Sharon Walmsley

Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection2008 Recommendations of the International AIDS Society–USA Panel

CONTEXT The availability of new antiretroviral drugs and formulations, including drugs in new classes, and recent data on treatment choices for antiretroviral-naive and -experienced patients warrant an update of the International AIDS Society-USA guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. OBJECTIVES To summarize new data in the field and to provide current recommendations for the antiretroviral management and laboratory monitoring of HIV infection. This report provides guidelines in key areas of antiretroviral management: when to initiate therapy, choice of initial regimens, patient monitoring, when to change therapy, and how best to approach treatment options, including optimal use of recently approved drugs (maraviroc, raltegravir, and etravirine) in treatment-experienced patients. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION A 14-member panel with expertise in HIV research and clinical care was appointed. Data published or presented at selected scientific conferences since the last panel report (August 2006) through June 2008 were identified. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data that changed the previous guidelines were reviewed by the panel (according to section). Guidelines were drafted by section writing committees and were then reviewed and edited by the entire panel. Recommendations were made by panel consensus. CONCLUSIONS New data and considerations support initiating therapy before CD4 cell count declines to less than 350/microL. In patients with 350 CD4 cells/microL or more, the decision to begin therapy should be individualized based on the presence of comorbidities, risk factors for progression to AIDS and non-AIDS diseases, and patient readiness for treatment. In addition to the prior recommendation that a high plasma viral load (eg, >100,000 copies/mL) and rapidly declining CD4 cell count (>100/microL per year) should prompt treatment initiation, active hepatitis B or C virus coinfection, cardiovascular disease risk, and HIV-associated nephropathy increasingly prompt earlier therapy. The initial regimen must be individualized, particularly in the presence of comorbid conditions, but usually will include efavirenz or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine). Treatment failure should be identified and managed promptly, with the goal of therapy, even in heavily pretreated patients, being an HIV-1 RNA level below assay detection limits.

Durable efficacy of tipranavir-ritonavir in combination with an optimised background regimen of antiretroviral drugs for treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks in the Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST) studies: an analysis of combined data from two randomised open-label trials

BACKGROUND Treatment options for HIV-1 infected individuals who have received extensive previous antiretroviral therapy are limited. We compared efficacy and safety of the novel non-peptidic protease inhibitor tipranavir co-administered with ritonavir plus an optimised background regimen with that of an investigator-selected ritonavir-boosted comparator protease inhibitor (CPI-ritonavir) in such patients. METHODS We did a combined analysis of 48-week data from two ongoing, randomised, open-label, multinational, phase III, RESIST studies. HIV-1-infected adults with 3 months or longer previous triple antiretroviral class experience, two or more previous protease inhibitor regimens, HIV-1 RNA 1000 copies per mL or greater, and genotypically demonstrated primary resistance to protease inhibitor, were eligible. Primary endpoints were proportion of treatment responders (with reduction in viral load of 1 log(10) copies per mL or greater below baseline without treatment change) at 48 weeks and time to treatment failure through 48 weeks (intention-to-treat analysis). The RESIST studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00054717 (RESIST-1) and NCT00144170 (RESIST-2). FINDINGS 3324 patients were screened; 746 received tipranavir-ritonavir and 737 CPI-ritonavir. 486 (65.1%) patients on tipranavir-ritonavir and 192 (26.1%) on CPI-ritonavir remained on assigned treatment until week 48. At week 48, more patients achieved and maintained treatment response in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (251 [33.6%] vs 113 [15.3%]; p<0.0001). Median time to treatment failure was significantly longer in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (113 days vs 0 days; p<0.0001). Gastrointestinal system disorders and raised transaminase, cholesterol, and triglycerides were more frequent in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION Compared with CPI-ritonavir, tipranavir-ritonavir with an optimised background regimen provides better virological and immunological responses over 48 weeks in patients who have received extensive previous antiretroviral treatment.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. METHODS We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. FINDINGS 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was -0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 5.2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11%vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2-4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0.0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. INTERPRETATION Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING Tibotec.

A Comparison of Two Regimens for the Treatment of Mycobacterium avium Complex Bacteremia in AIDS: Rifabutin, Ethambutol, and Clarithromycin versus Rifampin, Ethambutol, Clofazimine, and Ciprofloxacin

BACKGROUND Bacteremia with the Mycobacterium avium complex is common in patients with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), but the most effective treatment for this infection remains unclear. METHODS We randomly assigned 229 patients with AIDS and M. avium complex bacteremia to receive either rifampin (600 mg daily), ethambutol (approximately 15 mg per kilogram of body weight daily), clofazimine (100 mg daily), and ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) (the four-drug group) or rifabutin (600 mg daily), ethambutol (as above), and clarithromycin (1000 mg twice daily) (the three-drug group). In the three-drug group the dose of rifabutin was reduced by half after 125 patients were randomized, because 24 of 63 patients had uveitis. RESULTS Among 187 patients who could be evaluated, blood cultures became negative more often in the three-drug group than in the four-drug group (69 percent vs. 29 percent, P<0.001). Among patients treated for at least four weeks, the bacteremia resolved more frequently in the three-drug group (78 percent vs. 40 percent, P<0.001). In the three-drug group, bacteremia resolved more often with the 600-mg dose of rifabutin than with the 300-mg dose (P=0.025), but the latter regimen was more effective than the four-drug regimen (P<0.05). The median survival was 8.6 months in the three-drug group and 5.2 months in the four-drug group (P = 0.001). The median Karnofsky performance score was higher in the three-drug group than in the four-drug group from week 2 to week 16 (P<0.05). Mild uveitis developed in 3 of the 53 patients receiving the 300-mg dose of rifabutin, an incidence about one quarter that observed with the 600-mg dose (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In patients with AIDS and M. avium complex bacteremia, treatment with the three-drug regimen of rifabutin, ethambutol, and clarithromycin leads to resolution of the bacteremia more frequently and more rapidly than treatment with rifampin, ethambutol, clofazimine, and ciprofloxacin, and survival rates are better.

Maraviroc versus Efavirenz, Both in Combination with Zidovudine-Lamivudine, for the Treatment of Antiretroviral-Naive Subjects with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND The MERIT (Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive Patients) study compared maraviroc and efavirenz, both with zidovudine-lamivudine, in antiretroviral-naive patients with R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. METHODS Patients screened for R5 HIV-1 were randomized to receive efavirenz (600 mg once daily) or maraviroc (300 mg once or twice daily) with zidovudine-lamivudine. Coprimary end points were proportions of patients with a viral load <400 and <50 copies/mL at week 48; the noninferiority of maraviroc was assessed. RESULTS The once-daily maraviroc arm was discontinued for not meeting prespecified noninferiority criteria. In the primary 48-week analysis (n = 721), maraviroc was noninferior for <400 copies/mL (70.6% for maraviroc vs 73.1% for efavirenz) but not for <50 copies/mL (65.3% vs 69.3%) at a threshold of -10%. More maraviroc patients discontinued for lack of efficacy (11.9% vs 4.2%), but fewer discontinued for adverse events (4.2% vs 13.6%). In a post hoc reanalysis excluding 107 patients (15%) with non-R5 screening virus by the current, more sensitive tropism assay, the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups was above -10% for each end point. CONCLUSIONS Twice-daily maraviroc was not noninferior to efavirenz at <50 copies/mL in the primary analysis. However, 15% of patients would have been ineligible for inclusion by a more sensitive screening assay. Their retrospective exclusion resulted in similar response rates in both arms Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: (NCT00098293) .

Effects of vitamin E and C supplementation on oxidative stress and viral load in HIV-infected subjects.

Objectives:The HIV-infected population is known to be oxidatively stressed and deficient in antioxidant micronutrients. Since in vitro replication of HIV is increased with oxidative stress, this study assessed the effect of antioxidant vitamin supplementation on lipid peroxidation, a measure of oxidative stress, and viral load in humans. Design:A randomized placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Methods:Forty-nine HIV-positive patients were randomized to receive supplements of both DL-α-tocopherol acetate (800 IU daily) and vitamin C (1000 mg daily), or matched placebo, for 3 months. Plasma antioxidant micronutrient status, breath pentane output, plasma lipid peroxides, malondialdehyde and viral load were measured at baseline and at 3 months. New or recurrent infections for the 6-month period after study entry were also recorded. Results:The vitamin group (n = 26) had an increase in plasma concentrations of α-tocopherol (P < 0.0005) and vitamin C (P < 0.005) and a reduction in lipid peroxidation measured by breath pentane (P < 0.025), plasma lipid peroxides (P < 0.01) and malondialdehyde (P < 0.0005) when compared with controls (n = 23). There was also a trend towards a reduction in viral load (mean ± SD changes over 3 months, −0.45 ± 0.39 versus +0.50 ± 0.40 log10 copies/ml; P = 0.1; 95% confidence interval, −0.21 to −2.14). The number of infections reported was nine in the vitamin group and seven in the placebo group. Conclusion:Supplements of vitamin E and C reduce oxidative stress in HIV and produce a trend towards a reduction in viral load. This is worthy of larger clinical trials, especially in HIV-infected persons who cannot afford new combination therapies.

Clinical utility of quantitative cytomegalovirus viral load determination for predicting cytomegalovirus disease in liver transplant recipients

BACKGROUND The early detection of cytomegalovirus (CMV) after liver transplantation may form the basis of a preemptive strategy for prevention of active CMV disease. METHODS We prospectively analyzed the clinical use of weekly quantitative polymerase chain reaction-(PCR) based plasma viral load determinations and the antigenemia assay for predicting the development of active CMV disease in 97 consecutive liver transplant recipients. RESULTS CMV disease occurred in 21/97 patients. Using a positive cut-off of >400 copies/ml plasma, PCR had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity 47.4%, positive predictive value 34.4% and negative predictive value 100% for prediction of CMV disease. Respective values for a positive antigenemia (>0 positive cells/slide) were 95.2, 55.3, 37.0, and 97.7%. Different cut-off points for a positive test were analyzed using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The optimal cut-off for viral load was in the range of 2000-5000 copies/ml (sensitivity 85.7%, specificity 86.8%, PPV 64.3%, NPV 95.7% for >5000 copies/ml). The optimal cut-off for antigenemia was in the range of four to six positive cells/slide. Mean peak viral load in symptomatic patients was 73,715 copies per/ml versus 3615 copies/ml in patients with asymptomatic CMV reactivation (P<0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis of risk factors for CMV disease (CMV serostatus, acute rejection, and induction immunosuppression), peak viral load and peak antigenemia emerged as the only significant independent predictors of CMV disease (for PCR, odds ratio=1.40/1000 copy/ml increase in viral load, P=0.0001; for antigenemia odds ratio=1.17/1 positive cell/slide). CONCLUSIONS Plasma viral load by quantitative PCR is useful for predicting CMV disease and could be used in a preemptive strategy.

Safety and Efficacy of Dolutegravir in Treatment-Experienced Subjects With Raltegravir-Resistant HIV Type 1 Infection: 24-Week Results of the VIKING Study

Background. Dolutegravir (DTG; S/GSK1349572), a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase inhibitor, has limited cross-resistance to raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir in vitro. This phase IIb study assessed the activity of DTG in HIV-1–infected subjects with genotypic evidence of RAL resistance. Methods. Subjects received DTG 50 mg once daily (cohort I) or 50 mg twice daily (cohort II) while continuing a failing regimen (without RAL) through day 10, after which the background regimen was optimized, when feasible, for cohort I, and at least 1 fully active drug was mandated for cohort II. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects on day 11 in whom the plasma HIV-1 RNA load decreased by ≥0.7 log10 copies/mL from baseline or was <400 copies/mL. Results. A rapid antiviral response was observed. More subjects achieved the primary end point in cohort II (23 of 24 [96%]), compared with cohort I (21 of 27 [78%]) at day 11. At week 24, 41% and 75% of subjects had an HIV-1 RNA load of <50 copies/mL in cohorts I and II, respectively. Further integrase genotypic evolution was uncommon. Dolutegravir had a good, similar safety profile with each dosing regimen. Conclusion. Dolutegravir 50 mg twice daily with an optimized background provided greater and more durable benefit than the once-daily regimen. These data are the first clinical demonstration of the activity of any integrase inhibitor in subjects with HIV-1 resistant to RAL.

Durable efficacy of enfuvirtide over 48 weeks in heavily treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in the T-20 versus optimized background regimen only 1 and 2 clinical trials.

Background:The T-20 Versus Optimized Background Regimen Only (TORO) 1 and TORO 2 clinical trials are open-label, controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 studies comparing enfuvirtide plus an optimized background (OB) of antiretrovirals (n = 661) with OB alone (n = 334) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Methods:The primary objective at week 48 was to investigate durability of efficacy, as measured by the percentage of patients maintaining their week 24 response or improving. Efficacy analyses used the intent-to-treat population. Results:A total of 73.7% of patients randomized to the enfuvirtide group remained on treatment through week 48 versus 21.3% originally randomized to the control group. At week 48, a higher proportion of week 24 responders maintained their response or were new responders in the enfuvirtide group than in the control group in each responder category: HIV-1 RNA level ≥1.0 log10 change from baseline, <400 copies/mL and <50 copies/mL (37.4%, 30.4%, and 18.3% in the enfuvirtide group vs. 17.1%, 12.0%, and 7.8% in the control group, respectively; P < 0.0001 for all comparisons). CD4 cell count increases from baseline were twice as great in the enfuvirtide group as in the control group. Conclusion:These data demonstrate durable efficacy of enfuvirtide plus OB over 48 weeks.

Enhanced Detection and Typing of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) DNA in Anogenital Samples with PGMY Primers and the Linear Array HPV Genotyping Test

ABSTRACT The Roche PGMY primer-based research prototype line blot assay (PGMY-LB) is a convenient tool in epidemiological studies for the detection and typing of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA. This assay has been optimized and is being commercialized as the Linear Array HPV genotyping test (LA-HPV). We assessed the agreement between LA-HPV and PGMY-LB for detection and typing of 37 HPV genotypes in 528 anogenital samples (236 anal, 146 physician-collected cervical, and 146 self-collected cervicovaginal swabs) obtained from human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive individuals (236 men and 146 women). HPV DNA was detected in 433 (82.0%) and 458 (86.7%) samples with PGMY-LB and LA-HPV (P = 0.047), respectively, for an excellent agreement of 93.8% (kappa = 0.76). Of the 17,094 HPV typing results, 16,562 (1,743 positive and 14,819 negative results) were concordant between tests (agreement = 96.9%; kappa = 0.76). The mean agreement between tests for each type was 96.4% ± 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.6% to 97.2%; range, 86% to 100%), for an excellent mean kappa value of 0.85 ± 0.10 (95% CI, 0.82 to 0.87). However, detection rates for most HPV types were greater with LA-HPV. The mean number of types per sample detected by LA-HPV (4.2 ± 3.4; 95% CI, 3.9 to 4.5; median, 3.0) was greater than that for PGMY-LB (3.4 ± 3.0; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6; median, 2.0) (P < 0.001). The number of types detected in excess by LA-HPV in anal samples correlated with the number of types per sample (r = 0.49 ± 0.06; P = 0.001) but not with patient age (r = 0.03 ± 0.06; P = 0.57), CD4 cell counts (r = 0.06 ± 0.06; P = 0.13), or the grade of anal disease (r = −0.11 ± 0.06; P = 0.07). LA-HPV compared favorably with PGMY-LB but yielded higher detection rates for newer and well-known HPV types.