Federico Pulido

Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study

BACKGROUND Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. METHODS SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. FINDINGS 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. INTERPRETATION The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING ViiV Healthcare.

The MONET trial: darunavir/ritonavir with or without nucleoside analogues, for patients with HIV RNA below 50 copies/ml.

Background: In virologically suppressed patients, darunavir-ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy could maintain virological suppression similarly to DRV/r and two nucleosides. Methods: Two hundred and fifty-six patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml for over 24 weeks on current antiretrovirals [non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based (43%), or protease inhibitor-based (57%)], switched to DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n = 127) or with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (n = 129). Treatment failure was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA levels above 50 copies/ml (TLOVR) by week 48, or switches off study treatment. The trial had 80% power to show noninferiority for the monotherapy arm (delta = −12%). Results: Patients were 81% male and 91% Caucasian, with mean age 44 years, and CD4 cell count of 574 cells/μl. In the primary efficacy analysis, HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml by week 48 (per protocol) was 86.2 versus 87.8% in the monotherapy and triple therapy arms; by intent-to-treat switch equals failure, efficacy was 84.3 versus 85.3%; by a switch-included analysis, efficacy was 93.5 versus 95.1%: all three comparisons showed noninferior efficacy for DRV/r monotherapy. CD4 cell counts remained stable during the trial in both arms. One patient per arm showed at least one protease inhibitor mutation, and one patient in the triple therapy arm showed an NRTI mutation. Nine patients per arm discontinued randomized treatment for either adverse events or other reasons. No new or unexpected safety signals were detected. Conclusions: In this study for patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml on other antiretrovirals at baseline, switching to DRV/r monotherapy showed noninferior efficacy versus triple antiretroviral therapy.

Lopinavir/ritonavir as single-drug therapy for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression: 48-week results of a randomized, controlled, open-label, proof-of-concept pilot clinical trial (OK Study).

Objective:This study evaluated maintenance with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy vs. continuing lopinavir/ritonavir and 2 nucleosides in HIV-infected patients with suppressed HIV replication. Design:Randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter, pilot clinical trial. Methods:Adult patients were eligible if they had no history of virologic failure while receiving a protease inhibitor, were receiving 2 nucleosides + lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg b.i.d.) for >1 month and had maintained serum HIV RNA <50 copies/mL for >6 months prior to enrollment. Results:Forty-two patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to continue or stop the nucleosides. At baseline there were no significant differences between groups in median CD4 cells/μL (baseline or nadir), pre-HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy) HIV log10 viremia, or time with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL prior to enrollment. After 48 weeks of follow-up, percentage of patients remaining at <50 HIV RNA copies/mL (intention to treat, M = F) was 81% for the monotherapy group (95% CI: 64% to 98%) vs. 95% for the triple-therapy group (95% CI: 86% to 100%); P = 0.34. Patients in whom monotherapy failed had significantly worse adherence than patients who remained virally suppressed on monotherapy. Monotherapy failures did not show primary resistance mutations in the protease gene and were successfully reinduced with prerandomization nucleosides. Mean change in CD4 cells/μL: +70 (monotherapy) and +8 (triple) (P = 0.27). Mean serum fasting lipids remained stable in both groups. No serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion:Most of the patients maintained with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy remain with undetectable viral load after 48 weeks. Failures of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy were not associated with the development of primary resistance mutations in the protease gene and could be successfully reinduced adding back prior nucleosides.

Lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir and two nucleosides for maintenance therapy of HIV.

Background:Prior attempts to reduce the number of drugs needed to maintain viral suppression in patients with suppressed HIV replication while receiving three antiretroviral drugs have been unsuccessful. Methods:In 205 patients with suppressed HIV replication on lopinavir-ritonavir and two nucleosides, this randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial compared the strategies of continuation of triple therapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy followed by reinduction with two nucleosides if virological rebound occurred without genotypic resistance to lopinavir-ritonavir. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients without therapeutic failure, defined as confirmed HIV RNA higher than 500 copies/mL (with exclusion of patients receiving monotherapy who resuppressed to < 50 copies/mL after resuming baseline nucleosides), or loss to follow-up, or change of randomized therapy other than reinduction. Results:At week 48, the percentage of patients without therapeutic failure was 94% in the monotherapy group versus 90% in the triple therapy group (difference,-4%; upper limit of 95% confidence interval for difference, 3.4%). The percentage of patients with HIV RNA 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks by intention-to-treat, missing data or reinductions considered as failures, were 85% in the monotherapy group versus 90% in the triple therapy group (P = 0.31; 95% upper limit of 95% confidence interval for difference, 14%). Conclusion:In this trial, 48 weeks of lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was non-inferior to continuation of two nucleosides and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with prior stable suppression. However, episodes of low level viremia were more common in patients receiving monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00114933).

Less lipoatrophy and better lipid profile with abacavir as compared to stavudine: 96-week results of a randomized study.

Objective:To assess lipoatrophy, other toxicities, and efficacy associated with abacavir as compared with stavudine in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients. Methods:This was a prospective, randomized, open trial, stratified by viral load and CD4 cell count, conducted January 2001 to July 2004. Two hundred thirty-seven adult patients with HIV infection initiating antiretroviral therapy were assigned to receive abacavir (n = 115) or stavudine (n = 122), both combined with lamivudine and efavirenz. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with lipoatrophy as assessed by physician and patient observation at 96 weeks. Results:A lower proportion of patients assigned to abacavir developed clinical signs of lipoatrophy (4.8% vs. 38.3%; P < 0.001). These observations were confirmed by anthropometric data. Dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scans performed in 57 patients showed significantly greater total limb fat loss in the stavudine arm (−1579 vs. 913 g; P < 0.001). The lipid profile in abacavir patients presented more favorable changes in the levels of triglycerides (P = 0.03), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc; P < 0.001), and apolipoprotein A1 (P < 0.001) as well as in the ratio between total cholesterol and HDLc (P = 0.005). Throughout the study, a higher proportion of patients in the stavudine group received lipid-lowering agents as compared to the abacavir group (17% vs. 4%; P = 0.002). Similar virologic and immunologic responses were observed. Conclusions:Assuming the limitations inherent to clinical assessment, this study shows a notably weaker association of abacavir with lipoatrophy than stavudine. DEXA scans and anthropometric measurements supported the clinical findings. In addition, the lipid changes that occurred were more favorable in patients receiving abacavir.

Lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir and 2 nucleosides for maintenance therapy of HIV: 96-week analysis.

Background:The OK04 trial has shown that 48 weeks of lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was noninferior to continuation of triple therapy with 2 nucleosides and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with prior stable suppression. However, it is still uncertain if this experimental strategy can maintain suppression in the long term. Methods:Patients entered this noninferiority trial (upper limit 95% confidence interval: +12%) with no history of virological failure while receiving a protease inhibitor and receiving 2 nucleosides plus lopinavir/ritonavir, with HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter for more than 6 months. Primary end point was percent of patients without therapeutic failure, defined as confirmed HIV RNA >500 copies per milliliter with exclusion of monotherapy patients who resuppressed to <50 copies per milliliter after resuming baseline nucleosides, or loss to follow-up, or change of randomized therapy other than reinduction. Results:Through 96 weeks, percentage of patient without therapeutic failure was 87% (monotherapy, n = 100) vs. 78% (triple therapy, n = 98; 95% confidence interval: −20% to +1.2%). Percentage with HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter (intention to treat, missing = failure, reinduction = failure): 77% (monotherapy) vs. 78% (triple therapy). Low-level viral rebound was more frequent in the monotherapy group. Twelve patients in the monotherapy group (12%) needed reinduction with nucleosides. Discontinuations due to adverse events were significantly more frequent in the triple therapy group (8%) than in the monotherapy group (0%); P = 0.003. Conclusions:At 96-week lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was noninferior to continuation of triple therapy. Incidence of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation was significantly lower with monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114933).

Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: A meta-analysis

Background The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs. Methods We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing PI/r monotherapy to cART in suppressed patients. We calculated in an intention to treat (loss-of follow-up, discontinuation of assigned drugs equals failure) and per-protocol analysis (exclusion of protocol violators following randomisation) and based on three different definitions for virological failure pooled risk ratios for remaining virologically suppressed. Findings We identified 10 trials comparing 3 different PIs with cART based on a PI/r plus 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1189 patients. With the most conservative approach (viral load <50 copies/ml on two consecutive measurements), the risk ratios for viral suppression at 48 weeks of PI/r monotherapy compared to cART were in the ITT analysis 0.94 8 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.00) p = 0.06; risk difference −0.06 (95%CI -0.11 to 0) p = 0.05, p for heterogeneity  = 0.08, I2 = 43.1%) and in the PP analysis 0.93 ((95%CI 0.90 to 0.97) p<0.001; risk difference −0.07 (95%CI −0.10 to −0.03) p<0.001, p for heterogeneity  = 0.44, I2 = 0%). Reintroduction of cART in 44 patients with virological failure led in 93% to de-novo viral suppression. Interpretation Virologically well suppressed HIV-infected patients have a lower chance to maintain viral suppression when switching from cART to PI/r monotherapy. Failing patients achieve high rates of de-novo viral suppression following reintroduction of reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

Incidence of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome-Associated Opportunistic Diseases and the Effect of Treatment on a Cohort of 1115 Patients Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus, 1989–1997

Temporal trends in the incidence of opportunistic diseases (ODs) related to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) were studied during 1989-1997 in 1115 outpatients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (331 of whom had AIDS) in a hospital in Madrid, Spain. We analyzed the effect of adherence to antiretroviral therapy and Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) prophylaxis on the incidence of OD. Diseases that showed a significant decreasing trend were esophageal candidiasis, pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and cerebral toxoplasmosis. Patients who adhered to antiretroviral therapy had a smaller risk of OD. Patients who adhered to PCP prophylaxis had a reduced risk of cerebral toxoplasmosis and PCP. A reduction in the incidence of AIDS-related ODs was observed, mainly in patients who underwent prophylaxis. Adherence to antiretroviral treatment and PCP prophylaxis was associated with a reduction in the risk of disease.

Dolutegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1: 96-week results from a randomized dose-ranging study

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety/tolerability of dolutegravir (DTG, S/GSK1349572), a potent inhibitor of HIV integrase, through the full 96 weeks of the SPRING-1 study. Design:ING112276 (SPRING-1) was a 96-week, randomized, partially blinded, phase IIb dose-ranging study. Methods:Treatment-naive adults with HIV received DTG 10, 25, or 50 mg once daily or efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily (control arm) combined with investigator-selected dual nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone regimen (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine). The primary endpoint of the study was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml, based on time to loss of virologic response at 16 weeks (conducted for the purpose of phase III dose selection), with a planned analysis at 96 weeks. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Results:Of 208 participants randomized to treatment, 205 received study drug. At week 96, the proportion of participants achieving plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml was 79, 78, and 88% for DTG 10, 25, and 50 mg, respectively, compared with 72% for EFV. The median increase from baseline in CD4+ cells was 338 cells/&mgr;l with DTG (all treatment groups combined) compared with 301 cells/&mgr;l with EFV (P = 0.155). No clinically significant dose-related trends in adverse events were observed, and fewer participants who received DTG withdrew because of adverse events (3%) compared with EFV (10%). Conclusion:Throughout the 96 weeks of the SPRING-1 study, DTG demonstrated sustained efficacy and favorable safety/tolerability in treatment-naive individuals with HIV-1.

Dual treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression (OLE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Our objective was to assess therapeutic non-inferiority of dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir and lamivudine to triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression. METHODS In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients from 32 HIV units in hospitals in Spain and France. Eligible patients were HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL, for at least 6 months on triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (twice daily) plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide, with no resistance or virological failure to these drugs, and no positive hepatitis B serum surface antigen. Investigators at each centre randomly assigned patients (1:1; block size of four; stratified by time to suppression [<1 year or >1 year] and nadir CD4 cell count [<100 cells per μL or >100 cells per μL]; computer-generated random sequence) to continue triple treatment or switch to dual treatment (oral lopinavir 400 mg and oral ritonavir 100 mg twice daily plus oral lamivudine 300 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was response to treatment in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients) at 48 weeks. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01471821. FINDINGS Between Oct 1, 2011, and April 1, 2013, we randomly assigned 250 participants to continue triple treatment (127 [51%] patients) or switch to dual treatment (123 [49%] patients). In the intention-to-treat population, 110 (86·6%) of 127 patients in the triple-treatment group responded to treatment versus 108 (87·8%) of 123 in the dual-treatment group (difference -1·2% [95% CI -9·6 to 7·3]; p=0·92), meeting the criteria for non-inferiority. Serious adverse events occurred in eight (7%) patients in the triple-treatment group and five (4%) in the dual-treatment group (p=0·515), and study drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in four (3%) in the triple-treatment group and one (1%) in the dual-treatment group (p=0·223). INTERPRETATION Dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine has non-inferior therapeutic efficacy and is similarly tolerated to triple treatment. FUNDING AbbVie and Red Temática Cooperativa de Investigación en Sida.