Alexandra Thiry

Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study

BACKGROUND Atazanavir/ritonavir is as effective as lopinavir/ritonavir, with a more favourable lipid profile and less gastrointestinal toxicity, in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We compared these two combinations directly in treatment-naive patients. METHODS In this open-label, international non-inferiority study, 883 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily (n=440) or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily (n=443), in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated centralised randomisation schedule and was stratified by baseline levels of HIV RNA (viral load) and geographic region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral load less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The main efficacy analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779. FINDINGS At week 48, 343 (78%) of 440 patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir and 338 (76%) of 443 patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had achieved a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL (difference 1.7%, 95% CI -3.8 to 7.1). Mean increases from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar (203 cells per muL in the atazanavir/ritonavir group vs 219 cells per muL in the lopinavir/ritonavir group). 25 (6%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and 26 (6%) in the lopinavir/ritonavir group were virological failures by week 48. Only two patients, both in the atazanavir/ritonavir group, had non-polymorphic protease inhibitor resistance mutations emerge on treatment, which conferred phenotypic resistance to atazanavir in one patient. Serious adverse events were noted in 51 (12%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and in 42 (10%) of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group. Fewer patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group than in the lopinavir/ritonavir group experienced grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhoea (10 [2%] vs 50 [11%]) and nausea (17 [4%] vs 33 [8%]). Grade 2-4 jaundice was seen in 16 (4%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group versus none of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; grade 3-4 increases in total bilirubin were seen in 146 (34%) of 435 patients on atazanavir/ritonavir and in one (<1%) of 431 patients on lopinavir/ritonavir. INTERPRETATION In treatment-naive patients, atazanavir/ritonavir once-daily demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to lopinavir/ritonavir twice-daily, with less gastrointestinal toxicity but with a higher rate of hyperbilirubinaemia.

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.

Results of a phase 2 clinical trial at 48 weeks (AI424-007): a dose-ranging, safety, and efficacy comparative trial of atazanavir at three doses in combination with didanosine and stavudine in antiretroviral-naive subjects.

Three dose levels of the protease inhibitor (PI) atazanavir (200, 400, and 500 mg once daily) were compared with nelfinavir (750 mg three times daily) when given both as monotherapy and in combination with didanosine and stavudine in 420 antiretroviral-naive subjects infected with HIV-1. Subjects received monotherapy for 2 weeks, followed by combination therapy for 46 weeks. After 48 weeks, mean change from baseline in HIV RNA (−2.57 to −2.33 log10 copies/mL), the proportion of subjects with HIV RNA <400 copies/mL (56%–64%) and <50 copies/mL (28%–42%), and mean increases in CD4 cell count (185–221 cells/mm3) were comparable across treatment groups. Diarrhea was two to three times more common in the nelfinavir group (61% of subjects) than in the atazanavir groups (23%–30% of subjects, p < .0001 versus nelfinavir), and jaundice occurred only in atazanavir-treated subjects (6%, 6%, and 12% in the 200-, 400-, and 500-mg groups, respectively) (p < .03 for all atazanavir regimens vs. nelfinavir). Mean percent change from baseline in fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol was significantly less in the atazanavir groups (−7% to 4%) than in the nelfinavir group (31%) (p < .0001). In conclusion, once-daily atazanavir is a potent, safe, and well tolerated PI that rapidly and durably suppresses HIV RNA and durably increases CD4 cell count in antiretroviral-naive subjects. Through 48 weeks, atazanavir was not associated with clinically relevant increases in total cholesterol, fasting LDL cholesterol, or fasting triglycerides. In comparison, nelfinavir was associated with prompt, marked, and sustained elevations in these parameters of a magnitude that suggests they are clinically relevant.

Identification of I50L as the Signature Atazanavir (ATV)-Resistance Mutation in Treatment-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients Receiving ATV-Containing Regimens

Atazanavir (ATV) is a once-daily human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitor (PI) shown to be effective and well tolerated. ATV has a distinct resistance profile relative to other PIs, with susceptibility maintained against 86% of isolates resistant to 1-2 PIs. Clinical isolates obtained from PI-naive patients designated as experiencing virologic failure while receiving ATV-containing regimens contained a unique isoleucine-to-leucine substitution at amino acid residue 50 (I50L) of the HIV-1 protease. The I50L substitution, observed in all isolates exhibiting phenotypic resistance to ATV, emerged in a variety of different backgrounds and was most frequently accompanied by A71V, K45R, and/or G73S. Viruses containing an I50L substitution were growth impaired, displayed ATV-specific resistance, and had increased susceptibilities (</=0.4 of reference strain) to other PIs. Comparison of viruses bearing I50L with those bearing I50V revealed specific resistance to ATV and amprenavir, respectively, with no evidence of cross-resistance. The unique I50L substitution is the signature mutation for resistance to ATV.

Body Fat and Other Metabolic Effects of Atazanavir and Efavirenz, Each Administered in Combination with Zidovudine plus Lamivudine, in Antiretroviral- Naive HIV-Infected Patients

BACKGROUND Protease inhibitor treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals has been linked to the development of lipodystrophy. The effects of atazanavir on body fat distribution and related metabolic parameters were examined in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS HIV-positive patients with CD4 cell counts > or = 100 cells/mm3 were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment arms: (1) atazanavir, 400 mg given once daily, plus efavirenz placebo; or (2) efavirenz, 600 mg given once daily, plus atazanavir placebo; each drug was administered with fixed-dose zidovudine (300 mg) and lamivudine (150 mg) given twice daily, and patients were treated for at least 48 weeks. Fat distribution measurements (visceral adipose tissue [VAT], subcutaneous adipose tissue [SAT], and total adipose tissue [TAT], as measured by computed tomography; and appendicular fat, truncal fat, and total fat levels, as measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry), metabolic measurements (cholesterol and fasting triglyceride levels), and measurements of insulin resistance (fasting glucose and fasting insulin levels) were made at baseline and at week 48 of treatment for a subgroup of 111 atazanavir recipients and 100 efavirenz recipients. RESULTS Atazanavir and efavirenz treatments resulted in minimal to modest increases in fat accumulation, as measured by VAT, SAT, TAT, appendicular fat, truncal fat, and total fat levels; results were comparable in both arms. In addition, atazanavir was associated with none of the metabolic abnormalities seen with many other protease inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS Use of atazanavir for 48 weeks neither resulted in abnormal fat redistribution in antiretroviral-naive patients nor induced other metabolic disturbances commonly associated with HIV-related lipodystrophy. Longer-term assessments (e.g., at 96 weeks) will be important to confirm these findings.

Activities of atazanavir (BMS-232632) against a large panel of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clinical isolates resistant to one or more approved protease inhibitors.

ABSTRACT To evaluate the cross-resistance profile of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor (PI) atazanavir (BMS-232632), a panel of 551 clinical isolates exhibiting a wide array of PI resistance profiles and a variety of genotypic patterns were assayed for susceptibility to atazanavir and six other PIs: amprenavir, indinavir, lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir. In general, reductions in atazanavir susceptibility in vitro required several amino acid changes and were relatively modest in degree, and susceptibility was retained among isolates resistant to one or two of the currently approved PIs. There was a clear trend toward loss of susceptibility to atazanavir, as isolates exhibited increasing levels of cross-resistance to multiple PIs. Atazanavir appeared to have a distinct resistance profile relative to each of the other six PIs tested based on susceptibility comparisons against this panel of resistant isolates. Analysis of the genotypic profiles of 943 PI-susceptible and -resistant clinical isolates identified a strong correlation between the presence of amino acid changes at specific residues (10I/V/F, 20R/M/I, 24I, 33I/F/V, 36I/L/V, 46I/L, 48V, 54V/L, 63P, 71V/T/I, 73C/S/T/A, 82A/F/S/T, 84V, and 90M) and decreased susceptibility to atazanavir. While no single substitution or combination of substitutions was predictive of atazanavir resistance (change, >3.0-fold), the presence of at least five of these substitutions correlated strongly with loss of atazanavir susceptibility. Mutations associated with reduced susceptibility to each of the other six PIs were also determined.

Atazanavir--a once-daily HIV protease inhibitor that does not cause dyslipidemia in newly treated patients: results from two randomized clinical trials.

Protease inhibitor (PI) treatment can result in dyslipidemia in a significant proportion of patients. Atazanavir (ATV) is a once-daily PI that has not been associated with clinically relevant increases in total cholesterol (TC), fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), or fasting triglyceride (TG) concentrations. The objectives of this paper were to evaluate lipid profiles in untreated patients, and investigate the frequency and severity of dyslipidemia in the same individuals after treatment with ATV or nelfinavir (NFV) for 48 weeks. Two multinational, randomized, active-controlled, blinded trials compared the safety and efficacy of ATV and NFV in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients. Serum lipid concentrations were analyzed in patients who had available measurements both at baseline and at week 48. Patients who had missing data at either time point were not included. Lipid levels remained within baseline ranges at week 48 with ATV treatment, whereas clinically relevant elevations in TC, fasting LDL-C, and fasting TG concentrations occurred with NFV treatment. Mean changes from pre-treatment baseline in fasting LDL-C ranged from -6 percent to +6 percent in the ATV-treatment groups, and from +27 percent to +31 percent in the NFV-treatment groups. After 48 weeks, there was a substantive increase in the proportion of NFV-treated patients who would be recommended for lipid-lowering treatment by National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines, whereas a lesser proportion of ATV-treated patients would be recommended for lipid-lowering treatment. Atazanavir does not lead to dyslipidemia in ARV-naive patients, and may limit the need for lipid-lowering strategies to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Randomized, controlled trial of entecavir versus placebo in children with hepatitis B envelope antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B

This ongoing, randomized phase III study assesses the safety and efficacy of entecavir versus placebo in nucleos(t)ide‐naïve children (2 to <18 years) with hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg)‐positive chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Blinded treatment was administered for a minimum of 48 weeks. After week 48, patients with HBeAg seroconversion continued blinded treatment; those without switched to open‐label entecavir. The primary endpoint was HBeAg seroconversion and HBV DNA <50 IU/mL at week 48. A total of 180 patients were randomized (2:1) and treated. Baseline median age was 12 years, with approximately 50% of children ages >12 to <18, and 25% each ages ≥2 to ≤6 and >6 to ≤12. Rates for the primary endpoint at week 48 were significantly higher with entecavir than placebo (24.2% [29 of 120] vs. 3.3% [2 of 60]; P = 0.0008). Furthermore, higher response rates were observed with entecavir compared with placebo for the key week 48 secondary endpoints: HBV DNA <50 IU/mL (49.2% [59 of 120] vs. 3.3% [2 of 60]; P < 0.0001); alanine aminotransferase normalization (67.5% [81 of 120] vs. 23.3% [14 of 60]; P < 0.0001); and HBeAg seroconversion (24.2% [29 of 120] vs. 10.0% [6 of 60]; P = 0.0210). Among entecavir‐randomized patients, there was an increase in all efficacy endpoints between weeks 48 and 96, including an increase from 49% to 64% in virological suppression. The cumulative probability of emergent entecavir resistance through years 1 and 2 of entecavir was 0.6% and 2.6%, respectively. Entecavir was well tolerated with no observed differences in adverse events or changes in growth compared with placebo. Conclusion: In childhood CHB, entecavir demonstrated superior antiviral efficacy to placebo with a favorable safety profile. These results support the use of entecavir as a therapeutic option in children and adolescents with CHB. (Hepatology 2016;63:377–387)

Missing Data Methods in Hiv Clinical Trials: Regulatory Guidance and Alternative Approaches*

Efficacy in HTV clinical trials is measured by changes in HIV RNA levels over time as well as the proportion of subjects with HIV RNA levels below an assays threshold of reliable quantification at a single time point. Missing data arise naturally due to missed visits and premature discontinuations of treatment. The available data are then analyzed using repeated measures models and univariate comparisons of proportions, assuming missing data occur at random or considering missing values as treatment failures (worst case scenario). These and other methods recently proposed by regulatory authorities are presented along with alternative approaches. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are discussed. Data from a recent comparison of ‘standard-of-care’ triple combination regimens are used for illustration.

Discovery of the Novel Entecavir‐Resistant Hepatitis B Virus Reverse Transcriptase A181C Substitution From an Integrated Genotypic Analysis

Entecavir (ETV) is a first‐line therapy for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), demonstrating potent suppression of HBV DNA and a high barrier to viral resistance. Previous studies revealed that ETV‐resistant (ETVr) HBV DNA resulted from substitutions in the HBV reverse transcriptase (RT) at positions rtT184, rtS202, or rtM250 in combination with lamivudine resistance (LVDr) substitutions rtM204I/V±rtL180M. In vitro, viral variants exhibit varying degrees of ETV susceptibility and replication capacity depending on specific resistance substitutions. To explore the potential for additional pathways to ETVr, HBV RT sequences from 982 evaluable patients enrolled in 17 ETV clinical studies were analyzed. Thirty novel emergent substitutions at amino acid positions not previously associated with HBV nucleos(t)ide drug resistance were observed in at least 2 patients and were identified in patient‐derived HBV with a wild‐type, LVDr, or ETVr RT sequence. Phenotypic analysis of these substitutions indicated that they had no effect on ETV susceptibility. Phenotypic analysis was also performed on patient‐derived HBV RT sequences from 10 LVD‐naive and 13 LVD‐experienced patients with virologic breakthrough and emergent novel substitutions while on ETV treatment. One LVD‐experienced patient‐derived HBV RT harboring LVDr substitutions rtL180M+rtM204V with rtA181C displayed reduced ETV susceptibility (122‐fold greater than wild‐type HBV) and remained susceptible to adefovir and tenofovir. HBV harboring the rtA181C substitution without LVDr substitutions rtL180M+rtM204V remained susceptible to inhibition by ETV, adefovir, and tenofovir, although cross‐resistance to LVD and telbivudine was observed. Conclusion: An integrated genotypic analysis of HBV RT sequences from patients with chronic HBV treated with ETV led to the discovery of the novel ETVr substitution rtA181C. This substitution was always detected in combination with LVDr substitutions rtL180M+rtM204V in ETV‐treated patients.