Catherine Godfrey

Early Versus Standard Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV Infected Adults in Haiti

BACKGROUND For adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who have CD4+ T-cell counts that are greater than 200 and less than 350 per cubic millimeter and who live in areas with limited resources, the optimal time to initiate antiretroviral therapy remains uncertain. METHODS We conducted a randomized, open-label trial of early initiation of antiretroviral therapy, as compared with the standard timing for initiation of therapy, among HIV-infected adults in Haiti who had a confirmed CD4+ T-cell count that was greater than 200 and less than 350 per cubic millimeter at baseline and no history of an acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) illness. The primary study end point was survival. The early-treatment group began taking zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz therapy within 2 weeks after enrollment. The standard-treatment group started the same regimen of antiretroviral therapy when their CD4+ T-cell count fell to 200 per cubic millimeter or less or when clinical AIDS developed. Participants in both groups underwent monthly follow-up assessments and received isoniazid and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis with nutritional support. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2008, a total of 816 participants--408 per group--were enrolled and were followed for a median of 21 months. The CD4+ T-cell count at enrollment was approximately 280 per cubic millimeter in both groups. There were 23 deaths in the standard-treatment group, as compared with 6 in the early-treatment group (hazard ratio with standard treatment, 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6 to 9.8; P=0.001). There were 36 incident cases of tuberculosis in the standard-treatment group, as compared with 18 in the early-treatment group (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.6; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS Early initiation of antiretroviral therapy decreased the rates of death and incident tuberculosis. Access to antiretroviral therapy should be expanded to include all HIV-infected adults who have CD4+ T-cell counts of less than 350 per cubic millimeter, including those who live in areas with limited resources. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00120510.)

Abacavir–Lamivudine versus Tenofovir–Emtricitabine for Initial HIV-1 Therapy

BACKGROUND The use of fixed-dose combination nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor is recommended as initial therapy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which NRTI combination has greater efficacy and safety is not known. METHODS In a randomized, blinded equivalence study involving 1858 eligible patients, we compared four once-daily antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection: abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine plus efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. The primary efficacy end point was the time from randomization to virologic failure (defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level > or = 1000 copies per milliliter at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks, or > or = 200 copies per milliliter at or after 24 weeks). RESULTS A scheduled interim review by an independent data and safety monitoring board showed significant differences in virologic efficacy, according to the NRTI combination, among patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more. At a median follow-up of 60 weeks, among the 797 patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the time to virologic failure was significantly shorter in the abacavir-lamivudine group than in the tenofovir DF-emtricitabine group (hazard ratio, 2.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.46 to 3.72; P<0.001), with 57 virologic failures (14%) in the abacavir-lamivudine group versus 26 (7%) in the tenofovir DF-emtricitabine group. The time to the first adverse event was also shorter in the abacavir-lamivudine group (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the study groups in the change from the baseline CD4 cell count at week 48. CONCLUSIONS In patients with screening HIV-1 RNA levels of 100,000 copies per milliliter or more, the times to virologic failure and the first adverse event were both significantly shorter in patients randomly assigned to abacavir-lamivudine than in those assigned to tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00118898.)

Phase 2 Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Vicriviroc, a CCR5 Inhibitor, in HIV-1-Infected, Treatment-Experienced Patients: AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5211

BACKGROUND Vicriviroc, an investigational CCR5 inhibitor, demonstrated short-term antiretroviral activity in a phase 1 study. METHODS The present study was a double-blind, randomized phase 2 study of vicriviroc in treatment-experienced, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects experiencing virologic failure while receiving a ritonavir-containing regimen with an HIV-1 RNA level >or=5000 copies/mL and CCR5-using virus. Vicriviroc at 5, 10, or 15 mg or placebo was added to the failing regimen for 14 days, after which the antiretroviral regimen was optimized. The primary end point was the change in plasma HIV-1 RNA levels at day 14; secondary end points included safety/tolerability and HIV-1 RNA changes at week 24. RESULTS One hundred eighteen subjects were randomized with a median HIV-1 RNA level of 36,380 (4.56 log(10)) copies/mL and a median CD4 cell count of 146 cells/mm(3). At 14 days and 24 weeks, mean changes in HIV-1 RNA level (log(10) copies/mL) were greater in the vicriviroc groups (-0.87 and -1.51 [5 mg], -1.15 and -1.86 [10 mg], and -0.92 and -1.68 [15 mg]) than in the placebo group (+0.06 and -0.29) (P<.01). Grade 3/4 adverse events were similar across groups. Malignancies occurred in 6 subjects randomized to vicriviroc and in 2 to placebo. CONCLUSIONS In HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced patients, vicriviroc demonstrated potent virologic suppression through 24 weeks. The relationship of vicriviroc to malignancy is uncertain. Further development of vicriviroc in treatment-experienced patients is warranted.

Atazanavir Plus Ritonavir or Efavirenz as Part of a 3-Drug Regimen for Initial Treatment of HIV-1: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND Limited data compare once-daily options for initial therapy for HIV-1. OBJECTIVE To compare time to virologic failure; first grade-3 or -4 sign, symptom, or laboratory abnormality (safety); and change or discontinuation of regimen (tolerability) for atazanavir plus ritonavir with efavirenz-containing initial therapy for HIV-1. DESIGN A randomized equivalence trial accrued from September 2005 to November 2007, with median follow-up of 138 weeks. Regimens were assigned by using a central computer, stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA level less than 100 000 copies/mL or 100 000 copies/mL or greater; blinding was known only to the site pharmacist. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00118898) SETTING 59 AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. PATIENTS Antiretroviral-naive patients. INTERVENTION Open-label atazanavir plus ritonavir or efavirenz, each given with with placebo-controlled abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine. MEASUREMENTS Primary outcomes were time to virologic failure, safety, and tolerability events. Secondary end points included proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA level less than 50 copies/mL, emergence of drug resistance, changes in CD4 cell counts, calculated creatinine clearance, and lipid levels. RESULTS 463 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir plus ritonavir and 465 were assigned to receive efavirenz, both with abacavir-lamivudine; 322 (70%) and 324 (70%), respectively, completed follow-up. The respective numbers of participants in each group who received tenofovir DF-emtricitabine were 465 and 464; 342 (74%) and 343 (74%) completed follow-up. Primary efficacy was similar in the group that received atazanavir plus ritonavir and and the group that received efavirenz and did not differ according to whether abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine was also given. Hazard ratios for time to virologic failure were 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.56) and 1.01 (CI, 0.70 to 1.46), respectively, although CIs did not meet prespecified criteria for equivalence. The time to safety (P = 0.048) and tolerability (P < 0.001) events was longer in persons given atazanavir plus ritonavir than in those given efavirenz with abacavir-lamivudine but not with tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. LIMITATIONS Neither HLA-B*5701 nor resistance testing was the standard of care when A5202 enrolled patients. The third drugs, atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz, were open-label; the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were prematurely unblinded in the high viral load stratum; and 32% of patients modified or discontinued treatment with their third drug. CONCLUSION Atazanavir plus ritonavir and efavirenz have similar antiviral activity when used with abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Institutes of Health.

HIV Type 1 Chemokine Coreceptor Use among Antiretroviral-Experienced Patients Screened for a Clinical Trial of a CCR5 Inhibitor: AIDS Clinical Trial Group A5211

BACKGROUND Chemokine coreceptor use impacts both the natural history of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) disease and the potential use of a new class of antiretroviral agents, the CCR5 inhibitors. METHODS We analyzed HIV-infected patients who were screened for participation in Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Clinical Trial Group protocol A5211, a phase 2b study of the investigational CCR5 inhibitor vicriviroc involving antiretroviral-experienced subjects. Screening CD4(+) cell count, HIV-1 plasma RNA level, HIV-1 genotype, and chemokine coreceptor use phenotype were determined. The univariate and multivariate association of subject characteristics with coreceptor use was assessed by logistic regression. RESULTS Coreceptor use was determined for 391 subjects: 197 (50%) had virus that used the CCR5 coreceptor (the R5 group), 178 [corrected] (46%) had dual-tropic or mixed HIV-1 populations that used both CCR5 and CXCR4 coreceptors (the D/M group), and 16 (4%) had virus that used the CXCR4 coreceptor (the X4 group). The D/M group had a significantly lower median CD4(+) cell count than the R5 virus group (103 cells/ micro L vs. 170 cells/ mu L; P<.001). No other characteristics were independently associated. Among 118 subjects who entered A5211 having R5 virus, 12 (10%) had D/M virus according to the results of a second coreceptor test conducted prior to starting treatment with the study drug. CONCLUSIONS Infection with dual-tropic or mixed HIV-1 populations that use both CCR5 and CXCR4 is common among highly treatment-experienced patients, but infection with virus using CXCR4 alone is uncommon. Subjects in the D/M group had significantly lower CD4(+) cell counts than subjects in the R5 group. Evaluating coreceptor use will be important in the clinical development of CCR5 and CXCR4 inhibitors.

Atazanavir Plus Ritonavir or Efavirenz as Part of a 3-Drug Regimen for Initial Treatment of HIV-1

Few studies have compared once-daily treatment regimens for HIV-1. This randomized trial in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV-1 showed that a once-daily ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor re...

Abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir DF/emtricitabine as part of combination regimens for initial treatment of HIV: final results.

BACKGROUND AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5202 compared blinded abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) to tenofovir DF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) with efavirenz (EFV) or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected treatment-naive patients, stratified by screening HIV RNA (< or ≥ 10(5) copies/mL). Due to higher virologic failure with ABC/3TC in the high HIV RNA stratum, blinded treatment was stopped in this group, but study follow-up continued for all patients. METHODS Primary endpoints were times to virologic failure, regimen modification, and safety event. RESULTS In the low HIV RNA stratum, time to virologic failure was similar for ABC/3TC vs TDF/FTC with ATV/r (hazard ratio [HR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76, 2.05) or EFV (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.77, 1.96), with significantly shorter times to regimen modification for ABC/3TC with EFV or ATV/r and to safety events with EFV. Prior to stopping blinded treatment in the high stratum, higher virologic failure rates were seen with ABC/3TC with EFV (HR 2.46, 95% CI 1.20, 5.05) or ATV/r (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.19, 4.14). CONCLUSIONS In the low HIV RNA stratum, times to virologic failure for ABC/3TC or TDF/FTC were not different with EFV or ATV/r. In the high stratum, virologic failure rate was significantly higher for ABC/3TC than for TDF/FTC when given with either EFV or ATV/r.

Efficacy and Tolerability of 3 Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor–Sparing Antiretroviral Regimens for Treatment-Naive Volunteers Infected With HIV-1: A Randomized, Controlled Equivalence Trial

Background Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI) inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons.BACKGROUND Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons. OBJECTIVE To evaluate 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing initial antiretroviral regimens to show equivalence for virologic efficacy and tolerability. DESIGN A phase 3, open-label study randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio with follow-up for at least 96 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00811954). SETTING 57 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. PATIENTS Treatment-naive persons aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA levels greater than 1000 copies/mL without resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors. INTERVENTION Atazanavir, 300 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d; raltegravir, 400 mg twice daily; or darunavir, 800 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d, plus combination emtricitabine, 200 mg/d, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg/d. MEASUREMENTS Virologic failure, defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks or greater than 200 copies/mL at or after 24 weeks, and tolerability failure, defined as discontinuation of atazanavir, raltegravir, or darunavir for toxicity. A secondary end point was a combination of virologic efficacy and tolerability. RESULTS Among 1809 participants, all pairwise comparisons of incidence of virologic failure over 96 weeks showed equivalence within a margin of equivalence defined as -10% to 10%. Raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir were equivalent for tolerability, whereas ritonavir-boosted atazanavir resulted in a 12.7% and 9.2% higher incidence of tolerability discontinuation than raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir, respectively, primarily because of hyperbilirubinemia. For combined virologic efficacy and tolerability, ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, and raltegravir was superior to both protease inhibitors. Antiretroviral resistance at the time of virologic failure was rare but more frequent with raltegravir. LIMITATION The trial was open-label, and ritonavir was not provided. CONCLUSION Over 2 years, all 3 regimens attained high and equivalent rates of virologic control. Tolerability of regimens containing raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to that of the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir regimen. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Immunogenicity and Safety of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in HIV-1–Infected Women

BACKGROUND Women infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are disproportionately affected by human papillomavirus (HPV)-related anogenital disease, particularly with increased immunosuppression. AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol A5240 was a trial of 319 HIV-infected women in the United States, Brazil, and South Africa to determine immunogenicity and safety of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in 3 strata based on screening CD4 count: >350 (stratum A), 201-350 (stratum B), and ≤200 cells/µL (stratum C). METHODS Safety and serostatus of HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 were examined. HPV serological testing was performed using competitive Luminex immunoassay (HPV-4 cLIA). HPV type-specific seroconversion analysis was done for participants who were seronegative for the given type at baseline. RESULTS Median age of patients was 36 years; 11% were white, 56% black, and 31% Hispanic. Median CD4 count was 310 cells/µL, and 40% had undetectable HIV-1 load. No safety issues were identified. Seroconversion proportions among women at week 28 for HPV types 6, 11,16, and 18 were 96%, 98%, 99%, and 91%, respectively, for stratum A; 100%, 98%, 98%, and 85%, respectively, for stratum B, and 84%, 92%, 93%, and 75%, respectively, for stratum C. CONCLUSIONS The quadrivalent HPV vaccine targeted at types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was safe and immunogenic in HIV-infected women aged 13-45 years. Women with HIV RNA load >10 000 copies/mL and/or CD4 count <200 cells/µL had lower rates of seroconversion rates. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00604175.

Regimen Simplification to Atazanavir-Ritonavir Alone as Maintenance Antiretroviral Therapy: Final 48-Week Clinical and Virologic Outcomes

BACKGROUND Simplified maintenance therapy with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/RTV) alone is attractive because of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing benefits, low pill burden, once-daily dosage, and safety. METHODS Subjects with virologic suppression after > or = 48 weeks of initial antiretroviral therapy with 2 NRTIs and a protease inhibitor (PI) were enrolled. Subjects switched to ATV/RTV at entry and discontinued NRTIs after 6 weeks. The primary end point was time to virologic failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA level > or = 200 copies/mL). Drug resistance at virologic failure was evaluated by standard genotyping and single-genome sequencing (SGS). Residual viremia (1.1-49 copies/mL) was measured by single-copy assay. RESULTS Thirty-four subjects simplified to ATV/RTV alone, of whom 30 (88%) did not experience virologic failure by 48 weeks after simplification. Residual viremia did not change significantly after NRTI discontinuation among those without virologic failure but did increase 4-12 weeks before confirmed virologic failure. No major PI-resistance mutations were identified at virologic failure by standard genotyping or SGS. CONCLUSIONS In this pilot study, simplified maintenance therapy with ATV/RTV alone maintained viral suppression in most subjects through 48 weeks. PI resistance was not detected among subjects experiencing virologic failure. Larger, randomized trials are warranted to further define the efficacy and safety of this strategy.