Benoit Trottier

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 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.)

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. METHODS In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected patients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. FINDINGS We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2·0%, 95% CI -0·7 to 4·7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·08 vs 0·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change -3 vs 20; p<0·0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change -1·30 vs -2·86; p<0·0001) and hip (-0·66 vs -2·95; p<0·0001) at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. FUNDING Gilead Sciences.

Durable efficacy of enfuvirtide over 48 weeks in heavily treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in the T-20 versus optimized background regimen only 1 and 2 clinical trials.

Background:The T-20 Versus Optimized Background Regimen Only (TORO) 1 and TORO 2 clinical trials are open-label, controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 studies comparing enfuvirtide plus an optimized background (OB) of antiretrovirals (n = 661) with OB alone (n = 334) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Methods:The primary objective at week 48 was to investigate durability of efficacy, as measured by the percentage of patients maintaining their week 24 response or improving. Efficacy analyses used the intent-to-treat population. Results:A total of 73.7% of patients randomized to the enfuvirtide group remained on treatment through week 48 versus 21.3% originally randomized to the control group. At week 48, a higher proportion of week 24 responders maintained their response or were new responders in the enfuvirtide group than in the control group in each responder category: HIV-1 RNA level ≥1.0 log10 change from baseline, <400 copies/mL and <50 copies/mL (37.4%, 30.4%, and 18.3% in the enfuvirtide group vs. 17.1%, 12.0%, and 7.8% in the control group, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). CD4 cell count increases from baseline were twice as great in the enfuvirtide group as in the control group. Conclusion:These data demonstrate durable efficacy of enfuvirtide plus OB over 48 weeks.

Efficacy and safety of etravirine at week 96 in treatment-experienced HIV type-1-infected patients in the DUET-1 and DUET-2 trials.

BACKGROUND Durable efficacy and long-term safety of antiretroviral therapy are important goals in the management of treatment-experienced patients. The 96-week efficacy and safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) etravirine were evaluated in the Phase III DUET trials. METHODS HIV type-1-infected treatment-experienced adults with viral loads >5,000 copies/ml and NNRTI and protease inhibitor resistance were randomized to receive etravirine 200 mg or placebo, each twice daily and in combination with a background regimen of darunavir/ritonavir twice daily, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and optional enfuvirtide. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with viral load <50 copies/ml (intent-to-treat analysis, time-to-loss of virological response algorithm) at week 24. Results from both trials were combined in the pre-specified pooled 96-week analysis. RESULTS In total, 599 patients received etravirine and 604 received placebo. At week 96, 57% of patients in the etravirine group versus 36% in the placebo group had a viral load <50 copies/ml (P<0.0001); 91% and 88% of patients, respectively, had maintained this response from week 48. Mean increases in CD4(+) T-cell count from baseline at week 96 were 128 cells/mm(3) with etravirine versus 86 cells/mm(3) with placebo (P<0.0001). With the exception of rash, which was reported more frequently with etravirine than placebo (21% versus 12%, respectively; P<0.0001), the safety and tolerability profile of etravirine was similar to placebo over the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS Etravirine, in combination with an antiretroviral background regimen, provided durable virological and immunological responses with no new safety concerns in treatment-experienced patients over 96 weeks in the DUET trials.

Valproic acid in association with highly active antiretroviral therapy for reducing systemic HIV‐1 reservoirs: results from a multicentre randomized clinical study

Conflicting results have been reported regarding the ability of valproic acid (VPA) to reduce the size of HIV reservoirs in patients receiving suppressive highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). In a randomized multicentre, cross‐over study, we assessed whether adding VPA to stable HAART could potentially reduce the size of the latent viral reservoir in CD4 T cells of chronically infected patients.

Efficacy of the Protease Inhibitors Tipranavir plus Ritonavir in Treatment-Experienced Patients: 24-Week Analysis from the RESIST-1 Trial

BACKGROUND Improved treatment options are needed for patients infected with multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). The nonpeptidic protease inhibitor tipranavir has demonstrated antiviral activity against many protease inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 isolates. The Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST-1) trial is an ongoing, open-label study comparing the efficacy and safety of ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) with an investigator-selected ritonavir-boosted comparator protease inhibitor (CPI/r) in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS Six hundred twenty antiretroviral-experienced patients were treated at 125 sites in North America and Australia. Before randomization, all patients underwent genotypic resistance testing, which investigators used to select a CPI/r and an optimized background regimen. Patients were randomized to receive TPV/r or CPI/r and were stratified on the basis of preselected protease inhibitor and enfuvirtide use. Treatment response was defined as a confirmed reduction in the HIV-1 load of > or = 1 log10 less than the baseline level without treatment change at week 24. RESULTS Mean baseline HIV-1 loads and CD4+ cell counts were 4.74 log10 copies/mL and 164 cells/mm3, respectively. At week 24, a total of 41.5% of patients in the TPV/r arm and 22.3% in the CPI/r arm had a > or = 1-log10 reduction in the HIV-1 load (intent-to-treat population; P<.0001). Mean increases in the CD4+ cell count of 54 and 24 cells/mm3 occurred in the TPV/r and CPI/r groups, respectively. Adverse events were slightly more common in the TPV/r group and included diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Elevations in alanine and aspartate aminotransferase levels and in cholesterol/triglyceride levels were more frequent in the TPV/r group. CONCLUSIONS TPV/r demonstrated superior antiviral activity, compared with investigator-selected, ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors, at week 24 in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection.

Safety of Enfuvirtide in Combination With an Optimized Background of Antiretrovirals in Treatment-Experienced HIV-1-Infected Adults Over 48 Weeks

Background:Antiretroviral tolerability is a critical factor contributing to treatment outcome. The T-20 Versus Optimized Background Regimen Only (TORO) studies assessed the safety and efficacy of enfuvirtide in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Methods:A total of 997 patients were randomized at a 2:1 ratio to an optimized background antiretroviral regimen plus enfuvirtide (n = 663) or an optimized background regimen alone (control group; n = 334). Control patients could switch to enfuvirtide on virologic failure. Results:In total, 26.5% of patients randomized to enfuvirtide and 36.6% to the control group discontinued study treatment before week 48; the percentage of patients withdrawn for safety reasons (including adverse events [AEs], deaths, and laboratory abnormalities) was 14.0% in the enfuvirtide group and 11.6% in the control group. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred in 98% of enfuvirtide patients and led to treatment discontinuation in 4.4%. Treatment-related (defined as possibly, probably, or remotely) AE rates per 100 patient-years were lower with enfuvirtide (96.2) than in the control group (149.9); diarrhea, nausea, and fatigue, the most frequently reported AEs, were significantly less frequent with enfuvirtide than in the control group. Pneumonia was significantly more frequent in patients treated with enfuvirtide (6.7 vs. 0.6 events per 100 patient-years), although the incidence was within expected ranges for this population. Lymphadenopathy was also higher in enfuvirtide-treated patients (7.1 vs. 1.2 events per 100 patient-years) for control patients. Conclusion:The addition of enfuvirtide to an optimized background regimen does not exacerbate AEs commonly associated with antiretrovirals. ISRs limited treatment in <5% of patients.

A placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of a growth hormone releasing factor in HIV-infected patients with abdominal fat accumulation.

Objective:To investigate the effects of TH9507, a novel growth hormone releasing factor, on abdominal fat accumulation, metabolic and safety parameters in HIV-infected patients with central fat accumulation. Design and methods:Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolling 61 HIV-infected patients with increased waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio. Participants were randomized to placebo or 1 or 2 mg TH9507 subcutaneously, once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in abdominal fat, assessed by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and cross-sectional computerized tomography scan. Secondary endpoints included change in insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), metabolic, quality of life, and safety parameters. Results:TH9507 resulted in dose-related physiological increases in IGF-I (P < 0.01 for 1 mg (+48%) and 2 mg (+65%) versus placebo). Trunk fat decreased in the 2 mg group versus placebo (0.8, −4.6 and −9.2%; placebo, 1 and 2 mg, respectively, P = 0.014 for 2 mg versus placebo), without significant change in limb fat. Visceral fat (VAT) decreased most in the 2 mg group (−5.4, −3.6 and −15.7%; placebo, 1 and 2 mg, respectively) but this change was not significant versus placebo. Subcutaneous fat (SAT) was preserved and did not change between or within groups. Lean body mass and the ratio of VAT to SAT improved significantly in both treatment groups versus placebo. Triglyceride and the cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein ratio decreased significantly in the 2 mg group versus placebo. Treatment was generally well tolerated without changes in glucose. Conclusions:TH9507 reduced truncal fat, improved the lipid profile and did not increase glucose levels in HIV-infected patients with central fat accumulation. TH9507 may be a beneficial treatment strategy in this population, but longer-term studies with more patients are needed to determine effects on VAT, treatment durability, and safety.

HIV-associated Lipodystrophy Syndrome: A Review of Clinical Aspects

Approximately two years after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV infection, body shape changes and metabolic abnormalities were increasingly observed. Initially, these were ascribed to protease inhibitors, but it is now clear that nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors also contribute to lipodystrophy syndrome. The syndrome groups together clinical conditions describing changes in body fat distribution that include lipoatrophy, lipoaccumulation or both. However, there does not appear to be a direct link between lipoatrophy and lipoaccumulation that would support a single mechanism for the redistribution of body fat. Currently, there is no clear definition of lipodystrophy, which explains the difficulty in determining its prevalence and etiology. There are no current guidelines for the treatment of fat distribution abnormalities that occur in the absence of other metabolic complications. The present article reviews the current state of knowledge of the definition, symptoms, risk factors, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of the morphological changes associated with lipodystrophy syndrome.