Edwin DeJesus

Maraviroc for Previously Treated Patients with R5 HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND CC chemokine receptor 5 antagonists are a new class of antiretroviral agents. METHODS We conducted two double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies--Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients (MOTIVATE) 1 and MOTIVATE 2--with patients who had R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) only. They had been treated with or had resistance to three antiretroviral-drug classes and had HIV-1 RNA levels of more than 5000 copies per milliliter. The patients were randomly assigned to one of three antiretroviral regimens consisting of maraviroc once daily, maraviroc twice daily, or placebo, each of which included optimized background therapy (OBT) based on treatment history and drug-resistance testing. Safety and efficacy were assessed after 48 weeks. RESULTS A total of 1049 patients received the randomly assigned study drug; the mean baseline HIV-1 RNA level was 72,400 copies per milliliter, and the median CD4 cell count was 169 per cubic millimeter. At 48 weeks, in both studies, the mean change in HIV-1 RNA from baseline was greater with maraviroc than with placebo: -1.66 and -1.82 log(10) copies per milliliter with the once-daily and twice-daily regimens, respectively, versus -0.80 with placebo in MOTIVATE 1, and -1.72 and -1.87 log(10) copies per milliliter, respectively, versus -0.76 with placebo in MOTIVATE 2. More patients receiving maraviroc once or twice daily had HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter (42% and 47%, respectively, vs. 16% in the placebo group in MOTIVATE 1; 45% in both maraviroc groups vs. 18% in MOTIVATE 2; P<0.001 for both comparisons in each study). The change from baseline in CD4 counts was also greater with maraviroc once or twice daily than with placebo (increases of 113 and 122 per cubic millimeter, respectively, vs. 54 in MOTIVATE 1; increases of 122 and 128 per cubic millimeter, respectively, vs. 69 in MOTIVATE 2; P<0.001 for both comparisons in each study). Frequencies of adverse events were similar among the groups. CONCLUSIONS Maraviroc, as compared with placebo, resulted in significantly greater suppression of HIV-1 and greater increases in CD4 cell counts at 48 weeks in previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 who were receiving OBT. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00098306 and NCT00098722.)

Simeprevir plus sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, to treat chronic infection with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 in non-responders to pegylated interferon and ribavirin and treatment-naive patients: the COSMOS randomised study

BACKGROUND Interferon-free regimens are needed to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. We investigated the efficacy of combined simeprevir and sofosbuvir. METHODS We enrolled patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infections who had previously not responded to pegylated interferon (peginterferon) and ribavirin or were treatment naive. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1:2:1 ratio to receive 150 mg simeprevir and 400 mg sofosbuvir daily for 24 weeks with (group 1) or without (group 2) ribavirin or for 12 weeks with (group 3) or without (group 4) ribavirin, in two cohorts: previous non-responders with METAVIR scores F0-F2 (cohort 1) and previous non-responders and treatment-naive patients with METAVIR scores F3-F4 (cohort 2). The primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks after stopping treatment (SVR12). Analysis was done by intention to treat. Safety data from cohorts 1 and 2 were pooled for analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466790. FINDINGS 168 patients were enrolled and randomised, and 167 started treatment (n=80 in cohort 1 and n=87 in cohort 2). SVR12 was achieved in 154 (92%) patients (n=72 [90%, 95% CI 81-96] in cohort 1 and n=82 [94%, 87-98] in cohort 2). The most common adverse events in the pooled groups were fatigue (n=52 [31%]), headache (n=33 [20%]), and nausea (n=26 [16%]). Grade 4 adverse events were seen in one (2%) of 54 patients in each of groups 1 and 3 and in three (10%) of 31 patients in group 2, whereas grade 3-4 events were reported in less than 5% of all patients, except increased blood amylase concentration. Serious adverse events were seen in four (2%) patients, all in groups 1 and 2. Four (2%) patients discontinued all study treatment because of adverse events, three before week 12. INTERPRETATION Combined simeprevir and sofosbuvir was efficacious and well tolerated. FUNDING Janssen.

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 Trial of a DNA/rAd5 HIV-1 Preventive Vaccine

BACKGROUND A safe and effective vaccine for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection is a global priority. We tested the efficacy of a DNA prime-recombinant adenovirus type 5 boost (DNA/rAd5) vaccine regimen in persons at increased risk for HIV-1 infection in the United States. METHODS At 21 sites, we randomly assigned 2504 men or transgender women who have sex with men to receive the DNA/rAd5 vaccine (1253 participants) or placebo (1251 participants). We assessed HIV-1 acquisition from week 28 through month 24 (termed week 28+ infection), viral-load set point (mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level 10 to 20 weeks after diagnosis), and safety. The 6-plasmid DNA vaccine (expressing clade B Gag, Pol, and Nef and Env proteins from clades A, B, and C) was administered at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The rAd5 vector boost (expressing clade B Gag-Pol fusion protein and Env glycoproteins from clades A, B, and C) was administered at week 24. RESULTS In April 2013, the data and safety monitoring board recommended halting vaccinations for lack of efficacy. The primary analysis showed that week 28+ infection had been diagnosed in 27 participants in the vaccine group and 21 in the placebo group (vaccine efficacy, -25.0%; 95% confidence interval, -121.2 to 29.3; P=0.44), with mean viral-load set points of 4.46 and 4.47 HIV-1 RNA log10 copies per milliliter, respectively. Analysis of all infections during the study period (41 in the vaccine group and 31 in the placebo group) also showed lack of vaccine efficacy (P=0.28). The vaccine regimen had an acceptable side-effect profile. CONCLUSIONS The DNA/rAd5 vaccine regimen did not reduce either the rate of HIV-1 acquisition or the viral-load set point in the population studied. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00865566.).

Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48

Background:The present primary analysis of AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naive Subjects (ARTEMIS) compares the efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) with that of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naive patients. Methods:Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml were stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count in a phase III, open-label trial, and randomized to receive DRV/r 800/100 mg qd or LPV/r 800/200 mg total daily dose (bid or qd) plus fixed-dose tenofovir and emtricitabine for 192 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r in HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response at 48 weeks. Results:Six hundred and eighty-nine patients were randomized and treated; mean baseline HIV-1 RNA: 4.85 log10 copies/ml and median CD4 count: 225 cells/μl. At 48 weeks, 84% of DRV/r and 78% of LPV/r patients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (estimated difference = 5.6 [95% confidence interval −0.1–11]%), demonstrating non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r (P < 0.001; per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response). Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml had a significantly higher response rate with DRV/r (79%) versus LPV/r (67%; P < 0.05). Median CD4 cell count increases (non-completer = failure; cells/μl) were 137 for DRV/r and 141 for LPV/r. DRV/r had a lower incidence of possibly treatment-related grade 2–4 gastrointestinal-related adverse events (7 versus 14%) and treatment-related moderate-to-severe diarrhea (4 versus 10%) than LPV/r. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were DRV/r: 3% and LPV/r: 7%. Conclusion:DRV/r 800/100 mg qd was non-inferior to LPV/r 800/200 mg at 48 weeks, with a more favorable safety profile. Significantly higher response rates were observed with DRV/r in patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml. DRV/r 800/100 mg offers a new effective and well tolerated once-daily, first-line treatment option for treatment-naive patients.

Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir versus co-formulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, analysis of results after 48 weeks

BACKGROUND The integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in a single tablet given once daily. We compared the efficacy and safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with standard of care-co-formulated efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF-as initial treatment for HIV infection. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, treatment-naive patients from outpatient clinics in North America were randomly assigned by computer-generated allocation sequence with a block size of four in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF, once daily, plus matching placebo. Patients and study staff involved in giving study treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting and analysing data were masked to treatment allocation. Eligibility criteria included screening HIV RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more, and susceptibility to efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01095796. FINDINGS 700 patients were randomly assigned and treated (348 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, 352 with EFV/FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF; 305/348 (87·6%) versus 296/352 (84·1%) of patients had HIV RNA concentrations of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (difference 3·6%, 95% CI -1·6% to 8·8%). Proportions of patients discontinuing drugs for adverse events did not differ substantially (13/348 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group vs 18/352 in the EFV/FTC/TDF group). Nausea was more common with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF than with EFV/FTC/TDF (72/348 vs 48/352) and dizziness (23/348 vs 86/352), abnormal dreams (53/348 vs 95/352), insomnia (30/348 vs 49/352), and rash (22/348 vs 43/352) were less common. Serum creatinine concentration increased more by week 48 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group than in the EFV/FTC/TDF group (median 13 μmol/L, IQR 5 to 20 vs 1 μmol/L, -6 to 8; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the only single-tablet, once-daily, integrase-inhibitor-based regimen for initial treatment of HIV infection. FUNDING Gilead Sciences.

The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks : a randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Lopinavir-ritonavir is a preferred protease inhibitor co-formulation for initial HIV-1 treatment. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir has shown similar efficacy and safety to lopinavir-ritonavir when each is combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We compared the two treatments directly in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS This open-label, non-inferiority study included 878 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients randomised to receive either fosamprenavir-ritonavir 700 mg/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily, each with the co-formulation of abacavir-lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL at week 48 and treatment discontinuations because of an adverse event. The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed to at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00085943. FINDINGS At week 48, non-inferiority of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to lopinavir-ritonavir (95% CI around the treatment difference -4.84 to 7.05) was shown, with 315 of 434 (73%) patients in the fosamprenavir-ritonavir group and 317 of 444 (71%) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL. Treatment discontinuations due to an adverse event were few and occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups (fosamprenavir-ritonavir 53, 12%; lopinavir-ritonavir 43, 10%). Diarrhoea, nausea, and abacavir hypersensitivity were the most frequent drug-related grade 2-4 adverse events. Treatment-emergent drug resistance was rare; no patient had virus that developed reduced susceptibility to fosamprenavir-ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir. INTERPRETATION Fosamprenavir-ritonavir twice daily in treatment-naive patients provides similar antiviral efficacy, safety, tolerability, and emergence of resistance as lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine.

Atazanavir plus ritonavir or saquinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients experiencing multiple virological failures.

Objective:To evaluate atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/RTV) (300/100 mg) once daily, atazanavir/saquinavir (ATV/SQV) (400/1200 mg) once daily, and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) (400/100 mg) twice daily, each with tenofovir (300 mg) once daily and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. Methods:Randomized, open-label, 48-week multicenter trial of 358 randomized adult patients who had failed two or more prior HAART regimens with baseline HIV RNA ≥ 1000 copies/ml and CD4 cell count ≥ 50 × 106 cells/l. Results:The primary efficacy endpoint [plasma HIV RNA reduction assessed by time-averaged difference (TAD)] was similar for ATV/RTV and LPV/RTV [TAD 0.13; 97.5% confidence interval, −0.12 to 0.39] at 48 weeks. Mean reductions from baseline for ATV/RTV and LPV/RTV were comparable at 1.93 and 1.87 log10 copies/ml, respectively. Mean CD4 cell count increases were 110 and 121 × 106 cells/l for ATV/RTV, and LPV/RTV, respectively. The efficacy of ATV/SQV was lower than LPV/RTV by both these parameters. Declines in total cholesterol and fasting triglycerides were greater with ATV/RTV and ATV/SQV than with LPV/RTV (P ≤ 0.005). Lipids in the LPV/RTV arm at week 48 generally increased from baseline. Lipid-lowering agents were used more frequently in the LPV/RTV arm than in the ATV arms (P < 0.05 versus ATV/RTV), as were antidiarrheal agents (P ≤ 0.04 versus both ATV treatments). No new or unique safety findings emerged. Conclusions:ATV boosted with RTV is as effective and well tolerated as LPV/RTV in treatment-experienced patients, with a more favorable impact on serum lipids. Pharmacokinetically enhanced ATV provides a suitable choice for therapy of treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients.

Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus co-formulated emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND The HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) into a once-daily, single tablet. We compared EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with a ritonavir-boosted (RTV) protease inhibitor regimen of atazanavir (ATV)/RTV+FTC/TDF as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. METHODS This phase 3, non-inferiority study enrolled treatment-naive patients with an HIV-1 RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more and susceptibility to atazanavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF plus matching placebos, administered once daily. Randomisation was by a computer-generated random sequence, accessed via an interactive telephone and web response system. Patients, and investigators and study staff who gave treatments, assessed outcomes, or analysed data were masked to the assignment. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of 50 copies per mL or less after 48 weeks (according to the US FDA snapshot algorithm), with a 12% non-inferiority margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106586. FINDINGS 1017 patients were screened, 715 were enrolled, and 708 were treated (353 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and 355 with ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF for the primary outcome (316 patients [89·5%] vs 308 patients [86·8%], adjusted difference 3·0%, 95% CI -1·9% to 7·8%). Both regimens had favourable safety and tolerability; 13 (3·7%) versus 18 (5·1%) patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Fewer patients receiving EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF had abnormal results in liver function tests than did those receiving ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF and had smaller median increases in fasting triglyceride concentration (90 μmol/L vs 260 μmol/L, p=0·006). Small median increases in serum creatinine concentration with accompanying decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate occurred in both study groups by week 2; they generally stabilised by week 8 and did not change up to week 48 (median change 11 μmol/L vs 7 μmol/L). INTERPRETATION If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the first integrase-inhibitor-based regimen given once daily and the only one formulated as a single tablet for initial HIV treatment. FUNDING Gilead Sciences.

Antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, and dose response of the HIV-1 integrase inhibitor GS-9137 (JTK-303) in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients

Background: GS-9137 is a potent low-nanomolar strand transfer inhibitor of HIV-1 integrase. Methods: The antiviral activity, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of GS-9137 were evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled monotherapy study in 40 HIV-1- infected patients not receiving antiretroviral therapy with an HIV-1 RNA between 10,000 and 300,000 copies/mL and a CD4 count of 200 cells/&mgr;L or greater. GS-9137 or matching placebo was administered with food for 10 days at 5 dosage regimens (200, 400, or 800 mg BID, 800 mg QD, or 50 mg + 100 mg ritonavir QD; 6 active, 2 placebo per dose level). The primary end point was the maximum reduction from baseline in log10 HIV-1 RNA. Results: Forty patients were enrolled, with a mean baseline viral load of 4.75 log10 copies/mL and a CD4 count of 442 cells/&mgr;L. Each GS-9137 dosing regimen exhibited significant, exposure-dependent (mean reductions, −0.98 to −1.99 log10 copies/mL) antiviral activity compared with placebo (P < 0.01). Twice-daily administrations of GS-9137 at doses of 400 or 800 mg or once-daily dosing of 50 mg with ritonavir demonstrated mean reductions from baseline in HIV-1 RNA of 1.91 log10 copies/mL or greater, with all patients exhibiting 1 log10 or greater and 50% having 2 log10 or greater reductions. No patient developed evidence of integrase resistance. GS-9137 showed an adverse event profile similar to placebo, and there were no study drug discontinuations. Conclusions: GS-9137 demonstrated substantial short-term antiviral activity and was well tolerated as monotherapy, thus warranting further study.