Filip Josephson

Early virologic rebound in a pilot trial of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir as maintenance monotherapy.

Objective:To investigate the feasibility of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir monotherapy in HIV-1-infected patients with stable antiretroviral therapy (ART). Design:Single-armed single-center pilot trial. Methods:Adult HIV-1-infected patients, without protease inhibitor (PI) experience, were eligible if they had maintained a viral load <20 copies/mL for a minimum of 12 months on conventional ART. The trial regimen was atazanavir/ritonavir at a dose of 300/100 mg once daily. The atazanavir dose could be adjusted if plasma concentrations showed a low exposure. The study was intended to recruit 30 patients to be followed over 72 weeks. If 5 cases of virologic failure occurred during this period, the study was to be terminated. Results:The study was terminated according to protocol when 15 of the planned 30 patients had been recruited, because 5 cases of virologic failure had occurred. In patients failing therapy, viral rebound was seen at weeks 12 through 16. Plasma atazanavir concentrations were not associated with the outcome. The median serum bilirubin concentration was significantly lower in the patients failing therapy, however. No PI resistance was found in samples from patients failing therapy. Conclusions:Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir as maintenance monotherapy in HIV-1 infection might not be as potent as conventional ART. Serum bilirubin should be further studied as a biomarker of adequate atazanavir exposure.

Antiretroviral treatment of HIV infection: Swedish recommendations 2007

On 3 previous occasions, in 2002, 2003 and 2005, the Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket) and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) have jointly published recommendations for the treatment of HIV infection. An expert group, under the guidance of RAV, has now revised the text again. Since the publication of the previous treatment recommendations, 1 new drug for the treatment of HIV has been approved – the protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir (Prezista®). Furthermore, 3 new drugs have become available: the integrase inhibitor raltegravir (MK-0518), the CCR5-inhibitor maraviroc (Celsentri®), both of which have novel mechanisms of action, and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) etravirine (TMC-125). The new guidelines differ from the previous ones in several respects. The most important of these are that abacavir is now preferred to tenofovir and zidovudine, as a first line drug in treatment-naïve patients, and that initiation of antiretroviral treatment is now recommended before the CD4 cell count falls below 250/µl, rather than 200/µl. Furthermore, recommendations on the treatment of HIV infection in children have been added to the document. As in the case of the previous publication, recommendations are evidence-graded in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, 2001 (see http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp#levels).

Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection : Updated Swedish Consensus recommendations

In a recent expert meeting, Swedish recommendations for the treatment of HCV infection were upgraded. The panel recommends vaccination against both hepatitis A and B in patients with HCV. Therapy for symptomatic acute HCV infection should be initiated if spontaneous resolution has not occurred within 12 weeks, whereas asymptomatic acute HCV should be treated upon detection. Patients with genotype 2/3 infection should generally be treated for 24 weeks. In patients with a very rapid viral response (vRVR), i.e. HCV RNA below 1000 IU/ml on d 7, treatment can be shortened to 12–16 weeks, provided that no dose reduction has been made. For genotype 1 patients with rapid viral response (RVR), 24 weeks treatment is recommended. For patients with a complete early viral response (cEVR), 48 weeks treatment is recommended, whereas 72 weeks treatment should be considered for patients with partial early viral response (pEVR). For patients with difficult-to-treat disease and with pronounced anaemia, erythropoietin can be used to maintain the ribavirin dose. In HCV-HIV coinfected patients, combination therapy for HCV should, if possible, be initiated before anti-retroviral therapy (ART) is indicated. For liver transplant patients pre-emptive therapy is not recommended; hence, treatment should be deferred until histological recurrence.

Prophylaxis and treatment of HIV-1 infection in pregnancy: Swedish recommendations 2007

Abstract Prophylaxis and treatment with antiretroviral drugs and the use of elective caesarean section have resulted in a very low mother-to-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) during recent years. The availability of new antiretroviral drugs, updated general treatment guidelines and increasing knowledge of the importance of drug resistance, have necessitated regular revisions of the “Prophylaxis and treatment of HIV-1 infection in pregnancy” recommendations. For these reasons, The Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) updated the 2007 recommendations at an expert meeting that took place on 25 March 2010. The most important revisions from the previous recommendations are: (1) it is recommended that treatment during pregnancy starts at the latest at gestational week 14–18; (2) ongoing efficient treatment at confirmed pregnancy may, with a few exceptions, be continued; (3) lopinavir/r and atazanavir/r are equally recommended protease inhibitors; (4) if maternal HIV RNA is >50 copies/ml close to delivery, a planned caesarean section, intravenous zidovudine, oral nevirapine for the mother and post-exposure prophylaxis for the infant with 3 antiretroviral drugs are recommended; (5) for delivery at <34 gestational weeks, intravenous zidovudine and oral nevirapine for the mother and at 48–72 h for the infant is recommended, in addition to other prophylaxis; (6) intravenous zidovudine is not recommended when HIV RNA is <50 copies/ml and a caesarean section is performed; (7) it is recommended that prophylaxis for the infant is started within 4 h; (8) prophylactic zidovudine for the infant may be administered twice daily instead of 4 times a day, as was the case previously; and (9) the number of sampling occasions for the infant has been decreased.

Treatment of HIV infection: Swedish recommendations 2009

On 4 previous occasions, in 2002, 2003, 2005 and 2007, the Swedish Medical Products Agency (Läkemedelsverket) and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) have jointly published recommendations for the treatment of HIV infection. In November 2008, an expert group under the guidance of RAV once more revised the guidelines, of which this is a translation into English. The most important updates in the present guidelines include the following: (a) treatment initiation is now recommended at a CD4 cell count of approximately 350/µl; (b) new recommendations for first-line therapy: abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in combination with efavirenz or a boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r); (c) an increased focus on reducing the use of antiretroviral drugs that may cause lipoatrophy; (d) an emphasis on quality assurance of HIV care through the use of InfCare HIV; (e) considerably altered recommendations for the initiation of antiretroviral therapy in children. All infants (<1 y) should start antiretroviral therapy, regardless of immune status. Also, absolute CD4+ cell counts, rather than percentage, may be used to guide treatment initiation in children above the age of 5 y.

Adverse Outcome Analyses of Observational Data: Assessing Cardiovascular Risk in HIV Disease

Clinical decisions are ideally based on randomized trials but must often rely on observational data analyses, which are less straightforward and more influenced by methodology. The authors, from a series of expert roundtables convened by the Forum for Collaborative HIV Research on the use of observational studies to assess cardiovascular disease risk in human immunodeficiency virus infection, recommend that clinicians who review or interpret epidemiological publications consider 7 key statistical issues: (1) clear explanation of confounding and adjustment; (2) handling and impact of missing data; (3) consistency and clinical relevance of outcome measurements and covariate risk factors; (4) multivariate modeling techniques including time-dependent variables; (5) how multiple testing is addressed; (6) distinction between statistical and clinical significance; and (7) need for confirmation from independent databases. Recommendations to permit better understanding of potential methodological limitations include both responsible public access to de-identified source data, where permitted, and exploration of novel statistical methods.

Differential Effects of Efavirenz, Lopinavir/r, and Atazanavir/r on the Initial Viral Decay Rate in Treatment Naïve HIV-1–Infected Patients

Initial viral decay rate may be useful when comparing the relative potency of antiretroviral regimens. Two hundred twenty-seven ART-naïve patients were randomized to receive efavirenz (EFV) (n = 74), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) (n = 77), or atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) (n = 79) in combination with two NRTIs. The most frequently used NRTI combinations in the EFV and ATV/r groups were the nonthymidine analogues tenofovir and emtricitabine or lamivudine (70% and 68%, respectively) and, in the LPV/r group, lamivudine and the thymidine analogue zidovudine (89%). HIV-1 RNA was monitored during the first 28 days after treatment initiation. Phase 1 and 2 decay rate was estimated in a subset of 157 patients by RNA decrease from days 0 to 7, and days 14 to 28. One-way ANOVA and subsequent Tukeys post hoc tests were used for groupwise comparisons. Mean (95% CI) HIV-1 RNA reductions from days 0 to 28 were 2.59 (2.45-2.73), 2.42 (2.27-2.57), and 2.13 (2.01-2.25) log(10) copies/ml for the EFV-, LPV/r-, and ATV/r-based treatment groups, respectively, with a significantly larger decrease in the EFV-based group at all time points compared with ATV/r (p < 0.0001), and with LPV/r at days 7-21 (p < 0.0001-0.03). LPV/r gave a greater RNA decrease compared with ATV/r from day 14 (p = 0.02). Phase 1 decay rate was significantly higher in the EFV group compared with LPV/r (p = 0.003) or ATV/r (p < 0.0001). No difference was found in phase 2 decrease. EFV-based treatment gave a more rapid decline in HIV-1 RNA than did either of the boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens. The observed differences may reflect different inherent regimen potencies.

Antiretroviral treatment for HIV infection: Swedish recommendations 2016

Abstract The Swedish Medical Products Agency and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy (RAV) have jointly published recommendations for the treatment of HIV infection on seven previous occasions (2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2014). In February 2016, an expert group under the guidance of RAV once more revised the guidelines. The most important updates in the present guidelines are as follows: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) has recently been registered. TAF has several advantages over tenofovir disoproxilfumarate (TDF) and is recommended instead of TDF in most cases. First-line treatment for previously untreated individuals includes dolutegravir, boosted darunavir or efavirenz with either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir (TDF/TAF)/emtricitabine. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is recommended for high-risk individuals. As in the case of the previous publication, recommendations are evidence-graded in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/) (Table 1). This document does not cover treatment of opportunistic infections and tumours. Table 1. Levels of evidence and recommendation (http://www.Cebm.Net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/).Quality grading of evidence base1a Systematic review (with homogeneity) of randomized controlled trials1b Individual randomized controlled trials with narrow confidence intervals1c ‘All or none’ all patients died before the treatment became available, but some now survive on it; or when some patients died before the treatment became available, but none now die on it.2a Systematic review (with homogeneity) of cohort studies2b Individual cohort study (including low quality RCT; e.g., <80% follow-up)2c ‘Outcomes’ Research; Ecological studies3a Systematic review (with homogeneity) of case–control studies3b Individual case–control study4 Case series (and poor quality cohort and case-control studies)5 Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on physiology, bench research or ‘first principles’Grading of recommendationsA. Based on evidence level 1a, b or c.B. Based on evidence level 2a, b or c, 3a or b.C. Based on evidence level 4 D Based on evidence level 5.

Risk of HIV transmission from patients on antiretroviral therapy: A position statement from the Public Health Agency of Sweden and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy

Abstract The modern medical treatment of HIV with antiretroviral therapy (ART) has drastically reduced the morbidity and mortality in patients infected with this virus. ART has also been shown to reduce the transmission risk from individual patients as well as the spread of the infection at the population level. This position statement from the Public Health Agency of Sweden and the Swedish Reference Group for Antiviral Therapy is based on a workshop organized in the fall of 2012. It summarizes the latest research and knowledge on the risk of HIV transmission from patients on ART, with a focus on the risk of sexual transmission. The risk of transmission via shared injection equipment among intravenous drug users is also examined, as is the risk of mother-to-child transmission. Based on current knowledge, the risk of transmission through vaginal or anal intercourse involving the use of a condom has been judged to be minimal, provided that the person infected with HIV fulfils the criteria for effective ART. This probably also applies to unprotected intercourse, provided that no other sexually transmitted infections are present, although it is not currently possible to fully support this conclusion with direct scientific evidence. ART is judged to markedly reduce the risk of blood-borne transmission between people who share injection equipment. Finally, the risk of transmission from mother to child is very low, provided that ART is started well in advance of delivery.

Novel clinical trial designs for the development of new antiretroviral agents.

The resounding success of combination antiretroviral efficacy for both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients – with 70–90% viral suppression rates in recent studies – has made registration trials for new agents challenging. With the inevitable specter of drug resistance, new agents must have a pathway to approval. The Forum for Collaborative HIV Research obtained input from concerned stakeholders including industry, clinical sciences, community advocacy, and regulatory sciences (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) to discuss how safety and efficacy of new agents could be demonstrated. Recognizing the shortfalls of superiority or noninferiority trials in this environment, a new trial design for treatment-experienced patients, minimizing the risk for drug resistance but allowing full assessment of safety, was proposed. The antiviral efficacy of an active investigational drug would be assessed by comparison to placebo as an add-on to a failing regimen in a short, 10–14-day study followed by institution of an optimized background regimen (OBR) in both arms with investigational drug given to all patients. The follow-on stage would assess dose response, safety, durability of initial response, and development of resistance. Additionally, a second safety trial could be conducted comparing patients randomized to the investigational agent with a new OBR to those on a new OBR and placebo. Finally, approval decisions could consider other long-term safety endpoints. Exposing treatment-naïve patients to investigational agents remains a controversial issue; stakeholders have different interpretations of risk–benefit for trials in this population that necessitate careful consideration before initiating trials in them.