High-dose saquinavir plus ritonavir: long-term efficacy in HIV-positive protease inhibitor-experienced patients and predictors of virologic response

Performance of Six Different Ritonavir-Boosted Protease Inhibitor–Based Regimens in Heavily Antiretroviral-Experienced HIV-Infected Patients

BACKGROUND

Regimens based on ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) are often used as rescue interventions. It is unclear whether significant differences exist between distinct PI/r.

METHOD

All HIV+ patients who had experienced PI failure at two HIV clinics and were rescued with a regimen based on saquinavir (SQV)/r 1000/100 mg bid, indinavir (IDV)/r 800/100 mg bid, lopinavir (LPV)/r 400/100 mg bid, amprenavir (APV)/r 600/100 mg bid, atazanavir (ATV)/r 300/100 mg qd, or tipranavir (TPV)/r 500/200 mg bid were retrospectively examined. A significant virological response (VR) was defined as >1 log reduction in plasma HIV-RNA or to <50 copies/mL at week 24.

RESULTS

A total of 389 patients were included in the analysis: 139 on SQV/r, 35 on IDV/r, 129 on LPV/r, 35 on APV/r, 29 on ATV/r, and 22 on TPV/r. No significant differences in HIV-RNA and CD4 counts at baseline were recognized between groups. In a multivariate analysis, only the total number of protease resistance mutations was associated with a lower VR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.87, p < .001). The presence of <5 or > or =5 protease resistance mutations at baseline was the best threshold to discriminate the achievement of VR in any treatment group. In an intent-to-treat analysis, for individuals with 5 protease resistance mutations, the rates of VR were 64% with TPV/r, 47% with LPV/r, 46% with SQV/r, 33% with ATV/r, 25% with IDV/r, and 16% with APV/r. Adverse events leading to treatment withdrawal occurred more frequently using IDV/r (22.8%) than others (p = .03).

CONCLUSION

The rate of VR in salvage therapy using PI/r-based regimens is relatively high in PI-experienced patients. The efficacy is greatly influenced by the number of baseline protease resistance mutations; 5 mutations is the best threshold to predict the chances of VR to any PI/r-based regimen.

The cost-effectiveness of counseling strategies to improve adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy among men who have sex with men

OBJECTIVE

Inadequate adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) may lead to poor health outcomes and the development of HIV strains that are resistant to HAART. The authors developed a model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of counseling interventions to improve adherence to HAART among men who have sex with men (MSM).

METHODS

The authors developed a dynamic compartmental model that incorporates HIV treatment, adherence to treatment, and infection transmission and progression. All data estimates were obtained from secondary sources. The authors evaluated a counseling intervention given prior to initiation of HAART and before all changes in drug regimens, combined with phone-in support while on HAART. They considered a moderate-prevalence and a high-prevalence population of MSM.

RESULTS

If the impact of HIV transmission is ignored, the counseling intervention has a cost-effectiveness ratio of $25,500 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When HIV transmission is included, the cost-effectiveness ratio is much lower: $7400 and $8700 per QALY gained in the moderate- and high-prevalence populations, respectively. When the intervention is twice as costly per counseling session and half as effective as estimated in the base case (in terms of the number of individuals who become highly adherent, and who remain highly adherent), then the intervention costs $17,100 and $19,600 per QALY gained in the 2 populations, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Counseling to improve adherence to HAART increased length of life, modestly reduced HIV transmission, and cost substantially less than $50,000 per QALY gained over a wide range of assumptions but did not reduce the proportion of drug-resistant strains. Such counseling provides only modest benefit as a tool for HIV prevention but can provide significant benefit for individual patients at an affordable cost.

Selection of high-level resistance to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitors

Protease inhibitors represent some of the most potent agents available for therapeutic strategies designed to inhibit human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) replication. Under certain circumstances the virus develops resistance to the inhibitor, thereby negating the benefits of this therapy. We have carried out selections for high-level resistance to each of three protease inhibitors (indinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir) in cell culture. Mutations accumulated over most of the course of the increasing selective pressure. There was significant overlap in the identity of the mutations selected with the different inhibitors, and this gave rise to high levels of cross-resistance. Virus particles from the resistant variants all showed defects in processing at the NC/p1 protease cleavage site in Gag. Selections with pairs of inhibitors yielded similar patterns of resistance mutations. A virus that could replicate at near-toxic levels of the three protease inhibitors combined was selected. The pro sequence of this virus was similar to that of the viruses that had been selected for high-level resistance to each of the drugs singly. Finally, a molecular clone carrying the eight most common resistance mutations seen in these selections was characterized. The sequence of this virus was relatively stable during selection for revertants in spite of displaying poor processing at the NC/p1 site and having significantly reduced fitness. These results reveal patterns of drug resistance that extend to near the limits of attainable selective pressure with these inhibitors and confirm the patterns of cross-resistance for these three inhibitors and the attenuation of virion protein processing and fitness that accompanies high-level resistance.

[Recommendations of the Spanish AIDS Study Group (GESIDA) and the National Aids Plan (PNS) for antiretroviral treatment in adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection in 2002]

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update of recommendation on antiretroviral treatment (ART) in HIV-infected adults.Methods. These recommendations have been agreed by consensus by a committee of the spanish AIDS Study Group (GESIDA) and the National AIDS Plan. To do so, advances in the physiopathology of AIDS and the results on efficacy and safety in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetics studies published in biomedical journals or presented at congresses in the last few years have been reviewed. Three levels of evidence have been defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), case-control or cohort studies (level B) and expert opinion (level C). Whether to recommend, consider, or not to recommend ART has been established for each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, ART with combinations of at least three drugs constitutes the treatment of choice in chronic HIV infection. In patients with symptomatic HIV infection, initiation of ART is recommended. In asymptomatic patients initiation of ART should be based on the CD41/mL lymphocyte count and on the plasma viral load (PVL): a) in patients with CD41 lymphocytes < 200 cells/mL, initiation of ART is recommended; b) in patients with CD41 lymphocytes between 200 and 300 cells/mL, initiation of ART should, in most cases, be recommended; however, it could be delayed when the CD41 lymphocyte count remains close to 350 cells/mL and the PVL is low, and c) in patients with CD41 lymphocytes > 350 cells/mL, initiation of ART can be delayed. The aim of ART is to achieve an undetectable PVL. Adherence to ART plays a role in the durability of the antiviral response. Because of the development of cross-resistance, the therapeutic options in treatment failure are limited. In these cases, genotypic analysis is useful. Toxicity limits ART. The criteria for ART in acute infection, pregnancy and postexposure prophylaxis and in the management of coinfection with HIV and hepatitis C and B virus are controversial.

CONCLUSIONS

The current approach to initiating ART is more conservative than in previous recommendations. In asymptomatic patients, the CD41 lymphocyte count is the most important reference factor for initiating ART. Because of the considerable number of drugs available, more sensitive monitoring methods (PVL) and the possibility of determining resistance, therapeutic strategies have become much more individualized.

Randomized salvage therapy with saquinavir-ritonavir versus saquinavir-nelfinavir for highly protease inhibitor-experienced HIV-infected patients

PURPOSE

To compare saquinavir + ritonavir and saquinavir + nelfinavir with nucleoside recycling in patients with multiple failures of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).

METHOD

This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized open trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: consent, age > 18, previous protease inhibitor (PI) exposure > 6 months, unchanged HAART > 3 months, and viral load > 3 log. The treatments compared were ritonavir 200 mg bid + saquinavir 600 mg bid (Rito-Saq), and nelfinavir 1,000 mg bid + saquinavir 600 mg bid (Nelf-Saq). Nucleoside analogues were recycled, and nonnucleoside inhibitors were not permitted. Trough levels of the three drugs were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography at the month 3 visit. After the study had been completed, genotyping analysis was done on the first serum at entry.

RESULTS

The study was interrupted due to the availability of new anti-HIV drugs. A random sample of 31 (16 Rito-Saq and 15 Nelf-Saq) patients was divided into two groups, which were comparable in terms of demographic data and previous history of HIV infection. Mean CD4 cell count and plasma viral load (pVL) were 316 +/- 169 and 3.89 +/- 0.87 for Rito-Saq and 448 +/- 238 and 3.85 +/- 0.32 for Nelf-Saq. Previous duration of PI exposure was 31 months for both groups. The mean number of protease gene mutations was 3.8 (range, 2-7) and 4.4 (range, 2-9), respectively. On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis at month 6, pVL stabilization or decrease >/= 0.5 log was observed in 18 patients (58%): 10 for Rito-Saq and 8 for Nelf-Saq. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, virological success at month 3 was inversely correlated to baseline viral load (R = 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-2.9; p =.01); and at month 6, virological success was inversely associated to the number of mutations in the protease gene (R = 2.2; 95% CI 0.73-6.53; p =.06).

CONCLUSION

Nelf-Saq and Rito-Saq combinations can be proposed in case of multiple HAART failures. The fact that the virological response was inversely correlated to baseline viral load makes the case for an early switch after a HAART failure.

Combination therapy with indinavir, ritonavir, and delavirdine and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in patients with HIV/AIDS who have failed multiple antiretroviral combinations

PURPOSE

Ritonavir (RTV) and delavirdine (DLV) are inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, the specific CYP that metabolizes indinavir (IDV). We hypothesized that patients who have failed multiple therapies containing protease inhibitors would still respond to IDV if high plasma concentrations were achieved. We retrospectively examined the antiviral efficacy of the combination of RTV, DLV, and IDV in heavily antiretroviral-experienced patients.

METHOD

A chart review of patients treated with IDV/RTV/DLV and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) drugs was performed. Only patients who failed at least three highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens and remained on IDV/RTV/DLV therapy for at least 2 months were included. Plasma concentrations for IDV and RTV were obtained if patients were still on therapy.

RESULTS

Ten participants were identified who qualified for this study. The median plasma HIV RNA prior to initiating IDV/RTV/DLV was 359,300 copies/mL. Nine of the 10 patients had failed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens in the past. Eight out of 10 patients had at reduction in HIV RNA. Four of eight patients maintained the 1 log(10) reduction in HIV RNA past 6 months. Mean CD4 cell count increased from 142+/-99 to 273+/-126 cells/mm(3). Genotypic data available on six patients showed multiple protease gene mutations. Plasma concentration of IDV in three patients (two troughs and one 7 hours postdose) were >1,000 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggests that in heavily antiretroviral drug-treated patients, partial antiretroviral response to RTV/IDV/DLV can still be achieved. The use of IDV/RTV/DLV and two NRTIs as salvage therapy has merit in patients who have no viable treatment options. A prospective trial utilizing this drug combination is warranted.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of once-daily regimens of soft-gel capsule saquinavir plus minidose ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus-negative adults

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitors have dramatically improved treatment options for HIV infection, but frequent dosing may impact adherence to highly active antiretroviral treatment regimens (HAART). Previous studies demonstrated that combined therapy with ritonavir and saquinavir allows a decrease in frequency of saquinavir dosing to twice daily. In this study, we evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of combining once-daily doses of the soft-gel capsule (SGC) formulation of saquinavir (saquinavir-SGC) and minidose ritonavir. Forty-four healthy HIV-negative volunteers were randomized into groups receiving once-daily doses of saquinavir-SGC (1,200 to 1,800 mg) plus ritonavir (100 to 200 mg) or a control group receiving only saquinavir-SGC (1,200 mg) three times daily. Saquinavir-SGC alone and saquinavir-SGC-ritonavir combinations were generally well tolerated, and there were no safety concerns. Addition of ritonavir (100 mg) to saquinavir-SGC (1,200 to 1,800 mg/day) increased the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for saquinavir severalfold, and the intersubject peak concentration in plasma and AUC variability were reduced compared to those achieved with saquinavir-SGC alone (3,600 mg/day), while trough saquinavir levels (24 h post-dose) were substantially higher than the 90% inhibitory concentration calculated from HIV-1 clinical isolates. Neither increasing the saquinavir-SGC dose to higher than 1,600 mg nor increasing ritonavir from 100 to 200 mg appeared to further enhance the AUC. These results suggest that an all once-daily HAART regimen, utilizing saquinavir-SGC plus a more tolerable low dose of ritonavir, may be feasible. Studies of once-daily saquinavir-SGC (1,600 mg) in combination with ritonavir (100 mg) in HIV-infected patients are underway.