Juan A. Arnaiz

Hepatotoxicity in HIV-1-infected patients receiving nevirapine-containing antiretroviral therapy

ObjectivesTo assess the incidence and risk factors for hepatotoxicity associated with nevirapine. DesignA prospective cohort study in a teaching and referral hospital involving all consecutive patients who were prescribed a nevirapine-containing antiretroviral regimen between September 1997 and May 2000. MethodCutaneous and hepatic adverse reactions and clinical hepatitis were assessed. Blood analysis including plasma HIV-1 RNA CD4 cell counts, liver chemistry tests, and serology for hepatitis B and C viruses. Hepatotoxicity was defined as an increase of at least threefold in serum alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels compared with baseline values. ResultsOf a total of 610 patients, 82 (13.4%) were antiretroviral naive when commencing nevirapine, and 46.2 and 8.9% were coinfected with hepatitis C and B viruses, respectively. Median duration of exposure to nevirapine was 8.7 months (interquartile range 3.4–14.3). Hepatotoxicity developed in 76 (12.5%), an incidence of 13.1/100 person-years. Kaplan–Meier estimated incidence of hepatotoxicity at 3, 6 and 12 months was 3.7, 9.7 and 20.1%, respectively. In seven (1.1%) patients, hepatotoxicity was associated with clinical hepatitis, which was reversible upon discontinuation of therapy. Multivariate analysis identified the duration of prior exposure to antiretroviral drugs, hepatitis C virus, and higher baseline levels of alanine aminotransferase as independent risk factors for hepatotoxicity. ConclusionsHepatotoxicity but not clinical hepatitis was common in HIV-1-infected patients receiving nevirapine-containing regimens and the incidence steadily increased over time. Prolonged exposure to any antiretroviral therapy, coinfection with hepatitis C virus and abnormal baseline levels of alanine aminotransferase identified patients at a higher risk.

Hepatotoxicity of nevirapine in virologically suppressed patients according to gender and CD4 cell counts

A warning advising a higher risk of hepatotoxicity in antiretroviral‐naive patients starting a nevirapine‐containing combination antiretroviral therapy (NcART) has been issued by health authorities. It is unclear whether this higher risk also applies to stable virologically suppressed patients starting NcART.

Continued indinavir versus switching to indinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with suppressed viral load.

Objective: To compare continued indinavir (IDV) 8-hourly (q8h) with switching to indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/RTV) 12-hourly (q12h) in HIV-positive patients having suppressed viral load with IDV q8h plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI). Design: Multicentre, international, randomized, open-label study enrolling HIV-1 infected patients on IDV 800 mg q8h plus two NRTI with CD4 cell counts ⩾ 100 × 106/l and plasma HIV RNA < 500 copies/ml for ⩾ 3 months. Methods: Patients were randomized to continue on the same regimen or to switch to IDV plus liquid RTV (IDV/RTV 800 mg/100 mg q12h). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients remaining < 500 copies/ml at 48 weeks. Results: A total of 323 patients (IDV/RTV, 162; IDV, 161) were evaluable. At 48 weeks, the proportions of patients with plasma HIV RNA < 500 copies/ml were 93%, 88% and 58% in the IDV/RTV arm versus 92% (P = 1), 86% (P = 0.87) and 74% (P = 0.003) in the IDV arm using on-treatment (OT) and intent-to-treat (ITT) [switches included (ITT, S = I) and switches = failure (ITT, S = F)] analyses respectively. Mean increase in CD4 cell count was 88 × 106/cells/l (IDV/RTV arm) and 60 × 106 cells/l (IDV arm) (P = 0.08). More patients discontinued study medication due to adverse events in the IDV/RTV arm than in the IDV arm (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Equivalence of continuing IDV q8h versus switching to IDV/RTV (liquid) q12h in suppressed stable patients was demonstrated by OT and ITT S = I analyses. However, the IDV q8h arm performed better when discontinuations were classified as failures. IDV/RTV q12h can be convenient and equally effective for patients able to tolerate it.

Three-year follow-up of protease inhibitor-based regimen simplification in HIV-infected patients

Patients with sustained virological suppression on protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapy were randomly assigned to switch the PI to nevirapine (n = 155), efavirenz (n = 156), or abacavir (n = 149) and were followed for at least 3 years regardless of the discontinuation of assigned therapy. There was a higher probability of maintaining virological suppression after 3 years of follow-up with nevirapine or efavirenz than with abacavir. In contrast, abacavir showed a lower incidence of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation.

Differential Body Composition Effects of Protease Inhibitors Recommended for Initial Treatment of HIV Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether metabolic or body composition effects differ between protease inhibitor-based regimens recommended for initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. METHODS ATADAR is a phase 4, open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Stable antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults were randomly assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine daily. Predefined endpoints were treatment or virological failure, drug discontinuation due to adverse effects, and laboratory and body composition changes at 96 weeks. RESULTS At 96 weeks, 56 (62%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 62 (71%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of treatment failure (estimated difference 8.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.6 to 21.6) and 71 (79%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 75 (85%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of virological failure (estimated difference 6.3%; 95% CI, -.5 to 17.6). Seven patients discontinued atazanavir/ritonavir and 5 discontinued darunavir/ritonavir due to adverse effects. Total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol similarly increased in both arms, but there was a greater increase in triglycerides in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm. At 96 weeks, body fat (estimated difference 2862.2 gr; 95% CI, 726.7 to 4997.7; P = .0090), limb fat (estimated difference 1403.3 gr; 95% CI, 388.4 to 2418.2; P = .0071), and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (estimated difference 28.4 cm(2); 95% CI, 1.9 to 55.0; P = .0362) increased more in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm than in darunavir/ritonavir arm. Body fat changes in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm were associated with higher insulin resistance. CONCLUSIONS We found no major differences between atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir in efficacy, clinically relevant side effects, or plasma cholesterol fractions. However, atazanavir/ritonavir led to higher triglycerides and more total and subcutaneous fat than darunavir/ritonavir. Also, fat gains with atazanavir/ritonavir were associated with insulin resistance. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01274780.

Post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection: a clinical trial comparing lopinavir/ritonavir versus atazanavir each with zidovudine/lamivudine.

BACKGROUND A clinical trial comparing the rate of discontinuation and tolerability of two post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) regimens was performed. METHODS A total of 255 individuals attending the emergency rooms of six hospitals for exposure to HIV and criteria to receive PEP were randomized to receive zidovudine/lamivudine plus either lopinavir/ritonavir (n=131) or atazanavir (n=124; day 0). The primary end point was the rate of PEP discontinuation before day 28 of follow-up. Secondary end points were incidence of side effects, follow-up at days 90 and 180 and rate of seroconversions. RESULTS A total of 55 patients (29 in lopinavir/ritonavir and 26 in atazanavir arms) did not attend the first scheduled appointment (day 1) and were excluded from the analysis. The rate of discontinuation before day 28 owing to any cause was similar between groups (37/102 [36%] in lopinavir/ritonavir and 35/98 [36%] in atazanavir arms, P=0.82). Adverse events were the reason for discontinuation or switching of PEP in 33 individuals (16/102 [16%] in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm and 17/98 [17%] in the atazanavir arm, P=0.84). Adverse events were reported in 92/200 (46%) of individuals on PEP who attend at least the day 1 appointment (50/102 [49%] in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm and 42/98 [43%] in the atazanavir arm, P=0.38). There were no seroconversions. CONCLUSIONS The rate of discontinuation of PEP before day 28 was similar with zidovudine/lamivudine plus either lopinavir/ritonavir or atazanavir. The rate of discontinuation of PEP because of adverse events was low in both arms. Almost 50% of the patients of both arms suffered side effects. New strategies are needed to improve the tolerance.

Maraviroc, as a switch option, in HIV-1-infected individuals with stable, well-controlled HIV replication and R5-tropic virus on their first Nucleoside/Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor plus ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor regimen: Week 48 Results of the randomized, multicenter March study

BACKGROUND Alternative combination antiretroviral therapies in virologically suppressed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients experiencing side effects and/or at ongoing risk of important comorbidities from current therapy are needed. Maraviroc (MVC), a chemokine receptor 5 antagonist, is a potential alternative component of therapy in those with R5-tropic virus. METHODS The Maraviroc Switch Study is a randomized, multicenter, 96-week, open-label switch study in HIV type 1-infected adults with R5-tropic virus, virologically suppressed on a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) plus double nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (2 N(t)RTI) backbone. Participants were randomized 1:2:2 to current combination antiretroviral therapy (control), or replacing the protease inhibitor (MVC + 2 N(t)RTI arm) or the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone (MVC + PI/r arm) with twice-daily MVC. The primary endpoint was the difference (switch minus control) in proportion with plasma viral load (VL) <200 copies/mL at 48 weeks. The switch arms were judged noninferior if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in the primary endpoint was < -12% in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS The ITT population comprised 395 participants (control, n = 82; MVC + 2 N(t)RTI, n = 156; MVC + PI/r, n = 157). Baseline characteristics were well matched. At week 48, noninferior rates of virological suppression were observed in those switching away from a PI/r (93.6% [95% CI, -9.0% to 2.2%] and 91.7% [95% CI, -9.6% to 3.8%] with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively) compared to the control arm (97.6% and 95.1% with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively). In contrast, MVC + PI/r did not meet noninferiority bounds and was significantly inferior (84.1% [95% CI, -19.8% to -5.8%] and 77.7% [95% CI, -24.9% to -8.4%] with VL <200 and <50 copies/mL, respectively) to the control arm in the ITT analysis. CONCLUSIONS These data support MVC as a switch option for ritonavir-boosted PIs when partnered with a 2-N(t)RTI backbone, but not as part of N(t)RTI-sparing regimens comprising MVC with PI/r. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NCT01384682.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir or cobicistat-boosted elvitegravir as a single-tablet regimen for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis

Objectives To assess HIV-1 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus cobicistat-boosted elvitegravir as a single-tablet regimen (STR), using tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine with both of these therapies. Methods A prospective, open, randomized clinical trial was performed. Individuals attending the emergency room due to potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for PEP were randomized 1:3 into two groups receiving either 400/100 mg of lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 38) or 150/150 mg of elvitegravir/cobicistat (n = 119), with both groups also receiving 245/200 mg of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. Five follow-up visits were scheduled at days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse effects and rate of seroconversions. Clinical trials.gov number: NCT08431173. Results Median age was 32 years and 95% were males. PEP non-completion at day 28 was 36% (n = 57), with a trend to be higher in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm [lopinavir/ritonavir 47% (n = 18) versus elvitegravir/cobicistat 33% (n = 39), P = 0.10]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1. PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm than in the elvitegravir/cobicistat arm (33% versus 15%, respectively, P = 0.04). Poor adherence was significantly higher in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm versus the elvitegravir/cobicistat arm (47% versus 9%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Adverse events were reported by 73 patients (59%), and were significantly more common in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (90% versus 49%, P = 0.0001). A seroconversion was observed in the elvitegravir/cobicistat arm in a patient with multiple exposures before and after PEP. Conclusions A higher PEP non-completion, poor adherence and adverse events were observed in patients allocated to the lopinavir/ritonavir arm, suggesting that STR elvitegravir/cobicistat is a well-tolerated antiretroviral for PEP.