A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in similar safety and tolerability in antiretroviral-naive subjects through 48 weeks

Post-exposure prophylaxis against SARS-CoV-2 in close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases (CORIPREV): study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial

Background

Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a well-established strategy for the prevention of infectious diseases, in which recently exposed people take a short course of medication to prevent infection. The primary objective of the COVID-19 Ring-based Prevention Trial with lopinavir/ritonavir (CORIPREV-LR) is to evaluate the efficacy of a 14-day course of oral lopinavir/ritonavir as PEP against COVID-19 among individuals with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed case.

Methods

This is an open-label, multicenter, 1:1 cluster-randomized trial of LPV/r 800/200 mg twice daily for 14 days (intervention arm) versus no intervention (control arm), using an adaptive approach to sample size calculation. Participants will be individuals aged > 6 months with a high-risk exposure to a confirmed COVID-19 case within the past 7 days. A combination of remote and in-person study visits at days 1, 7, 14, 35, and 90 includes comprehensive epidemiological, clinical, microbiologic, and serologic sampling. The primary outcome is microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 infection within 14 days after exposure, defined as a positive respiratory tract specimen for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction. Secondary outcomes include safety, symptomatic COVID-19, seropositivity, hospitalization, respiratory failure requiring ventilator support, mortality, psychological impact, and health-related quality of life. Additional analyses will examine the impact of LPV/r on these outcomes in the subset of participants who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. To detect a relative risk reduction of 40% with 80% power at α = 0.05, assuming the secondary attack rate in ring members (p₀) = 15%, 5 contacts per case and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.05, we require 110 clusters per arm, or 220 clusters overall and approximately 1220 enrollees after accounting for 10% loss-to-follow-up. We will modify the sample size target after 60 clusters, based on preliminary estimates of p₀, ICC, and cluster size and consider switching to an alternative drug after interim analyses and as new data emerges. The primary analysis will be a generalized linear mixed model with logit link to estimate the effect of LPV/r on the probability of infection. Participants who test positive at baseline will be excluded from the primary analysis but will be maintained for additional analyses to examine the impact of LPV/r on early treatment.

Discussion

Harnessing safe, existing drugs such as LPV/r as PEP could provide an important tool for control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Novel aspects of our design include the ring-based prevention approach, and the incorporation of remote strategies for conducting study visits and biospecimen collection.

Trial registration

This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04321174) on March 25, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05134-7.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Lopinavir/Ritonavir- and Efavirenz-Based Initial Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1-Infected Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Beijing, China

Background: Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is a major antiretroviral treatment in China, but little is known about the performance of first-line LPV/r-based regimen in treatment-naïve patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. This study aims to assess the efficacy and adverse effect events of LPV/r plus lamivudine and tenofovir or zidovudine as an initial antiretroviral treatment in HIV-1-infected individuals for whom cannot take efavirenz (EFV) or is allergic to EFV.

Methods: We performed a retrospective study of patients registering with the China’s National Free Antiretroviral Treatment Program from July 2012 to January 2017, followed at a tertiary care hospital in Beijing, China. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA ≤40 copies/ml at 6 and 24 months of treatment. We assessed the immunological response and adverse events.

Results: In total, 4,862 patients were enrolled in the study and 237 were eligible for analysis in each study arm. During the first six months, virological suppression was better with the LPV/r-based regimen than with the EFV-based regimen (93.80 vs 87.80% for P < 0.05). Viral suppression rates continued to increase until 12 months, remain steady thereafter until 24 months, for both groups. The multilevel analysis revealed that patients in the LPV/r group were more likely to display improvements in CD4 T-cell count over time than those in the EFV group (P < 0.001). Grade 3 or 4 laboratory adverse events were observed in 14 patients (5.91%) from the LPV/r group and three patients (1.20%) in EFV group.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that LPV/r-containing regimens are effective and well-tolerated in Chinese treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection.

Assessing the Efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Based Preferred and Alternative Second-Line Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Key Evidence to Support WHO Recommendations

Background: Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-NRTIs (NNRTIs) with boosted protease inhibitors are included in standardized first-line and second-line regimens. Recent World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) combined with 2 NRTIs or raltegravir as a second-line regimen.

Objective: Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) is known as a key second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings. We carried out a meta-analysis to analyze virologic suppression and effectiveness of LPV/r-based second-line therapy in HIV-infected patients.

Methods: In this meta-analysis, we searched randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies to evaluate outcomes of second-line ART for patients with HIV who failed first-line therapy. A systematic search was conducted in Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase from inception to January 2018. Outcomes included viral suppression, CD4 cell counts, drug resistance, adverse events, and self-reported adherence. We assessed comparative efficacy and safety in a meta-analysis. Data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata12.0.

Results: Nine studies comprising 3,923 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall successful virologic suppression rate of the second-line regimen was 77% (ITT) and 87% (PP) at 48 weeks with a plasma HIV RNA load of <400 copies/mL. No statistical significance was found in CD4 cell count recoveries between LPV/r plus 2-3 NRTIs and simplified regimens (LPV/r plus raltegravir) at 48 weeks (P = 0.09), 96 weeks (P = 0.05), and 144 weeks (P = 0.73). Four studies indicated that the virus had low-level resistance to LPV/r, and the most common clinically significant PI-resistance mutations were 46I, 54V, 82A/82F, and 76V; however, no virologic failure due to LPV/r resistance was detected. In addition, no statistical significance was found between the two groups in self-reported adherence [relative risks (RR) = 1.03,95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00, 1.07, P = 0.06], grade 3 or 4 adverse events (RR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.64, 1.10, P = 0.20) or serious events (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.77, 1.17, P = 0.62).

Conclusions: These results suggest that the LPV/r-based regimen demonstrates efficacious and low resistance as second-line antiretroviral therapy.Both LPV/r plus 2-3 NRTIs and LPV/r plus RAL regimens improved CD4 cell counts. There was no evidence of superiority of simplified regimens over LPV/r plus 2-3 NRTIs.

Sustained Viral Suppression in HIV-infected Children on Once-daily Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

The use of lopinavir/ritonavir once-daily (LPV/r QD) has not been approved for children. Good short-term clinical, virologic and immunologic outcomes have been observed in children on LPV/r QD.

METHODS

We evaluated the long-term effectiveness of a LPV/r QD containing regimen in HIV-1-infected children in clinical practice. Selected children (0-18 years of age) with an undetectable HIV-1 RNA viral load (<50 copies/mL) for at least 6 months on a twice-daily LPV/r-containing regimen switched to LPV/r QD. The main outcome measures were the percentage of patients with an undetectable HIV-1 viral load each subsequent year after switch to LPV/r QD (on treatment and last observation carried forward), and virologic failure during follow-up (>400 copies/mL twice within 6 months). Also, the exposure to LPV on the initial once-daily dosing regimen was determined.

RESULTS

Forty children (median age: 6.5 years; range: 1.0-17) were included. Median follow-up was 6.3 years (range: 1.0-10.3). During yearly follow-up, the percentage of children with an undetectable viral load varied between 82% and 100% (on treatment) and 83% and 93% (last observation carried forward). Five children (12.5%) met the criteria for failure. CD4+ and CD8+ counts remained stable at normal values. Geometric mean LPV area under the plasma concentration-time curve (linear up-log down method) over a dosing interval from time 0 to 24 hours after dosing was 169.3 mg x h/L, and last observed drug concentration was 1.35 mg/L. Adverse events were encountered in 8 patients, were mainly gastrointestinal, and in these cases, no reason to stop treatment.

CONCLUSION

A once-daily LPV/r-containing regimen in HIV-1-infected children with intensive clinical and therapeutic drug monitoring is well tolerated and has good long-term clinical, virologic and immunologic outcomes.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Once vs. twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected children

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether once daily (q.d.) lopinavir/ritonavir is noninferior to twice daily (b.i.d.) dosing in children.

DESIGN

International, multicentre, phase II/III, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial (KONCERT/PENTA18/ANRS150).

SETTING

Clinical centres participating in the PENTA, HIV-NAT and PHPT networks.

PARTICIPANTS

Children/adolescents with HIV-1 RNA viral load less than 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on lopinavir/ritonavir-containing antiretroviral therapy.

INTERVENTION

Children were randomized to continue lopinavir/ritonavir b.i.d. or change to q.d.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Confirmed viral load ≥50 copies/ml by 48 weeks (12% noninferiority margin).

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-three children were randomized in the KONCERT trial (86 q.d., 87 b.i.d.); 46% men, median (IQR) age 11 (9-14) years, CD4% 33 (27-38)%. By week 48, 97 and 98% of time was spent on q.d. and b.i.d., respectively (one q.d. child lost at week 4). Twelve q.d. vs. seven b.i.d. children had confirmed viral load ≥50 copies/ml within 48 weeks; estimated difference in percentage with viral load rebound 6% [90% CI (-2, 14)]. Numbers of children with grade 3/4 adverse events (11 vs. 7) or major resistance mutations (3 vs. 2) were similar, q.d. vs. b.i.d. (both P > 0.3). Among 26 children in an intrasubject lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetic substudy, lower daily exposure (AUC0-24 161 h.mg/l vs. 224 h.mg/l) and lower Clast (1.03 mg/l vs. 5.69 mg/l) were observed with q.d. vs. b.i.d. dosing.

CONCLUSION

Noninferiority for viral load suppression on q.d. vs. b.i.d. lopinavir/ritonavir was not demonstrated. Although results, therefore, do not support routine use of q.d. lopinavir/ritonavir, lack of safety concerns or resistance suggest that q.d. dosing remains an option in selected, adherent children, with close viral load monitoring.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected subjects with advanced disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT 

Aim: We examined the literature for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based regimens in antiretroviral therapy naive HIV-1-infected subjects with advanced disease. Materials & methods: Virologic and immunologic efficacy and adverse event results from prospective, randomized controlled trials evaluating LPV/r + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were examined using random-effects meta-analyses. Emergence of resistance was determined using data extracted from published material. Results: Thirteen studies (including ten 96-week studies) met search criteria. Virologic responses were similar at 96 weeks between subjects with HIV-1 infection treated with LPV/r-based antiretroviral therapy when stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA or CD4+ T-cell count; immunologic responses were similar when stratified by CD4+ T-cell count. Conclusion: Through 96 weeks of treatment, the efficacy, safety and tolerability of LPV/r-based regimens were comparable in subjects with and without advanced HIV-1 disease.

Boosted lopinavir- versus boosted atazanavir-containing regimens and immunologic, virologic, and clinical outcomes: a prospective study of HIV-infected individuals in high-income countries

BACKGROUND

Current clinical guidelines consider regimens consisting of either ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone among their recommended and alternative first-line antiretroviral regimens. However, these guidelines are based on limited evidence from randomized clinical trials and clinical experience.

METHODS

We compared these regimens with respect to clinical, immunologic, and virologic outcomes using data from prospective studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals in Europe and the United States in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, 2004-2013. Antiretroviral therapy-naive and AIDS-free individuals were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen. We estimated the 'intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths), and 4301 individuals started an atazanavir regimen (83 deaths, 157 AIDS-defining illnesses or deaths). The adjusted intention-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], .53-.91) for death, 0.67 (95% CI, .55-.82) for AIDS-defining illness or death, and 0.91 (95% CI, .84-.99) for virologic failure at 12 months. The mean 12-month increase in CD4 count was 8.15 (95% CI, -.13 to 16.43) cells/µL higher in the atazanavir group. Estimates differed by NRTI backbone.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates are consistent with a lower mortality, a lower incidence of AIDS-defining illness, a greater 12-month increase in CD4 cell count, and a smaller risk of virologic failure at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir-containing antiretroviral therapy in patients aged <50 versus ≥50 years from randomized trials

ABSTRACT: 

Aim: Data describing the safety and efficacy of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV-infected patients aged ≥50 years are limited. We evaluated the effect of age on safety, efficacy and tolerability in patients aged <50 and ≥50 years receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-containing ART. Methods: End points from AbbVie Inc. (IL, USA) or AIDS Clinical Trials Group randomized clinical trials in adults using LPV/r 800/200 mg/day as part of a three-drug regimen (follow-up ≥48 weeks) were evaluated using a random-effects meta-analysis (virologic efficacy; intent-to-treat; noncompleter = failure) or pooled data (other end points). Results: A total of 2608 patients (2294.3 patient-years of follow-up) from ten trials were included: 2248 patients (86.2%) <50 years of age and 360 (13.8%) ≥50 years of age. Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between age groups. At week 48, 64.9 and 67.8% of patients <50 and ≥50 years, respectively, had plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml (random effects meta-analysis p = 0.992). Mean change from baseline in CD4+ T-cell count was +193.9 and +163.5 cells/μl (<50 and ≥50 years, respectively; p < 0.001). Smaller proportions of patients <50 years of age discontinued due to adverse events (AEs)/HIV-related events (4.9 vs 9.4%; p = 0.001) and reported moderate-to-severe treatment-related AEs (30.5 vs 36.4%; p = 0.027) compared with patients ≥50 years of age. Conclusion: This analysis suggests LPV/r-anchored three-drug therapy in patients ≥50 years of age leads to comparable rates of virologic suppression, with a smaller increase in absolute CD4+ T cells and increased AEs, including discontinuations associated with AEs compared with patients <50 years of age.

Lower pill burden and once-daily antiretroviral treatment regimens for HIV infection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Once-daily compared with twice-daily antiretroviral therapy regimens increased adherence; however, the difference was modest and not associated with a difference in virological suppression. In addition, higher pill burden was associated with lower rates of virological suppression, whether once- or twice-daily regimens.

Background. Contemporary antiretroviral treatment regimens are simpler than in the past, with lower pill burden and once-daily dosing frequency common. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of pill burden and once-daily vs twice-daily dosing on ART adherence and virological outcomes.

Methods. A literature search of 4 electronic databases through 31 March 2013 was used. RCTs comparing once-daily vs twice-daily ART regimens that also reported on adherence and virological suppression were included. Study design, study population characteristics, intervention, outcome measures, and study quality were extracted. Study quality was rated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

Results. Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 6312 adult patients). Higher pill burden was associated with both lower adherence rates (P = .004) and worse virological suppression (P < .0001) in both once-daily and twice-daily subgroups, although the association with adherence in the once-daily subgroup was not statistically significant. The average adherence was modestly higher in once-daily regimens than twice-daily regimens (weighted mean difference = 2.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 3.87; P = .0002). Patients on once-daily regimens did not achieve virological suppression more frequently than patients on twice-daily regimens (relative risk [RR] = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03; P = .50). Both adherence and viral load suppression decreased over time, but adherence decreased less with once-daily dosing than with twice-daily dosing.

Conclusions. Lower pill burden was associated with both better adherence and virological suppression. Adherence, but not virological suppression, was slightly better with once- vs twice-daily regimens.

A randomized controlled trial to assess safety, tolerability, and antepartum viral load with increased lopinavir/ritonavir dosage in pregnancy

HIV mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) is significantly reduced if antepartum viral load (apVL) is<50 copies/mL. Pharmacokinetic studies suggest increasing the dosage of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in pregnancy. It is important to assess tolerance, safety, and rate of patients presenting a apVL<50 copies/mL when treating with increased dose of LPV/r during pregnancy. Confirmed HIV-infected pregnant women with a fetus at a gestational age of 14-33 weeks were randomly assigned to receive LPV/r 400/100 or 600/150 mg b.i.d. plus two nucleoside analogues (NRTIs). Treatment was discontinued in the case of alanine transaminase (ALT) of grade III elevation or higher, glucose, or triglycerides. Thirty-two women were randomized to the LPV/r 400/100 mg dose, and 31 women were randomized to the 600/150 mg dose. Overall, 9.4% of the women receiving the conventional dose, and 17.2% receiving the increased dose, discontinued treatment because of adverse events (p=0.29). The rates of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, laboratory abnormalities, preterm delivery, and low birth weight were similar in both groups. There were no cases of HIV MTCT. Among the women with a baseline VL>50 copies/mL assigned to the conventional dose group, 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 62.5-27.5%) had a apVL>50 copies/mL compared with 10.5% (95% CI 21.6-0.6%) of those assigned to the increased dose group (p=0.01). There was no significant difference found for the patients with a baseline VL<50 copies/mL. In pregnant women with a baseline VL>50 copies/mL, it may be warranted to initiate LPV/r dosing at 600/150 mg, whereas the conventional dose is sufficient for pregnant women with a baseline VL<50 copies/mL.

[Consensus Statement by GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat on antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2013)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) guidelines for HIV-1 infected adult patients.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel composed of members of the GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat (Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the Secretaría del Plan Nacional sobre el Sida) reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals (PubMed and Embase) or presented in medical scientific meetings. The strength of the recommendations and the evidence which support them are based on a modification of the criteria of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

cART is recommended in patients with symptoms of HIV infection, in pregnant women, in serodiscordant couples with high risk of transmission, in hepatitisB co-infection requiring treatment, and in HIV nephropathy. cART is recommended in asymptomatic patients if CD4 is <500cells/μl. If CD4 are >500cells/μl cART should be considered in the case of chronic hepatitisC, cirrhosis, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >100.000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, neurocognitive deficits, and in people aged >55years. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. The first cART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI) nucleoside analogs and a third drug (a non-analog RTI, a ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected some drug combinations, for the first cART and specific criteria for cART in acute HIV infection, in tuberculosis and other HIV related opportunistic infections, for the women and in pregnancy, in hepatitisB or C co-infection, in HIV-2 infection, and in post-exposure prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines update previous recommendations related to first cART (when to begin and what drugs should be used), how to monitor, and what to do in case of viral failure or adverse drug reactions. cART specific criteria in comorbid patients and special situations are similarly updated.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Meta-analysis of the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir-containing antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected women

PURPOSE

Women comprise ≯50% of HIV-infected patients, yet safety, tolerability, and efficacy data in women taking antiretrovirals (ARVs) are limited. Lopinavir/ ritonavir (LPV/r)-anchored regimens are globally the most widely prescribed HIV-1 protease inhibitor regimens. The objective was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LPV/r-based therapy in women.

METHODS

A database query yielded all available data in HIV-1-infected subjects receiving LPV/r-based triple-ARV regimens from randomized clinical trials lasting ≥48 weeks from Abbott or Abbott-supported AIDS Clinical Trials Group studies. Efficacy (HIV-1 RNA levels, CD4+ T-cell counts) and safety and tolerability (treatment discontinuation, treatment-related adverse events [AE], and clinical laboratory abnormalities) at 48 weeks were assessed for total women, women by age (≥50, <50 years) and body mass index (BMI; <25, ≥25 to <30, ≥30 kg/m2), and sex.

RESULTS

Nine hundred ninety-two women initiated LPV/r-based therapy (of whom 79.2% were ARV-naïve), with 83.6% completing 48 weeks of treatment. There were 75.5% of women who achieved a threshold of HIV RNA <400 copies/mL by intent-to-treat, non-completer equals failure (ITT, NC = F) analysis, with a mean ± SE CD4+ T-cell count increase of 191.6 ± 4.92 cells/mm3 from baseline. Women aged ≥50 versus <50 years had higher incidence of moderate-to-severe treatment-related AEs and certain laboratory abnormalities, better virologic response (HIV RNA <400 copies/mL by ITT, NC = F), similar immunologic responses, and similar overall incidence of treatment discontinuations. Higher incidences of certain moderate-to-severe treatment-related AEs and laboratory abnormalities occurred in women with BMI ≥30 kg/m2; however, no effect of BMI on efficacy or discontinuation was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

LPV/r-based regimens were efficacious and well-tolerated in women without marked differences based on age and BMI categories evaluated.

[Consensus document of Gesida and Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) regarding combined antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (January 2012)]

This consensus document has been prepared by a panel consisting of members of the AIDS Study Group (Gesida) and the Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) after reviewing the efficacy and safety results of clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals, or presented in medical scientific meetings. Gesida has prepared an objective and structured method to prioritise combined antiretroviral treatment (cART) in naïve patients. Recommendations strength (A, B, C) and the evidence which supports them (I, II, III) are based on a modification of the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. The current antiretroviral treatment (ART) of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs. ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection, in pregnancy, in serodiscordant couples with high transmission risk, hepatitis B fulfilling treatment criteria, and HIV nephropathy. Guidelines on ART treatment in patients with concurrent diagnosis of HIV infection and an opportunistic type C infection are included. In asymptomatic patients ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts <350 cells/μL; 2) when CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/μL, therapy will be recommended and only delayed if patient is reluctant to take it, the CD4 are stabilised, and the plasma viral load is low; 3) therapy could be deferred when CD4 counts are above 500 cells/μL, but should be considered in cases of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >10(5) copies/mL, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, and in people aged >55 years. ART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors nucleoside analogues and a third drug (non-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor, ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor or integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected and given priority to using the Gesida score for some drug combinations, some of them co-formulated. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures, but an undetectable viral load may be possible nowadays. Adverse events are a fading problem of ART. Guidelines in acute HIV infection, in women, in pregnancy, and to prevent mother-to-child transmission and pre- and post-exposition prophylaxis are commented upon. Management of hepatitis B or C co-infection, other co-morbidities, and the characteristics of ART in HIV-2 infection are included.

Diarrhea associated with lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy: results of a meta-analysis of 1469 HIV-1-infected participants

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral therapy is associated with adverse events (AEs). The most frequently reported AE associated with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) containing regimens is diarrhea. The objective of this meta-analysis is to describe the incidence, prevalence, and duration of diarrhea in individuals taking LPV/r.

METHODS

This is a meta-analysis of Abbott-conducted clinical trials. Inclusion criteria included prospective randomized clinical trials with the LPV/r tablet formulation and had AE data (moderate/severe diarrhea) available through 48 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Three trials (total 1469 participants) met the inclusion criteria. In all, 11.2% of participants reported moderate/severe diarrhea by week 8, with median time to resolution of 7.4 weeks. The overall 48-week incidence of moderate/severe diarrhea was 15.5%. The discontinuation rate due to moderate/severe diarrhea was 1.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate/severe diarrhea occurred in less than 1 in 6 participants taking LPV/r, typically started in the first 8 weeks of treatment and infrequently resulted in premature discontinuation.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Examination of noninferiority, safety, and tolerability of lopinavir/ritonavir and raltegravir compared with lopinavir/ritonavir and tenofovir/ emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naïve subjects: the progress study, 48-week results

PURPOSE

Current antiretroviral regimens recommended for treatment-naïve patients include 2 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a new NRTI-sparing regimen may provide an alternative for persons for whom traditional regimens may not be the best option.

METHODS

PROGRESS is a 96-week, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) and an integrase inhibitor (lopi-navir/ritonavir [LPV/r] + raltegravir [RAL]) to a boosted PI and 2 NRTIs (LPV/r + tenofovir/ emtricitabine [TDF/FTC]) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve HIV-1-infected adults.

RESULTS

A total of 206 subjects were randomized to receive LPV/r + RAL (n=101) or LPV/r + TDF/FTC (n=105) and analyzed for ARV efficacy using the US Food and Drug Administration time to loss of virologic response (FDA-TLOVR) algorithm. The percentage of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL at week 48 was 83.2% in the LPV/r + RAL group and 84.8% in the LPV/r + TDF/FTC group (P = .850; difference -1.6%; exact 95% CI, -12.0% to 8.8%). As the lower limit of the exact 95% CI for the difference between regimens was at or above the protocol-defined threshold of -20% (as well as the more stringent threshold of -12%), LPV/r + RAL was noninferior to LPV/r + TDF/FTC. The occurrence of treatment-related, moderate/severe adverse events was similar between treatment groups through 48 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The HIV treatment regimen of LPV/r + RAL resulted in noninferior efficacy and comparable safety and tolerability compared with a traditional NRTI-containing regimen through 48 weeks of treatment. These results support further evaluation of the LPV/r + RAL regimen.

Meta-analysis of once-daily and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir combined with NRTIs in HIV-1-infected, antiretroviral-naive patients

Aims: Several studies reported similar virologic responses for lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg once-daily (q.d.)-containing regimens or LPV/r 400/100 mg twice-daily (b.i.d.)-containing regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients. However, the virologic response in patients with baseline viral loads ≥100,000 copies/ml and gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs) sometimes favored b.i.d. dosing, whereas hypertriglyceridemia may be less frequent with q.d. dosing. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and tolerability of these two dosing strategies. Materials & methods: Random effects meta-analysis models, in all patients and subgroups with baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥100,000 copies/ml and CD4+ T-cell counts <200 cells/µl, assessed virologic efficacy (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml and time to virologic failure) and prespecified AEs incidence between q.d. and b.i.d. dosing strategies. Descriptive analysis of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship and resistance development was performed. Results: No difference was found between the two strategies in virologic efficacy, to virologic failure, or AEs in the overall or subgroup populations. Numerical but nonstatistically significant differences in discontinuations due to AEs (2.4%; 95% CI: -0.7–5.5; p = 0.132) favored b.i.d. over q.d. dosing in the overall population. Conclusion: Virologic efficacy, treatment durability and tolerability were similar between the two dosing strategies in the overall and subgroup populations. The LPV/r dosing strategy should be individualized according to patient need.

Very late initiation of HAART impairs treatment response at 48 and 96 weeks: results from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) with low CD4 lymphocyte counts is associated with AIDS-related and non-AIDS-related events and increased mortality. However, no clear association has been found with an increased rate of treatment failure.

METHODS

We conducted a meta-analysis including randomized clinical trials of currently recommended HAART in naive patients to evaluate treatment response in very late starters (VLSs). Studies with information on response in at least one of the two strata (≤ 50 versus >50 CD4 cells/mm(3) and/or ≤ 200 versus >200 CD4 cells/mm(3)) and follow-up of at least 48 weeks were analysed. A pooled odds ratio of the effect of starting HAART with ≤ 50 versus >50 or ≤ 200 versus >200 CD4 cells/mm(3) for each arm by fitting a random-effect logistic regression model was computed. Sources of heterogeneity [sex, age, year of study initiation, nucleos(-t)ide pair and third drug] were investigated.

RESULTS

We included 25 treatment arms from 13 randomized clinical trials. Being a VLS consistently impairs treatment outcomes at 48 and 96 weeks. Only hepatitis C virus (HCV)/hepatitis B virus (HBV) coinfection was associated with a reduced impact of late initiation of HAART; at 48 weeks for 50 and 200 cells/mm(3) thresholds (P = 0.013 and P = 0.032, respectively). None of the remaining sources of heterogeneity explored was significantly associated with the impact of being a VLS.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that initiation of antiretroviral therapy with very low CD4 lymphocyte counts is consistently associated with poorer outcomes of HAART. This effect could be modulated by HBV/HCV coinfection, but not by the individual components of the HAART regimen.

[Costs and cost effectiveness analysis of preferred GESIDA regimens for initial antiretroviral therapy]

INTRODUCTION

GESIDA (AIDS Study Group) and the National AIDS Plan panel of experts propose "preferred regimens" of antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV infected patients. These preferred regimens are based on the results of clinical trials, and on the opinions of the experts of the panel. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the cost effectiveness of initiating treatment following these guidelines.

METHODS

Economic assessment of costs and cost effectiveness through the construction of decision trees. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of having viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48 in an intention-to-treat analysis. The perspective of the analysis is that of the National Health System, taking into account only the differential direct costs (ART, management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and determination of HLA B * 5701). The area is Spain, the time horizon is 48 weeks, and the costs are those of 2011. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed, building three scenarios for each regimen: baseline, the most favourable, and the most unfavourable.

RESULTS

In the baseline scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 7,550 Euros for the ABC/3TC+EFV to 13,327 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL. The efficacy ranges between 0.66 for ABC/3TC+LPV/r and 0.86 for TDF/FTC+RAL. Efficiency, in terms of cost effectiveness, varies between 10,175 and 15,539 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for TDF/FTC/EFV and TDF/FTC+RAL respectively.

CONCLUSION

The most efficient regimen was TDF/FTC+EFV, followed by ABC/3TC+EFV. Sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of these findings.

CYP3A4-mediated lopinavir bioactivation and its inhibition by ritonavir

The combination of lopinavir (LPV) and ritonavir (RTV) is one of the preferred regimens for the treatment of HIV infection with confirmed efficacy and relatively low toxicity. LPV alone suffers the poor bioavailability due to its rapid and extensive metabolism. RTV boosts the plasma concentration of LPV by suppressing its metabolism and thus increasing LPV efficacy. In the current study, we found that RTV also inhibits LPV bioactivation. LPV bioactivation was investigated in human liver microsomes and cDNA-expressed human cytochromes P450. Twelve GSH-trapped reactive metabolites of LPV were identified by using a metabolomic approach. Semicarbazide-trapped reactive metabolites of LPV were also detected. RTV effectively suppressed all pathways of LPV bioactivation via CYP3A4 inhibition. Our data together with previous reports suggest that LPV plus RTV is an ideal combination because RTV not only boosts LPV plasma concentration, but it decreases LPV bioactivation.

Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules.

METHODS

In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823.

FINDINGS

From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100,000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per μL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5·7%, 95% CI -10·7 to -0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group.

INTERPRETATION

Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing.

FUNDING

Merck.

Once-daily antiretroviral therapy among treatment-experienced Muslim patients fasting for the month of Ramadan

Many countries with a considerable burden of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in Africa and Asia also have a substantial Muslim population. Anti-retroviral therapy (ART) has led to reductions in HIV morbidity and mortality in those areas. However, for ART to remain durably effective its provision should be adapted to local and religious customary practices such as Ramadan fasting. The fasting is often observed by Muslims with HIV infection and ART might be compromised by sub-optimal adherence during fasting as it precludes the ingestion of oral substances during the daytime and is often associated with an alteration of meals/sleeping patterns. We studied once-daily compared to twice-daily dosed ritonovir boosted lopinavir with fixed-dose tenofovir-emtricitabine once-daily among 17 heavily treatment-experienced stable FT patients in Nigeria. No changes in adherence, diarrhoea, CD4 cell counts, viral load, haematocrit, kidney, liver and lipid tests were observed. Effectiveness, safety and tolerability appeared unaffected by the changes.

[Evidence-based therapeutic drug monitoring of lopinavir]

The HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir presents a wide inter-individual variability related to liver and intestinal metabolism involving CYP3A. Published studies were analyzed to establish whether there is evidence that therapeutic drug monitoring of lopinavir could improve patient care. In naïve or pretreated HIV-infected patients, no relationship could be evidenced between virological efficacy and trough lopinavir concentration, most likely because concentrations are above inhibitory concentrations. Although data are limited, patients with elevated triglycerides and cholesterol had trough lopinavir concentrations >8 000 ng/mL. These data suggest that the level of evidence of interest of lopinavir therapeutic drug monitoring is may be recommended in some situations such as children, pregnant women, pretreated patients if the number of mutations is <5, when coadministration with drug with metabolizing enzyme inducing properties is warranted and toxicity.

Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV therapy

The advent of combination antiretroviral therapy has led to significant improvement in the care of HIV-infected patients. Originally designed as a protease inhibitor (PI), ritonavir is currently exclusively used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer of other protease inhibitors, predominantly due to ritonavir's potent inhibition of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme. Ritonavir-boosting of PIs decrease pill burden and frequency of dosing. Boosted PIs are recommended for first-line therapy in treatment and play a key role in the management of treatment-experienced patients. Potential problems associated with PIs include metabolic abnormalities (e.g. dyslipidemia), increased cardiovascular risk, and drug interactions.

Lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected naive children: rare protease inhibitor resistance mutations but high lamivudine/emtricitabine resistance at the time of virologic failure

BACKGROUND

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is now the protease inhibitor regimen of choice in the first-line antiretroviral therapy for children <6 years of age.

METHODS

We included all the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1-infected highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-naive children who started an LPV/r-based regimen between 2000 and 2009 at the Necker Hospital (Paris, France). Virologic failure (VF) was defined as an HIV-RNA ≥50 copies/mL. Resistance genotypic test was performed in case of VF.

RESULTS

A total of 43 children were included at a median age of 4.8 years (1.8-8.0). Median level of HIV RNA and percentage of CD4 cell count was 5.5 log₁₀ copies/mL (4.6-6) and 15% (8-27.5), respectively. HAART included LPV/r and 2 nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, mainly lamivudine (3TC), zidovudine, and/or abacavir. The median follow-up period was 36 months (18-72). Less than 50 copies/mL of HIV RNA was observed in 46%, 67%, and 70% of the children at months 6, 9, and 12, respectively. In all, 20 children (46.5%) experienced a VF. The risk factors of primary VF were a young age and a low socioeconomic status. The genotypic resistance test, performed for 18 of 20 children with VF, revealed 1 LPV/r-resistant virus and protease inhibitor-related major mutations without LPV/r resistance in 2 other children. Of the 18 children with VF, 15 received a 3TC-based HAART: 12 of 15 (80%) harbored a 3TC-resistant virus. No virus resistant to zidovudine or abacavir was found.

CONCLUSION

In all, 70% of HAART-naive children had virologic success at month 12. The selection of LPV-resistant strains was a rare event. A high rate of selection of 3TC-mutations strengthens the recommendation to prefer a first-line 3TC-sparing regimen, particularly for children with risk factors of poor adherence.

Recruitment and retention of diverse populations in antiretroviral clinical trials: practical applications from the gender, race and clinical experience study

BACKGROUND

Women, particularly women of color, remain underrepresented in antiretroviral (ARV) clinical trials. To evaluate sex-based differences in darunavir/ritonavir-based therapy, the Gender, Race And Clinical Experience (GRACE) study was designed to enroll and retain a high proportion of women representative of the racial/ethnic demographics of women with HIV/AIDS in the United States. The recruitment and retention strategies used in GRACE are described in this article.

METHODS

Recruitment and retention strategies targeting women included selecting study sites that focused on women, involving community consultants, site-specific enrollment plans, access to other ARV drugs, study branding, site and patient toolkits, targeted public relations, site grants for patient support, and subsidized child care and transportation.

RESULTS

The recruitment strategies were successful; 287 (67%) women were enrolled, primarily women of color (black, n=191 [67%], Hispanic, n=60 [21%]). Despite the focus on retention, a greater proportion of women (32.8%) discontinued compared with men (23.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

The successes of GRACE in enrolling a representative population of women were rooted in pretrial preparation, engagement of community advisors, enrollment quotas, choice of study sites and site support. Lessons learned from GRACE may be applied to future study design. Further focus on factors that influence discontinuation is warranted.

HIV protease inhibitors: present and future

Antiretroviral therapy offers many options, largely based on the next-generation protease inhibitors (PIs). Early PI-based treatments involve high pill burdens and dosing schedules, and concerns of long-term toxicities are well established. In patients who have already achieved viral suppression, novel agents and strategies should be used to simplify the dosing treatment, reduce adverse events or preserve drug options. In experienced patients, drug escalation between PIs and different associations between classes allow virological suppression to be reached in the majority of patients. Therefore, there is a persistent clinical need for the discovery and development of new protease inhibitors. Several firms are trying to develop new types of PIs that will not be cross-resistant with existing drugs and will not require ritonavir boosting. This article aims to offer an overview on present drug options recommended for treatment in naive and experienced patients, new strategies currently undergoing clinical evaluation and new compounds in the pipeline.

Lopinavir: the old champion

Lopinavir/ritonavir approval for use in antiretroviral treatment 10 years ago was very important for the recognition of boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapy as an attractive option for first-line therapy. Being coformulated with ritonavir and having less toxicity than former PIs it allowed for effective and durable virologic suppression with less impact on quality of life. It soon became the standard of care for salvage therapy in its class. Since then, however, its central role has been challenged by new PIs with a more favorable impact on lipid profile, better gastrointestinal tolerability or that are more active in the setting of multidrug resistance. This article summarizes the main clinical studies with lopinavir and discusses its particular characteristics as well as its possible current role in antiretroviral therapy.

Low lopinavir plasma or hair concentrations explain second-line protease inhibitor failures in a resource-limited setting

BACKGROUND

In resource-limited settings, many patients, with no prior protease inhibitor (PI) treatment on a second-line, high genetic barrier, ritonavir-boosted PI-containing regimen have virologic failure.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey to investigate the aetiology of virologic failure in 2 public health antiretroviral clinics in South Africa documenting the prevalence of virologic failure (HIV RNA load >500 copies/mL) and genotypic antiretroviral resistance; and lopinavir hair and plasma concentrations in a nested case-control study.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients treated with a second-line regimen including lopinavir boosted with ritonavir were included, of whom 50 (25 cases, with virologic failure and 25 controls) were included in a nested case control study. Of 93 patients, 37 (40%) had virological failure, only 2 of them had had major PI mutations. The negative predictive values: probability of failure with lopinavir plasma concentration >1 µg/mL or hair concentrations >3.63 ng/mg for virologic failure were 86% and 89%, and positive predictive values of low concentrations 73% and 79%, respectively, whereas all virologic failures with HIV RNA loads above 1000 copies per milliliter, of patients without PI resistance, could be explained by either having a low lopinavir concentration in plasma or hair.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients who fail a lopinavir/ritonavir regimen, in our setting, have poor lopinavir exposure. A threshold plasma lopinavir concentration (indicating recent lopinavir/ritonavir use) and/or hair concentration (indicating longer term lopinavir exposure) are valuable in determining the aetiology of virologic failure and identifying patients in need of adherence counselling or resistance testing.

Lopinavir/Ritonavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV-1 infection

Lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra®) is an orally administered coformulated ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) comprising lopinavir and low-dose ritonavir. It is indicated, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults, adolescents and children. Lopinavir/ritonavir is available as a tablet, soft-gel capsule and an oral solution for patients with difficulty swallowing. In well designed, randomized clinical trials, lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with other antiretroviral therapies (ART), provided durable virological suppression and improved immunological outcomes in both ART-naive and -experienced adult patients with virological failure. Furthermore, lopinavir/ritonavir demonstrated a high barrier to the development of resistance in ART-naive patients. More limited data indicate that it is effective in reducing plasma HIV-1 RNA levels in paediatric patients. Lopinavir/ritonavir has served as a well established benchmark comparator for the noninferiority of other ritonavir-boosted PI regimens. Although generally well tolerated, lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with generally manageable adverse gastrointestinal side effects and hypertriglyceridaemia and hypercholesterolaemia, which may require coadministration of lipid-lowering agents to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. Lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with other ART agents, is a well established and cost-effective treatment for both ART-naive and -experienced patients with HIV-1 infection and, with successful management of adverse events, continues to have a role as an effective component of ART regimens for the control of HIV-1 infection.

Management of late-presenting patients with HIV infection

Managing patients who present late with HIV infection is challenging. All late-presenting patients should have an individual treatment plan that encompasses both antiretroviral therapy and, where necessary, treatment for opportunistic diseases. Timely initiation of treatment in late presenters is crucial but the optimal time to start therapy depends on many individual factors, including the presence of opportunistic infection and potential drug-drug interactions. Primary drug resistance is an important contributor to poor clinical outcomes in HIV; resistance profiling before treatment initiation is therefore recommended. The choice of initial HIV treatment should reflect patient characteristics, the results of resistance testing and the complexity of concomitant disease.

Short communication: Comparable safety and efficacy with once-daily versus twice-daily dosing of lopinavir/ritonavir tablets with emtricitabine + tenofovir DF in antiretroviral-naïve, HIV type 1-infected subjects: 96 week final results of the randomized trial M05-730

Sustained viral suppression with antiretroviral therapy improves clinical outcomes for HIV-infected individuals. Study M05-730 evaluated the long-term antiviral activity, safety, tolerability, emergence of resistance, and compliance with once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID) lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) combination therapy in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected subjects through 96 weeks. Antiretroviral-naïve subjects with HIV-1 RNA levels >1000 copies/ml were randomized to LPV/r QD (N = 333) or BID (N = 331) with tenofovir DF and emtricitabine. Through 96 weeks, 77 subjects from each group discontinued prematurely; adverse or HIV-related events contributed to discontinuation of 36 subjects overall, with no significant differences between treatment groups. At 96 weeks, 216 QD subjects (64.9%) and 229 BID subjects (69.2%) had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml (p = 0.249) by intent-to-treat analysis. Evaluation of the time to virologic failure indicated that 85.0% and 80.7% of QD and BID subjects, respectively, maintained virologic suppression through 96 weeks (p = 0.638). QD subjects demonstrated greater adherence levels. There were no significant differences in virologic response when subjects were analyzed according to baseline disease state. Emergence of postbaseline resistance mutations occurred at similar low rates in each dosing group. Diarrhea was the most common moderate-to-severe drug-related adverse event reported; the most common Grade 3+ laboratory abnormalities were elevations of total cholesterol and triglycerides, occurring with similar incidence regardless of LPV/r dosing frequency. QD dosing of LPV/r was associated with similar durability of viral suppression and low rates of genotypic resistance and treatment-limiting adverse events as compared with BID dosing in treatment-naïve subjects through 96 weeks of treatment.

Similar safety and efficacy of once- and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir tablets in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected subjects at 48 weeks

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and antiviral activity of once (QD) or twice (BID) daily lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in combination with investigator-selected nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in treatment-experienced subjects.

METHODS

Subjects failing treatment with HIV-1 RNA > 1000 copies per milliliter received LPV/r tablets 800/200 mg QD (n = 300) or 400/100 mg BID (n = 299) with investigator-chosen nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Efficacy was determined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response (ITT-TLOVR) algorithm. Safety, tolerability, adherence, impact of baseline protease mutations on virologic response, and emergence of resistance on therapy were assessed.

RESULTS

Demographics were comparable across groups. By intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response, 166 QD subjects (55.3%) and 155 BID subjects (51.8%) were responders at week 48 (P = 0.413), with similar mean increases in CD4 T-cell count. QD subjects demonstrated better adherence than BID subjects. The occurrence of treatment-related moderate/severe adverse events was comparable for all events except nausea, which was reported more frequently among BID-treated subjects. Emergence of new protease resistance mutations on treatment was similarly infrequent in both groups.

CONCLUSION

LPV/r dosed QD resulted in increased treatment adherence and was as efficacious as BID LPV/r while providing similar safety, tolerability, and limited resistance evolution.