Miriam Estébanez

Dual treatment with atazanavir–ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with atazanavir–ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides in virologically stable patients with HIV-1 (SALT): 48 week results from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Problems associated with lifelong antiretroviral therapy, such as need for strict adherence, drug-related toxic effects, difficulties with treatment schedules, and cost, mean that simplification strategies should be sought. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine as an option to switch to from standard combination antiretroviral therapy in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed. METHODS In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with chronic HIV-1 infection and no previous treatment failure or resistance, and with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL for at least 6 months, negative hepatitis B virus surface antigen, and good general health, from 30 hospitals in Spain. Exclusion criteria were switch in antiretroviral therapy during the previous 4 months, previous virological failure, pregnancy or breastfeeding, Gilberts syndrome, use of contraindicated drugs, grade 4 laboratory abnormalities, and previous intolerance to any of the study drugs. We randomly assigned patients (1:1; stratified by active hepatitis C virus infection and previous treatment; computer-generated random number sequence) to dual treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or triple treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at the discretion of the investigators. The primary endpoint was virological response, defined as HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, in the per-protocol population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug in the safety analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307488. FINDINGS Between Sept 29, 2011, and May 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 286 patients (143 [50%] to each group). At week 48 in the per-protocol population, 112 (84%) of 133 patients had virological response in the dual-treatment group versus 105 (78%) of 135 in the triple-treatment group (difference 6% [95% CI -5 to 16%), showing non-inferiority at the prespecified level. 14 (5%) patients developed severe adverse events (dual treatment six [4%]; triple treatment eight [6%]), none of which we deemed related to the study drug. Grade 3-4 adverse events were similar between groups (dual treatment 77 [55%] of 140; triple treatment 78 [55%] of 141). Treatment discontinuations were less frequent in the dual-treatment group (three [2%]) than in the triple-treatment group (ten [7%]; p=0·047). INTERPRETATION In our trial, dual treatment was effective, safe, and non-inferior to triple treatment in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed who switch antiretroviral therapy because of toxic effects, intolerance, or simplification. This combination has the potential to suppress some of the long-term toxic effects associated with nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, preserve future treatment options, and reduce the cost of antiretroviral therapy. FUNDING Bristol Myers-Squibb and Fundación SEIMC-GESIDA.

Neurocognitive Impairment in Patients Treated with Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy or Triple Drug Antiretroviral Therapy

Background In patients who remain virologically suppressed in plasma with triple-drug ART a switch to protease inhibitor monotherapy maintains high rates of suppression; however it is unknown if protease inhibitor monotherapy is associated to a higher rate of neurocognitive impairment. Methods In this observational, cross-sectional study we included patients with plasma virological suppression (≥1 year) without concomitant major neurocognitive confounders, currently receiving for ≥1 year boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy or as triple ART. Neurocognitive impairment was defined as per the 2007 consensus of the American Association of Neurology. The association between neurocognitive impairment and protease inhibitor monotherapy, adjusted by significant confounders, was analysed. Results Of the 191 included patients - triple therapy: 96, 1–2 years of monotherapy: 40 and >2 years of monotherapy: 55 - proportions (95% CI) with neurocognitive impairment were: overall, 27.2% (20.9–33.6); triple therapy, 31.6% (22.1–41.0); short-term monotherapy, 25.0% (11.3–38.7); long-term monotherapy: 21.4% (10.5–32.3); p = 0.38. In all groups, neurocognitive impairment was mildly symptomatic or asymptomatic by self-report. There were not significant differences in Global Deficit Score by group. In the regression model confounding variables for neurocognitive impairment were years on ART, ethnicity, years of education, transmission category and the HOMA index. Adjusted by these variables the Odds Ratio (95% CI) for neurocognitive impairment of patients receiving short-term monotherapy was 0.85 (0.29–2.50) and for long-term monotherapy 0.40 (0.14–1.15). Conclusions Compared to triple drug antiretroviral therapy, monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir in patients with adequate plasma suppression was not associated with a higher rate of asymptomatic neurocognitive impairment than triple drug ART.

Simplification to dual therapy (atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine) versus standard triple therapy [atazanavir/ritonavir + two nucleos(t)ides] in virologically stable patients on antiretroviral therapy: 96 week results from an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized clinical trial (SALT study)

Objectives We evaluated whether maintenance therapy with atazanavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine (ATV/r + 3TC) was non-inferior to ATV/r plus two nucleosides (ATV/r + 2NUCs) at 96 weeks of follow-up. Methods SALT is a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial in HIV-1-infected virologically suppressed patients. Hepatitis B virus surface antigen-negative subjects with no previous treatment failure/resistance mutations and HIV-1-RNA <50 copies/mL for ≥6 months were randomized (1 : 1) to ATV/r + 3TC or ATV/r + 2NUCs. The primary endpoint was HIV-1-RNA <50 copies/mL in the PP population. Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was not below −12%. Results Some 286 patients were analysed. At week 96, 74.4% had HIV-1-RNA <50 copies/mL in the ATV/r + 3TC arm versus 73.9% in the ATV/r + 2NUCs arm (95% CI for the difference, −9.9%–11.0%). In both groups, similar values were observed for patients with confirmed virological failure in ATV/r + 3TC versus ATV/r + 2NUCs (9 versus 5), death (1 versus 0), discontinuation due to ART-related toxicity (7 versus 11), withdrawal from the study (7 versus 9) and loss to follow-up (6 versus 6). One patient taking ATV/r + 2NUCs developed resistance mutations (M184V and L63P). Similar values were obtained for change in mean CD4 count [19 versus 18 cells/mm3 (95% CI for the difference, −49.3–50.7), grade 3–4 adverse events (70.7% versus 70.2%) and changes in the global deficit score, −0.3 (95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1) for ATV/r + 3TC, versus −0.2 (95% CI, −0.4 to −0.1) for ATV/r + 2NUCs]. Conclusions The long-term results of switching to ATV/r + 3TC show that this strategy is effective, safe and non-inferior to ATV + 2NUCs in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients.

A Prospective Cohort Study of Neurocognitive Function in Aviremic HIV-Infected Patients Treated With 1 or 3 Antiretrovirals

BACKGROUND The evolution of neurocognitive performance in aviremic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients treated with <3 antiretrovirals is unknown. METHODS We prospectively included aviremic (≥1 year) HIV-positive patients, without concomitant major neurocognitive confounders, currently receiving boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy (n = 67) or triple antiretroviral therapy (ART) (n = 67) for ≥1 year. We evaluated neurocognitive function (7 domains) at baseline and after 1 year. We performed analysis of covariance to evaluate if 1 additional year of exposure to monotherapy compared with triple ART had an effect on Global Deficit Score (GDS) changes after adjustment for potential confounders. We also compared the evolution of neurocognitive performance and impairment rates. RESULTS Intention-to-treat analysis showed that monotherapy did not influence 1-year GDS change after adjustment for significant confounders (age, ethnicity, duration of therapy, hepatitis C virus status, and HOMA-IR index); the adjusted effect was -0.04 (95% confidence interval, -.14 to .05; P = .38). Neurocognitive stability was observed with monotherapy and triple therapy (GDS crude mean change, -0.09 [95% confidence interval, -.16 to -.01] vs -0.08 [-.14 to -.02]), after 1 year of follow-up, similar proportions of patients changed neurocognitive status from impaired to unimpaired (monotherapy, 4 of 18 [22.2%]; triple therapy, 4 of 19 [21.1%]; P = .91) and vice versa (monotherapy, 5 of 44 [10.2%] and triple therapy, 3 of 45 [6.3%]; P = .48). Similar results were observed in an on-treatment analysis and with use of clinical ratings instead of GDS changes. CONCLUSIONS The number of antiretrovirals included in the ART regimen does not seem to influence the evolution of neurocognitive function in HIV-infected patients with suppressed plasma viremia.

Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy: What Is Its Role?

Protease inhibitor monotherapy has been shown to be effective in maintaining long-term viral suppression in a majority of patients. Withdrawal of nucleoside analogues can prevent long-term toxicity related to these drugs. Clinical trials have recently reported preliminary data on the beneficial effect of protease inhibitor monotherapy on body fat distribution and bone metabolism. Some of the uncertainties possibly associated with protease inhibitor monotherapy such as the increased risk of neurological events and a higher level of subclinical inflammation will be discussed in this review.

Virological response to short-course maraviroc monotherapy does not predict viral tropism in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients

OBJECTIVES We aimed to evaluate whether virological response to a short course of maraviroc monotherapy could predict HIV-1 tropism. METHODS A clinical trial was performed in HIV-1 treatment-naive patients infected with R5- or non-R5-tropic virus determined using the Trofile(®) assay, with >1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. Maraviroc was administered for 10 days. Viral load was measured at baseline and days 4, 7, 10 and 28. The main outcome measurement was the decline in HIV-1 RNA at day 10. The trial was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT01060618; TROPISMVC). RESULTS Forty patients [30 R5 and 10 dual/mixed (D/M)] were recruited. There was a significant decrease in HIV-1 RNA after 10 days of maraviroc treatment in patients with R5-tropic virus (median 1.52 log10 RNA copies/mL; 95% CI 1.23-1.63; P < 0.0001), but also in patients with D/M-tropic virus (median 1.62 log(10) RNA copies/mL; 95% CI 0.33-1.88; P = 0.00024). The difference in the HIV-1 RNA decrease (-0.16 log(10) RNA copies/mL; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.22) was not significant (P = 0.410). A decrease >0.5 log(10) RNA copies/mL was found in 96.3% of patients with R5-tropic virus and in 70% of patients with D/M-tropic virus (P = 0.052). The differences were not significant when a decline of 1 log(10) RNA copies/mL was considered (92.6% versus 70%; P = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS Treatment-naive patients infected with R5- or D/M-tropic virus have similar virological responses to a short course of maraviroc monotherapy. This clinical test thus cannot be used as a surrogate marker of viral tropism in this population.

Uso de ribavirina en virus distintos de la hepatitis C . Una revisión de la evidencia

Resumen La ribavirina es una molécula con actividad antiviral sobre diferentes virus. Ha encontrado su hueco en la práctica clínica de forma casi exclusiva para el tratamiento del virus de la hepatitisC, pero existen otras enfermedades que podrían beneficiarse de su empleo. Su disponibilidad para administración por vía oral, por vía intravenosa e inhalada es una característica beneficiosa. En este trabajo se realiza una revisión de las indicaciones en las principales agencias del medicamento (española, europea y americana), así como de otras posibles indicaciones, principalmente sobre fiebres hemorrágicas y coronavirus. Abstract Ribavirin is a molecule with antiviral activity against different viruses. In clinical practice, it has made its niche almost exclusively for the treatment of the hepatitisC virus. However, there are other diseases in which it could be of benefit and it has the advantage of being suitable for oral, intravenous and inhaled administration. We conducted a review of the indications of the main drug agencies (Spanish, European and American) and other possible indications, mainly haemorrhagic fevers and coronavirus.

Switching from tenofovir containing regimens to boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy: Impact on renal function.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect on creatinine clearance (CG-CrCl, Cockcroft-Gault equation) of switching to boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy in patients receiving a triple drug antiretroviral regimen containing TDF. METHODS All patients who had received a TDF-containing regimen for at least one year and had been switched to PI monotherapy were included. A rapid decrease in CG-CrCl during exposure to TDF was defined as a decrease in CG-CrCl at least five times higher than the expected due to age (0.4ml/min/year by the years of exposure to TDF). In this subgroup of patients, we considered improvement if the last value of CG-CrCl on PI monotherapy was 10% higher than the last value of CG-CrCl before switching to PI monotherapy. A multivariate logistic regression was constructed to identify factors associated to renal improvement after switching to bPI monotherapy. RESULTS 64 patients included. The median (IQR) annual change in CG-CrCl during PI monotherapy was significantly lower than the median (IQR) annual change while exposed to TDF [-0.9 (-4.7 to +2.8) ml/min vs. -4 (-8 to -1) ml/min, p=0.001]. 44 patients experienced a rapid decline during TDF exposition. After switch to PI monotherapy, 15/44 (34%, 95% CI: 21-50%) had an improved CG-CrCl and 16/44 (36%, CI 23-52%) experienced a further decline in CG-CrCl. The only variable associated to CG-CrCl improvement was a more rapid CG-CrCl decline in the last year of exposure to TDF. CONCLUSION Switching to PI monotherapy partially reversed CG-CrCl decrease associated to TDF use, especially in patients with a more rapid decline while receiving TDF.