Simplification from protease inhibitors to once- or twice-daily raltegravir: the ODIS trial

Once-daily etravirine/raltegravir (400/800 mg q24h) dual therapy maintains viral suppression over 48 weeks in HIV-infected patients switching from a twice-daily etravirine/raltegravir (200/400 mg q12h) regimen

BACKGROUND

Etravirine/raltegravir dual therapy has been shown to be highly effective as a twice-daily (q12h) regimen in suppressed HIV-infected patients enrolled in the ANRS-163 study.

OBJECTIVES

As a once-daily (q24h) regimen is easier for daily life, we aimed to evaluate the capacity of etravirine/raltegravir (400/800 mg) q24h to maintain viral suppression in patients on etravirine/raltegravir q12h.

METHODS

Patients on a suppressive etravirine/raltegravir q12h regimen for at least 96 weeks were switched to etravirine/raltegravir q24h in this prospective, multicentre, open-label, single-arm study. Primary outcome was the rate of virological failure (VF: confirmed pVL >50 copies/mL, single pVL >400 copies/mL or single pVL >50 copies/mL with ART change) at Week 48 (W48). Secondary outcomes included treatment strategy success rate (no VF and no treatment discontinuation), regimen tolerability, plasma drug concentrations and resistance profile in the case of VF.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients were enrolled, with a median (IQR) age of 57 years (52-62), CD4 count of 710 cells/mm3 (501-919) and viral suppression for 7.9 years (5.9-10.7). Two patients experienced viral rebound at W24 and W48, leading to a VF rate of 2.0% (95% CI 0.5-7.8) at W48, associated with INSTI resistance in one case. Both had past NNRTI mutations. Ten patients discontinued treatment for adverse events (n = 2), investigator or patient decisions (n = 3), lost to follow-up (n = 3), death (n = 1) or pregnancy (n = 1). Overall, the strategy success rate was 89% (95% CI 81.5-93.6) at W48. In a subgroup of 64 patients, median (IQR) plasma C24h concentrations were 401 ng/mL (280-603) for etravirine and 62 ng/mL (31-140) for raltegravir.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching patients virally suppressed on etravirine/raltegravir q12h to the same regimen but given q24h was highly effective in maintaining virological suppression in HIV-infected patients.

Switching to Raltegravir From a Virologically Effective Boosted Protease Inhibitor Regimen: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis From the French Hospital Database on HIV (FHDH-ANRS CO4)

BACKGROUND

In individuals with viral load (VL) suppression on a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimen, a switch to raltegravir (RAL) can be an option in case of comorbidities, but the SWITCHMRK trials challenged this strategy. Here, among individuals with VL suppression on a boosted PI, we compared outcomes between those who continued on the same regimen and those who switched to RAL.

METHODS

In this cohort study from the French Hospital Database on HIV, each individual who switched to RAL was matched with up to 3 individuals who continued PI, were being followed up during the calendar period of the switch, and had the same duration of VL suppression (both ±6 months). The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of hospitalization, or AIDS event or death, and secondary endpoints the immunovirologic responses. To control for measured confounders, the inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to estimate hazards ratios between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

We matched 282 RAL switchers with 838 nonswitchers. Although several variables differed significantly between the groups, including a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the RAL group, the IPTW method yielded standardized differences <10% for all variables. After IPTW, there was no difference in the risk of hospitalization or AIDS event or death between the 2 groups (13.6% and 10.5%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.16 [95% confidence interval, .74-1.83]) and no difference in the likelihood of virologic failure or CD4 cell gain.

CONCLUSIONS

In individuals with controlled VL on a boosted PI regimen who switched to RAL, none of the endpoints differed with nonswitchers after IPTW.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of raltegravir and experience from clinical trials in HIV-positive patients

INTRODUCTION

Raltegravir was the first available integrase inhibitor for treating HIV-positive patients. This review aims to provide an overview of its role in the management of HIV-1 infection, highlighting its key pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers material searched and obtained through Medline and PubMed up to April 2015.

EXPERT OPINION

Raltegravir for its tolerability, efficacy, few drug-to-drug interactions and for the amount of available data in difficult subgroups of patients is a key drug in the antiretroviral armamentarium. For its weak genetic barrier to resistance and erratic pharmacokinetic profile, it should be administered twice daily and with fully active companion antiretrovirals.

Dolutegravir, abacavir and lamivudine as HIV therapy

INTRODUCTION

Antiretroviral therapy has evolved dramatically and more potent, safer and convenient drugs have replaced former compounds. Dolutegravir (DTG) is the most recently approved integrase inhibitor. It displays attractive properties such as one pill once daily (QD) dosing, high barrier to resistance and clean safety profile. Moreover, it is planned to be marketed, co-formulated with abacavir (ABC) and lamivudine (3TC) as a single-tablet regimen (STR). The availability of this QD single pill represents a significant step further for a large number of HIV-infected persons.

AREAS COVERED

Updated summary of evidence-based information on efficacy and safety of DTG along with ABC and 3TC. All information available on antiretrovirals in the most advanced stages of clinical development reported in peer-reviewed journals or at international meetings has been reviewed.

EXPERT OPINION

The combination of DTG, ABC and 3TC displays a high efficacy, superior to many other antiretroviral combinations, including other convenient STR. The good safety profile, low potential for drug interactions and high resistance barrier of DTG- ABC-3TC are unique features than make this co-formulation the preferred choice as HIV therapy in multiple clinical scenarios, including most treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients, as part of switch strategies, and in patients with underlying serious medical conditions such as kidney abnormalities, liver disease, metabolic disturbances or neuropsychiatric conditions.

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.

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.

Efficacy of raltegravir switching strategies in HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia according to the genotypic sensitivity score

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The lack of antiretroviral (ARV) backbone activity associated with raltegravir has been proposed as the main explanation for virological relapse observed in patients with undetectable viraemia who are switched from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) to raltegravir. However ARV activity remains difficult to assess in this context. The aim of our study was to precisely assess the ARV backbone activity in patients with undetectable viraemia who underwent raltegravir switching strategies and to evaluate the efficacy of such switching strategies based on the genotypic sensitivity score (GSS).

METHODS

Patients with a plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of <50 copies/mL on a stable two ARV-class regimen were enrolled if they switched one of their ARV drugs to raltegravir 400 mg twice daily. The GSS was calculated using a genotyping test performed on the HIV-1 RNA of the last plasma measurement with a HIV-1 RNA level of >50 copies/mL before the switch and on the results of all previous genotyping tests. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL at week 24.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients were enrolled in this study. The proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 92.9 % (range 83.0-97.2 %) in the intent-to-treat analysis and 98.1 % (90.0-99.7 %) in per-protocol analysis. When the backbone was fully active, the proportion was 100.0 % (86.7-100.0 %) at week 24 and week 48 in the per-protocol analysis. We observed a decrease in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides of -12.7 % (p = 0.005) and -26.5 % (p = 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Raltegravir switching strategies are effective when the associated backbone is fully active according to the GSS. In the context of undetectable viraemia, where ARV activity remains difficult to assess, the determination of the GSS requires the entire ARV history of the patient and all previous HIV-RNA genotyping test results.

[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.

Raltegravir for HIV-1 infected children and adolescents: efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics

Raltegravir was the first HIV integrase strand-transfer inhibitor to be approved by the US FDA, in October 2007, for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in combination with other antiretroviral agents. Raltegravir can be used in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients, as well as for the treatment of multidrug-resistant infection. Raltegravir exists in two formulations: a film-coated tablet administered orally at 400 mg twice daily, and a chewable tablet administered orally at 300 mg twice daily. In 2011, raltegravir was also approved for the treatment of children and adolescents, ages 2–18 years. For adolescents (ages 12–18 years), the recommended dose is 400 mg twice daily (film-coated tablet). If children (ages 6–12 years) weigh at least 25 kg, the film-coated tablet is recommended at 400 mg twice daily. Otherwise, patients receive the chewable tablet according to weight-based dosing at approximately 6 mg/kg/dose. Studies are ongoing for children ages 4 weeks to 2 years, and preliminary efficacy and safety data are promising. This article reviews current studies on the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of raltegravir in the pediatric population and the challenges of treating HIV in children and adolescents.

HIV Drug Resistance and the Advent of Integrase Inhibitors

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Patterns of adherence to raltegravir-based regimens and the risk of virological failure among HIV-infected patients: the RALTECAPS cohort study

Adherence patterns and their influence on virologic outcome are well characterized for protease inhibitor (PI)- and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens. We aimed to determine how patterns of adherence to raltegravir influence the risk of virological failure. We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort following 81 HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive or experienced subjects receiving or starting twice-a-day raltegravir-based antiretroviral therapy. Their adherence patterns were monitored using the Medication Events Monitoring System. During follow-up (188 days, ±77), 12 (15%) of 81 subjects experienced virological failure. Longer treatment interruption [adjusted odds ratio per 24-hour increase: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 to 6.9; P < 0.02] and average adherence (odds ratio per 5% increase: 0.68; 95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 1.00, P < 0.05) were both independently associated with virological failure controlling for prior duration of viral suppression. Timely interdose intervals and high levels of adherence to raltegravir are both necessary to control HIV replication.

The Need for Development of New HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase and Integrase Inhibitors in the Aftermath of Antiviral Drug Resistance

The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) involves combinations of drugs to achieve maximal virological response and reduce the potential for the emergence of antiviral resistance. There are two broad classes of reverse transcriptase inhibitors, the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). Since the first classes of such compounds were developed, viral resistance against them has necessitated the continuous development of novel compounds within each class. This paper considers the NRTIs and NNRTIs currently in both preclinical and clinical development or approved for second line therapy and describes the patterns of resistance associated with their use, as well as the underlying mechanisms that have been described. Due to reasons of both affordability and availability, some reverse transcriptase inhibitors with low genetic barrier are more commonly used in resource-limited settings. Their use results to the emergence of specific patterns of antiviral resistance and so may require specific actions to preserve therapeutic options for patients in such settings. More recently, the advent of integrase strand transfer inhibitors represents another major step forward toward control of HIV infection, but these compounds are also susceptible to problems of HIV drug resistance.

Update on raltegravir and the development of new integrase strand transfer inhibitors

Raltegravir (RAL) is the first antiretroviral in the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI) class. The use of RAL has expanded since its approval in October 2007 for multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection in adults. RAL is now a guideline-preferred treatment option for antiretroviral-naïve patients, indicated for treatment in adolescents, and is being studied as an integral part of nucleoside sparing regimens. The development of resistance and the need for a once-daily dosing option has led to the development of new INSTIs, including elvitegravir and dolutegravir. Elvitegravir is being studied in a promising once-daily single-tablet regimen with tenofovir, emtricitabine, and the investigational pharmacoenhancer cobicistat. The development of cobicistat and the new once-daily INSTIs may revolutionize the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. This article reviews the current literature on raltegravir and new developments in the INSTI class.

[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.

Novel therapeutic strategies targeting HIV integrase

Integration of the viral genome into host cell chromatin is a pivotal and unique step in the replication cycle of retroviruses, including HIV. Inhibiting HIV replication by specifically blocking the viral integrase enzyme that mediates this step is an obvious and attractive therapeutic strategy. After concerted efforts, the first viable integrase inhibitors were developed in the early 2000s, ultimately leading to the clinical licensure of the first integrase strand transfer inhibitor, raltegravir. Similarly structured compounds and derivative second generation integrase strand transfer inhibitors, such as elvitegravir and dolutegravir, are now in various stages of clinical development. Furthermore, other mechanisms aimed at the inhibition of viral integration are being explored in numerous preclinical studies, which include inhibition of 3' processing and chromatin targeting. The development of new clinically useful compounds will be aided by the characterization of the retroviral intasome crystal structure. This review considers the history of the clinical development of HIV integrase inhibitors, the development of antiviral drug resistance and the need for new antiviral compounds.

Role of raltegravir in HIV-1 management

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature concerning the role of raltegravir in the treatment of HIV-1 in antiretroviral (ARV)-experienced and ARV-naïve patients.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was conducted for published data through March 2012 using the search terms raltegravir, MK-0518, and integrase strand transfer inhibitor. An additional search of International Pharmaceutical Abstracts for unpublished data, including data from the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, the International AIDS Society, and the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, was conducted using similar search terms.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

In vitro and in vivo Phase 2, Phase 3, and postmarketing studies available in English, evaluating antiretroviral regimens that contain raltegravir for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in both ARV-naïve and ARV-experienced patients, were evaluated. Studies assessing raltegravir pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were included for review.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The nucleoside-based regimen of raltegravir with tenofovir/emtricitabine provides an effective first-line treatment option. However, nucleoside-sparing regimens appear unfavorable in ARV-naïve subjects and should be reserved for patients with limited treatment options. Raltegravir used with optimized background therapy provides an alternative regimen for ARV-experienced patients. This review describes the available in vitro and in vivo data on raltegravir potency, defined as the ability to achieve undetectable viral load, and safety profile, as well as comparison to standard HIV-1 therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Raltegravir has demonstrated potent antiretroviral activity against HIV-1 in both ARV-naïve and ARV-experienced subjects, with the benefits of a favorable adverse effect profile and minimal drug interactions. Raltegravir must be dosed twice daily, as once daily raltegravir displays decreased virologic efficacy compared to twice daily dosing. However, the ongoing development of new integrase strand transfer inhibitors may provide potent once daily regimens.

Mechanisms involved in CD4 cell gains in HIV-infected patients switched to raltegravir

BACKGROUND

CD4 gains in HIV patients on HAART result from release of T cells recently migrated from the thymus, redistribution from lymphoid tissues, proliferation in the periphery and/or reduced apoptosis. The relative contribution of each mechanism in CD4 restoration in patients with suppressed viremia switching antiretrovirals is unclear.

METHODS

HIV patients with undetectable viremia on HAART were identified at our clinic. A subset switched to raltegravir was compared with another group that kept therapy unmodified. Naive and memory CD4 T-cells were measured by flow cytometry using CD45RA and CD27, respectively. Activation was examined using CD38 and recent thymic emigrants using CD31. Apoptosis was analyzed measuring soluble tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) and Fas ligand (FasL).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were examined, 19 switched to raltegravir and 18 controls, after a median of 26 months of suppressed viremia. At 6 months, mean CD4 cell counts significantly increased in raltegravir patients from 322 to 448 cells/μl (P = 0.026) but not in controls (from 312 to 330 cells/μl; P  = 0.813). No significant changes were recognized in activation or CD31 expression in any group. In raltegravir patients, however, the proportion of naive CD4 T cells significantly increased (P = 0.014) as well as CD38 expression in these cells (P = 0.036). A positive correlation was found between CD38 and CD31 expression in naive CD4 T cells (R  = 0.51, P < 0.001). TRAIL and FasL did not decline significantly in any group.

CONCLUSION

HIV patients with prolonged undetectable viremia on HAART experience more pronounced CD4 gains after raltegravir switching than keeping the same regimen. An increased production of naive CD4 T cells largely explains this effect.

Plasma raltegravir exposure influences the antiviral activity and selection of resistance mutations

Raltegravir (RAL) resistance is associated with the selection of integrase mutations at positions 92, 143, 148, and/or 155. A substantial proportion of RAL failures, however, occurs in the absence of these changes. An examination of RAL plasma concentrations may help in interpreting this observation. All early RAL virological failures seen at 22 clinics in Spain during 2009 were identified. HIV integrase sequences and RAL plasma trough concentrations (C(t)) were examined. A total of 106 patients experiencing virological failure on RAL were identified. Only the earliest sample on failure was examined. Integrase sequences could be obtained for 89 (84%), of whom 30 (33.7%) depicted primary RAL resistance mutations (15 N155H, eight Q148H/R, three Y143R, one E92Q, and three more than one of them). Another nine (10.1%) patients showed only secondary changes. The remaining 50 RAL early failures (56.2%) did not select any integrase change. RAL C(t) could be measured in 66 patients at failure and in 21 of them before failure. In a control group of 37 patients with viral suppression on RAL, detectable plasma levels were seen in all cases, with greater median RAL C(t) than in failures, either at the time of viral rebound (p<0.001) or before it (p=0.055). Moreover, median C(t) at the time of failure was greater in patients selecting primary RAL resistance mutations than in the rest of the failures (p<0.001). Undetectable RAL C(t) was seen only in patients failing RAL without integrase resistance mutations (64.1% of them). RAL failures in the absence of integrase resistance mutations mainly reflect poor drug compliance.

HIV-1 integrase inhibitor resistance and its clinical implications

With the approval in 2007 of the first integrase inhibitor (INI), raltegravir, clinicians became better able to suppress virus replication in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) who were harboring many of the most highly drug-resistant viruses. Raltegravir also provided clinicians with additional options for first-line therapy and for the simplification of regimens in patients with stable virological suppression. Two additional INIs in advanced clinical development—elvitegravir and S/GSK1349572—may prove equally versatile. However, the INIs have a relatively low genetic barrier to resistance in that 1 or 2 mutations are capable of causing marked reductions in susceptibility to raltegravir and elvitegravir, the most well-studied INIs. This perspective reviews the genetic mechanisms of INI resistance and their implications for initial INI therapy, the treatment of antiretroviral-experienced patients, and regimen simplification.

S/GSK1349572, a new integrase inhibitor for the treatment of HIV: promises and challenges

INTRODUCTION

The recent introduction of integrase inhibitors (INIs) into the HIV treatment armentarium has had a significant impact on HIV treatment. However, at present, raltegravir twice daily is the only licensed INI featuring a lower genetic barrier compared with boosted protease inhibitors. S/GSK1349572 represents a new INI in current development. It is a once-daily, unboosted INI with low pharmacokinetic variability and predictable exposure-response relationship. Phase IIb studies in antiretroviral-naïve patients have demonstrated non-inferiority to efavirenz-based HIV therapy. Phase II studies in INI-experienced patients show partially retained activity in vivo. Overall, the safety profile of S/GSK1349572 in all studies completed has been very favorable.

AREAS COVERED

A Pubmed and Medline search was carried out on all articles on S/GSK1349572 from 2005 to 2010, including recent abstract presentations from major HIV conferences (CROI 2010, WAC2010, EACS2009, HIV10 and ICAAC2010). The reader will become acquainted with the unique properties of this new INI and will understand the current promises and challenges of the data available from S/GSK1349572.

EXPERT OPINION

S/GSK1349572 represents a new, unboosted, once-daily INI in development with distinct pharmacokinetics and resistance profile, which has showed promising potency and tolerability in the first clinical studies.

Treatment simplification in HIV-infected adults as a strategy to prevent toxicity, improve adherence, quality of life and decrease healthcare costs

Since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has become more potent and better tolerated. While the current treatment regimens still have limitations, they are more effective, more convenient, and less toxic than regimens used in the early HAART era, and new agents, formulations and strategies continue to be developed. Simplification of therapy is an option for many patients currently being treated with antiretroviral therapy (ART). The main goals are to reduce pill burden, improve quality of life and enhance medication adherence, while minimizing short- and long-term toxicities, reducing the risk of virologic failure and maximizing cost-effectiveness. ART simplification strategies that are currently used or are under study include the use of once-daily regimens, less toxic drugs, fixed-dose coformulations and induction-maintenance approaches. Improved adherence and persistence have been observed with the adoption of some of these strategies. The role of regimen simplification has implications not only for individual patients, but also for health care policy. With increased interest in ART regimen simplification, it is critical to study not only implications for individual tolerability, toxicity, adherence, persistence and virologic efficacy, but also cost, scalability, and potential for dissemination and implementation, such that limited human and financial resources are optimally allocated for maximal efficiency, coverage and sustainability of global HIV/AIDS treatment.