José Ramón Arribas

Comparison of Changes in Bone Density and Turnover with Abacavir-Lamivudine versus Tenofovir-Emtricitabine in HIV-Infected Adults: 48-Week Results from the ASSERT Study

BACKGROUND Abacavir-lamivudine and tenofovir DF-emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used as first-line antiretroviral therapies. However, few studies have comprehensively compared their relative safety profiles. METHODS In this European, multicenter, open-label, 96-week study, antiretroviral-naive adult subjects with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were randomized to receive either abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz. Primary analyses were conducted after 48 weeks of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD), a powered secondary end point, was assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover markers (osteocalcin, procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and type 1 collagen cross-linked C telopeptide [CTx]) were assessed in an exploratory analysis. RESULTS A total of 385 subjects were enrolled in the study. BMD loss was observed in both treatment groups, with a significant difference in the change from baseline in both total hip (abacavir-lamivudine group, -1.9%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, -3.6%; P < .001) and lumbar spine (abacavir-lamivudine group, -1.6%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, -2.4%; P = .036). BMD loss of >or=6% was more common in the tenofovir-emtricitabine group (13% of the tenofovir-emtricitabine group vs 3% of the abacavir-lamivudine group had a loss of >or=6% in the hip; 15% vs 5% had a loss of >or=6% in the spine). Bone turnover markers increased in both treatment groups over the first 24 weeks, stabilizing or decreasing thereafter. Increases in all markers were significantly greater in the tenofovir-emtricitabine treatment group than in the abacavir-lamivudine group at week 24. All but CTx remained significantly different at week 48 (eg, osteocalcin: abacavir-lamivudine group, +8.07 mg/L; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, +11.92 mg/L; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated the impact of first-line treatment regimens on bone. Greater increases in bone turnover and decreases in BMD were observed in subjects treated with tenofovir-emtricitabine than were observed in subjects treated with abacavir-lamivudine.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz compared with zidovudine/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment-naive patients: 144-Week analysis

Background:As antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of HIV infection improve, trials providing data on long-term follow-up are increasingly important. Methods:A regimen of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), emtricitabine (FTC), and efavirenz (EFV) demonstrated superior virologic, immunologic and morphologic effects compared with a regimen of fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine (ZDV/3TC) and EFV through 96 weeks in a randomized open-label trial. After 96 weeks, patients on TDF + FTC transitioned to fixed-dose combination TDF/FTC. Results:Through 144 weeks, significantly more patients in the TDF/FTC arm reached and maintained an HIV RNA level <400 copies/mL (71% receiving TDF/FTC and EFV vs. 58% receiving ZDV/3TC and EFV; P = 0.004), with a trend toward greater CD4 cell increase in the TDF/FTC arm (312 vs. 271 cells/mm3; P = 0.09). Over 144 weeks of follow-up, more patients in the ZDV/3TC arm discontinued therapy because of adverse events (11% vs. 5%; P = 0.01) and no patients discontinued because of renal events. Patients in the ZDV/3TC arm had significantly less limb fat than patients in the TDF/FTC arm (5.4 vs. 7.9 kg; P < 0.001) at 144 weeks. Conclusions:Cumulative results from 3 years of follow-up suggest that a regimen of TDF/FTC and EFV demonstrates superior durability of viral load suppression and an improved safety and morphologic profile compared with ZDV/3TC and EFV.

Once daily dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV: planned interim 48 week results from SPRING-1, a dose-ranging, randomised, phase 2b trial

BACKGROUND Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a new HIV-1 integrase inhibitor that has antiviral activity with once daily, unboosted dosing. SPRING-1 is an ongoing study designed to select a dose for phase 3 assessment. We present data from preplanned primary and interim analyses. METHODS In a phase 2b, multicentre, dose-ranging study, treatment-naive adults were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive 10 mg, 25 mg, or 50 mg dolutegravir or 600 mg efavirenz. Dose but not drug allocation was masked. Randomisation was by a central integrated voice-response system according to a computer-generated code. Study drugs were given with either tenofovir plus emtricitabine or abacavir plus lamivudine. Our study was done at 34 sites in France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain, and the USA beginning on July 9, 2009. Eligible participants were seropositive for HIV-1, aged 18 years or older, and had plasma HIV RNA viral loads of at least 1000 copies per mL and CD4 counts of at least 200 cells per μL. Our primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with viral load of less than 50 copies per mL at week 16 and we present data to week 48. Analyses were done on the basis of allocation group and included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00951015. FINDINGS 205 patients were randomly allocated and received at least one dose of study drug: 53, 51, and 51 to receive 10 mg, 25 mg, and 50 mg dolutegravir, respectively, and 50 to receive efavirenz. Week 16 response rates to viral loads of at most 50 copies per mL were 93% (144 of 155 participants) for all doses of dolutegravir (with little difference between dose groups) and 60% (30 of 50) for efavirenz; week 48 response rates were 87% (139 of 155) for all doses of dolutegravir and 82% (41 of 50) for efavirenz. Response rates between nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor subgroups were similar. We identified three virological failures in the dolutegravir groups and one in the efavirenz group-we did not identify any integrase inhibitor mutations. We did not identify any dose-related clinical or laboratory toxic effects, with more drug-related adverse events of moderate-or-higher intensity in the efavirenz group (20%) than the dolutegravir group (8%). We did not judge that any serious adverse events were related to dolutegravir. INTERPRETATION Dolutegravir was effective when given once daily without a pharmacokinetic booster and was well tolerated at all assessed doses. Our findings support the assessment of once daily 50 mg dolutegravir in phase 3 trials.

Smoking-related health risks among persons with HIV in the strategies for management of antiretroviral therapy clinical trial

OBJECTIVES We sought to determine smoking-related hazard ratios (HRs) and population-attributable risk percentage (PAR%) for serious clinical events and death among HIV-positive persons, whose smoking prevalence is higher than in the general population. METHODS For 5472 HIV-infected persons enrolled from 33 countries in the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy clinical trial, we evaluated the relationship between baseline smoking status and development of AIDS-related or serious non-AIDS events and overall mortality. RESULTS Among all participants, 40.5% were current smokers and 24.8% were former smokers. Adjusted HRs were higher for current than for never smokers for overall mortality (2.4; P < .001), major cardiovascular disease (2.0; P = .002), non-AIDS cancer (1.8; P = .008), and bacterial pneumonia (2.3; P < .001). Adjusted HRs also were significantly higher for these outcomes among current than among former smokers. The PAR% for current versus former and never smokers combined was 24.3% for overall mortality, 25.3% for major cardiovascular disease, 30.6% for non-AIDS cancer, and 25.4% for bacterial pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS Smoking contributes to substantial morbidity and mortality in this HIV-infected population. Providers should routinely integrate smoking cessation programs into HIV health care.

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.

Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. METHODS In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823. FINDINGS From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100,000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per μL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5·7%, 95% CI -10·7 to -0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. INTERPRETATION Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. FUNDING Merck.

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).

Clinical Management of Ebola Virus Disease in the United States and Europe

BACKGROUND Available data on the characteristics of patients with Ebola virus disease (EVD) and clinical management of EVD in settings outside West Africa, as well as the complications observed in those patients, are limited. METHODS We reviewed available clinical, laboratory, and virologic data from all patients with laboratory-confirmed Ebola virus infection who received care in U.S. and European hospitals from August 2014 through December 2015. RESULTS A total of 27 patients (median age, 36 years [range, 25 to 75]) with EVD received care; 19 patients (70%) were male, 9 of 26 patients (35%) had coexisting conditions, and 22 (81%) were health care personnel. Of the 27 patients, 24 (89%) were medically evacuated from West Africa or were exposed to and infected with Ebola virus in West Africa and had onset of illness and laboratory confirmation of Ebola virus infection in Europe or the United States, and 3 (11%) acquired EVD in the United States or Europe. At the onset of illness, the most common signs and symptoms were fatigue (20 patients [80%]) and fever or feverishness (17 patients [68%]). During the clinical course, the predominant findings included diarrhea, hypoalbuminemia, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, hypocalcemia, and hypomagnesemia; 14 patients (52%) had hypoxemia, and 9 (33%) had oliguria, of whom 5 had anuria. Aminotransferase levels peaked at a median of 9 days after the onset of illness. Nearly all the patients received intravenous fluids and electrolyte supplementation; 9 (33%) received noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation; 5 (19%) received continuous renal-replacement therapy; 22 (81%) received empirical antibiotics; and 23 (85%) received investigational therapies (19 [70%] received at least two experimental interventions). Ebola viral RNA levels in blood peaked at a median of 7 days after the onset of illness, and the median time from the onset of symptoms to clearance of viremia was 17.5 days. A total of 5 patients died, including 3 who had respiratory and renal failure, for a mortality of 18.5%. CONCLUSIONS Among the patients with EVD who were cared for in the United States or Europe, close monitoring and aggressive supportive care that included intravenous fluid hydration, correction of electrolyte abnormalities, nutritional support, and critical care management for respiratory and renal failure were needed; 81.5% of these patients who received this care survived.

Assessment of second-line antiretroviral regimens for HIV therapy in Africa

BACKGROUND The efficacy and toxic effects of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are uncertain when these agents are used with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in resource-limited settings. Removing the NRTIs or replacing them with raltegravir may provide a benefit. METHODS In this open-label trial in sub-Saharan Africa, we randomly assigned 1277 adults and adolescents with HIV infection and first-line treatment failure to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI group, 426 patients), a protease inhibitor plus raltegravir in a superiority comparison (raltegravir group, 433 patients), or protease-inhibitor monotherapy after 12 weeks of induction therapy with raltegravir in a noninferiority comparison (monotherapy group, 418 patients). The primary composite end point, good HIV disease control, was defined as survival with no new World Health Organization stage 4 events, a CD4+ count of more than 250 cells per cubic millimeter, and a viral load of less than 10,000 copies per milliliter or 10,000 copies or more with no protease resistance mutations at week 96 and was analyzed with the use of imputation of data (≤4%). RESULTS Good HIV disease control was achieved in 60% of the patients (mean, 255 patients) in the NRTI group, 64% of the patients (mean, 277) in the raltegravir group (P=0.21 for the comparison with the NRTI group; superiority of raltegravir not shown), and 55% of the patients (mean, 232) in the monotherapy group (noninferiority of monotherapy not shown, based on a 10-percentage-point margin). There was no significant difference in rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events among the three groups (P=0.82). The viral load was less than 400 copies per milliliter in 86% of patients in the NRTI group, 86% in the raltegravir group (P=0.97), and 61% in the monotherapy group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS When given with a protease inhibitor in second-line therapy, NRTIs retained substantial virologic activity without evidence of increased toxicity, and there was no advantage to replacing them with raltegravir. Virologic control was inferior with protease-inhibitor monotherapy. (Funded by European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership and others; EARNEST Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN37737787, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00988039.).

A 96-Week Comparison of Lopinavir-Ritonavir Combination Therapy Followed by Lopinavir-Ritonavir Monotherapy versus Efavirenz Combination Therapy

Antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected volunteers received zidovudine/lamivudine plus either lopinavir/ritonavir (n=104) or efavirenz (n=51). Lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects demonstrating 3 consecutive monthly HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL started lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. In previous-failure=failure analysis, 48% (lopinavir/ritonavir) and 61% (efavirenz) maintained HIV-1 RNA at <50 copies/mL through week 96, (P= .17; 95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -29% to 4%); in noncompletion=failure analysis, 60% (lopinavir/ritonavir) and 63% (efavirenz) maintained HIV-1 RNA at <50 copies/mL at week 96 (P= .73; 95% CI for the difference, -19% to 13%). Significant sparing of peripheral lipoatrophy was noted in the lopinavir/ritonavir simplification strategy. This study has provided important information for future studies using treatment simplified to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy.