Novel clinical trial designs for the development of new antiretroviral agents

Inflammatory Biomarker Reduction With Fostemsavir Over 96 Weeks in Heavily Treatment-Experienced Adults With Multidrug-Resistant HIV-1 in the BRIGHTE Study

Background

Fostemsavir, a first-in-class attachment inhibitor that binds to the viral envelope protein gp120, is approved for heavily treatment-experienced persons with HIV-1 with limited treatment options. We explored changes in immunologic and coagulopathy parameters in the BRIGHTE study: a phase 3 trial that evaluated fostemsavir plus optimized background therapy in heavily treatment-experienced adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1.

Methods

CD4+ T-cell count, CD4+/CD8+ ratio, soluble CD14, soluble CD163, and D-dimer levels were measured through 96 weeks in participants with 1 or 2 fully active antiretroviral agents available at screening. No formal statistical analyses were performed.

Results

Among 272 participants, increases were observed from baseline to week 96 in CD4+ T-cell count (mean increase, +205 cells/mm3) and CD4+/CD8+ ratio (mean increase, +0.24). The proportion of observed participants with a CD4+/CD8+ ratio ≥0.45 increased from 9% (25/272) at baseline to 40% (85/213) at week 96. From baseline to week 96, we also observed trends toward decreases in the following (mean [SD] change): soluble CD14, -738.2 (981.8) µg/L; soluble CD163, -138.0 (193.4) µg/L; and D-dimer, -0.099 (0.521) mg/L fibrinogen-equivalent units. Decreases in biomarkers were generally observed among subgroups by baseline disease characteristics, virologic response, and CD4+ T-cell count.

Conclusions

These data suggest that heavily treatment-experienced persons with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 treated with fostemsavir + optimized background therapy may have improvements in immune parameters, including markers of monocyte activation and coagulopathy.

Clinical Trials Registration

NCT02362503 (ClinicalTrials.gov; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02362503).

Cefepime vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Adults Hospitalized With Acute Infection: The ACORN Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hospitalized adults for empirical treatment of infection. Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dysfunction, their comparative safety has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial.

Objective

To determine whether the choice between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam affects the risks of acute kidney injury or neurological dysfunction.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a clinician initiated an order for antipseudomonal antibiotics within 12 hours of presentation to the hospital in the emergency department or medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center in the US between November 10, 2021, and October 7, 2022. The final date of follow-up was November 4, 2022.

Interventions

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death by day 14, measured on a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from no acute kidney injury to death. The 2 secondary outcomes were the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 and the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days.

Results

There were 2511 patients included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years [IQR, 43-69 years]; 42.7% were female; 16.3% were Non-Hispanic Black; 5.4% were Hispanic; 94.7% were enrolled in the emergency department; and 77.2% were receiving vancomycin at enrollment). The highest stage of acute kidney injury or death was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; there were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (7.6%) who died vs 97 patients (n = 1297; 7.5%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 78 (6.0%) who died (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13], P = .56). The incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 did not differ between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.8%]). Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [4.6] days vs 12.2 [4.3] days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95]).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among hospitalized adults in this randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence of acute kidney injury or death. Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094154.

A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing antiretroviral therapy for treatment-experienced HIV adult patients using an optimized background therapy approach: is there evidence enough for a standardized third-line strategy?

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for evidence on third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for adults living with HIV/AIDS, given that some controversy remains as to the best combinations of ART for experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to (i) assess the efficacy of third-line therapy for adults with HIV/AIDS based on randomized controlled trials (RCT) that adopted the "new antiretroviral (ARV) + optimized background therapy (OBT)" approach and (ii) address the key issues identified in WHO's guidelines on the use of third-line therapy.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, ISI Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs assessing third-line ARV therapy that used an OBT approach between 1966 and 2015. Data was extracted using an Excel-structured datasheet based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) recommendations. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was the proportion of patients reaching undetectable HIV RNA levels (< 50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks of follow-up. Included studies were evaluated using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool. Summarized evidence was rated according to the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials assessing 9 new ARV + OBT combinations defined as third-line HIV therapy provided the efficacy data: 7 phase IIb trials and 11 phase III trials. Four of the 18 trials provided extension data, thus resulting in 14 trials providing 48-week efficacy data. In the meta-analysis, considering the outcome regarding the proportion of patients with a viral load below 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks, 9 out of 14 trials demonstrated the superiority of the new combination being studied (risk difference = 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.23). The same analysis stratified by the number of fully active ARVs demonstrated a risk difference of 0.29 (95% CI 0.12-0.46), 0.28 (95% CI 0.17-0.38) and 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.24) respectively from zero, one, and two or more active drugs strata. Nine of the 18 trials were considered to have a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy results demonstrated that the groups of HIV-experienced patients receiving the new ARV + OBT were more likely to achieve viral suppression when compared to the control groups. However, most of these trials may be at a high risk of bias. Thus, there is still not enough evidence to stipulate which combinations are the most effective for therapeutic regimens that are to be used sequentially due to documented multi-resistance.

Fostemsavir in Adults with Multidrug-Resistant HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND

Among some patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection who have undergone multiple antiretroviral therapies and have limited options for treatment, new classes of antiretroviral drugs with novel mechanisms of action are needed. Fostemsavir is the prodrug of temsavir, a first-in-class investigational HIV-1 attachment inhibitor.

METHODS

In this ongoing phase 3 trial in 23 countries, we enrolled patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection in two cohorts, according to their remaining treatment options. In the first cohort, we assigned (in a 3:1 ratio) patients who had the option of using at least one fully active, approved antiretroviral drug in at least one but no more than two antiretroviral classes to add either fostemsavir (at a dose of 600 mg twice daily) or placebo to their failing regimen for 8 days, followed by open-label fostemsavir plus optimized background therapy (randomized cohort). In the second cohort, patients who had no remaining antiretroviral options were started on open-label fostemsavir plus optimized background therapy on day 1 (nonrandomized cohort). The primary end point was the mean change in the HIV-1 RNA level from day 1 through day 8 in the randomized cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients were treated, including 272 in the randomized cohort and 99 in the nonrandomized cohort. At day 8, the mean decrease in the HIV-1 RNA level was 0.79 log₁₀ copies per milliliter in the fostemsavir group and 0.17 log₁₀ copies in the placebo group (P<0.001). At week 48, a virologic response (HIV-1 RNA level, <40 copies per milliliter) had occurred in 54% of the patients in the randomized cohort and in 38% of those in the nonrandomized cohort; the mean increase in the CD4+ T-cell count was 139 cells per cubic millimeter and 64 cells per cubic millimeter, respectively. Adverse events led to the discontinuation of fostemsavir in 7% of the patients. In the randomized cohort, glycoprotein 120 (gp120) substitutions were found in 20 of 47 patients (43%) with virologic failure.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection with limited therapy options, those who received fostemsavir had a significantly greater decrease in the HIV-1 RNA level than those who received placebo during the first 8 days. Efficacy was sustained through 48 weeks. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and GSK/ViiV Healthcare; BRIGHTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02362503.).

Opportunities for therapeutic antibodies directed at G-protein-coupled receptors

G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are activated by a diverse range of ligands, from large proteins and proteases to small peptides, metabolites, neurotransmitters and ions. They are expressed on all cells in the body and have key roles in physiology and homeostasis. As such, GPCRs are one of the most important target classes for therapeutic drug discovery. The development of drugs targeting GPCRs has therapeutic value across a wide range of diseases, including cancer, immune and inflammatory disorders as well as neurological and metabolic diseases. The progress made by targeting GPCRs with antibody-based therapeutics, as well as technical hurdles to overcome, are presented and discussed in this Review. Antibody therapeutics targeting C-C chemokine receptor type 4 (CCR4), CCR5 and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) are used as illustrative clinical case studies.

Outcomes and endpoints in cancer trials: bridging the divide

Cancer is not one disease. Outcomes and endpoints in trials should incorporate the therapeutic modality and cancer type because these factors affect clinician and patient expectations. In this Review, we discuss how to: define the importance of endpoints; make endpoints understandable to patients; improve the use of patient-reported outcomes; advance endpoints to parallel changes in trial design and therapeutic interventions; and integrate these improvements into trials and practice. Endpoints need to reflect benefit to patients, and show that changes in tumour size either in absolute terms (response and progression) or relative to control (progression) are clinically relevant. Improvements in trial design should be accompanied by improvements in available endpoints. Stakeholders need to come together to determine the best approach for research that ensures accountability and optimises the use of available resources.

Some current issues in the design of HIV noninferiority trials

Since the introduction of protease inhibitors and their combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in tri-therapy, there has been a continuous improvement in the efficacy of antiretroviral treatments. Such combinations have been rendered even more effective by the introduction of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and, more recently, integrase inhibitors. This progress has led to a move away from superiority designs towards noninferiority designs for randomized clinical trials for HIV. Noninferiority trials aim to demonstrate that a new regimen is no worse than the current standard. The methodological issues associated with such designs have been discussed, but recent HIV trials provide us with an opportunity to consider the choice of hypotheses. Recent HIV trials have been overpowered, due to the assumption of lower success rates than observed and the enrollment of a large number of patients. The use of stratified statistical methods for primary endpoint analysis, with sample size calculated by classical methods (without stratification), also increases the statistical power. Some HIV trials have a statistical power close to 99%. Surprisingly, the results of some previous studies or phase II trials are not taken into account when designing the corresponding phase III trials. We discuss alternative hypotheses and designs.

Personalized HIV therapy to control drug resistance

The therapy of HIV patients is characterized by both the high genomic diversity of the virus population harbored by the patient and a substantial volume of therapy options. The virus population is unique for each patient and time point. The large number of therapy options makes it difficult to select an optimal or near optimal therapy, especially with therapy-experienced patients. In the past decade, computer-based support for therapy selection, which assesses the level of viral resistance against drugs has become a mainstay for HIV patients. We discuss the properties of available systems and the perspectives of the field.

The future of HIV treatment

Antiretroviral therapy has transformed the management of HIV-infected individuals over the past quarter century. However, important challenges remain. These include attempts to eradicate HIV from reservoirs within the body, thereby eliminating the need for lifetime therapy. In addition, improvements in drug development, clinical trial, and regulatory pathways are necessary to expeditiously evaluate novel therapeutic regimens and strategies. Antiretroviral drug scarcity remains a major problem in underserved populations worldwide, and partnerships among pharmaceutical companies, academic investigators, and both governmental and nongovernmental agencies are necessary to improve access to these life-saving regimens.

Optimizing background therapy in treatment-experienced HIV-1 patients by rules-based algorithms and bioinformatics

In HIV-1-infected patients with extensive drug resistance, the optimization of background antiretroviral therapy is essential when changing drugs after treatment failure. The genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) and phenotypic sensitivity score (PSS), determined by rules-based algorithms, are employed to predict which drugs to select in a background therapy in order to receive the best treatment response when a new drug will be used, both in investigational trials of new agents and in clinical care. However, the outcome of the GSS/PSS approach for the purpose of assessing antiretroviral efficacy in patients with multiresistance has become more problematic, despite improvements such as drug potency weighting and adding information on treatment history. Bioinformatics-based methods are more recent attractive alternatives that have demonstrated equal or better precision compared with rules-based algorithms. This review aims to discuss the usefulness of GSS/PSS and bioinformatics, respectively, for the optimization of anti-HIV background therapy in heavily treatment-experienced patients.