María Martínez-Rebollar

Randomized trial comparing pegylated interferon α‐2b versus pegylated interferon α‐2a, both plus ribavirin, to treat chronic hepatitis C in human immunodeficiency virus patients

Although two pegylated interferons (Peg‐IFN) are available to treat chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, no head‐to‐head comparative studies have been published. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of PEG IFN alfa‐2b (PEG 2b) versus PEG IFN alfa‐2a (PEG 2a), plus ribavirin (RBV). A prospective, randomized, multi‐center, open‐label clinical trial including 182 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients naïve for HCV therapy was performed. Patients were assigned to PEG 2b (80‐150 μg/week; n = 96) or PEG 2a (180 μg/week; n = 86), plus RBV (800‐1200 mg/day) for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR: negative HCV‐RNA 24 weeks after completion of treatment). At baseline, both groups were well balanced: 73% male; 63% HCV genotype 1 through 4; 29% had fibrosis index of 3 or greater. The overall SVR was 44% (42% PEG 2b versus 46% PEG 2a, P = 0.65). Among genotypes 1 through 4, SVRs were 28% versus 32% (P = 0.67) and 62% versus 71% (P = 0.6) in genotypes 2 through 3 for PEG 2b and PEG 2a, respectively. Early virological response (EVR; ≥2 log reduction from baseline or negative HCV‐RNA at week 12) was 70% in the PEG 2b group and 80% in the PEG 2a group (P = 0.13), reaching a positive predictive value of SVR of 64% and a negative predictive value of 100% in both arms. Side effects were present in 96% of patients but led to treatment discontinuation in 10% of patients (8% on PEG 2b and 13% on PEG 2a, P = 0.47). Conclusion: In patients with HIV, HCV therapy with PEG 2b or PEG 2a plus RBV had no significant differences in efficacy and safety. (HEPATOLOGY 2009;49:22‐31.)

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.

Differences between HIV‐infected and uninfected adults in the contributions of smoking, diabetes and hypertension to acute coronary syndrome: two parallel case–control studies

The aim of the study was to assess the separate contributions of smoking, diabetes and hypertension to acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in HIV‐infected adults relative to uninfected adults.

Dual therapy with etravirine plus raltegravir for virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients: a pilot study

BACKGROUND Clinical use of protease inhibitors (PIs) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) may be hampered by toxicity, interactions or resistance issues. Simple and effective antiretroviral regimens avoiding both drug classes may be needed for selected patients. METHODS This was a prospective cohort study. Virologically suppressed patients on PI or NRTI regimens, with problems of tolerability, safety concerns due to comorbidities or risk of drug interactions for both PIs and NRTIs, were given the opportunity to switch their regimen to etravirine plus raltegravir. Patients were required not to have prior virological failure to raltegravir and if there was prior non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) virological failure, only patients in whom efficacy of etravirine could be anticipated through the Stanford Drug Resistance Database were included. Follow-up was scheduled for at least 48 weeks, unless the patient was lost to follow-up or discontinued therapy. RESULTS Twenty-five patients were included. Their median age was 54 years; they had a median of 16 years on antiretroviral therapy and a median of nine previous regimens; 21 (84%) patients had previous virological failure; and 15 (60%) patients had a genotypic test that showed three or more NRTI mutations in 9 (36%), four or more PI mutations in 11 (44%) and at least one NNRTI mutation in 8 (32%) patients. At 48 weeks efficacy was 84% (95% CI 65.3%-93.6%) by intent-to-treat analysis and 91.3% (95% CI 73.2%-97.6%) by per-protocol analysis. One (4%) patient died, two (8%) discontinued due to intolerance and one (4%) experienced virological failure. The CD4/CD8 ratio and plasma lipids improved. CONCLUSIONS Dual therapy with etravirine plus raltegravir was well tolerated and maintained durable viral suppression in selected virologically suppressed patients for whom both PI and NRTI therapy was challenging.

Brote epidémico de hepatitis aguda C en pacientes infectados por el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana

BACKGROUND Recent studies suggest an increased incidence of acute infection with hepatitisC virus (AHC) in men who have sex with men (MSM) co-infected with HIV. Early treatment with interferon-alpha, alone or in combination with ribavirin, significantly reduces the risk of chronic evolution. METHODS This retrospective study includes all HIV patients with AHC in our centre from 2003 to March 2013. AHC was defined by seroconversion of HCV antibodies and detection of serum HCV RNA. RESULTS 93 episodes of AHC were diagnosed in 89 patients. All but three were MSM with a history of unprotected sex. Thirty-seven (40%) patients had other associated sexually transmitted disease. The 29% (27) had any symptoms suggestive of AHC. HCV genotype 4 was the most common (41%), followed by genotype1. Seventy patients started treatment with interferon-alfa and weight-adjusted ribavirin. Currently 46 have completed treatment and follow-up, reaching 26 of them (56.5%) sustained viral response. CONCLUSIONS The incidence of AHC in HIV MSM patients from our centre has increased exponentially in recent years; sexual transmission remains the main route of infection. Early treatment with interferon-alpha and ribavirin achieved a moderate response in these patients.

Tolerability of integrase inhibitors in a real-life setting

Background Integrase inhibitors have shown better tolerability than other drugs in clinical trials, but some post-marketing data have suggested potential differences among them. Aims We compared rates and reasons for discontinuation of raltegravir-, elvitegravir- and dolutegravir-based regimens in a large cohort of HIV-infected patients. Methods Retrospective analysis of a prospectively followed cohort including all antiretroviral-naive and all virologically suppressed antiretroviral-experienced patients prescribed a first regimen containing raltegravir, elvitegravir or dolutegravir with at least one follow-up visit. Major outcomes were early discontinuation (≤1 year) due to any reason and more specifically due to toxicity. Incidence was calculated as number of episodes per 1000 person-years. Risk factors for discontinuation were assessed by multivariate Cox models. Results Early discontinuations due to any reason were 271 (raltegravir), 168 (elvitegravir) and 264 (dolutegravir) per 1000 patient-years ( P  =   0.0821). Early discontinuations due to toxicity were 76 (raltegravir), 103 (elvitegravir) and 81 (dolutegravir) per 1000 patient-years ( P  =   0.6792). Overall, the most common toxicities leading to discontinuation were neuropsychiatric, osteomuscular or digestive. Most frequent neuropsychiatric manifestations reported at discontinuation were insomnia, dizziness, headache and anxiety irrespective of the integrase inhibitor. Among discontinuations due to toxicity, neuropsychiatric effects were more common with dolutegravir than with raltegravir or elvitegravir ( P  =   0.0046). Age (HR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07, P  =   0.0007) was the only independent risk factor for early discontinuation due to toxicity. Conclusions Discontinuations due to any reason tended to be less common with elvitegravir, but discontinuations due to toxicity did not differ among integrase inhibitors. Neuropsychiatric toxicity leading to drug discontinuation was more frequent with dolutegravir.

Pharmacokinetic study of saquinavir 500 mg plus ritonavir (1000/100 mg twice a day) in HIV-positive pregnant women.

Antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy is critical to preventing human immunodeficiency virus vertical transmission. Physiological changes during pregnancy can alter drug kinetics. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK) of saquinavir (SQV) boosted with ritonavir during pregnancy and postpartum. Fourteen human immunodeficiency virus-positive pregnant women started SQV 500 mg new tablet formulation plus ritonavir at a dose of 1000/100 mg twice a day + 2 nucleoside retrotranscriptase inhibitors during pregnancy. At weeks 24 and 34 of pregnancy and 6 weeks postpartum, a 12-hour PK study was conducted. PK parameters were calculated using Win Nolin software version 4.1. At week 24, the geometric mean values for SQV area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0–12 hours (AUC0–12), the maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax), trough plasma concentration (Cmin), and the elimination half-life (t1/2) were 24.80 mg·h−1·mL−1, 4.66 mg/mL, 0.93 mg/mL, and 4.31 hours, respectively. At week 34, AUC0–12, Cmax, Cmin, and t1/2 were 12.71 mg·h−1·mL−1, 3.23 mg/mL, 0.26 mg/mL, and 4.06 hours, respectively. Finally, at 6 weeks postpartum, mean values for SQV AUC0–12, Cmax, Cmin, and t1/2 were 28.94 mg·h−1·mL−1, 3.92 mg/mL, 0.86 mg/mL, and 3.60 hours, respectively. Although PK parameters in week 24 and postpartum were very similar, those for week 34 showed an important reduction: −71.20%, −30.61%, −48.73%, and −5.81% in Cmin, Cmax, AUC0–12, and t1/2, respectively, compared with week 24, but no statistically significant differences were shown between patients. No vertical transmissions were reported. Therapeutic drug monitoring of SQV during pregnancy should be considered, mainly during the third trimester, to ensure adequate drug exposure throughout the entire pregnancy.

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a higher level of monocyte activation, bacterial translocation and inflammation

Monotherapy with protease‐inhibitors (MPI) may be an alternative to cART for HIV treatment. We assessed the impact of this strategy on immune activation, bacterial translocation and inflammation.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. METHODS We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. RESULTS One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

Dolutegravir-based maintenance monotherapy versus dual therapy with lamivudine: a planned 24 week analysis of the DOLAM randomized clinical trial

Background No controlled comparisons between dolutegravir/lamivudine or dolutegravir maintenance therapy have been done. We hypothesized that these options would have similar efficacy to triple ART. Methods We used an open-label non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comprising two phases: phase A was established to test that experimental arms did not have an unacceptable (≥5%) failure rate; phase B was intended to include the full number of patients followed for 48 weeks. Treated HIV-1-infected adults with viral load <50 copies/mL for ≥12 months, no prior viral failure or resistance mutations to study drugs, nadir CD4 >200 cells/mm3, and hepatitis B virus surface antigen negative were randomized 1:1:1 to maintain triple therapy (control arm), or to switch to dolutegravir/lamivudine, or to dolutegravir monotherapy stratifying by anchor drug. Premature discontinuation was considered if viral failure or therapy interruption due to adverse events, concurrent illness, protocol deviation or patients wish occurred. Blips were registered. Planned phase A results at 24 weeks are reported here. The study is registered at EudraCT: 201500027435. Results Ninety-one (control, n = 31; dual therapy, n = 29; monotherapy, n = 31) patients were randomized. Three patients (none previously exposed to integrase inhibitors) prematurely discontinued treatment due to viral failure: dolutegravir/lamivudine (n = 1), no resistance mutations (subject A); dolutegravir (n = 2), N155H, S147G and Q148R resistance mutations (subject B), and E138K, G140S and N155H resistance mutations (subject C). There were no discontinuations for other reasons. One patient (dolutegravir/lamivudine) experienced a blip in viral load. The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping the dolutegravir monotherapy arm. Conclusions In contrast to dolutegravir/lamivudine, a higher than expected risk of viral failure with development of cross-resistance integrase mutations occurred with dolutegravir maintenance monotherapy.