Judit Pich

Substitution of raltegravir for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients: the SPIRAL study

Background:Switching to raltegravir in selected patients treated with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors may result in similar efficacy and lower plasma lipids. Methods:SPIRAL is a 48-week multicentre, open-label trial in which HIV-infected adults with less than 50 copies/ml of plasma HIV RNA for at least the previous 6 months on ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based therapy were randomized (1: 1) to switch from the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor to raltegravir or to continue on ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based therapy. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients free of treatment failure (noncompleter = failure) at 48 weeks. SPIRAL study was powered to show noninferior efficacy of raltegravir-based therapy with a margin of −12.5%. Results:Two hundred and seventy-three patients assigned to switch to raltegravir (n = 139) or to continue ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (n = 134) were included in the efficacy analysis. At 48 weeks, 89.2% (raltegravir-based therapy) and 86.6% (ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based therapy) of the patients remained free of treatment failure [difference 2.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.2 to 10.6]. A total of 96.9% (raltegravir-based therapy) and 95.1% (ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based therapy) of the patients remained free of virological failure (difference 1.8%; 95% CI −3.5 to 7.5). Switching to raltegravir was associated with significant decreases in plasma lipids and total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio relative to continuing ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor. Severe adverse events and study drug discontinuations due to any adverse event occurred in 4 and 2% of the patients in each group. Conclusion:In patients with sustained virological suppression on ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based therapy, switching from ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor to raltegravir demonstrated noninferior efficacy and resulted in a better lipid profile at 48 weeks than continuing ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor.

Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication of results

Follow-up of clinical trials is a commitment rarely fulfilled by research ethics committees (RECs). We assessed the output of clinical trials submitted in 1997 to our REC, and talked to principal investigators, sponsors, contract research organisations, or a combination of these. During 1997, our REC reviewed 166 clinical trials, and approved 158. The recruitment rate was lower than expected in 45% (64/143) of all initiated clinical trials; 64% (92/143) were finished in accordance with protocol. 3 years after, the results of only 21% (26/123) of finished clinical trials were published in peer-reviewed journals, rising to 31% (38/123) if in-press articles were included. RECs should devote more effort and resources to assess public dissemination of results of clinical trials.

A simplification trial switching from nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors to once-daily fixed-dose abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in HIV-1-infected patients with virological suppression.

Background:Data comparing abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive patients are controversial. We compared 48-week efficacy and safety of these combinations as substitutes of nucleosides in patients with virological suppression. Methods:We randomly assigned 333 HIV-1-infected patients on lamivudine-containing triple regimens with <200 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months to switch their nucleosides to either abacavir/lamivudine (n = 167) or tenofovir/emtricitabine (n = 166). The primary outcome was treatment failure [“switching = failure” intention to treat (ITT) analysis, noninferiority margin 12.5%]. Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure, virological failure, adverse events, and changes in CD4 count, fasting plasma lipids, lipodystrophy, body fat, bone mineral density, and renal function. Results:Treatment failure occurred in 32 patients (19%) on abacavir/lamivudine and 22 patients (13%) on tenofovir/emtricitabine [difference 5.9%; (95% confidence interval −2.1% to 14.0%), P = 0.06]. Four patients in the abacavir/lamivudine group versus none in the tenofovir/emtricitabine group developed virological failure [difference 2.4; (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 6.0), P = 0.04]. Twenty-three patients (14%) assigned to abacavir/lamivudine and 10 (6%) to tenofovir/lamivudine experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse effects (P = 0.03). CD4 counts and plasma lipids showed higher increments in the abacavir/lamivudine group than in the tenofovir/emtricitabine group. Conclusions:In HIV-1-infected patients with virological suppression, abacavir/lamivudine did not meet the noninferiority outcome for treatment efficacy compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine.

Efficacy and safety of switching from boosted lopinavir to boosted atazanavir in patients with virological suppression receiving a LPV/r-containing HAART: the ATAZIP study.

Objectives:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of switching from boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) to boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients versus continuing LPV/r. Methods:Forty-eight weeks analysis of a randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial including patients with virological suppression (≤200 copies/mL for ≥6 months) on LPV/r-containing triple highly active antiretroviral therapy. Patients (n = 248) were randomized 1:1 either to continue LPV/r twice a day (n = 127) or to switch to ATV/r every day (ATV/r; n = 121), with no change in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Those known to have >4 protease inhibitor (PI)-associated mutations and/or who had failed >2 PI-containing regimens were excluded. Results:Baseline characteristics were balanced. 30% harboured ≥1 PI-associated mutation (10% harboured ≥1 major mutation). Treatment failure at 48 weeks (primary end point) occurred in 20% (25 of 127) of the LPV/r arm and in 17% (21 of 121) of the ATV/r arm (difference −2.3%; 95% confidence interval: −12.0 to 8.0; P = 0.0018). Virological failure occurred in 7% (9 of 127) of the LPV/r arm and in 5% (6 of 121) of the ATV/r arm (difference −2.1%; 95% confidence interval: −8.7% to 4.2%, P < 0.0001 for noninferiorating). CD4+ changes from baseline were similar in each arm (approximately 40 cells/mm3). Adverse event rate leading to study drug discontinuation was 5% in both arms. Median fasting triglycerides and total cholesterol decreased significantly in the ATV/r arm (−53 and −19 mg/dL, respectively versus −4 and −4 mg/dL in the LPV/r arm; P < 0.001 in both comparisons). Alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase hepatic abnormalities were similar in the 2 arms. Conclusions:Switching to ATV/r in virologically suppressed patients who were receiving a LPV/r-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy provided comparable (noninferior) efficacy and a safety profile with improved lipid parameters [ISRCTN24813210].

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.

Safety and immunogenicity of a modified pox vector-based HIV/AIDS vaccine candidate expressing Env, Gag, Pol and Nef proteins of HIV-1 subtype B (MVA-B) in healthy HIV-1-uninfected volunteers: A phase I clinical trial (RISVAC02).

BACKGROUND To investigate the safety and immunogenicity of a modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector expressing HIV-1 antigens from clade B (MVA-B), a phase-I, doubled-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed. METHODS 30 HIV-uninfected volunteers at low risk of HIV-1 infection were randomly allocated to receive 3 intramuscular injections (1×10(8)pfu/dose) of MVA-B (n=24) or placebo (n=6) at weeks 0, 4 and 16. All volunteers were followed 48 weeks. Primary end-points were adverse events and immunogenicity. RESULTS A total of 169 adverse events were reported, 164 of grade 1-2, and 5 of grade 3 (none related to vaccination). Overall 75% of the volunteers showed positive ELISPOT responses at any time point. The magnitude (median) of the total responses induced was 288SFC/10(6)PBMC at week 18. Antibody responses against Env were observed in 95% and 72% of vaccinees at week 18 and 48, respectively. HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies were detected in 33% of volunteers. CONCLUSIONS MVA-B was safe, well tolerated and elicited strong and durable T-cell and antibody responses in 75% and 95% of volunteers, respectively. These data support further exploration of MVA-B as an HIV-1 vaccine candidate. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT00679497.

Abacavir-based therapy does not affect biological mechanisms associated with cardiovascular dysfunction.

Objective:To assess the effects of initiating abacavir-containing therapy on plasma lipids and cardiovascular biomarkers. Design:Sub-study of the BICOMBO study in which participants were randomized to switch their nucleoside backbone to either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine. Methods:We assessed 48-week changes in fasting lipids and several biomarkers including serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), osteoprotegerin, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), selectin E and P, adiponectin, insulin, and D-dimer in otherwise healthy, virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients randomly switched to abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with no history of cardiovascular disease, no prior abacavir or tenofovir use, and no virological failure or AIDS during follow-up. Results:Eighty (46 abacavir/lamivudine and 34 tenofovir/emtricitabine) patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups and between patients in the sub-study vs. those not. There were no significant differences in baseline lipids and markers between groups. Although total (6.5 vs. −6.7%, P < 0.0001) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (8.6 vs. −9.1%, P = 0.004) cholesterol increased significantly in the abacavir/lamivudine group relative to the tenofovir/emtricitabine group, we found no significant changes in the biomarkers: CRP (−3.9 vs. 0.0%), MCP-1 (5.9 vs. 4.0%), osteoprotegerin (5.1 vs. −2.8%), IL−6 (0.0 vs. 0.0%), IL-10 (0.0 vs. 0.0%), TNF-alpha (0.0 vs. 0.0%), ICAM-1 (6.6 vs. 5.2%), VCAM-1 (0.02 vs. −0.01%), selectin E (−0.4 vs. 7.8%), selectin P (4.6 vs. 12.6%), insulin (−2.5 vs. 8.8%), adiponectin (−2.2 vs. 15.4%), and D-dimer (0.0 vs. 0.0%) (P ≥ 0.12 for all comparisons). Conclusion:Abacavir/lamivudine increased total and LDL cholesterol compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine, but it did not cause inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, or hypercoagulability in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients.

Early lipid changes with atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir.

Ritonavir‐boosted atazanavir and darunavir are protease inhibitors that are recommended for initial treatment of HIV infection because each has shown better lipid effects and overall tolerability than ritonavir‐boosted lopinavir. The extent to which lipid effects and overall tolerability differ between treatments with atazanavir and darunavir and whether atazanavir‐induced hyperbilirubinaemia may result in more favourable metabolic effects are issues that remain to be resolved.

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.

Creatine kinase elevation in HIV-1-infected patients receiving raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for significant creatine kinase elevation in HIV-1-infected patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort involving all consecutive patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral regimen between June 2005 and December 2010. METHODS Significant creatine kinase elevation was defined as an elevation of at least 3-fold from the upper limit of normal (ULN) (grade 2, WHO classification) while receiving raltegravir. Blood analysis at each visit included at least creatine kinase, as well as plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count. RESULTS There were 475 patients who had been exposed to raltegravir for a median of 11.5 (IQR 8.2-15.2) months. An increase of creatine kinase ≥ 3-fold ULN was detected in 53 (11.2%) patients, representing an incidence of 3.8/100 person-years. Symptoms were reported by seven patients (1.5%), they showed either grade 1 (n = 3) or 2 (n = 4) creatine kinase increases. The median duration of raltegravir therapy before creatine kinase elevation was 5.9 (IQR 3.3-9.3) months. Evidence of creatine kinase elevation prior to raltegravir therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 3.30; 95% CI 1.59 ± 6.86; P = 0.001], abnormal baseline creatine kinase (HR 3.24; 95% CI 1.63 ± 6.45; P = 0.001) and male gender (HR 4.17; 95% CI 1.33 ± 1.27; P = 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for creatine kinase elevation during raltegravir treatment. CONCLUSIONS Although ≈ 1 in 10 patients on raltegravir therapy developed significant creatine kinase elevation as defined in this study, symptoms were uncommon, not severe and occurred in patients with easily identifiable risk factors.