Kiat Ruxrungtham

Comparison of first-line antiretroviral therapy with regimens including nevirapine, efavirenz, or both drugs, plus stavudine and lamivudine: a randomised open-label trial, the 2NN Study

BACKGROUND The 2NN Study was a randomised comparison of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) nevirapine and efavirenz. METHODS In this multicentre, open-label, randomised trial, 1216 antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients were assigned nevirapine 400 mg once daily, nevirapine 200 mg twice daily, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, or nevirapine (400 mg) and efavirenz (800 mg) once daily, plus stavudine and lamivudine, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with treatment failure (less than 1 log(10) decline in plasma HIV-1 RNA in the first 12 weeks or two consecutive measurements of more than 50 copies per mL from week 24 onwards, disease progression [new Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grade C event or death], or change of allocated treatment). Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS Treatment failure occurred in 96 (43.6%) of 220 patients assigned nevirapine once daily, 169 (43.7%) of 387 assigned nevirapine twice daily, 151 (37.8%) of 400 assigned efavirenz, and 111 (53.1%) of 209 assigned nevirapine plus efavirenz. The difference between nevirapine twice daily and efavirenz was 5.9% (95% CI -0.9 to 12.8). There were no significant differences among the study groups in the proportions with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations below 50 copies per mL at week 48 (p=0.193) or the increases in CD4-positive cells (p=0.800). Nevirapine plus efavirenz was associated with the highest frequency of clinical adverse events, and nevirapine once daily with significantly more hepatobiliary laboratory toxicities than efavirenz. Of 25 observed deaths, two were attributed to nevirapine. INTERPRETATION Antiretroviral therapy with nevirapine or efavirenz showed similar efficacy, so triple-drug regimens with either NNRTI are valid for first-line treatment. There are, however, differences in safety profiles. Combination of nevirapine and efavirenz did not improve efficacy but caused more adverse events.

Plasma Levels of Soluble CD14 Independently Predict Mortality in HIV Infection

BACKGROUND Chronic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is associated with intestinal permeability and microbial translocation that contributes to systemic immune activation, which is an independent predictor of HIV disease progression. The association of microbial translocation with clinical outcome remains unknown. METHODS This nested case-control study included 74 subjects who died, 120 of whom developed cardiovascular disease and 81 of whom developed AIDS during the Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy (SMART) study with matched control subjects. Intestinal fatty acid binding protein (I-FABP), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), soluble CD14 (sCD14), endotoxin core antibody (EndoCAb), and 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) were measured in baseline plasma samples. RESULTS Subjects with the highest quartile of sCD14 levels had a 6-fold higher risk of death than did those in the lowest quartile (95% confidence interval, 2.2-16.1; P<.001), with minimal change after adjustment for inflammatory markers, CD4(+) T cell count, and HIV RNA level. No other marker was significantly associated with clinical outcomes. I-FABP, LPS, and sCD14 were increased and EndoCAb was decreased in study subjects, compared with healthy volunteers. sCD14 level correlated with levels of IL-6, C-reactive protein, serum amyloid A and D-dimer. CONCLUSIONS sCD14, a marker of monocyte response to LPS, is an independent predictor of mortality in HIV infection. Therapeutic attenuation of innate immune activation may improve survival in patients with HIV infection.

Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir compared with that of lopinavir-ritonavir at 48 weeks in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients in TITAN: a randomised controlled phase III trial

BACKGROUND The protease inhibitor darunavir has been shown to be efficacious in highly treatment-experienced patients with HIV infection, but needs to be assessed in patients with a broader range of treatment experience. We did a randomised, controlled, phase III trial (TITAN) to compare 48-week efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir with that of lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive patients. METHODS Patients received optimised background regimen plus non-blinded treatment with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (95% CI lower limit for the difference in treatment response -12% or greater) for HIV RNA of less than 400 copies per mL in plasma at week 48 (per-protocol analysis). TITAN (TMC114-C214) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00110877. FINDINGS Of 595 patients randomised and treated, 187 (31%) were protease inhibitor naive; 476 of 582 (82%) were susceptible to four or more protease inhibitors. At week 48, significantly more darunavir-ritonavir than lopinavir-ritonavir patients had HIV RNA of less than 400 copies per mL (77% [220 of 286] vs 68% [199 of 293]; estimated difference 9%, 95% CI 2-16). Fewer virological failures treated with darunavir-ritonavir than with lopinavir-ritonavir developed primary protease inhibitor mutations (21% [n=6] vs 36% [n=20]) and nucleoside analogue-associated mutations (14% [n=4] vs 27% [n=15]). Safety data were generally similar between the groups; grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 80 (27%) darunavir-ritonavir and 89 (30%) lopinavir-ritonavir patients. INTERPRETATION In lopinavir-naive, treatment-experienced patients, darunavir-ritonavir was non-inferior to lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in terms of our virological endpoint, and should therefore be considered as a treatment option for this population.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). METHODS We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. FINDINGS From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. FUNDING Tibotec.

Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week analysis.

Objective:Present 96-week data from ongoing ARTEMIS (AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In Naive Subjects) trial. Methods:Randomized, open-label, phase III trial of antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml (stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count) receiving darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg total daily dose (twice daily or once daily) and fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine. Primary outcome measure was noninferiority of DRV/r vs. LPV/r in virologic response (<50 copies/ml, time-to-loss of virologic response) at 96 weeks (secondary outcome: superiority). Results:Six hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled. At week 96, significantly more DRV/r (79%) than LPV/r patients (71%) had viral load less than 50 copies/ml, confirming statistical noninferiority (estimated difference: 8.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9–14.8; P < 0.001; per-protocol) and superiority (P = 0.012; intent-to-treat) in virologic response. Median CD4 cell count increases from baseline were 171 and 188 cells/μl for DRV/r and LPV/r, respectively (P = 0.57; noncompleter=failure). Overall, 4% of DRV/r patients and 9% of LPV/r patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Lower rates of grade 2–4 treatment-related diarrhea were seen with DRV/r (4%) vs. LPV/r (11%; P < 0.001), whereas grade 2–4 treatment-related rash occurred infrequently in both arms (3 vs. 1%, respectively; P = 0.273). DRV/r patients had smaller median increases in triglycerides (0.1 and 0.6 mmol/l, respectively, P < 0.0001) and total cholesterol (0.6 and 0.9 mmol/l, respectively; P < 0.0001) than LPV/r patients; levels remained below National Cholesterol Education Program cut-offs for DRV/r. Conclusion:At week 96, once-daily DRV/r was both statistically noninferior and superior in virologic response to LPV/r, with a more favorable gastrointestinal and lipid profile, confirming DRV/r as an effective, well tolerated, and durable option for antiretroviral-naive patients.

HIV/AIDS in Asia

HIV (ie, HIV-1) epidemics in Asia show great diversity, both in severity and timing. But epidemics in Asia are far from over and several countries including China, Indonesia, and Vietnam have growing epidemics. Several factors affect the rate and magnitude of growth of HIV prevalence, but two of the most important are the size of the sex worker population and the frequency with which commercial sex occurs. In view of the present state of knowledge, even countries with low prevalence of infection might still have epidemics affecting a small percentage of the population. Once HIV infection has become established, growing needs for care and treatment are unavoidable and even the so-called prevention-successful countries of Thailand and Cambodia are seeing burgeoning care needs. The manifestations of HIV disease in the region are discussed with the aim of identifying key issues in medical management and care of HIV/AIDS. In particular, issues relevant to developing appropriate highly active antiretroviral treatment programmes in the region are discussed. Although access to antiretroviral therapy is increasing globally, making it work effectively while simultaneously expanding prevention programmes to stem the flow of new infections remains a real challenge in Asia. Genuine political interest and commitment are essential foundations for success, demanding advocacy at all levels to drive policy, mobilise sufficient resources, and take effective action.

CD4-guided scheduled treatment interruptions compared with continuous therapy for patients infected with HIV-1: results of the Staccato randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Stopping antiretroviral therapy in patients with HIV-1 infection can reduce costs and side-effects, but carries the risk of increased immune suppression and emergence of resistance. METHODS 430 patients with CD4-positive T-lymphocyte (CD4) counts greater than 350 cells per muL, and viral load less than 50 copies per mL were randomised to continued therapy (n=146) or scheduled treatment interruptions (n=284). Median time on randomised treatment was 21.9 months (range 16.4-25.3). Primary endpoints were proportion of patients with viral load less than 50 copies per mL at the end of the trial, and amount of drugs used. Analysis was intention-to-treat. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT00113126. FINDINGS Drug savings in the scheduled treatment interruption group, compared with continuous treatment, amounted to 61.5%. 257 of 284 (90.5%) patients in the scheduled treatment interruption group reached a viral load less than 50 copies per mL, compared with 134 of 146 (91.8%) in the continued treatment group (difference 1.3%, 95% CI-4.3 to 6.9, p=0.90). No AIDS-defining events occurred. Diarrhoea and neuropathy were more frequent with continuous treatment; candidiasis was more frequent with scheduled treatment interruption. Ten patients (2.3%) had resistance mutations, with no significant differences between groups. INTERPRETATION Drug savings with scheduled treatment interruption were substantial, and no evidence of increased treatment resistance emerged. Treatment-related adverse events were more frequent with continuous treatment, but low CD4 counts and minor manifestations of HIV infection were more frequent with scheduled treatment interruption.

Impact of viral hepatitis co-infection on response to antiretroviral therapy and HIV disease progression in the HIV-NAT cohort.

Objective: To examine the impact of viral hepatitis co-infection on HIV disease outcomes following commencement of combination antiretroviral therapy in a developing country setting. Methods: HIV RNA suppression, CD4 cell count recovery, and HIV disease progression were examined within a cohort of Thai HIV-infected patients enrolled in eight HIV-NAT randomized controlled trials of antiretroviral therapy (n = 692). Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing was performed on stored serum. Results: Mean age was 32.3 years, 52% were male, 11% had CDC category C HIV disease at baseline, and 22% had received prior antiretroviral therapy. Prevalence of HBV, HCV and HBV/HCV co-infection was 8.7, 7.2 and 0.4%, respectively. Median HIV RNA reductions (log10 copies/ml) were approximately 1.5 for HIV, HIV-HBV, HIV-HCV subgroups from week 4 up to week 48. Mean increases in CD4 cell count were significantly lower among HIV-HBV and HIV-HCV subgroups at week 4 (HIV, 62 × 106 cells/l; HIV-HBV, 29 × 106 cells/l; HIV-HCV, 33 × 106 cells/l), however, by week 48 CD4 cell increases were similar (HIV, 115 × 106 cells/l; HIV-HBV, 113 × 106 cells/l; HIV-HCV, 97 × 106 cells/l). Cox regression analyses showed that HIV-HBV or HIV-HCV co-infection were not associated with a CD4 cell count increase of 100 × 106 cells/l over 48 weeks. Estimated progression to AIDS event or death at week 48 was 3.3% (95% confidence interval, 2.0–5.1%) for HIV, 6.7% (2.5–14.6%) for HIV-HBV, and 8.0% (2.2–20.5%) for HIV-HCV subgroups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: An early delayed CD4 count recovery among HIV/viral hepatitis co-infected patients was not sustained, and was not associated with increased HIV disease progression.

A randomized trial of combination hepatitis B therapy in HIV/HBV coinfected antiretroviral naïve individuals in Thailand

Coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) is associated with considerable liver disease morbidity and mortality. Emerging HIV epidemics in areas of high HBV endemicity such as Asia are expanding the population with HIV/HBV coinfection. Limited randomized trial data exist to support current guidelines for HBV combination therapy in HIV/HBV coinfection. The objective of this prospective randomized clinical trial was to compare the strategy of HBV monotherapy with lamivudine (LAM) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) versus HBV combination therapy with LAM/TDF in antiretroviral‐naïve HIV/HBV‐coinfected subjects in Thailand. Thirty‐six HIV/HBV‐coinfected subjects initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) were randomized to either LAM (arm 1), TDF (arm 2), or LAM/TDF (arm 3) as HBV‐active drugs within HAART. At week 48, time‐weighted area under the curve analysis revealed that the median HBV DNA reduction from baseline was 4.07 log10 c/mL in arm 1, 4.57 log10 c/mL in arm 2, and 4.73 log10 c/mL in arm 3 (P = 0.70). HBV DNA suppressed to <3 log10 c/mL in 46% in arm 1, 92% in arm 2, and 91% in arm 3 (P = 0.013, intent‐to‐treat analysis). HBV‐resistant changes were detected in two subjects, both in arm 1. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) loss was observed in 33% of HBeAg‐positive subjects, and 8% experienced hepatitis B surface antigen loss. Hepatic flare was observed in 25% of subjects. Conclusion: LAM monotherapy resulted in a greater proportion of subjects with HBV DNA >3 log10 c/mL at week 48 and in early resistance development. This study confirms current treatment guidelines that recommend a TDF‐based regimen as the treatment of choice for HIV/HBV coinfection, but does not demonstrate any advantage of HBV combination therapy in this short‐term setting. (HEPATOLOGY 2008.)

A Randomized Trial Comparing Plasma Drug Concentrations and Efficacies between 2 Nonnucleoside Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor-Based Regimens in HIV-Infected Patients Receiving Rifampicin: The N2R Study

BACKGROUND To our knowledge, to date, no prospective, randomized, clinical trial has compared standard doses of efavirenz- and nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy among patients with concurrent human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection and tuberculosis (TB) who are receiving rifampicin. METHODS Rifampicin recipients with concurrent HIV-1 infection and TB were randomized to receive antiretroviral therapy that included either efavirenz (600 mg per day) or nevirapine (400 mg per day). Efavirenz and nevirapine concentrations at 12 h after dosing (C12) were monitored at weeks 6 and 12. CD4+ cell counts and HIV-1 RNA levels were assessed every 12 weeks. RESULTS One hundred forty-two patients were randomized into 2 groups equally. The mean body weight of patients was 53 kg, the mean CD4+ cell count was 65 cells/mm3, and the median HIV-1 RNA level was 5.8 log10 copies/mL. At weeks 6 and 12, the mean C12 of efavirenz (+/- standard deviation) were 4.27+/-4.49 and 3.54+/-3.78 mg/L, respectively, and those for nevirapine were 5.59+/-3.48 and 5.6+/-2.65 mg/L, respectively. Interpatient variability in the efavirenz group was 2.3-fold greater than that in the nevirapine group (coefficient of variation, 107% vs. 47%). At week 12, 3.1% of patients in the efavirenz group and 21.3% in the nevirapine group had C12 values that were less than the recommended minimum concentrations (odds ratio, 8.396; 95% confidence interval, 1.808-38.993; P= .002). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed that 73.2% and 71.8% of patients in the efavirenz and nevirapine groups, respectively, achieved HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL at week 48, with respective mean CD4+ cell counts of 274 and 252 cells/mm3 (P> .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that patients with low C12 values and those with a body weight <55 kg were 3.6 and 2.4 times more likely, respectively, to develop all-cause treatment failure (P< .05). CONCLUSIONS Antiretroviral therapy regimens containing efavirenz (600 mg per day) were less compromised by concomitant use of rifampicin than were those that contained nevirapine (400 mg per day) in patients with concurrent HIV-1 infection and TB. Low drug exposure and low body weight are important predictive factors for treatment failure.