Adriano Lazzarin

Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs. METHODS We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Safety and efficacy of the HIV-1 integrase inhibitor raltegravir (MK-0518) in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant virus: a phase II randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with potent in-vitro activity against HIV-1 strains including those resistant to currently available antiretroviral drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of raltegravir when added to optimised background regimens in HIV-infected patients. METHODS HIV-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA viral load over 5000 copies per mL, CD4 cell counts over 50 cells per muL, and documented genotypic and phenotypic resistance to at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and one protease inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive raltegravir (200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo orally twice daily in this multicentre, triple-blind, dose-ranging, randomised study. The primary endpoints were change in viral load from baseline at week 24 and safety. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00105157. FINDINGS 179 patients were eligible for randomisation. 44 patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg raltegravir, 45 to receive 400 mg raltegravir, and 45 to receive 600 mg raltegravir; 45 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. One patient in the 200 mg group did not receive treatment and was therefore excluded from the analyses. For all groups, the median duration of previous antiretroviral therapy was 9.9 years (range 0.4-17.3 years) and the mean baseline viral load was 4.7 (SD 0.5) log10 copies per mL. Four patients discontinued due to adverse experiences, three (2%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and one (2%) of the 45 patients on placebo. 41 patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy: 14 (11%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and 27 (60%) of the 45 patients on placebo. At week 24, mean change in viral load from baseline was -1.80 (95% CI -2.10 to -1.50) log10 copies per mL in the 200 mg group, -1.87 (-2.16 to -1.58) log10 copies per mL in the 400 mg group, -1.84 (-2.10 to -1.58) log10 copies per mL in the 600 mg group, and -0.35 (-0.61 to -0.09) log(10) copies per mL for the placebo group. Raltegravir at all doses showed a safety profile much the same as placebo; there were no dose-related toxicities. INTERPRETATION In patients with few remaining treatment options, raltegravir at all doses studied provided better viral suppression than placebo when added to an optimised background regimen. The safety profile of raltegravir is comparable with that of placebo at all doses studied.

Efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in DUET-2: 24-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND TMC125 (etravirine) is a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with activity against NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 in phase IIb trials. The aim of DUET-2 is to examine the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of TMC125 in treatment-experienced patients. METHODS In this continuing randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, HIV-1-infected patients on failing antiretroviral therapy with evidence of resistance to currently available NNRTIs and at least three primary protease inhibitor mutations were eligible for enrolment if on stable (8 weeks unchanged) antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA greater than 5000 copies per mL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TMC125 (200 mg) or placebo, each given twice daily with darunavir-ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and optional enfuvirtide. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (FDA time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00255099. FINDINGS 591 patients were randomised and treated (295 patients in the TMC125 group and 296 in the placebo group). By week 24, 51 (17%) patients in the TMC125 group and 73 (25%) in the placebo group had discontinued, mainly because of virological failure. 183 (62%) patients in the TMC125 group and 129 (44%) in the placebo group achieved confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (difference 18%, 95% CI 11-26; p=0.0003). The type and frequency of adverse events were much the same in the two groups. INTERPRETATION In treatment-experienced patients, treatment with TMC125 led to better virological suppression at week 24 than did placebo. The safety and tolerability profile of TMC125 was generally comparable with placebo.

Subgroup and Resistance Analyses of Raltegravir for Resistant HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. RESULTS Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. CONCLUSIONS When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. METHODS Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. FINDINGS 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per microL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86.1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81.9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4.2%, 95% CI -1.9 to 10.3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0.0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44.1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77.0%]; difference -32.8%, 95% CI -40.2 to -25.0, p<0.0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. INTERPRETATION Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING Merck.

Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND The continuing, randomised, multinational, phase IIB POWER 1 and 2 studies aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of darunavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We did a pooled subgroup analysis to update results at week 48 for patients receiving the recommended dose of darunavir-ritonavir compared with those receiving other protease inhibitors (PIs). METHODS After 24-week dose-finding phases and primary efficacy analyses, patients randomised to receive darunavir-ritonavir were given 600/100 mg twice daily, and patients receiving control PIs continued on assigned treatment into the longer-term, open-label phase; all patients continued on optimised background regimen. We assessed patients who had reached week 48 or discontinued earlier at the time of analysis; for the darunavir-ritonavir group, only patients who received 600/100 mg twice daily from baseline were included. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The POWER 2 study (TMC114-C202) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00071097). FINDINGS At week 48, 67 of 110 (61%) darunavir-ritonavir patients compared with 18 of 120 (15%) of control PI patients had viral load reductions of 1 log10 copies per mL or greater from baseline (primary endpoint; difference in response rates 46%, 95% CI 35%-57%, p<0.0001). Based on a logistic regression model including stratification factors (baseline number of primary PI mutations, use of enfuvirtide, baseline viral load) and study as covariates, the difference in response was 50% (odds ratio 11.72, 95% CI 5.75-23.89). In the darunavir-ritonavir group, rates of adverse events were mostly lower than or similar to those in the control group when corrected for treatment exposure. No unexpected safety concerns were identified. INTERPRETATION Efficacy responses with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily plus optimised background regimen were greater than those with control PI and were sustained to at least week 48, with favourable safety and tolerability in treatment-experienced patients. This regimen could expand the treatment options available for such patients.

Durable efficacy of tipranavir-ritonavir in combination with an optimised background regimen of antiretroviral drugs for treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks in the Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST) studies: an analysis of combined data from two randomised open-label trials

BACKGROUND Treatment options for HIV-1 infected individuals who have received extensive previous antiretroviral therapy are limited. We compared efficacy and safety of the novel non-peptidic protease inhibitor tipranavir co-administered with ritonavir plus an optimised background regimen with that of an investigator-selected ritonavir-boosted comparator protease inhibitor (CPI-ritonavir) in such patients. METHODS We did a combined analysis of 48-week data from two ongoing, randomised, open-label, multinational, phase III, RESIST studies. HIV-1-infected adults with 3 months or longer previous triple antiretroviral class experience, two or more previous protease inhibitor regimens, HIV-1 RNA 1000 copies per mL or greater, and genotypically demonstrated primary resistance to protease inhibitor, were eligible. Primary endpoints were proportion of treatment responders (with reduction in viral load of 1 log(10) copies per mL or greater below baseline without treatment change) at 48 weeks and time to treatment failure through 48 weeks (intention-to-treat analysis). The RESIST studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00054717 (RESIST-1) and NCT00144170 (RESIST-2). FINDINGS 3324 patients were screened; 746 received tipranavir-ritonavir and 737 CPI-ritonavir. 486 (65.1%) patients on tipranavir-ritonavir and 192 (26.1%) on CPI-ritonavir remained on assigned treatment until week 48. At week 48, more patients achieved and maintained treatment response in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (251 [33.6%] vs 113 [15.3%]; p<0.0001). Median time to treatment failure was significantly longer in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (113 days vs 0 days; p<0.0001). Gastrointestinal system disorders and raised transaminase, cholesterol, and triglycerides were more frequent in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION Compared with CPI-ritonavir, tipranavir-ritonavir with an optimised background regimen provides better virological and immunological responses over 48 weeks in patients who have received extensive previous antiretroviral treatment.

Subgroup analyses of maraviroc in previously treated R5 HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND We conducted subanalyses of the combined results of the Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients (MOTIVATE) 1 and MOTIVATE 2 studies to better characterize the efficacy and safety of maraviroc in key subgroups of patients. METHODS We analyzed pooled data from week 48 from the two studies according to sex, race or ethnic group, clade, CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) delta32 genotype, viral load at the time of screening, the use or nonuse of enfuvirtide in optimized background therapy (OBT), the baseline CD4 cell count, the number of active antiretroviral drugs coadministered, the first use of selected background agents, and tropism at baseline. Changes in viral tropism and the CD4 count at treatment failure were evaluated. Data on aminotransferase levels in patients coinfected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) were also analyzed. RESULTS A treatment benefit of maraviroc plus OBT over placebo plus OBT was shown in all subgroups, including patients with a low CD4 cell count at baseline, those with a high viral load at screening, and those who had not received active agents in OBT. Analyses of the virologic response according to the first use of selected background drugs showed the additional benefit of adding a potent new drug to maraviroc at the initiation of maraviroc therapy. More patients in whom maraviroc failed had a virus binding to the CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) at failure, but there was no evidence of a decrease in the CD4 cell count at failure in such patients as compared with those in whom placebo failed. Subanalyses involving patients coinfected with HBV or HCV revealed no evidence of excess hepatotoxic effects as compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS Subanalyses of pooled data from week 48 indicate that maraviroc provides a valuable treatment option for a wide spectrum of patients with R5 HIV-1 infection who have been treated previously. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00098306 and NCT00098722.)

Comparison of once-daily atazanavir with efavirenz, each in combination with fixed-dose zidovudine and lamivudine, as initial therapy for patients infected with HIV

Background:Atazanavir, an azapeptide protease inhibitor (PI), has pharmacokinetics that allow once-daily dosing, and it is not associated with significant PI-associated dyslipidemia. Methods:A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, 2-arm study comparing the antiviral efficacy and safety of atazanavir 400 mg administered once daily with efavirenz 600 mg administered once daily in combination with open-label fixed-dose zidovudine plus lamivudine twice daily. The 810 treatment-naive patients were stratified by HIV RNA level. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of treated patients with HIV RNA levels <400 copies/mL through week 48. Results:At week 48, HIV RNA levels were <400 copies/mL in 70% of patients receiving atazanavir and 64% of patients receiving efavirenz (intent-to-treat, difference; 95% confidence interval: 5.2%; −1.2%, 11.7%). Median CD4+ cell counts increased at comparable magnitudes and rates in the 2 treatment arms (mean change at week 48: 176 cells/mm3 with atazanavir, 160 cells/mm3 with efavirenz). Atazanavir-treated patients relative to comparator-treated patients did not demonstrate significant increases in total cholesterol, fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or fasting triglycerides over 48 weeks of therapy. Atazanavir-linked bilirubin elevations infrequently resulted in treatment discontinuation (<1%). Atazanavir treatment did not increase fasting glucose or insulin levels. Conclusions:For initial HIV treatment, a highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen of atazanavir/zidovudine/lamivudine is as efficacious and well tolerated as the combination of efavirenz/zidovudine/lamivudine.

A controlled trial of zidovudine in primary human immunodeficiency virus infection.

BACKGROUND It is possible that antiretroviral treatment given early during primary infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may reduce acute symptoms, help preserve immune function, and improve the long-term prognosis. METHODS To assess the effect of early antiviral treatment, we conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 77 patients with primary HIV infection were randomly assigned to receive either zidovudine (250 mg twice daily; n = 39) or placebo (n = 38) for six months. RESULTS The mean time from the onset of symptoms until enrollment in the study was 25.1 days. Among the 43 patients who were still symptomatic at the time of enrollment, there was no appreciable difference in the mean (+/- SE) duration of the retroviral syndrome between the zidovudine group (15.0 +/- 4.1 days) and the placebo group (15.8 +/- 3.6 days). During a mean follow-up period of 15 months, minor opportunistic infections developed in eight patients: oral candidiasis in four, herpes zoster in two, and oral hairy leukoplakia in two. Disease progression was significantly less frequent in the zidovudine group (one opportunistic infection) than in the placebo group (seven opportunistic infections; P = 0.009 by the log-rank test). After adjustment for the base-line CD4 cell count, the patients treated with zidovudine had an average gain of 8.9 CD4 cells per cubic millimeter per month (95 percent confidence interval, -1.4 to 19.1) during the first six months of the study, whereas those receiving placebo had an average loss of 12.0 CD4 cells per cubic millimeter per month (95 percent confidence interval, 5.2 to 18.7), for a between-group difference of 20.9 CD4 cells per cubic millimeter per month (95 percent confidence interval, 8.5 to 33.2; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Antiretroviral therapy administered during primary HIV infection may improve the subsequent clinical course and increase the CD4 cell count.