles to HIV eradication and has contributed to the need for the constant development of new antiretroviral drugs over the past 25 years. With the recent approval of dolutegravir for human therapy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, health practitioners may soon have access to three integrase strand transfer inhibitors to treat individuals living with HIV. Here, we review the use of raltegravir, elvitegravir, and dolutegravir for use in first- and second-line HIV treatment regimens and the issue of HIV resistance against integrase inhibitors.

Virologic response, early HIV-1 decay, and maraviroc pharmacokinetics with the nucleos(t)ide-free regimen of maraviroc plus darunavir/ritonavir in a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To address the need for nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing regimens, we explored the virologic and pharmacokinetic characteristics of maraviroc plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir in a single-arm, open-label, 96-week study.

METHODS

Twenty-four antiretroviral-naive R5 HIV-1-infected participants received maraviroc 150 mg and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg (MVC/DRV/r) once daily. The primary outcome was virologic failure (VF) = confirmed viral load (VL) >50 copies per milliliter at week 24 in the modified intent-to-treat population. To determine viral dynamics, participant-specific first- and second-phase empirical Bayes estimates were compared with decay rates from efavirenz (EFV) plus lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir plus 2NRTIs, and EFV plus 2NRTIs. Maraviroc plasma concentrations were determined at weeks 2, 4, 12, 24, and 48.

RESULTS

Baseline median (Q1, Q3) CD4 count and VL were 455 (299, 607) cells per cubic millimeter and 4.62 (4.18, 4.80) log10 copies per milliliter, respectively. VF occurred in 3 of 24 participants {12.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7 to 32.4]} at week 24. One of these resuppressed, yielding a week 48 VF rate of 2/24 [8.3% (95% CI: 1.0 to 27.0)]. The week 48 failures were 2 of the 4 participants (50%) with baseline VL >100,000 copies per milliliter. Week 96 VF rate was 2/20 [10% (95% CI: 1.2 to 31.7)]. Phase 1 decay was faster with MVC/DRV/r than reported for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus 2NRTIs (P = 0.0063) and similar to EFV-based regimens. Individual maraviroc trough concentrations collected between 20 and 28 hours post dose (n = 59) was 13.7 to 130 ng/mL (Q1, 23.4 ng/mL; Q3, 46.5 ng/mL), and modeled steady-state concentration was 128 ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

MVC/DRV/r 150/800/100 mg once daily has potential for treatment-naive patients with R5 HIV-1.

[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.

Multi-step inhibition explains HIV-1 protease inhibitor pharmacodynamics and resistance

HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) are among the most effective antiretroviral drugs. They are characterized by highly cooperative dose-response curves that are not explained by current pharmacodynamic theory. An unresolved problem affecting the clinical use of PIs is that patients who fail PI-containing regimens often have virus that lacks protease mutations, in apparent violation of fundamental evolutionary theory. Here, we show that these unresolved issues can be explained through analysis of the effects of PIs on distinct steps in the viral life cycle. We found that PIs do not affect virion release from infected cells but block entry, reverse transcription, and post-reverse transcription steps. The overall dose-response curves could be reconstructed by combining the curves for each step using the Bliss independence principle, showing that independent inhibition of multiple distinct steps in the life cycle generates the highly cooperative dose-response curves that make these drugs uniquely effective. Approximately half of the inhibitory potential of PIs is manifest at the entry step, likely reflecting interactions between the uncleaved Gag and the cytoplasmic tail (CT) of the Env protein. Sequence changes in the CT alone, which are ignored in current clinical tests for PI resistance, conferred PI resistance, providing an explanation for PI failure without resistance.

Switching tenofovir/emtricitabine plus lopinavir/r to raltegravir plus Darunavir/r in patients with suppressed viral load did not result in improvement of renal function but could sustain viral suppression: a randomized multicenter trial

Background

Whether tenofovir nephrotoxicity is reversible after its withdrawal is unknown. Furthermore, there are no data on the viral efficacy of raltegravir (RAL) plus ritonavir-boosted Darunavir (DRV/r) in patients with suppressed viral load.

Methods

This multicenter, randomized trial compared renal function and viral efficacy in patients with suppressed viral load treated with RAL+DRV/r and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TVD), who had been previously on LPV/r+TVD. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with >10% improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 48 weeks calculated with Cockcroft-Gault equation.

Results

58 randomized and treatment-exposed patients were analyzed (28 on RAL+DRV/r and 30 on LPV/r+TVD). Greater than 10% improvement in eGFR was noted in 6 (25%) out of 24 with RAL+DRV/r and 3 (11%) of 28 with LPV/r+TVD, and the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.272, 95% CI -0.067 to 0.354). Sensitivity analyses using three other equations for eGFR showed the same results. Urinary β2 microglobulin, a sensitive marker of tenofovir tubulopathy, significantly improved with RAL+DRV/r than with LPV/r+TVD (-271 versus -64 µg/gCr, p=0.026). Per protocol analysis showed that the HIV-RNA was <50 copies/mL at week 48 in all patients of both arms (24 in RAL+DRV and 29 in LPV/r+TVD).

Conclusions

Switching LPV/r+TVD to RAL+DRV/r did not significantly increase the proportion of patients who showed >10% improvement in renal function among those with relatively preserved eGFR. However, the switch improved urinary β2 microglobulin, suggesting that discontinuation of TDF might be beneficial in the long-term. RAL+DRV/r showed favorable viral efficacy in patients with suppressed viral load.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01294761 http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01294761?term=SPARE&rank=2, Umin Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000005116 http://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=brows&action=brows&type=summary&recptno=R000006083&language=J)

Variability of raltegravir plasma levels in the clinical setting

Therapeutic drug monitoring of raltegravir Ctrough levels was carried out in the setting of the Raltegravir Switch for Toxicity or Adverse events (RASTA) trial, a randomized pilot study exploring a 48-week safety and efficacy of treatment switch to raltegravir associated with tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine in patients with regimens with optimal virologic control. Blood sampling for measurement of raltegravir plasma levels was carried out at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36 and 48. Plasma samples were analysed by a recently developed and validated UPLC-MS method. A total of 164 samples from 39 patients were assayed. Analysis for intra- and inter-subject variability was restricted to those patients with 4 or more determinations, including 30 patients and 142 determinations. The intra- and inter-subject variability measures were 85.9 and 124.6%, respectively, with an intra-/inter-subject variability ratio of 69%. We also analysed data from a subset of patients with well-documented adherence to protocol, defined as protocol compliant population, including 21 patients and 93 determinations. In this subpopulation, we estimated intra- and inter-subject variability of 79.87% and 110%, respectively, with an intra-/inter-subject variability ratio of 72.6%. This study confirms the notion that raltegravir is a highly variable drug according to the European Medicines Agency criteria. While this condition does not favour the adoption of therapeutic drug monitoring in the clinical practice, the latter is deemed useful in patients with drug plasma concentrations below or near the threshold level of efficacy (since intracellular raltegravir levels might be as low as 5% of the corresponding plasma levels), or to identify drug-drug interactions of potential clinical relevance.

Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults with virological failure of a standard first-line ART regimen (SECOND-LINE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty exists about the best treatment for people with HIV-1 who have virological failure with first-line combination antiretroviral therapy of a non-nucleoside analogue (NNRTI) plus two nucleoside or nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTI). We compared a second-line regimen combining two new classes of drug with a WHO-recommended regimen.

METHODS

We did this 96-week, phase 3b/4, randomised, open-label non-inferiority trial at 37 sites worldwide. Adults with HIV-1 who had confirmed virological failure (plasma viral load >500 copies per mL) after 24 weeks or more of first-line treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NtRTIs (control group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with block randomisation (block size four). Neither participants nor investigators were masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma viral load less than 200 copies per mL at 48 weeks in the modified intention-to-treat population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00931463.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 558 patients, of whom 541 (271 in the control group, 270 in the raltegravir group) were included in the primary analysis. At 48 weeks, 219 (81%) patients in the control group compared with 223 (83%) in the raltegravir group met the primary endpoint (difference 1·8%, 95% CI -4·7 to 8·3), fulfilling the criterion for non-inferiority. 993 adverse events occurred in 271 participants in the control group versus 895 in 270 participants in the raltegravir group, the most common being gastrointestinal.

INTERPRETATION

The raltegravir regimen was no less efficacious than the standard of care and was safe and well tolerated. This simple NtRTI-free treatment strategy might extend the successful public health approach to management of HIV by providing simple, easy to administer, effective, safe, and tolerable second-line combination antiretroviral therapy.

FUNDING

University of New South Wales, Merck, AbbVie, the Foundation for AIDS Research.

Associations of T cell activation and inflammatory biomarkers with virological response to darunavir/ritonavir plus raltegravir therapy

OBJECTIVES

One of the goals of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is to attenuate HIV-induced systemic immune activation and inflammation. We determined the dynamics of biomarkers of immune activation, microbial translocation and inflammation during initial ART with a nucleos(t)ide-sparing regimen of darunavir/ritonavir plus raltegravir. We also evaluated associations between these biomarkers and the virological response to the regimen.

METHODS

We determined baseline and week 24 and 48 levels of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell activation (% HLA-DR+/CD38+), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interferon-γ-inducible protein-10 (IP-10), soluble CD14 (sCD14), D-dimer and lipopolysaccharide. Associations between the biomarkers at baseline were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. The Wilcoxon signed rank test analysed changes from baseline. Comparisons between groups were made using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Cox proportional hazards models assessed predictors of virological failure (VF).

RESULTS

Assays were completed on 107 of 112 subjects after excluding five subjects who had only baseline samples. The subjects included were 94 (88%) men with a median age of 37 years, a median baseline CD4 count of 261.5 cells/mm(3) and a median baseline viral load (VL) of 75 876 copies/mL. Subjects with a baseline VL >100 000 copies/mL had higher baseline T cell activation, IL-6, IP-10, sCD14 and D-dimer. These biomarkers declined during treatment (P < 0.05). Although subjects who experienced VF had higher baseline CD4+ T cell activation (P = 0.035), only baseline VL independently predicted VF (hazard ratio for >100 000 versus ≤100 000 copies/mL was 4.5-5.6, P ≤ 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Darunavir/ritonavir plus raltegravir attenuated immune activation, inflammation and microbial translocation. T cell activation remained higher in subjects with VF than those without. Baseline VL >100 000 copies/mL remained the primary driver of VF.

Emerging patterns and implications of HIV-1 integrase inhibitor resistance

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review highlights recent data on the pathways of resistance that impact the clinical activity of first-generation and second-generation integrase inhibitors.

RECENT FINDINGS

Raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG) are highly efficacious in first-line antiretroviral therapy, with small numbers of virological failures observed in clinical trials. Durable activity in treatment-experienced patients requires a fully supportive background regimen. RAL and EVG show a low-to-moderate genetic barrier to resistance and extensive cross-resistance, which preclude their sequential use. Resistance to dolutegravir (DTG) is not selected as readily in vitro and has not emerged in studies of treatment-naïve patients to date. Both in vitro and in vivo, DTG retains activity against several RAL and EVG resistant strains, but susceptibility is variably impaired by multiple mutations within the G148 pathway, which are common after RAL or EVG failure. Cross-resistance can be partially overcome by doubling DTG dosing to twice daily, but durability of responses remains dependent on a supportive background regimen. There is variability in the integrase gene of circulating HIV strains, which does not appear to reduce drug activity, although it may influence the emergence and evolution of integrase resistance. Transmission of integrase resistance remains rare but surveillance is required.

SUMMARY

Integrase inhibitors provide a potent option for the treatment of HIV infection. Drug resistance remains a challenge, which may be partially overcome by the introduction of second-generation compounds. Prompt management of RAL and EVG failure is required to prevent the accumulation of multiple resistance mutations that reduce DTG susceptibility.

The design of single-arm clinical trials of combination antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive HIV-infected patients

Single-arm clinical trials are useful to evaluate antiretroviral regimens in certain populations of HIV-infected treatment-naive patients for whom a randomized controlled trial is not feasible or desirable. They can also be useful to establish initial estimates of efficacy and safety/tolerability of novel regimens to inform the design of large phase III trials. In this article, we discuss key design considerations for such single-arm studies.

Rilpivirine vs. efavirenz in HIV-1 patients with baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less: week 48 phase III analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare efficacy, resistance development, and safety between rilpivirine and efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults with baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less in the pooled 48-week dataset of the ECHO (Efficacy Comparison in treatment-naive HIV-infected subjects Of TMC278 and EFV) and THRIVE (TMC278 against HIV, in a once-daily RegImen Vs. Efavirenz) trials.

DESIGN

Phase III, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trials.

METHODS

Patients received rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d. with two nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs]. This analysis considers the subpopulation of 368 rilpivirine and 330 efavirenz patients with baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less.

RESULTS

Significantly higher 48-week response rates (viral load <50 copies/ml, intent-to-treat-time-to-loss-of-virological response) were observed with rilpivirine vs. efavirenz [90 vs. 84%, respectively; difference 6.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6-11.5%)]. The proportion of patients experiencing virological failure (VF(res)) was 5% in each treatment group. A comparable proportion of VF(res) patients in each group developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) [rilpivirine: 6/16 (38%) vs. efavirenz: 5/12 (42%)]. A numerically higher proportion of rilpivirine VF(res) patients developed N(t)RTI RAMs [7/16 (44%)] vs. efavirenz [2/12 (17%)]; P = 0.2232. A significantly lower incidence for rilpivirine vs. efavirenz was observed for the following events: treatment-related grade 2-4 overall adverse events (17 vs. 30%; P <0.0001), rash (any type; 2 vs. 12%; P <0.0001), and neurological adverse events (19 vs. 40%; P <0.0001), including dizziness (10 vs. 29%; P <0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups in the total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio.

CONCLUSION

In treatment-naive patients with baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less, rilpivirine along with two N(t)RTIs achieved a high response, with a comparable frequency of VF(res) and more favorable tolerability than efavirenz.

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

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to evaluate a once-daily dual-therapy regimen, maraviroc (MVC) + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), in treatment-naive patients.

DESIGN

A phase 2b, randomized, open-label pilot study.

METHODS

In Study A4001078 (NCT00827112), treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/mL; CD4 cell count ≥100 cells/mm) were randomized to receive either MVC 150 mg once daily (n = 60) or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) 300/200 mg once daily (n = 61) + ATV/r 300/100 mg once daily. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 48.

RESULTS

At week 48, 44 (74.6%) and 51 (83.6%) patients in the MVC and TDF/FTC treatment groups, respectively, had plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter. Median change from baseline in CD4 cell count at week 48 was +173 and +187 cells per cubic millimeter with MVC and TDF/FTC, respectively. Seven patients discontinued from each arm; there were no deaths. The incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was similar in each group; however, there were more grade 3/4 AEs in the MVC group (18 vs 11), mostly due to hyperbilirubinemia. Three patients in each arm were evaluable for virological analysis at discontinuation or failure (HIV-1 RNA >500 copies/mL); no genotypic resistance, change in tropism, or loss of susceptibility relevant to treatment was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The virological activity and immunological benefit of once-daily MVC + ATV/r were confirmed. Indirect hyperbilirubinemia and associated signs were the most commonly reported AEs in both study treatment groups and were not associated with significant transaminase increases. No drug resistance occurred.

The potential cost and benefits of raltegravir in simplified second-line therapy among HIV infected patients in Nigeria and South Africa

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to improve the evidence base for provision of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) following first-line virological failure. This is particularly the case in Sub-Saharan Africa where 70% of all people living with HIV/AIDS (PHA) reside. The aim of this study was to simulate the potential risks and benefits of treatment simplification in second-line therapy compared to the current standard of care (SOC) in a lower-middle income and an upper-middle income country in Sub-Saharan Africa.

METHODS

We developed a microsimulation model to compare outcomes associated with reducing treatment discontinuations between current SOC for second-line therapy in South Africa and Nigeria and an alternative regimen: ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) combined with raltegravir (RAL). We used published studies and collaborating sites to estimate efficacy, adverse effect and cost. Model outcomes were reported as incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in 2011 USD per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Reducing treatment discontinuations with LPV/r+RAL resulted in an additional 0.4 discounted QALYs and increased the undiscounted life expectancy by 0.8 years per person compared to the current SOC. The average incremental cost was $6,525 per treated patient in Nigeria and $4,409 per treated patient in South Africa. The cost-effectiveness ratios were $16,302/QALY gained and $11,085/QALY gained for Nigeria and South Africa, respectively. Our results were sensitive to the probability of ART discontinuation and the unit cost for RAL.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir was projected to be cost-effective in South Africa. However, at its current price, it is unlikely to be cost-effective in Nigeria.

Molecular basis of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance: overview and recent developments

The introduction of potent combination therapies in the mid-90s had a tremendous effect on AIDS mortality. However, drug resistance has been a major factor contributing to antiretroviral therapy failure. Currently, there are 26 drugs approved for treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, although some of them are no longer prescribed. Most of the available antiretroviral drugs target HIV genome replication (i.e. reverse transcriptase inhibitors) and viral maturation (i.e. viral protease inhibitors). Other drugs in clinical use include a viral coreceptor antagonist (maraviroc), a fusion inhibitor (enfuvirtide) and two viral integrase inhibitors (raltegravir and elvitegravir). Elvitegravir and the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor rilpivirine have been the most recent additions to the antiretroviral drug armamentarium. An overview of the molecular mechanisms involved in antiretroviral drug resistance and the role of drug resistance-associated mutations was previously presented (Menéndez-Arias, L., 2010. Molecular basis of human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance: an update. Antiviral Res. 85, 210-231). This article provides now an updated review that covers currently approved drugs, new experimental agents (e.g. neutralizing antibodies) and selected drugs in preclinical or early clinical development (e.g. experimental integrase inhibitors). Special attention is dedicated to recent research on resistance to reverse transcriptase and integrase inhibitors. In addition, recently discovered interactions between HIV and host proteins and novel strategies to block HIV assembly or viral entry emerge as promising alternatives for the development of effective antiretroviral treatments.

Lopinavir/ritonavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive subjects: 96-week results of the PROGRESS study

Alternative combinations of antiretrovirals (ARVs) are desired to increase treatment options for HIV-infected patients. PROGRESS was a randomized, open-label, 96-week pilot study comparing a regimen of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400/100 mg twice daily in combination with either raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg twice daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) 300/200 mg once daily in ARV-naive adults. A total of 206 subjects were randomized and treated (LPV/r+RAL, N=101; LPV/r+TDF/FTC, N=105). Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. At 96 weeks, 66.3% of subjects receiving LPV/r+RAL and 68.6% of subjects receiving LPV/r+TDF/FTC were responders (plasma HIV-1 RNA levels<40 copies/ml) by the FDA time to loss of virologic response (FDA-TLOVR) algorithm (p=0.767). Mean CD4(+) T cell increases through 96 weeks were similar between treatment groups (LPV/r+RAL=281 cells/mm(3), LPV/r+TDF/FTC=296 cells/mm(3), p=0.598). Safety and tolerability were generally similar between groups. The LPV/r+RAL regimen resulted in greater increases in peripheral fat, but not trunk fat, compared with LPV/r+TDF/FTC. There was a statistically significantly greater mean reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to week 96 in the LPV/r+TDF/FTC group compared with the LPV/r+RAL group (-7.33 ml/min vs. -1.43 ml/min; p=0.035). The LPV/r+TDF/FTC group had a statistically significant (p<0.001) mean percent decrease from baseline to week 96 in bone mineral density, which was significantly different from the mean percent change in the LPV/r+RAL group (-2.48% vs. +0.68%, p<0.001). These efficacy and safety observations support further evaluation of the LPV/r+RAL regimen.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of 150 mg of maraviroc dosed with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir all once daily, with and without nucleoside analogues, in HIV-infected subjects

BACKGROUND

Once-daily nucleoside-sparing combination antiretroviral therapy regimens are attractive options for the treatment of HIV infection. However, the pharmacokinetic profiles of such regimens are often not established.

METHODS

HIV-infected subjects receiving 245/200 mg of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily with plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL were eligible. On day 1 (period 1), 150 mg of maraviroc daily was added and on day 11 (period 2), tenofovir/emtricitabine discontinued. At steady-state (days 10 and 20), intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was undertaken. We assessed (i) the number of subjects with trough (C(trough)) and average (C(avg)) maraviroc concentrations <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively; (ii) geometric mean (GM) ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters for period 2 versus period 1; and (iii) factors associated with total maraviroc exposure.

RESULTS

Eleven subjects completed the study procedures (mean age 49 years; range 35-59 years). In three subjects, maraviroc C(trough) and C(avg) were <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively (C(avg), 68 ng/mL and C(trough), 14 and 21 ng/mL). Although not statistically significant, a trend was observed towards lower maraviroc, darunavir and ritonavir concentrations in period 2 versus period 1; total maraviroc exposure was 3579 ng· h/mL (95% CI: 2983-4294) and 2996 ng· h/mL (95% CI: 2374-3782) in periods 1 and 2, respectively, and the GM ratio was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-1.05). Only total ritonavir exposure was significantly associated with total maraviroc exposure (P=0.049; 95% CI: 0.01-0.91). No clinical safety concerns were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this novel nucleoside-sparing regimen, maraviroc exposure is dependent on ritonavir exposure, which was slightly reduced in the absence of tenofovir/emtricitabine.

HIV Drug Resistance and the Advent of Integrase Inhibitors

This review focuses on the topic of HIV integrase inhibitors that are potent antiretroviral drugs that efficiently decrease viral load in patients. However, emergence of resistance mutations against this new class of drugs represents a threat to their long-term efficacy. Here, we provide new information about the most recent mutations identified and other mutations that confer resistance to several integrase inhibitors, such as new resistance mutations-for example, G118R, R263K, and S153Y-that have been identified through in vitro selection studies with second-generation integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). These add to the three main resistance pathways involving mutations at positions Y143, N155, and Q148. Deep sequencing, structural modeling, and biochemical analyses are methods that currently help in the understanding of the mechanisms of resistance conferred by these mutations. Although the new resistance mutations appear to confer only low levels of cross-resistance to second-generation drugs, the Q148 pathway with numerous secondary mutations has the potential to significantly decrease susceptibility to all drugs of the INSTI family of compounds.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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