Dushyantha Jayaweera

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.

Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir for HCV in Patients Coinfected with HIV-1

BACKGROUND Effective treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) remains an unmet medical need. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, single-group, open-label study involving patients coinfected with HIV-1 and genotype 1 or 4 HCV receiving an antiretroviral regimen of tenofovir and emtricitabine with efavirenz, rilpivirine, or raltegravir. All patients received ledipasvir, an NS5A inhibitor, and sofosbuvir, a nucleotide polymerase inhibitor, as a single fixed-dose combination for 12 weeks. The primary end point was a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS Of the 335 patients enrolled, 34% were black, 55% had been previously treated for HCV, and 20% had cirrhosis. Overall, 322 patients (96%) had a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (95% confidence interval [CI], 93 to 98), including rates of 96% (95% CI, 93 to 98) in patients with HCV genotype 1a, 96% (95% CI, 89 to 99) in those with HCV genotype 1b, and 100% (95% CI, 63 to 100) in those with HCV genotype 4. Rates of sustained virologic response were similar regardless of previous treatment or the presence of cirrhosis. Of the 13 patients who did not have a sustained virologic response, 10 had a relapse after the end of treatment. No patient had confirmed HIV-1 virologic rebound. The most common adverse events were headache (25%), fatigue (21%), and diarrhea (11%). No patient discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 12 weeks provided high rates of sustained virologic response in patients coinfected with HIV-1 and HCV genotype 1 or 4. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ION-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02073656.).

Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week analysis.

Objective:Present 96-week data from ongoing ARTEMIS (AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In Naive Subjects) trial. Methods:Randomized, open-label, phase III trial of antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml (stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count) receiving darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg total daily dose (twice daily or once daily) and fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine. Primary outcome measure was noninferiority of DRV/r vs. LPV/r in virologic response (<50 copies/ml, time-to-loss of virologic response) at 96 weeks (secondary outcome: superiority). Results:Six hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled. At week 96, significantly more DRV/r (79%) than LPV/r patients (71%) had viral load less than 50 copies/ml, confirming statistical noninferiority (estimated difference: 8.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9–14.8; P < 0.001; per-protocol) and superiority (P = 0.012; intent-to-treat) in virologic response. Median CD4 cell count increases from baseline were 171 and 188 cells/μl for DRV/r and LPV/r, respectively (P = 0.57; noncompleter=failure). Overall, 4% of DRV/r patients and 9% of LPV/r patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Lower rates of grade 2–4 treatment-related diarrhea were seen with DRV/r (4%) vs. LPV/r (11%; P < 0.001), whereas grade 2–4 treatment-related rash occurred infrequently in both arms (3 vs. 1%, respectively; P = 0.273). DRV/r patients had smaller median increases in triglycerides (0.1 and 0.6 mmol/l, respectively, P < 0.0001) and total cholesterol (0.6 and 0.9 mmol/l, respectively; P < 0.0001) than LPV/r patients; levels remained below National Cholesterol Education Program cut-offs for DRV/r. Conclusion:At week 96, once-daily DRV/r was both statistically noninferior and superior in virologic response to LPV/r, with a more favorable gastrointestinal and lipid profile, confirming DRV/r as an effective, well tolerated, and durable option for antiretroviral-naive patients.

Outcomes of liver transplant recipients with hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus coinfection

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a controversial indication for liver transplantation (LT) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected patients because of reportedly poor outcomes. This prospective, multicenter US cohort study compared patient and graft survival for 89 HCV/HIV‐coinfected patients and 2 control groups: 235 HCV‐monoinfected LT controls and all US transplant recipients who were 65 years old or older. The 3‐year patient and graft survival rates were 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 47%‐71%] and 53% (95% CI = 40%‐64%) for the HCV/HIV patients and 79% (95% CI = 72%‐84%) and 74% (95% CI = 66%‐79%) for the HCV‐infected recipients (P < 0.001 for both), and HIV infection was the only factor significantly associated with reduced patient and graft survival. Among the HCV/HIV patients, older donor age [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.3 per decade], combined kidney‐liver transplantation (HR = 3.8), an anti‐HCV–positive donor (HR = 2.5), and a body mass index < 21 kg/m2 (HR = 3.2) were independent predictors of graft loss. For the patients without the last 3 factors, the patient and graft survival rates were similar to those for US LT recipients. The 3‐year incidence of treated acute rejection was 1.6‐fold higher for the HCV/HIV patients versus the HCV patients (39% versus 24%, log rank P = 0.02), but the cumulative rates of severe HCV disease at 3 years were not significantly different (29% versus 23%, P = 0.21). In conclusion, patient and graft survival rates are lower for HCV/HIV‐coinfected LT patients versus HCV‐monoinfected LT patients. Importantly, the rates of treated acute rejection (but not the rates of HCV disease severity) are significantly higher for HCV/HIV‐coinfected recipients versus HCV‐infected recipients. Our results indicate that HCV per se is not a contraindication to LT in HIV patients, but recipient and donor selection and the management of acute rejection strongly influence outcomes. Liver Transpl 18:716–726, 2012.

Gemini: a noninferiority study of saquinavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir as initial HIV-1 therapy in adults.

Introduction:Direct comparison of the efficacy and safety of different agents is needed to guide selection of optimal treatment regimens for therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients. Methods:Gemini was a 48-week, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults randomized to either saquinavir/ritonavir (SQV/r) 1000 mg/100 mg twice a day or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400 mg/100 mg twice a day, each with emtricitabine/tenofovir 200 mg/300 mg every day. Results:A similar proportion of participants in the SQV/r (n = 167) and LPV/r (n = 170) arms had HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies per milliliter at week 48: 64.7% vs 63.5% and estimated difference in proportion for noninferiority: 1.14%, 96% confidence interval: −9.6 to11.9 (P < 0.012), confirming that SQV/r was noninferior to LPV/r treatment. There were no significant differences in week 48 CD4 counts between arms. The rate and severity of adverse events were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in the median change from baseline between arms in plasma lipids except for triglyceride levels, which were significantly higher in the LPV/r at week 48. Conclusions:In treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients, SQV/r treatment was noninferior in virologic suppression at 48 weeks to LPV/r treatment and offered a better triglyceride profile.

Treatment of AIDS-related primary central nervous system lymphoma with zidovudine, ganciclovir, and interleukin 2

AIDS-related primary central nervous system lymphoma (AIDS PCNSL) is a rapidly fatal disease. Conventional therapeutic modalities offer little and new approaches are needed. Previous work has shown that zidovudine (AZT) in combination with other agents is active in retroviral lymphomas. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is detected in tumor tissue and cerebrospinal fluid of AIDS PCNSL patients. In a preliminary in vitro study we found that an Epstein-Barr virus-positive B cell line underwent apoptosis on coculture with AZT. This effect was accentuated by the addition of ganciclovir (GCV). We treated five patients with AIDS PCNSL with a regimen consisting of parenteral zidovudine (1.6 g twice daily), ganciclovir (5 mg/kg twice daily), and interleukin 2 (2 million units twice daily). Four of five had an excellent response. Two patients are alive and free of disease 22 and 13 months later; another responded on two separate occasions, 5 months apart, and the last patient responded with a 70-80% regression of tumor but could not be maintained on therapy owing to myelosuppression. We conclude that parenteral zidovudine, ganciclovir, and interleukin 2 is an active combination for AIDS-related central nervous system lymphoma.

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.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Atovaquone with Pyrimethamine or Sulfadiazine for Treatment of Toxoplasmic Encephalitis in Patients with Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: ACTG 237/ANRS 039 Study

In this international, noncomparative, randomized phase II trial, we evaluated the effectiveness and tolerance of atovaquone suspension (1500 mg orally twice daily) plus either pyrimethamine (75 mg per day after a 200-mg loading dose) or sulfadiazine (1500 mg 4 times daily) as treatment for acute disease (for 6 weeks) and as maintenance therapy (for 42 weeks) for toxoplasmic encephalitis (TE) in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Twenty-one (75%) of 28 patients receiving pyrimethamine (95% lower confidence interval [CI], 58%) and 9 (82%) of 11 patients receiving sulfadiazine (95% lower CI, 53%) responded to treatment for acute disease. Of 20 patients in the maintenance phase, only 1 experienced relapse. Eleven (28%) of 40 eligible patients discontinued treatment as a result of adverse events, 9 because of nausea and vomiting or intolerance of the taste of the atovaquone suspension. Although gastrointestinal side effects were frequent, atovaquone-containing regimens are otherwise well tolerated and safe and may be useful for patients intolerant of standard regimens for toxoplasmic encephalitis.

Efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV type-1 patients in the POWER 1, 2 and 3 trials at week 96

BACKGROUND Long-term (96-week) efficacy and safety of the protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir coadministered with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) was evaluated in HIV type-1 (HIV-1)-infected patients with extensive prior treatment experience in the POWER 1, 2 and 3 trials. METHODS Patients with HIV-1 RNA>or=1,000 copies/ml and >or=1 primary PI mutation were randomized to receive either DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily plus an optimized background regimen (OBR), or an investigator-selected control PI (CPI) plus OBR (POWER 3 was a DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily single-arm study). The proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml at week 96 was assessed (intent-to-treat [ITT], time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). RESULTS In total, 467 patients received DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily; 124 patients received CPI(s). At week 96, 39% of DRV/r patients in POWER 1 and 2 (pooled analysis) versus 9% of CPI patients achieved HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml (ITT, time-to-loss of virological response algorithm; P<0.001). A similar proportion of DRV/r patients (42%) in POWER 3 achieved HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml at week 96. Mean absolute CD4(+) T-cell count increase for DRV/r at 96 weeks was 133 cells/mm(3) in POWER 1 and 2 and 103 cells/mm(3) in POWER 3. Grade 2-4 treatment-emergent adverse events at least possibly related to DRV/r (>or=2% incidence, excluding laboratory abnormalities) were diarrhoea (3%), vomiting (3%), nausea (2%) and headache (2%). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily was well tolerated and led to sustained virological and immunological responses in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients over 96 weeks.

MELD Score Is an Important Predictor of Pretransplantation Mortality in HIV-Infected Liver Transplant Candidates

BACKGROUND & AIMS Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection accelerates liver disease progression in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and could shorten survival of those awaiting liver transplants. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score predicts mortality in HIV-negative transplant candidates, but its reliability has not been established in HIV-positive candidates. METHODS We evaluated predictors of pretransplantation mortality in HIV-positive liver transplant candidates enrolled in the Solid Organ Transplantation in HIV: Multi-Site Study (HIVTR) matched 1:5 by age, sex, race, and HCV infection with HIV-negative controls from the United Network for Organ Sharing. RESULTS Of 167 HIVTR candidates, 24 died (14.4%); this mortality rate was similar to that of controls (88/792, 11.1%, P = .30) with no significant difference in causes of mortality. A significantly lower proportion of HIVTR candidates (34.7%) underwent liver transplantation, compared with controls (47.6%, P = .003). In the combined cohort, baseline MELD score predicted pretransplantation mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.27; P < .0001), whereas HIV infection did not (HR, 1.69; P = .20). After controlling for pretransplantation CD4(+) cell count and HIV RNA levels, the only significant predictor of mortality in the HIV-infected subjects was pretransplantation MELD score (HR, 1.2; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS Pretransplantation mortality characteristics are similar between HIV-positive and HIV-negative candidates. Although lower CD4(+) cell counts and detectable levels of HIV RNA might be associated with a higher rate of pretransplantation mortality, baseline MELD score was the only significant independent predictor of pretransplantation mortality in HIV-infected liver transplant candidates.