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

Rates of adverse events of antiretroviral therapy in women living with HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There is limited information regarding the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AE) following antiretroviral therapy (ART) in women. So, this review aimed to describe the incidence of AE of ART in women living with HIV/AIDS.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Lilacs and Who Index, from inception to 9 April 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials with at least 12 weeks of follow-up and evaluated AE of ART in women at any age living with HIV/AIDS, without restrictions on status, year or language of publication. We excluded post hoc or secondary analyses and open-label extensions without comparator, and trials involving pregnant or breastfeeding women or with a focus on coinfection with tuberculosis, hepatitis B or C. The primary outcomes were the incidence rate of participants with any clinical and/or laboratory AE related or not to ART and treatment discontinuation.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool 2. We used Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis to summarise event rates. Results were presented as event rates per 1000 person-years (95% credibility intervals, 95% CrI). The pooled incidence rate per 1000 person-years adjusted for duration and loss to follow-up was estimated. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 24 339 studies were identified for screening, of which 10 studies (2871 women) met the eligibility criteria, with 11 different antiretrovirals (ARVs) regimens. Seven studies included exclusively women, while in the remaining three, the proportion of women ranged from 11% to 46%. Nine studies received industry funding. The pooled analysis showed a mean incidence rate of ART-related clinical and laboratory AE of 341.60 events per 1000 person-years (95% CrI 133.60-862.70), treatment discontinuation of 20.78 events per 1000 person-years (95% CrI 5.58-57.31) and ART-related discontinuation of 4.31 per 1000 person-years (95% CrI 0.13-54.72). Summary estimates were subject to significant uncertainty due to the limited number of studies and sparse data. The certainty of the evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSION

Existing randomised trials do not provide sufficient evidence on the incidence rates of safety outcomes from antiretroviral treatment in women living with HIV/AIDS. Large comparative studies in well-characterised populations are needed to provide a more comprehensive landscape of the safety profile of these ARV therapies in women with HIV/AIDS.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021251051.

Effect of Switching Antiretroviral Treatment Regimen in Patients With Drug-Resistant HIV-1 Infection: Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen switches on the mortality of patients with HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to provide policy guidance for ART regimen selection and evaluate the effectiveness of ART regime switches for people living with HIV and HIV-1 drug resistance.

METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study included 179 people living with HIV and HIV-1 drug resistance from 2011 to 2020. The time that participants switched treatment regimens either to protease inhibitor (PI)-based ART regimens (PIs) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART regimens (NNRTIs) was taken as an observation starting point and followed up every 12 months. The parametric g-formula was used to estimate the 5-year risk of mortality under the situations of (1) natural course, (2) immediate switch to NNRTIs, (3) immediate switch to PIs, and (4) if CD4(+) T cells<200 switched to PIs.

RESULTS

The follow-up time of the 179 patients ranged from 30 to 119 months. The median follow-up time was 90 months. During a follow-up of 15,606 person-months, 27 individuals died in the cohort. The estimated 5-year risk of mortality under natural course, immediate switch to NNRTIs, immediate switch to PIs, and if CD4(+), and switch to PIs if T cells<200 were 11.62% (95% CI 7.82-17.11), 31.88% (95% CI 20.79-44.94), 2.87% (95% CI 0.32-7.07), and 5.30% (95% CI 2.07-10.21), respectively. The risk ratios (RRs) of immediate switch to NNRTIs, immediate switch to PIs, and switch to PIs if CD4(+) T cells<200, compared with natural course mortality rate, were 2.74 (95% CI 2.01-3.47), 0.25 (95% CI: 0.04-0.54), and 0.46 (95% CI 0.22-0.71), respectively. The risk differences were 20.26% (95% CI 10.96-28.61), -8.76% (95% CI -13.34 to -5.09) and -6.32% (95% CI -9.75 to -3.11), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that a PI-based ART regimen was beneficial for reducing mortality in people living with HIV and HIV-1 drug resistance. More effort should be given to find HIV-1 drug resistance earlier to ensure a timely adjustment to PI-based ART, thereby maximizing the benefit of early switch treatment for people living with HIV and HIV-1 drug resistance.

Potential Drugs for the Treatment of COVID-19: Synthesis, Brief History and Application

Coronaviruses (CoVs) belonging to the Betacoronavirus group, an unusually large RNA genome, are characterized by club-like spikes that project from their surface. An outbreak of a novel coronavirus 2019 (nCOVID-19) showing a unique replication strategy and infection has posed a significant threat to international health and the economy around the globe. Scientists around the world are investigating few previously used clinical drugs for the treatment of COVID-19. This review provides synthesis and mode of action of recently investigated drugs like Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, Selamectin, Remdesivir, Baricitinib, Darunavir, Favipiravir, Lopinavir/ritonavir and Mefloquine hydrochloride that constitute an option for COVID-19 treatment.

Six-Year Immunologic Recovery and Virological Suppression of HIV Patients on LPV/r-Based Second-Line Antiretroviral Treatment: A Multi-Center Real-World Cohort Study in China

The World Health Organization guidelines recommend lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) as a second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV-infected adults in middle-income and low-income countries as a protease inhibitor boost based on clinical trials; however, the real-world safety and efficacy remain unknown. Therefore, we conducted a large-scale, multicenter retrospective cohort study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPV/r-based ART among HIV-infected adults in China in whom first-line therapy failed. The data were obtained from a national database covering 17 clinics in China for six years of follow-up from 2009 to 2016. Failure of first-line treatment was determined according to a viral load at least 400 copies/ml at week 48, non-completers at week 48 for any reason, and those who switched ART before week 48 for any reason such as side effects. Treatment effectiveness was assessed by the rate of CD4⁺T cell recovery, defined as >500 cells/mm³, and the proportion of patients achieving viral suppression, defined as <400 or <50 copies/ml according to the methods used during treatment. Safety was assessed by rates of LPV/r-related adverse events (AEs), including lipid disorder, severe abnormal liver function, myelosuppression, and renal function. Between 2009 and 2016, 1196 participants (median, 36 years old; IQR, 30–43 years) were ultimately enrolled. All patients had been on LPV/r-based second-line ART treatment for more than one year after failure of any first-line ART regimen. Overall CD4⁺T cell counts increased from 138 cells/mm³ to 475 cells/mm³ and 37.2% of all participants reached CD4 recovery. Viral suppression rates dramatically increased at the end of the first year (<400 copies/ml, 88.8%; <50 copies/ml, 76.7%) and gradually increased during follow-up (<400 copies/ml, 95.8%; <50 copies/ml, 94.4%). The most frequently reported AEs were LPV/r-induced lipid disorders with no obvious increase on LDL-C at follow-up visits. This is the first real-world LPV/r-based second-line treatment study to cover such a large population in China. These results provide strong clinical evidence that LPV/r-based second-line ART is effective in increasing CD4⁺T cell counts and viral suppression rates with tolerable side effects in HIV-infected adults in China in whom first-line treatment had failed.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial.

METHODS

DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in €, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis considering 2009-2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were - €3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 5202 to - 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595.

Raltegravir versus lopinavir/ritonavir for treatment of HIV-infected late-presenting pregnant women

Background Late-presenting pregnant women pose a challenge in the prevention of HIV-1 mother-to-child-transmission. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir and lopinavir/ritonavir for this population. Methods We did a single-center, pilot, open-label, randomized trial in Brazil (N = 44). We randomly allocated late-presenting HIV-infected pregnant women (older than 18 years with a plasma HIV-1 RNA >1000 copies/mL) to receive raltegravir 400 mg twice a day or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice a day plus zidovudine and lamivudine (1:1). The primary endpoint was virological suppression at delivery (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL), in all patients who received at least one dose of study drugs (modified intention-to-treat analysis). Missing information was treated as failure. We assessed safety in all patients. Results We enrolled and randomly assigned treatment to 33 patients (17 in raltegravir group) between June 2015 and June 2017. The study was interrupted by the IRB because a significant difference between arms was detected in an interim analysis. All patients completed follow up at delivery. At delivery, virological suppression was achieved by 13/17 (76.5%) of patients in raltegravir group, versus 4/16 (25.0%) in lopinavir/ritonavir group (RR 3.1, 95% CI: 1.3-7.4). Patients in raltegravir group had significantly higher proportion of virological suppression at 2, 4, and 6 weeks than lopinavir/ritonavir group. Adverse events were most of mild intensity, but patients in lopinavir/ritonavir group had significantly more gastrointestinal adverse events. There was neither discontinuation nor deaths in this trial. Conclusion Raltegravir might be a first-line option for treatment of HIV-infected late-presenting pregnant women.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between artesunate-mefloquine and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in healthy Thai adults

Background

Concomitant use of anti-malarial and antiretroviral drugs is increasingly frequent in malaria and HIV endemic regions. The aim of the study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between the anti-malarial drugs, artesunate-mefloquine and the antiretroviral drug, lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (LPV/r).

Methods

The study was an open-label, three-way, sequential, cross-over, pharmacokinetic study in healthy Thai adults. Subjects received the following treatments: Period 1: standard 3-day artesunate-mefloquine combination; Period 2 (2 months wash-out): oral LPV/r 400 mg/100 mg twice a day for 14 days; and, Period 3: artesunate-mefloquine and LPV/r twice a day for 3 days. Sixteen subjects (eight females) were enrolled and pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non-compartmental analysis.

Results

In the presence of LPV/r, artesunate C_max and systemic exposure were significantly increased by 45–80 %, while the metabolic ratio of dihydroartemisinin to artesunate was significantly reduced by 72 %. In addition, mefloquine C_max and systemic exposure were significantly reduced by 19–37 %. In the presence of artesunate-mefloquine, lopinavir C_max was significantly reduced by 22 % but without significant change in systemic drug exposure. The 90 % CI of the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of AUC_0−∞ and C_max were outside the acceptable bioequivalent range for each drug. Drug treatments were generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events. Vertigo, nausea and vomiting were the most common adverse events reported.

Conclusion

The reduction in systemic exposure of all investigated drugs raises concerns of an increased risk of treatment failure rate in co-infected patients and should be further investigated.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Quinine and Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Healthy Thai Adults

This study aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetic interactions between quinine and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir (LPV/r) in healthy Thai adults (8 males and 12 females). Period 1 (day 1): subjects received a single oral dose of 600 mg quinine sulfate. Period 2: subjects received LPV/r (400/100 mg) twice daily. Period 3: subjects received a single quinine sulfate dose plus LPV/r twice a day. Intensive blood sampling was performed during each phase. Quinine AUC0-48h (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 48 hours), AUC0-∞ (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity), and Cmax (maximum concentration over the time-span specified), were 56%, 57%, and 47% lower, respectively, in the presence of LPV/r. 3-Hydroxyquinine AUC0-48h, AUC0-∞, and Cmax were significantly lower and the metabolite-to-parent ratio was significantly reduced. Lopinavir and ritonavir exposures were not significantly reduced with quinine coadministration, but Cmax of both drugs were significantly lower. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% CI of AUC0-48h, AUC0-∞, and Cmax for quinine, 3-hydroxyquinine, lopinavir, and ritonavir lay outside the bioequivalent range of 0.8-1.25. Drug treatments during all periods were generally well tolerated. The reduction in systemic exposure of quinine and 3-hydroxyquinine with concomitant LPV/r use raises concerns of suboptimal exposure. Studies in HIV/malaria coinfection patients are needed to determine the clinical impact to decide if any change to the quinine dose is warranted.

Absence of effect of menopause status at initiation of first-line antiretroviral therapy on immunologic or virologic responses: a cohort study from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of first-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) between premenopausal and postmenopausal women.

METHODS

ART-naïve women initiating cART between January 2000/June 2010 at the Instituto de Pesquisa Clínica Evandro Chagas Cohort were studied. Women were defined as postmenopausal after 12 consecutive months of amenorrhea. CD4 cell counts and HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) measurements were compared between pre- and postmenopausal at 6, 12 and 24 months after cART initiation. Women who modified/discontinued a drug class or died due to an AIDS defining illness were classified as ART-failures. Variables were compared using Wilcoxon test, χ2 or Fisher's exact test. The odds of cART effectiveness (VL<400 copies/mL and/or no need to change cART) were compared using logistic regression. Linear model was used to access relationship between CD4 change and menopause.

RESULTS

Among 383 women, 328 (85%) were premenopausal and 55 (15%) postmenopausal. Median pre cART CD4 counts were 231 and 208 cells/mm(3) (p = 0.14) in pre- and postmenopausal women, respectively. No difference in the median pre cART VL was found (both 4.8 copies/mL). Median CD4 changes were similar at 6 and 12 months. At 24 months after cART initiation, CD4 changes among postmenopausal women were significantly lower among premenopausal women (p = 0.01). When the analysis was restricted to women with VL<400 copies/mL, no statistical difference was observed. Overall, 63.7% achieved cART effectiveness at 24 months without differences between groups at 6, 12 and 24 months.

CONCLUSION

Menopause status at the time of first-line cART initiation does not impact CD4 cell changes at 24 months among women with a virologic response. No relationship between menopause status and virologic response was observed.

[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.