Waldo H. Belloso

Inflammation, coagulation and cardiovascular disease in HIV-infected individuals.

Background The SMART study was a trial of intermittent use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) (drug conservation [DC]) versus continuous use of ART (viral suppression [VS]) as a strategy to reduce toxicities, including cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. We studied the predictive value of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and D-dimer with CVD morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients who were enrolled in SMART beyond other measured CVD risk factors. Methods A blood sample was available in 5098 participants who were enrolled in the SMART study for the measurement of IL-6, hsCRP and D-dimer. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI for CVD events were estimated for each quartile (Q) for each biomarker vs the 1st quartile and for 1 SD higher levels. For both treatment groups combined, unadjusted and adjusted HRs were determined using Cox regression models. Results There were 252 participants who had a CVD event over a median follow-up of 29 months. Adjusted HRs (95% CI) for CVD for Q4 vs Q1 were 4.65 (2.61, 8.29), 2.10 (1.40, 3.16), and 2.14 (1.38, 3.33) for IL-6, hsCRP and D-dimer, respectively. Associations were similar for the DC and VS treatment groups (interaction p-values were >0.30). The addition of the three biomarkers to a model that included baseline covariates significantly improved model fit (p<0.001). Area under the curve (AUC) estimates improved with inclusion of the three biomarkers in a model that included baseline covariates corresponding to other CVD risk factors and HIV factors (0.741 to 0.771; p<0.001 for difference). Conclusions In HIV-infected individuals, IL-6, hsCRP and D-dimer are associated with an increased risk of CVD independent of other CVD risk factors. Further research is needed to determine whether these biomarkers can be used to improve CVD risk prediction among HIV positive individuals.

Changes in Inflammatory and Coagulation Biomarkers: A Randomized Comparison of Immediate versus Deferred Antiretroviral Therapy in Patients With Hiv Infection

Objectives:Among a subgroup of participants in the Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy (SMART) Trial that were naïve to antiretroviral therapy (ART) or off ART (6 months or longer) at study entry, risk of AIDS and serious non-AIDS events were increased for participants who deferred ART compared with those randomized to (re)initiate ART immediately. Our objective was to determine whether ART initiation in this group reduced markers of inflammation and coagulation that have been associated with increased mortality risk in SMART. Changes in these biomarkers have been described after stopping ART, but not after starting ART in SMART. Methods:Stored specimens for 254 participants (126 drug conservation [DC] and 128 viral suppression [VS]) who were naïve to ART or off ART (6 months or longer) were analyzed for interleukin-6, high sensitivity C-reactive protein, and D-dimer at baseline and Months 2 and 6. Results:At Month 6, 62% of the VS group had HIV RNA less than 400 copies/mL and median CD4 count was 190 cells/mm3 higher than for the DC group (590 versus 400 cells/mm3). Compared with DC, the VS group had 32% (95% confidence interval, 19%-43%) lower D-dimer levels at Month 6 (P < 0.001); differences were not significant for high sensitivity C-reactive protein or interleukin-6 levels. Conclusions:In this randomized comparison of immediate versus delayed ART initiation, D-dimer, but not interleukin-6 and high sensitivity C-reactive protein, declined significantly after starting ART. Further studies are needed to determine whether improvements in D-dimer are associated with reduced risk of clinical disease and whether adjunct treatments used in combination with ART can reduce inflammation among individuals with HIV infection.

Efavirenz versus Boosted Atazanavir or Zidovudine and Abacavir in Antiretroviral Treatment-Naive, HIV-Infected Subjects: Week 48 Data from the Altair Study

BACKGROUND Antiretroviral therapy is complicated by drug interactions and contraindications. Novel regimens are needed. METHODS This open label study randomly assigned treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects to receive tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz (Arm I), with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (Arm II), or with zidovudine/abacavir (Arm III). Pair-wise comparisons of differences in time-weighted mean change from baseline plasma HIV-RNA to week 48 formed the primary analysis. Treatment arms were noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was <0.5 log(10) copies/mL. Secondary objectives included virologic, immunologic and safety end points. RESULTS The intention-to-treat population comprised 322 patients (Arm I, n = 114; Arm II, n = 105; and Arm III, n = 103). Noninferiority for the primary end point was established. Analysis for superiority showed that Arm III was significantly less potent than Arm I (-0.20 log(10) copies/mL; 95% CI, -0.39 to -0.01 log(10) copies/mL; P = .038). The proportions of patients on each of Arm I (95%) and Arm II (96%) with <200 copies/mL were not different (P = .75), but the percentage of patients in Arm III with <200 copies/mL (82%) was significantly lower (P = .005). CD4+ cell counts did not differ. Serious adverse events were more frequent in Arm III (n = 30) than in Arm I or Arm II (n = 15 for each; P = .062). CONCLUSIONS A novel quadruple nucleo(t)side combination demonstrated significantly less suppression of HIV replication, compared with the suppression demonstrated by standard antiretroviral therapy regimens, although it did meet the predetermined formal definition of noninferiority. Secondary analyses indicated statistically inferior virologic and safety performance. Efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir arms were equivalent in viral suppression and safety.

Efficacy and safety of efavirenz 400 mg daily versus 600 mg daily: 96-week data from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority ENCORE1 study.

BACKGROUND The week 48 primary analysis of the ENCORE1 trial established the virological non-inferiority and safety of efavirenz 400 mg compared with the standard 600 mg dose, combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine, as first-line HIV therapy. This 96-week follow-up of the trial assesses the durability of efficacy and safety of this treatment over 96 weeks. METHODS ENCORE1 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial done at 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. HIV-infected adult patients (≥16 years of age) with no previous antiretroviral therapy, a CD4 cell count of 50-500 cells per μL, and plasma HIV-1 viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic case report form to receive fixed-dose daily tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg plus efavirenz either 400 mg daily or 600 mg daily. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 viral load at baseline (≤ or >100 000 copies per mL). The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportions of patients in the two treatment groups with a plasma HIV-1 viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 96. Treatment groups were deemed to be non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was above -10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and non-completer=failure (NC=F) populations. Adverse events and serious adverse events were summarised by treatment group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413. FINDINGS Between Aug 24, 2011, and March 19, 2012, 636 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (324 to efavirenz 400 mg and 312 to efavirenz 600 mg). The intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study drug comprised 630 patients: 321 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group. 585 patients (93%; 299 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 286 in the 600 mg group) completed 96 weeks of follow-up. At 96 weeks, 289 (90·0%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 280 (90·6%) of 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group had a plasma HIV-1 viral load less than 200 copies per mL (difference -0·6, 95% CI -5·2 to 4·0; p=0·72), which suggests continued non-inferiority of the lower efavirenz dose. Non-inferiority was recorded for thresholds of less than 50 and less than 400 copies per mL, irrespective of baseline plasma viral load. Adverse events were reported by 291 (91%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and by 285 (92%) of 309 in the 600 mg group (p=0·48). The proportions of patients reporting an adverse event that was definitely or probably related to efavirenz were 126 (39%) for efavirenz 400 mg and 148 (48%) for efavirenz 600 mg (p=0·03). The number of patients who reported serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (p=0·20). INTERPRETATION Our findings confirm that efavirenz 400 mg is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as initial HIV therapy over 96 weeks. Fewer efavirenz-related adverse events were reported with the 400 mg efavirenz dose than with the 600 mg dose. These findings support the routine use of efavirenz 400 mg. The coadministration of rifampicin and efavirenz 400 mg needs further investigation. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNSW Australia.

Contribution of Genetic Background, Traditional Risk Factors, and HIV-Related Factors to Coronary Artery Disease Events in HIV-Positive Persons

BACKGROUND Persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) have increased rates of coronary artery disease (CAD). The relative contribution of genetic background, HIV-related factors, antiretroviral medications, and traditional risk factors to CAD has not been fully evaluated in the setting of HIV infection. METHODS In the general population, 23 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were shown to be associated with CAD through genome-wide association analysis. Using the Metabochip, we genotyped 1875 HIV-positive, white individuals enrolled in 24 HIV observational studies, including 571 participants with a first CAD event during the 9-year study period and 1304 controls matched on sex and cohort. RESULTS A genetic risk score built from 23 CAD-associated SNPs contributed significantly to CAD (P = 2.9 × 10(-4)). In the final multivariable model, participants with an unfavorable genetic background (top genetic score quartile) had a CAD odds ratio (OR) of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-2.04). This effect was similar to hypertension (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.73), hypercholesterolemia (OR = 1.51; 95% CI, 1.16-1.96), diabetes (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.49), ≥ 1 year lopinavir exposure (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.73), and current abacavir treatment (OR = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.17-2.07). The effect of the genetic risk score was additive to the effect of nongenetic CAD risk factors, and did not change after adjustment for family history of CAD. CONCLUSIONS In the setting of HIV infection, the effect of an unfavorable genetic background was similar to traditional CAD risk factors and certain adverse antiretroviral exposures. Genetic testing may provide prognostic information complementary to family history of CAD.

Development of Diagnostic Criteria for Serious Non-AIDS Events in HIV Clinical Trials

Abstract Purpose: Serious non-AIDS (SNA) diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality in the HAART era. We describe development of standard criteria for 12 SNA events for Endpoint Review Committee (ERC) use in START, a multicenter international HIV clinical trial. Methods: SNA definitions were developed based upon the following: (1) criteria from a previous trial (SMART), (2) review of published literature, (3) an iterative consultation and review process with the ERC and other content experts, and (4) evaluation of draft SNA criteria using retrospectively collected reports in another trial (ESPRIT). Results: Final criteria are presented for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease requiring drug treatment, coronary revascularization, decompensated liver disease, deep vein thrombosis, diabetes mellitus, end-stage renal disease, non-AIDS cancer, peripheral arterial disease, pulmonary embolism, and stroke. Of 563 potential SNA events reported in ESPRIT and reviewed by an ERC, 72% met “confirmed” and 13% “probable” criteria. Twenty-eight percent of cases initially reviewed by the ERC required follow-up discussion (adjudication) before a final decision was reached. Conclusion: HIV clinical trials that include SNA diseases as clinical outcomes should have standardized SNA definitions to optimize event reporting and validation and should have review by an experienced ERC with opportunities for adjudication.

Why START? Reflections that led to the conduct of this large long-term strategic HIV trial

This monograph describes a cohort of 4685 HIV-positive persons, most of whom were recently infected, who volunteered to dedicate several years to being participants in a research study that addresses the question of when antiretroviral therapy (ART) should be initiated. Should it be started early after HIV infection occurs, or should it be deferred until the infection has started to impair immune function but before the risk of AIDS increases? There has been consensus based on robust data for many years that ART should be initiated following the development of AIDS. Also, within the past 6 to 7 years, data from randomized trials [1–3] and observational studies [4–7] emerged that supported the initiation of ART when the CD4 cell count declined to < 350 cells/μL among asymptomatic individuals. It has been hotly debated whether the clinical benefits of initiating ART at a CD4 cell count > 500 cells/ μL, compared with deferring ART until the CD4 cell count decreases to 350 cells/μL, as is being tested in the Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) study, outweigh the risks [8–10]. The debate is lively because the data available are not optimal. The fact that 4685 persons from 215 clinics in 35 countries volunteered to be randomized in START reflects the considerable uncertainty that many individuals with HIV infection and investigators around the world have about the answer to the question being addressed by START.

Analysis of serious non‐AIDS events among HIV‐infected adults at Latin American sites

Acquired immune deficiency appears to be associated with serious non‐AIDS (SNA)‐defining conditions such as cardiovascular disease, liver and renal insufficiency and non‐AIDS‐related malignancies. We analysed the incidence of, and factors associated with, several SNA events in the LATINA retrospective cohort.

Determination of the Underlying Cause of Death in Three Multicenter International HIV Clinical Trials

Abstract Purpose: Describe processes and challenges for an Endpoint Review Committee (ERC) in determining and adjudicating underlying causes of death in HIV clinical trials. Method: Three randomized HIV trials (two evaluating interleukin-2 and one treatment interruption) enrolled 11,593 persons from 36 countries during 1999–2008. Three ERC members independently reviewed each death report and supporting source documentation to assign underlying cause of death; differences of opinion were adjudicated. Results: Of 453 deaths reported through January 14, 2008, underlying causes were as follows: 10% AIDS-defining diseases, 21% non-AIDS malignancies, 9% cardiac diseases, 9% liver disease, 8% non-AIDS-defining infections, 5% suicides, 5% other traumatic events/accidents, 4% drug overdoses/acute intoxications, 11% other causes, and 18% unknown. Major reasons for unknown classification were inadequate clinical information or supporting documentation to determine cause of death. Half (51%) of deaths reviewed by the ERC required follow-up adjudication; consensus was eventually always reached. Conclusion: ERCs can successfully provide blinded, independent, and systematic determinations of underlying cause of death in HIV clinical trials. Committees should include those familiar with AIDS and non-AIDS-defining diseases and have processes for adjudicating differences of opinion. Training for local investigators and procedure manuals should emphasize obtaining maximum possible documentation and follow-up information on all trial deaths.

Bone mineral density in HIV participants randomized to raltegravir and lopinavir/ritonavir compared with standard second line therapy

Objective:To compare changes over 48 weeks in bone mineral density (BMD) between participants randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + raltegravir (RAL) or LPV/r + 2–3 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N(t)RTIs) as second line therapy. Design:48-week open-label sub-study of the Second Line trial conducted in South Africa, India, Thailand, Malaysia and Argentina. Methods:Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans of proximal femur and lumbar spine were performed at baseline and week 48. Linear regression was used to compare means of differences between arms. McNemars test compared osteopenia and osteoporosis. Associations between percentage BMD changes and baseline variables were assessed by multivariate linear regression. Results:Two hundred and ten participants were randomized. Analyses were adjusted for sex, BMI and smoking status. Mean (95% CI) proximal femur BMD% reduced over 48 weeks by −5.2% (−6.7 to −3.8%) in the LPV/r+2-3N(t)RTIs arm and by −2.9% (−4.3 to −1.5%) in the LPV/r+RAL arm (P = 0.0001). Lumbar spine BMD reduced by −4.2% (−5.7 to −2.7%) in the LPV/r+2-3N(t)RTIs arm and by −2.0% (−3.5 to −0.6%) in the LPV/r+RAL arm (P = 0.0006). The incidence of osteopenia (7.6%) and osteoporosis (2.0%) assessed over 48 weeks were similar between arms. Reduced BMD over 48 weeks was significantly associated with longer duration of tenofovir on study [% change (SE) −1.58 (0.38) femur, −1.65 (0.38) spine, P = 0.0001] and low baseline BMI [% change (SE) 0.5 (0.13) femur, 0.17 (0.07) spine; P < 0.01]. Conclusion:An N(t)RTI-sparing antiretroviral regimen of LPV/r and raltegravir as second line therapy is associated with less bone loss than a LPV/r regimen containing N(t)RTIs.