José Antonio Iribarren

Fast fibrosis progression between repeated liver biopsies in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus

A few studies have assessed the observed fibrosis progression between serial liver biopsies (LB) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) / hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐coinfected patients. Approximately half of the patients progressed at least one fibrosis stage over a short period of time. The risk factors for this fast progression need clarification. Because of this, we evaluated the observed fibrosis progression rates of HIV/HCV‐coinfected patients and the risk factors for accelerated progression. Overall, 135 HIV‐infected patients with positive serum HCV RNA, without other possible causes of liver disease, who underwent two LB, separated at least by 1 year, were included in this retrospective cohort study. The median (Q1‐Q3) time between both LBs was 3.3 (2.0‐5.2) years. Patients showed the following changes in fibrosis stage: regression ≥1 stage: 23 (17%), no change: 52 (39%), progression 1 stage: 38 (28%), and progression ≥2 stages: 22 (16%). Seventeen (13%) patients had cirrhosis in the second biopsy. Factors independently associated with progression ≥1 stage were undetectable plasma HIV RNA during the follow‐up (relative risk [RR] [95% confidence interval, 95% CI] 0.61 [0.39‐0.93], P = 0.03), moderate‐to‐severe lobular necroinflammation (1.77 [1.16‐2.7], P = 0.009), time between biopsies (1.11 [1.08‐1.2], P = 0.01), and end of treatment response to anti‐HCV therapy (0.41 [0.19‐0.88], P = 0.02). Conclusion: Fibrosis progresses with high frequency in HIV/HCV‐coinfected patients over a period of time of 3 years. Absent‐to‐mild lobular necroinflammation at baseline, achievement of response with anti‐HCV treatment, and effective antiretroviral therapy are associated with slower fibrosis progression. (HEPATOLOGY 2009.)

A Large Multicenter Study of Methicillin–Susceptible and Methicillin–Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Prosthetic Joint Infections Managed With Implant Retention

BACKGROUND Several series predicting the prognosis of staphylococcal prosthetic joint infection (PJI) managed with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) have been published, but some of their conclusions are controversial. At present, little is known regarding the efficacy of the different antibiotics that are used or their ability to eliminate methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) infection. METHODS This was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study of cases of PJI by S. aureus that were managed with DAIR (2003-2010). Cases were classified as failures when infection persistence/relapse, death, need for salvage therapy, or prosthesis removal occurred. The parameters that predicted failure were analyzed with logistic and Cox regression. RESULTS Out of 345 episodes (41% men, 73 years), 81 episodes were caused by MRSA. Fifty-two were hematogenous, with poorer prognoses, and 88% were caused by methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA). Antibiotics were used for a median of 93 days, with similar use of rifampin-based combinations in MSSA- and MRSA-PJI. Failure occurred in 45% of episodes, often early after debridement. The median survival time was 1257 days. There were no overall prognostic differences between MSSA- and MRSA-PJI, but there was a higher incidence of MRSA-PJI treatment failure during the period of treatment (HR 2.34), while there was a higher incidence of MSSA-PJI treatment failure after therapy. Rifampin-based combinations exhibited an independent protective effect. Other independent predictors of outcome were polymicrobial, inflammatory, and bacteremic infections requiring more than 1 debridement, immunosuppressive therapy, and the exchange of removable components of the prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS This is the largest series of PJI by S. aureus managed with DAIR reported to date. The success rate was 55%. The use of rifampin may have contributed to homogenizing MSSA and MRSA prognoses, although the specific rifampin combinations may have had different efficacies.

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).

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).

Recomendaciones de GESIDA/Plan Nacional sobre el Sida respecto al tratamiento antirretroviral en pacientes adultos infectados por el VIH (octubre 2004)

Objetivo Efectuar una puesta al dia de las recomendaciones sobre el tratamiento antirretroviral (TAR) para los adultos infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH). Metodos Estas recomendaciones se han consensuado por un comite del Grupo de Estudio de Sida (GESIDA) y del Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS). Para ello se han revisado los avances en la fisiopatologia del VIH, los resultados de eficacia y seguridad de ensayos clinicos, estudios de cohortes y de farmacocinetica, publicados en revistas biomedicas o presentados en congresos en los ultimos anos. Se han definido tres niveles de evidencia segun la procedencia de los datos: estudios aleatorizados (nivel A), de cohortes o de caso-control (nivel B), u opinion de expertos (nivel C). En cada una de las situaciones se ha establecido recomendar, considerar o no recomendar el TAR. Resultados En el momento actual, el TAR con combinaciones de al menos tres farmacos constituye el tratamiento de inicio de eleccion de la infeccion cronica por el VIH. Estas pautas deben incluir dos inhibidores de la transcriptasa inversa analogos de nucleosidos (ITIAN) mas un no nucleosido (ITINN) o dos ITIAN mas un inhibidor de la proteasa (IP). En los pacientes con una infeccion por VIH sintomatica se recomienda iniciar TAR. En los pacientes asintomaticos el inicio de TAR se basara en la cifra de linfocitos CD4+/μl y en la carga viral plasmatica (CVP): a) en pacientes con linfocitos CD4+ 350 cel./μl se puede diferir el inicio del TAR. El objetivo del TAR inicial es lograr una CVP indetectable. La adherencia al TAR tiene un papel fundamental en la duracion de la respuesta antiviral. Las opciones terapeuticas en los fracasos del TAR son limitadas por la aparicion de resistencias cruzadas. Los estudios genotipicos en estos casos son de utilidad. La toxicidad es un factor limitante del TAR, aunque los beneficios superan los posibles perjuicios. Tambien se discuten los criterios de TAR de la infeccion aguda, embarazo y profilaxis postexposicion, y el manejo de la coinfeccion por el VIH y los virus de la hepatitis C y B (VHC y VHB). Conclusiones La cifra de linfocitos CD4+ es el factor de referencia mas importante para iniciar el TAR en pacientes asintomaticos. Por otra parte, el numero considerable de farmacos disponibles, los metodos de monitorizacion mas sensibles (CVP), y la posibilidad de determinar las resistencias hacen que las estrategias terapeuticas sean mucho mas individualizadas.

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.

Decrease in serial prevalence of coinfection with hepatitis C virus among HIV-infected patients in Spain, 1997-2006.

The prevalence of injection drug use decreased from 67.3% in 1997 to 14.5% in 2006 among Spanish patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). A parallel decrease in the prevalence of coinfection with hepatitis C virus was observed, from 73.8% in 1997 to 19.8% in 2006. This steady decrease in the prevalence of coinfection among Spanish patients was caused by a change in transmission routes of HIV infection.

Patients' characteristics and clinical implications of suboptimal CD4 T-cell gains after 1 year of successful antiretroviral therapy.

To describe characteristics and prognosis of patients with suboptimal immunological response to combined antiretroviral therapy (CART). Using data from a multicenter cohort study, we selected patients who initiated CART and showed suboptimal CD4-T cell response (defined as <50 cells/L increase) after 1 year of therapy, despite sustained virological suppression. Characteristics of those patients were compared with subjects who showed optimal immunological response. Of 650 patients with virological suppression, 108 (16.6%) showed suboptimal CD4-T cell response. Independent predictors of suboptimal response were previous injection drug use (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.12-2.98) and age at CART initiation (OR, 1.04 per year increase; 95%CI, 1.01-1.06). Hepatitis C virus coinfection was not associated with impaired immunological response. As compared with patients with optimal immunological response, those with suboptimal response had a higher mortality rate (3.22 versus 0.71 per 100 person-years; p=.001), but a similar rate of new AIDS-defining events. In patients with sustained virological suppression with CART, previous injection drug use, but not hepatitis C virus coinfection, and older age at initiation of therapy were associated with suboptimal CD4 T-cell responses. Patients with suboptimal response had a higher mortality over time, mainly due to diseases other than AIDS-defining events.

Recomendaciones de GESIDA/Plan Nacional sobre el Sida respecto al tratamiento antirretroviral en pacientes adultos infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana en el año 2002

Objetivo Efectuar una puesta al dia de las recomendaciones sobre el tratamiento antirretroviral (TAR) para los adultos infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH). Metodos Estas recomendaciones se han consensuado por un comite del Grupo de Estudio de Sida (GESIDA) y del Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS). Para ello, se han revisado los avances en la fisiopatologia del VIH, los resultados de eficacia y seguridad de ensayos clinicos, estudios de cohortes y de farmacocinetica, publicados en revistas biomedicas o presentados en congresos en los ultimos anos. Se han definido tres niveles de evidencia segun la procedencia de los datos: estudios aleatorizados (nivel A), de cohortes o de caso-control (nivel B) u opinion de expertos (nivel C). En cada una de las situaciones se ha establecido recomendar, considerar o no recomendar el TAR. Resultados En el momento actual, el TAR con combinaciones de al menos 3 farmacos constituye el tratamiento de eleccion de la infeccion cronica por el VIH. En los pacientes con una infeccion por VIH sintomatica se recomienda iniciar el TAR. En los pacientes asintomaticos el inicio de TAR se basara en la cifra de linfocitos CD4+/μl y en la carga viral plasmatica (CVP): a) en pacientes con linfocitos CD4+ 350 cel./μl se puede diferir el inicio del TAR. El objetivo del TAR es lograr una CVP indetectable. La adherencia al TAR tiene un papel en la durabilidad de la respuesta antiviral. Las opciones terapeuticas en los fracasos del TAR son limitadas por la aparicion de resistencias cruzadas. Los estudios genotipicos en estos casos son de utilidad. La toxicidad es un factor limitante del TAR. Tambien se discuten los criterios de TAR de la infeccion aguda, embarazo y profilaxis postexposicion, y el manejo de la coinfeccion por el VIH y los virus de las hepatitis B y C (VHC y VHB). Conclusiones En la actualidad existe una actitud mas conservadora para iniciar el TAR que en recomendaciones previas. La cifra de linfocitos CD4+ es el factor de referencia mas importante para iniciar el TAR en pacientes asintomaticos. Por otra parte, el numero considerable de farmacos disponibles, los metodos de monitorizacion mas sensibles (CVP) y la posibilidad de determinar las resistencias hacen que las estrategias terapeuticas sean mucho mas individualizadas.

The future of antiretroviral therapy: challenges and needs

The introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has substantially modified the natural history of HIV infection. At the beginning of the cART era the objective was focused on HIV-1-associated mortality and morbidity, but as this objective was accomplished other issues emerged, including toxicity, resistance and compliance with treatment. Moreover, the participation of other disease mechanisms, such as proinflammatory activity, in the so-called non-AIDS events is becoming increasingly important. To overcome these issues, therapeutic options have dramatically expanded, which has made the management of HIV-1-infected patients increasingly complex. The intense changes seen raise the question of what will be the future of HIV infection and its treatment. A projection into the future may help to reflect on current limitations, needs and research priorities, to optimize patient care. To debate on this topic a group of 38 experts has initiated The HIV 2020 Project, with the aim of reflecting on the future of HIV infection and identifying the needs that should be the attention of research in different areas. This document summarizes the groups conclusions on the future of antiretroviral treatment, presented as 20 relevant questions. Each question includes the current status of the topic and our vision for the future.