Raltegravir non-inferior to nucleoside based regimens in second-line therapy with lopinavir/ritonavir over 96 weeks: a randomised open label study for the treatment of HIV-1 infection

Adaption of an ongoing clinical trial to quickly respond to gaps in changing international recommendations: the experience of D2EFT

A rapidly changing landscape of antiretrovirals and their procurement at scale has permitted the evaluation of new optimised second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries. D²EFT is an open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority phase IIIB/IV trial in people living with HIV-1 (PWH) whose first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART is failing. At inception, it compared a standard of care of boosted darunavir with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) to the novel NRTI-sparing regimen of boosted darunavir with dolutegravir. Implemented in 2017, participating sites were across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Around the time of implementation, the World Health Organization updated its treatment guidelines and recommended scaling up tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-lamivudine-dolutegravir (TLD). This situation pushed D²EFT investigators to consider the impact of the roll-out of TLD on the D²EFT research question. The protocol team agreed it was important to study TLD in second-line when an NNRTI regimen was failing, and focused on options to expedite the work by studying the question within the existing trial and network. All key issues (statistical, programmatic and financial) were reviewed to assess the benefits and risks of adding a third arm to the ongoing study, as opposed to developing a new randomised clinical trial with the same control arm and within the same network. The development of a new trial was deemed to be longer than adding a third arm, and to create a challenging situation with two competing clinical trials at the same sites which would slow down recruitment and impair both trials. On the other hand, adding a third arm would be demanding in terms of operationalisation, increased sample size and statistical biases to control. The optimal strategy was deemed to be the addition of a third arm, arriving retrospectively at a simplified multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design to achieve statistical validity. The D²EFT study maintains additional value in a quickly evolving second-line ART strategy allowed by the progress in global access to ART.

Two's a Company, Three's a Crowd: A Review of Initiating or Switching to a Two-Drug Antiretroviral Regimen in Treatment-Naïve and Treatment-Experienced Patients Living with HIV-1

INTRODUCTION

As HIV has become a manageable chronic condition, a renewed and increased interest in challenging traditional three-drug HIV therapies and moving toward two-drug regimens (2DR) for initial or maintenance treatment in people living with HIV (PLWH) has developed. As PLWH are living longer, continual advancements in antiretroviral regimens have been a focus to provide optimal life-long therapy options. Although early studies may have shown poor outcomes in virologic suppression with 2DR, newer studies and treatment options have emerged to show promise in the management of HIV. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current literature and assess the efficacy of two-drug (2DR) antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naïve and -experienced people living with HIV.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed between January 2009 to January 2020, using EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and bibliographies. Combinations of the following search terms were used: HIV-1 infection, antiretroviral therapy, dual therapy, two-drug regimen, two-drug therapy, two-drug regimen, and 2DR. Included studies were those in the adult population with at least one active comparator, outcomes assessing HIV-1 RNA viral load while on treatment, and written in English.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, 13 where 2DRs were evaluated as initial therapy (3 studies with extension data) and 15 where 2DRs were evaluated as maintenance or switch therapy (2 studies with extension data).

CONCLUSION

Although 2DRs may not be appropriate in all patient populations, they are being utilized more frequently and have the potential to reduce costs, adverse effects, and drug interactions.

Efficacy and Safety of Raltegravir-Based Dual Therapy in AIDS Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The life expectancy for HIV-infected individuals has improved dramatically because of improvements in antiretroviral therapy (ART). Today, a simplified two-drug regimen enhances adherence and treatment satisfaction by reducing adverse effects. Therefore, we need more evidence to show the benefits and risks of simplified ART regimens from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of raltegravir-based simplified dual therapy (DT) and of traditional triple therapy (TT) for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Methods: We carried out a systematic review of RCTs. After using a combination of the key words "HIV," "raltegravir," and "protease inhibitor" to search the English-language electronic databases from January 1, 2004, to September 11, 2019, we pooled data across eligible studies and estimated the summary effect sizes with Review Manager (version 5.3). Results: We included eight RCTs involving 4420 PLWHA: 2187 (49.5%) received raltegravir-based simplified DT, and 2144 (48.5%) received traditional TT. The proportion of viral suppression was 79% at 48 weeks and 74% at 96 weeks in the simplified regimen, and the proportion of viral suppression was 78% at 48 weeks and 71% at 96 weeks in the traditional TT group. Furthermore, the proportion of viral suppression in the simplified DT group was greater than that in the TT group at 24 weeks (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.21; p = 0.01). The CD4 cell counts in the simplified DT group were significantly higher at 48 weeks and 96 weeks than those in the group that received the traditional TT. Regarding adverse events and mortality rates, the DT and TT groups were similar. However, there was better adherence in the DT group than in the TT group. Conclusion: We found that the simplified regimen was noninferior to TT regimen in regard to viral suppression. Furthermore, the simplified DT regimen had a better CD4 cell count and lower adverse events than the TT regimen.

Effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine and boosted darunavir in treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV infection: a preliminary 24 week analysis (RIDAR study)

Background

The objective was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine plus boosted-darunavir (RPV + bDRV) in real-life patients.

Methods

Observational, retrospective, multi-center study in HIV+ patients who had received RPV + bDRV for 24 weeks to optimize/simplify their previous antiretroviral treatment. We determined the percentage of patients without virologic failure (2 consecutive viral loads > 50 copies/mL) at 24 weeks of treatment.

Results

The study included 161 patients from 15 hospitals with median age of 49 years; 29.3% had previous AIDS stage and median CD4+ lymphocyte nadir of 170 cells/uL. They had been diagnosed with HIV for a median of 17 years and had received 14 years of ART, with five previous treatment combinations, and 36.6% had a history of virological failure. The reasons for the switch were simplification/optimization (49.7%), toxicity/intolerance (17.4%), or inadequate effectiveness of previous ART (10.6%).

Baseline VL of 50–1000 copies/mL was recorded in 25.5% of the patients. In the“intention-to-treat” analysis at 24 weeks, 87.6% of 161 patients continued the study treatment without virologic failure criteria.

In the “on treatment” analysis (excluding patients who discontinued treatment with dual therapy for any reason other than virologic failure) the efficacy was 94.6% (141/149 patients).

Conclusions

Dual therapy with RPV + DRVb proved to be effective and safe in patients with advanced HIV infection, long exposure to ART, low CD4 nadir, previous virologic failure, and/or history of ineffective ART.

Efficacy and Safety of Raltegravir-Based Dual Therapy in AIDS Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The life expectancy for HIV-infected individuals has improved dramatically because of improvements in antiretroviral therapy (ART). Today, a simplified two-drug regimen enhances adherence and treatment satisfaction by reducing adverse effects. Therefore, we need more evidence to show the benefits and risks of simplified ART regimens from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of raltegravir-based simplified dual therapy (DT) and of traditional triple therapy (TT) for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). Methods: We carried out a systematic review of RCTs. After using a combination of the key words "HIV," "raltegravir," and "protease inhibitor" to search the English-language electronic databases from January 1, 2004, to September 11, 2019, we pooled data across eligible studies and estimated the summary effect sizes with Review Manager (version 5.3). Results: We included eight RCTs involving 4420 PLWHA: 2187 (49.5%) received raltegravir-based simplified DT, and 2144 (48.5%) received traditional TT. The proportion of viral suppression was 79% at 48 weeks and 74% at 96 weeks in the simplified regimen, and the proportion of viral suppression was 78% at 48 weeks and 71% at 96 weeks in the traditional TT group. Furthermore, the proportion of viral suppression in the simplified DT group was greater than that in the TT group at 24 weeks (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.21; p = 0.01). The CD4 cell counts in the simplified DT group were significantly higher at 48 weeks and 96 weeks than those in the group that received the traditional TT. Regarding adverse events and mortality rates, the DT and TT groups were similar. However, there was better adherence in the DT group than in the TT group. Conclusion: We found that the simplified regimen was noninferior to TT regimen in regard to viral suppression. Furthermore, the simplified DT regimen had a better CD4 cell count and lower adverse events than the TT regimen.

Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor/Nucleos(t)ide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-Based Second-line Antiretroviral Therapy for the Treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

In sub-Saharan Africa, 25.5 million people are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), representing 70% of the global total. The need for second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) is projected to increase in the next decade in keeping with the expansion of treatment provision. Outcome data are required to inform policy.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting the virological outcomes of protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line ART in sub-Saharan Africa. The primary outcome was virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL) after 48 and 96 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with PI resistance. Pooled aggregate data were analyzed using a DerSimonian-Laird random effects model.

Results

By intention-to-treat analysis, virological suppression occurred in 69.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58.2%-79.3%) of patients at week 48 (4558 participants, 14 studies), and in 61.5% (95% CI, 47.2%-74.9%) at week 96 (2145 participants, 8 studies). Preexisting resistance to nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) increased the likelihood of virological suppression. Major protease resistance mutations occurred in a median of 17% (interquartile range, 0-25%) of the virological failure population and increased with duration of second-line ART.

Conclusions

One-third of patients receiving PI-based second-line ART with continued NRTI use in sub-Saharan Africa did not achieve virological suppression, although among viremic patients, protease resistance was infrequent. Significant challenges remain in implementation of viral load monitoring. Optimizing definitions and strategies for management of second-line ART failure is a research priority.

Prospero Registration

CRD42016048985.

Dual therapy based on raltegravir and boosted protease inhibitors - the experience of Polish centers

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to present the experience of Polish centers regarding dual therapy based on the integrase inhibitor raltegravir (RAL) and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) for treating treatment-naïve and -experienced HIV-infected patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The paper concerns a retrospective multicenter study. The medical databases of six main Polish HIV centers from January 2009 to December 2014 were analyzed for the use of combined antiretroviral treatment consisting of RAL + PI/r. This study included 126 HIV-infected patients receiving RAL + PI/r therapy, of whom 17 patients were treatment-naive and 109 patients were treatment-experienced.

RESULTS

In treatment-experienced patients, the most common reasons for the introduction of a RAL + PI/r regimen were virologic failure and impaired renal function (45 of 109 patients). In the treatment-naïve group kidney disease was the cause of the RAL + PI/r regimen in 3 of 17 participants. In treatment-experienced patients, 80% of individuals still were on RAL + PI/r treatment after 12 months, 65% after 24 months and 53% of subjects after 60 months. In both groups, the simplification of the antiretroviral regimen was the most common reason for discontinuation of RAL + PI/r based therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In antiretroviral-experienced patients the dual therapy based on RAL + PI/s is safe and effective. In antiretroviral-naïve patients the RAL + PI/r regimen is rarely used in Poland.

Predictors of switch to and early outcomes on third-line antiretroviral therapy at a large public-sector clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa

BACKGROUND

While efficacy data exist, there are limited data on the outcomes of patients on third-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa in actual practice. Being able to identify predictors of switch to third-line ART will be essential for planning for future need. We identify predictors of switch to third-line ART among patients with significant viraemia on a protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line ART regimen. Additionally, we describe characteristics of all patients on third-line at a large public sector HIV clinic and present their early outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of adults (≥ 18 years) on a PI-based second-line ART regimen at Themba Lethu Clinic, Johannesburg, South Africa as of 01 August 2012, when third-line treatment became available in South Africa, with significant viraemia on second-line ART (defined as at least one viral load ≥ 1000 copies/mL on second-line ART after 01 August 2012) to identify predictors of switch to third-line (determined by genotype resistance testing). Third-line ART was defined as a regimen containing etravirine, raltegravir or ritonavir boosted darunavir, between August 2012 and January 2016. To assess predictors of switch to third-line ART we used Cox proportional hazards regression among those with significant viraemia on second-line ART after 01 August 2012. Then among all patients on third-line ART we describe viral load suppression, defined as a viral load < 400 copies/mL, after starting third-line ART.

RESULTS

Among 719 patients in care and on second-line ART as of August 2012 (with at least one viral load ≥ 1000 copies/mL after 01 August 2012), 36 (5.0% over a median time of 54 months) switched to third-line. Time on second-line therapy (≥ 96 vs. < 96 weeks) (adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR): 2.53 95% CI 1.03-6.22) and never reaching virologic suppression while on second-line ART (aHR: 3.37 95% CI 1.47-7.73) were identified as predictors of switch. In a separate cohort of patients on third-line ART, 78.3% (47/60) and 83.3% (35/42) of those in care and with a viral load suppressed their viral load at 6 and 12 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that the need for third-line is low (5%), but that patients' who switch to third-line ART have good early treatment outcomes and are able to suppress their viral load. Adherence counselling and resistance testing should be prioritized for patients that are at risk of failure, in particular those who never suppress on second-line and those who have been on PI-based regimen for extended periods.

Positive Virological Outcomes of HIV-Infected Patients on Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimen in Cambodia: The ANRS 12276 2PICAM Study

Background

Assessment of virological outcomes among HIV-infected patients receiving protease (PR) inhibitor-based second-line regimen are uncommon in Cambodia. The objective of this study is to assess the virological effectiveness of this regimen as well as impact of adherence boosting for patients experiencing virological failure.

Methods

The 2PICAM study (Clinicaltrial: NCT01801618) is a cross-sectional study of HIV-infected adults on PR inhibitor-based second-line regimen since at least 6 months, conducted in 13 representative sites, comprising more than 90% of the target population. Adults with HIV RNA above 250 copies/mL (threshold of the assay) at inclusion received boosted adherence counseling during 3 months followed by HIV RNA control. For confirmed virological failure, genotype resistance test was performed and expert committee used results for therapeutic decision.

Results

Among the 1,317 adults enrolled, the median duration of second-line regimen was 5 years. At inclusion, 1,182 (89.7%) patients achieved virological success (<250 copies/mL) and 135 (10.3%) experienced a virological failure (>250 copies/mL). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with virological success were: CD4 cell count between 201 and 350/mm³ (OR: 4.66, 95% CI: 2.57–8.47, p < 0.0001) and >350/mm³ (OR: 6.67, 95% CI: 4.02–11.06, p < 0.0001), duration of PI-based regimen >2 years (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.03–2.62, p = 0.037), ATV-containing regimen (0R: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.04–2.63, p = 0.034) and high level of adherence (OR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.07–5.41, p = 0.033). After adherence counseling, 63 (46.7%) patients were rescued while 72 (53.3%) were not. For the 54 patients with genotype resistance tests available, high or intermediate levels of resistance to lopinavir, atazanavir, and darunavir were reported for 13 (24%), 12 (22.2%), and 2 (3.7%) patients, respectively. Change to an alternative PR inhibitor-based regimen was recommended for 17 patients and to third-line regimen, including integrase inhibitors for 12.

Conclusion

This study reports high rate of virological suppression of second-line regimen and importance of adherence boosting prior to deciding any change of ART regimen. Genotype resistance tests appear necessary to guide decisions. Such information was of great importance for National HIV Program to adapt guidelines and program needs for third-line regimen.

Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Millions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings.

METHODS

We analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787.

FINDINGS

Between April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification.

INTERPRETATION

Protease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings.

FUNDING

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO.

A safety evaluation of raltegravir for the treatment of HIV

INTRODUCTION

Raltegravir (RAL) was the first commercialized agent from a new drug class with an innovative target, the integrase. Since its introduction in clinical practice RAL has become widely used for the treatment of HIV-1 infected patients. A decade after its approval, this article reviews key evidence from RAL with a special interest on safety outcomes. Areas covered: Pharmacologic, safety and efficacy data of RAL from clinical trials and post-commercialization published reports are hereby summarized after a literature review including PubMed search, relating proceedings and abstracts from relevant international HIV conferences, assessment reports from European and United States regulatory agencies and treatment guidelines (World Health Organization, United States Department of Health and Human Services and European AIDS Clinical Society), up to October 2017. Most frequent search terms were 'raltegravir', 'safety', 'adverse events', 'efficacy' and 'integrase-inhibitors'. Expert opinion: Despite the arrival of new integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) with advantages in terms of dosing convenience (elvitegravir, ELV) and higher genetic barrier (dolutegravir, DTG), RAL has stood the test of time and its overall favourable safety profile, without significant appearance of unexpected adverse events, vouch for its relevance in the antiretroviral armamentarium.

Key Factors Influencing the Emergence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Drug Resistance in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

The emergence and spread of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance from antiretroviral roll-out programs remain a threat to long-term control of the HIV-AIDS epidemic in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The patterns of drug resistance and factors driving emergence of resistance are complex and multifactorial. The key drivers of drug resistance in LMICs are reviewed here, and recommendations are made to limit their influence on antiretroviral therapy efficacy.

Meeting the WHO 90% target: antiretroviral treatment efficacy in Poland is associated with baseline clinical patient characteristics

Introduction: Modern combined antiretroviral therapies (cART) allow to effectively suppress HIV-1 viral load, with the 90% virologic success rate, meeting the WHO target in most clinical settings. The aim of this study was to analyse antiretroviral treatment efficacy in Poland and to identify variables associated with virologic suppression.

Methods: Cross-sectional data on 5152 (56.92% of the countrywide treated at the time-point of analysis) patients on cART for more than six months with at least one HIV-RNA measurement in 2016 were collected from 14 Polish centres. Patients’ characteristics and treatment type-based outcomes were analysed for the virologic suppression thresholds of <50 and <200 HIV-RNA copies/ml. CART was categorized into two nucleos(t)ide (2NRTI) plus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI) inhibitors, 2NRTI plus protease (PI) inhibitor, 2NRTI plus integrase (InI) inhibitor, nucleos(t)ide sparing PI/r+InI and three drug class regimens. For statistics Chi-square and U-Mann Whitney tests and adjusted multivariate logistic regression models were used.

Results: Virologic suppression rates of <50 copies/mL were observed in 4672 (90.68%) and <200 copies/mL in 4934 (95.77%) individuals. In univariate analyses, for the suppression threshold <50 copies/mL higher efficacy was noted for 2NRTI+NNRTI-based combinations (94.73%) compared to 2NRTI+PI (89.93%), 2NRTI+InI (90.61%), nucleos(t)ide sparing PI/r+InI (82.02%) and three drug class regimens (74.49%) (p < 0.0001), with less pronounced but significant differences for the threshold of 200 copies/mL [2NRTI+NNRTI-97.61%, 2NRTI+PI-95.27%, 2NRTI+InI-96.61%, PI/r+InI- 95.51% and 86.22% for three drug class cART) (p < 0.0001). However, in multivariate model, virologic efficacy for viral load <50 copies/mL was similar across treatment groups with significant influence by history of AIDS [OR:1.48 (95%CI:1.01–2.17) if AIDS diagnosed, p = 0.046], viral load < 5 log copies/mL at care entry [OR:1.47 (95%CI:1.08–2.01), p = 0.016], baseline lymphocyte CD4 count ≥200 cells/µL [OR:1.72 (95%CI:1.04–2.78), p = 0.034] and negative HCV serology [OR:1.97 (95%CI:1.29–2.94), p = 0.002]. For viral load threshold <200 copies/mL higher likelihood of virologic success was only associated with baseline lymphocyte CD4 count ≥200 cells/µL [OR:2.08 (95%CI:1.01–4.35), p = 0.049] and negative HCV status [OR:2.84 (95%CI:1.52–5.26), p = 0.001].

Conclusions: Proportion of virologically suppressed patients is in line with WHO treatment target confirming successful application of antiretroviral treatment strategy in Poland. Virological suppression rates depend on baseline patient characteristics, which should guide individualized antiretroviral tre0atment decisions.

Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV/AIDS: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Selection of optimal second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) has important clinical and programmatic implications. To inform the 2016 revision of the WHO ART guidelines, we assessed the comparative effectiveness and safety of available second-line ART regimens for adults and adolescents in whom first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens have failed.

METHODS

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched for randomised controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that evaluated outcomes in treatment-experienced adults living with HIV who switched ART regimen after failure of a WHO-recommended first-line NNRTI-based regimen. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for reports published from Jan 1, 1996, to Aug 8, 2016, and searched conference abstracts published from Jan 1, 2014, to Aug 8, 2016. Outcomes of interest were viral suppression, mortality, AIDS-defining illnesses or WHO stage 3-4 disease, discontinuations, discontinuations due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. We assessed comparative efficacy and safety in a network meta-analysis, using Bayesian hierarchical models.

FINDINGS

We identified 12 papers pertaining to eight studies, including 4778 participants. The network was centred on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir monotherapy was the only regimen inferior to others. With the lower estimate of the 95% credible interval (CrI) not exceeding the predefined threshold of 15%, evidence at 48 weeks supported the non-inferiority of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir to regimens including ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus two NRTIs with respect to viral suppression (odds ratio 1·09, 95% CrI 0·88-1·35). Estimated efficacy of ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg once daily) was too imprecise to determine non-inferiority. Overall, regimens did not differ significantly with respect to continuations, AIDS-defining illnesses or WHO stage 3-4 disease, or mortality.

INTERPRETATION

With the exception of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir, the evidence base is unable to provide strong support to alternative second-line options to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus two NRTIs, and thus more trials are warranted.

FUNDING

WHO.

When could new antiretrovirals be recommended for national treatment programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: results of a WHO Think Tank

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss barriers and opportunities for the introduction of new antiretrovirals into national treatment programmes in low-income and middle-income countries to support further treatment scale-up. Invitees to a WHO Think Tank in February 2017 evaluated recently published results.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is not sufficient clinical experience of dolutegravir (DTG), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or efavirenz 400 mg (EFV400) to recommend their use in pregnancy. Outcomes from births and assessment of congenital anomalies need to be evaluated from several hundred pregnant women. Clinical experience of these treatments during rifampicin-based treatment for tuberculosis is also required. This could be difficult for TAF, which is currently contraindicated with TAF. Changes in second-line treatment from two nucleoside analogues + protease inhibitor plus ritonavir will require new randomized trials of alternative combinations.

CONCLUSION

Additional safety and efficacy data on DTG, TAF and EFV400 in some subpopulations are needed before a large introduction in national treatment programmes. There is currently limited support for the introduction of TAF as part of first-line antiretroviral treatment in low-income and middle-income settings. There was an overall agreement for 6-monthly reviews of safety and efficacy data, in parallel with a phased introduction of the new antiretrovirals.

Raltegravir in second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings (SELECT): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

For second-line antiretroviral therapy, WHO recommends a boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, concerns about toxicity and cross-resistance motivated a search for regimens that do not contain NRTIs. We aimed to assess whether boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir would be non-inferior to boosted lopinavir plus NRTIs for virological suppression in resource-limited settings.

METHODS

A5273 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) research sites in nine resource-limited countries (three sites each in India and South Africa, two each in Malawi and Peru, and one each in Brazil, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, and Zimbabwe). Adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL after at least 24 weeks on a regimen based on a non-NRTI inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400 mg raltegravir twice a day (raltegravir group) or to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NRTIs selected from an algorithm (eg, zidovudine after failure with tenofovir and vice versa; NRTI group). Randomised group assignment was done with a computer algorithm concealed to site personnel, and stratified by HIV-1 RNA viral load, CD4 cell count, and intention to use zidovudine, with the groups balanced by each site. The primary endpoint was time to confirmed virological failure (two measurements of HIV-1 RNA viral load >400 copies per mL) at or after week 24 in the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing the cumulative probability of virological failure by 48 weeks. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01352715.

FINDINGS

Between March 13, 2012, and Oct 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 515 participants: 260 to the raltegravir group and 255 to the NRTI group; two participants in the raltegravir group and one in the NRTI group were excluded from analyses because of ineligibility. By the end of follow-up (October, 2014), 96 participants had virological failure (46 in the raltegravir group and 50 in the NRTI group). By 48 weeks, the cumulative probability of virological failure was 10·3% (95% CI 6·5-14·0) in the raltegravir group and 12·4% (8·3-16·5) in the NRTI group, with a weighted difference of -3·4% (-8·4 to 1·5), indicating that raltegravir was non-inferior, but not superior, to NRTIs. 62 (24%) participants in the raltegravir group and 81 (32%) in the NRTI group had grade 3 or higher adverse events; 19 (7%) and 29 (11%), respectively, had serious adverse events. Three participants in each group died, all from HIV-related causes.

INTERPRETATION

In settings with extensive NRTI resistance but no available resistance testing, our data support WHO's recommendation for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus NRTI for second-line antiretroviral therapy. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir is an appropriate alternative, especially if NRTI use is limited by toxicity.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health.

Choice of antiretroviral drugs for continued treatment scale-up in a public health approach: what more do we need to know?

INTRODUCTION

There have been several important developments in antiretroviral treatment in the past two years. Randomized clinical trials have been conducted to evaluate a lower dose of efavirenz (400 mg once daily). Integrase inhibitors such as dolutegravir have been approved for first-line treatment. A new formulation of tenofovir (alafenamide) has been developed and has shown equivalent efficacy to tenofovir in randomized trials. Two-drug combination treatments have been evaluated in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. The novel pharmacokinetic booster cobicistat has been compared to ritonavir in terms of pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety. The objective of this commentary is to assess recent developments in antiretroviral drug treatment to determine whether new treatments should be included in new international guidelines.

DISCUSSION

The use of first-line treatment with tenofovir and efavirenz at the standard 600 mg once-daily dose should remain the first-choice standard of care treatment. Evidence supporting a switch to efavirenz 400 mg once daily or integrase inhibitors is sufficient to consider these drugs as alternative first-line options, but more data are needed on their use in pregnant women and people with TB co-infection. The use of new formulations of tenofovir is currently too preliminary to justify immediate adoption and scale-up across HIV programmes in low- and middle-income countries. The evidence supporting use of two-drug combinations is not considered strong enough to justify changed recommendations from use of standard triple drug combinations. Cobicistat does not offer significant safety advantages over ritonavir as a pharmacokinetic booster.

CONCLUSIONS

For continued scale-up of antiretroviral treatment in low- and middle-income countries, use of first-line triple combinations including efavirenz 600 mg once daily is supported by the largest evidence base. Additional studies are underway to evaluate new treatments in key populations, and these results may justify changes to these recommendations.

Review of integrase strand transfer inhibitors for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are oral antiretroviral agents used against HIV infection. There are three agents available, including raltegravir, elvitegravir and dolutegravir, some of which are available as combination medications with other antiretroviral drugs. The efficacy and safety of INSTIs in treatment-naïve and experienced HIV-infected patients have been established by multiple studies. Based on the current practice guidelines, INSTI-based regimens are considered as one of the first-line therapies for treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. There are new INSTIs in development to improve the resistance profile and to decrease the frequency of drug administration.