Mosaic HIV-1 vaccine regimen in southern African women (Imbokodo/HVTN 705/HPX2008): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV type 1 (HIV-1) remains a global health concern, with the greatest burden in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite 40 years of research, no vaccine candidate has shown durable and protective efficacy against HIV-1 acquisition. Although pre-exposure prophylaxis in groups with high vulnerability can be very effective, barriers to its use, such as perceived low acquisition risk, fear of stigma, and concerns about side-effects, remain. Thus, a population-based approach, such as an HIV-1 vaccine, is needed. The current study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a heterologous HIV-1 vaccine regimen, consisting of a tetravalent mosaic adenovirus 26-based vaccine (Ad26.Mos4.HIV) and aluminium phosphate-adjuvanted clade C glycoprotein (gp) 140, in young women at risk of acquiring HIV-1 in southern Africa. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, phase 2b study enrolled sexually active women without HIV-1 or HIV-2 aged 18-35 years at 23 clinical research sites in Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscular injections of vaccine or saline placebo in stratified permuted blocks via an interactive web response system. Study participants, study site personnel (except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation and dispensing), and investigators were masked to treatment group allocation. The vaccine regimen consisted of Ad26.Mos4.HIV administered at months 0 and 3 followed by Ad26.Mos4.HIV administered concurrently with aluminium phosphate-adjuvanted clade C gp140 at months 6 and 12. The primary efficacy outcome was vaccine efficacy in preventing laboratory-confirmed HIV-1 acquisition diagnosed between visits at month 7 and month 24 after the first vaccination (VE[7-24]) in the per-protocol population, which included participants who had not acquired HIV-1 4 weeks after the third vaccination, received all planned vaccinations at the first three vaccination visits within the protocol-specified windows, and had no major protocol deviations that could affect vaccine efficacy. Primary safety outcomes were assessed in randomly assigned participants who received one study injection or more based on the actual injection received. The primary safety endpoints were the incidences of unsolicited adverse events (AEs), solicited local and systemic AEs, serious AEs, AEs of special interest, and AEs leading to discontinuation of vaccination. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03060629, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 3, 2017, and June 30, 2019, 2654 women were randomly assigned, of whom 2636 women (median age of 23 years [IQR 20-25]) were enrolled and received at least one study injection (1313 assigned vaccine, 1323 placebo; 1317 received vaccine, 1319 placebo). Analysis of the primary efficacy outcome in the per-protocol cohort included 1080 women in the vaccine group and 1108 women in the placebo group; the incidence of HIV-1 acquisition per 100 person-years over months 7-24 after the first vaccination was 3·38 (95% CI 2·54-4·41) in the vaccine group and 3·94 (3·04-5·03) in the placebo group, with an estimated VE(7-24) of 14·10% (95% CI -22·00 to 39·51; p=0·40). There were no serious unsolicited AEs, AEs of special interest, or deaths related to the study vaccine. In the vaccine group, 663 (50·3%) of 1317 participants had grade 1 or 2 solicited local AEs and ten (0·8%) of 1317 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited local AEs. In the placebo group, 305 (23·1%) of 1319 participants had grade 1 or 2 solicited local AEs and three (0·2%) of 1319 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited local AEs. 863 (65·5%) of 1317 participants in the vaccine group had grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic AEs and 34 (2·6%) of 1317 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited systemic AEs. 763 (57·8%) of 1319 participants in the placebo group had grade 1 or 2 solicited systemic AEs and 20 (1·5%) of 1319 participants had grade 3 or 4 solicited systemic AEs. Overall, three (0·2%) of 1317 participants in the vaccine group and three (0·2%) of 1319 participants in the placebo group discontinued vaccination due to an unsolicited AE, and three (0·2%) of 1317 participants in the vaccine group and one (0·1%) of 1319 participants in the placebo group discontinued vaccination due to a solicited AE. INTERPRETATION: The heterologous Ad26.Mos4.HIV and clade C gp140 vaccine regimen was safe and well tolerated but did not show efficacy in preventing HIV-1 acquisition in a population of young women in southern Africa at risk of HIV-1. FUNDING: Division of AIDS at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases through the HIV Vaccine Trials Network, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Janssen Vaccines & Prevention, US Army Medical Materiel Development Activity, and Ragon Institute.

Prediction of differential Gag versus Env responses to a mosaic HIV-1 vaccine regimen by HLA class I alleles.

HLA class I variation has the strongest effect genome-wide on outcome after HIV infection, and as such, an understanding of the impact of HLA polymorphism on response to HIV vaccination may inform vaccine design. We sought HLA associations with HIV-directed immunogenicity in the phase 1/2a APPROACH vaccine trial, which tested vaccine regimens containing mosaic inserts in Ad26 and MVA vectors, with or without a trimeric gp140 protein. While there were no HLA allelic associations with the overall cellular immune response to the vaccine assessed by ELISpot (Gag, Pol, and Env combined), significant associations with differential response to Gag compared to Env antigens were observed. Notably, HLA class I alleles known to associate with disease susceptibility in HIV natural history cohorts are associated with stronger Env-directed responses, whereas protective alleles are associated with stronger Gag-directed responses. Mean viral loads determined for each HLA allele in untreated individuals correlated negatively with the strength of the Gag response minus the Env response in Black vaccinees based on both ELISpot and CD8+ T cell ICS responses. As the association of T cell responses to conserved Gag epitopes with lower viral load in untreated individuals is well established, our data raise the possibility that the Ad26.Mos.HIV vaccine may induce more effective cellular responses in those with HLA alleles that confer improved virologic control in untreated HIV infection.IMPORTANCENo vaccine tested to date has shown sufficient efficacy against HIV infection. A vaccine that induces robust responses in one individual may fail to do so in another individual due to variation in HLA class I genes, loci central to the immune response. Extensive data have shown the strong effect of HLA variation on outcome after HIV infection, but very little is known about the effect of such variation on HIV vaccine success. Here, we identify a link between the effect of HLA variation on HIV disease outcome and immune responses to an HIV vaccine. HLA variants associated with better HIV control after infection also induce stronger responses against the HIV Gag protein relative to the Env protein after vaccination. Given the virologic control conferred by responses to Gag in natural history of HIV infection, these data suggest that HLA alleles conferring protection after HIV infection may also support a more effective cellular response to HIV vaccination.

Immunogenicity of 2 therapeutic mosaic HIV-1 vaccine strategies in individuals with HIV-1 on antiretroviral therapy.

Mosaic HIV-1 vaccines have been shown to elicit robust humoral and cellular immune responses in people living with HIV-1 (PLWH), that had started antiretroviral therapy (ART) during acute infection. We evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of 2 mosaic vaccine regimens in virologically suppressed individuals that had initiated ART during the chronic phase of infection, exemplifying the majority of PLWH. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial (IPCAVD013/HTX1002) 25 ART-suppressed PLWH were randomized to receive Ad26.Mos4.HIV/MVA-Mosaic (Ad26/MVA) (n = 10) or Ad26.Mos4.HIV/Ad26.Mos4.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 protein (Ad26/Ad26+gp140) (n = 9) or placebo (n = 6). Primary endpoints included safety and tolerability and secondary endpoints included HIV-specific binding and neutralizing antibody titers and HIV-specific T cell responses. Both vaccine regimens were well tolerated with pain/tenderness at the injection site and fatigue, myalgia/chills and headache as the most commonly reported solicited local and grade 3 systemic adverse events, respectively. In the Ad26/Ad26+gp140 group, Env-specific IFN-γ T cell responses showed a median 12-fold increase while responses to Gag and Pol increased 1.8 and 2.4-fold, respectively. The breadth of T cell responses to individual peptide subpools increased from 11.0 pre-vaccination to 26.0 in the Ad26/Ad26+gp140 group and from 10.0 to 14.5 in the Ad26/MVA group. Ad26/Ad26+gp140 vaccination increased binding antibody titers against vaccine-matched clade C Env 5.5-fold as well as augmented neutralizing antibody titers against Clade C pseudovirus by 7.2-fold. Both vaccine regimens were immunogenic, while the addition of the protein boost resulted in additional T cell and augmented binding and neutralizing antibody titers. These data suggest that the Ad26/Ad26+gp140 regimen should be tested further.

HIV Diagnostics and Vaccines: It Takes Two to Tango.

Current serologic tests for HIV screening and confirmation of infection present challenges to the adoption of HIV vaccines. The detection of vaccine-induced HIV-1 antibodies in the absence of HIV-1 infection, referred to as vaccine-induced seropositivity/seroreactivity, confounds the interpretation of test results, causing misclassification of HIV-1 status with potential affiliated stigmatization. For HIV vaccines to be widely adopted with high community confidence and uptake, tests are needed that are agnostic to the vaccination status of tested individuals (ie, positive only for true HIV-1 infection). Successful development and deployment of such tests will require HIV vaccine developers to work in concert with diagnostic developers. Such tests will need to match today's high-performance standards (accuracy, cost-effectiveness, simplicity) for use in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, especially in low- and middle-income countries with high HIV burden. Herein, we discuss the challenges and strategies for developing modified serologic HIV tests for concurrent deployment with HIV vaccines.

Towards Novel HIV-1 Serodiagnostic Tests without Vaccine-Induced Seroreactivity.

Vaccine-induced seroreactivity/positivity (VISR/P) poses a significant and common challenge to HIV vaccine implementation, as up to 95% of vaccine recipients may be misclassified as having HIV infection by current HIV screening and confirmatory serological assays. We investigated whether internal HIV proteins could be used to overcome VISR and discovered a set of 4 antigens (gp41 endodomain, p31 integrase, p17 matrix protein, and Nef) that are recognized by antibodies produced in individuals with HIV infection but not in vaccinated individuals. When evaluated in a multiplex double-antigen bridging ELISA, this antigen combination had specificities of 98.1% prevaccination and 97.1% postvaccination, demonstrating the assay is minimally impacted by vaccine-induced antibodies. The sensitivity was 98.5%, further increasing to 99.7% when p24 antigen testing was included. Results were similar across HIV-1 clades. Although more technical advancements will be desired, this research provides the groundwork for the development of new fourth-generation HIV tests unaffected by VISR. IMPORTANCE While the detection of HIV infection is accomplished by several methods, the most common are serological tests that detect host antibodies produced in response to viral infection. However, the use of current serological tests may present a significant challenge to the adoption of an HIV vaccine in the future because the antibodies to HIV antigens detected in currently available tests also tend to be included as antigens in the HIV vaccines in development. The use of these serological tests may thus result in the misclassification of vaccinated HIV-negative individuals, which can have potential for significant harms for individuals and could prevent the widespread adoption and implementation of HIV vaccines. Our study aimed to identify and evaluate target antigens for inclusion in new serological tests that can be used to identify HIV infections without interference from vaccine-induced antibodies but also fit within existing platforms for HIV diagnostics.

Poststudy Point-of-Care Oral Fluid Testing in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Vaccinees.

BACKGROUND: Experimental human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 vaccines frequently elicit antibodies against HIV-1 that may react with commonly used HIV diagnostic tests, a phenomenon known as vaccine-induced seropositivity/seroreactivity (VISP/VISR). We sought to determine, under clinic conditions, whether a patient-controlled HIV test, OraQuick ADVANCE Rapid HIV-1/2 Antibody Test, detected HIV-1 vaccine-induced antibodies. METHODS: Plasma assessment of HIV-1 cross-reactivity was examined in end-of-study samples from 57 healthy, HIV-uninfected participants who received a candidate vaccine that has entered Phase 2B and 3 testing. We also screened 120 healthy, HIV-uninfected, unblinded HIV-1 vaccine participants with VISP/VISR for an assessment using saliva. These participants came from 21 different parent vaccine protocols representing 17 different vaccine regimens, all of which contained an HIV-1 envelope immunogen. OraQuick ADVANCE was compared with results from concurrent blood samples using a series of commercial HIV screening immunoassays. RESULTS: Fifty-seven unique participant plasma samples were assayed in vitro, and only 1 (1.8%) was reactive by OraQuick ADVANCE. None of the 120 clinic participants (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 3.7%) tested positive by OraQuick ADVANCE, and all were confirmed to be uninfected by HIV-1 viral ribonucleic acid testing. One hundred eighteen of the 120 (98.3%) participants had a reactive HIV test for VISP/VISR: 77 (64%) had at least 1 reactive fourth-generation HIV-1 diagnostic test (P < .0001 vs no reactive OraQuick ADVANCE results), and 41 (34%) only had a reactive test by the less specific third-generation Abbott Prism assay. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that this widely available patient-controlled test has limited reactivity to HIV-1 antibodies elicited by these candidate HIV-1 vaccines.

Comparison of shortened mosaic HIV-1 vaccine schedules: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial (IPCAVD010/HPX1002) and a preclinical study in rhesus monkeys (NHP 17-22).

BACKGROUND: Current efficacy studies of a mosaic HIV-1 prophylactic vaccine require four vaccination visits over one year, which is a complex regimen that could prove challenging for vaccine delivery at the community level, both for recipients and clinics. In this study, we evaluated the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of shorter, simpler regimens of trivalent Ad26.Mos.HIV expressing mosaic HIV-1 Env/Gag/Pol antigens combined with aluminium phosphate-adjuvanted clade C gp140 protein. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial (IPCAVD010/HPX1002) at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA, USA. We included healthy, HIV-uninfected participants (aged 18-50 years) who were considered at low risk for HIV infection and had not received any vaccines in the 14 days before study commencement. We randomly assigned participants via a computer-generated randomisation schedule and interactive web response system to one of three study groups (1:1:1) testing different regimens of trivalent Ad26.Mos.HIV (5 × 1010 viral particles per 0·5 mL) combined with 250 µg adjuvanted clade C gp140 protein. They were then assigned to treatment or placebo subgroups (5:1) within each of the three main groups. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until the end of the follow-up period. Group 1 received Ad26.Mos.HIV alone at weeks 0 and 12 and Ad26.Mos.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 at weeks 24 and 48. Group 2 received Ad26.Mos.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Group 3 received Ad26.Mos.HIV alone at week 0 and Ad26.Mos.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 at weeks 8 and 24. Participants in the control group received 0·5 mL of 0·9% saline. All study interventions were administered intramuscularly. The primary endpoints were Env-specific binding antibody responses at weeks 28, 52, and 72 and safety and tolerability of the vaccine regimens for 28 days after the injection. All participants who received at least one vaccine dose or placebo were included in the safety analysis; immunogenicity was analysed using the per-protocol population. The IPCAVD010/HPX1002 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02685020. We also did a parallel preclinical study in rhesus monkeys to test the protective efficacy of the shortened group 3 regimen. FINDINGS: Between March 7, 2016, and Aug 19, 2016, we randomly assigned 36 participants to receive at least one dose of study vaccine or placebo, ten to each vaccine group and two to the corresponding placebo group. 30 (83%) participants completed the full study, and six (17%) discontinued it prematurely because of loss to follow-up, withdrawal of consent, investigator decision, and an unrelated death from a motor vehicle accident. The two shortened regimens elicited comparable antibody titres against autologous clade C Env at peak immunity to the longer, 12-month regimen: geometric mean titre (GMT) 41 007 (95% CI 17 959-93 636) for group 2 and 49 243 (29 346-82 630) for group 3 at week 28 compared with 44 590 (19 345-102 781) for group 1 at week 52). Antibody responses remained increased (GMT >5000) in groups 2 and 3 at week 52 but were highest in group 1 at week 72. Antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, Env-specific IgG3, tier 1A neutralising activity, and broad cellular immune responses were detected in all groups. All vaccine regimens were well tolerated. Mild-to-moderate pain or tenderness at the injection site was the most commonly reported solicited local adverse event, reported by 28 vaccine recipients (93%) and two placebo recipients (33%). Grade 3 solicited systemic adverse events were reported by eight (27%) vaccine recipients and no placebo recipients; the most commonly reported grade 3 systemic symptoms were fatigue, myalgia, and chills. The shortened group 3 regimen induced comparable peak immune responses in 30 rhesus monkeys as in humans and resulted in an 83% (95% CI 38·7-95, p=0·004 log-rank test) reduction in per-exposure acquisition risk after six intrarectal challenges with SHIV-SF162P3 at week 54, more than 6 months after final vaccination. INTERPRETATION: Short, 6-month regimens of a mosaic HIV-1 prophylactic vaccine elicited robust HIV-specific immune responses that were similar to responses elicited by a longer, 12-month schedule. Preclinical data showed partial protective efficacy of one of the short vaccine regimens in rhesus monkeys. Further clinical studies are required to test the suitability of the shortened vaccine regimens in humans. Such shortened regimens would be valuable to increase vaccine delivery at the community level, particularly in resource-limited settings. FUNDING: Ragon Institute (Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, USA) and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention (Leiden, Netherlands).

Does bacterial vaginosis modify the effect of hormonal contraception on HIV seroconversion.

OBJECTIVES: A recent study of HIV serodiscordant couples found that depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) were associated with increased HIV risk in the presence, but not in the absence, of bacterial vaginosis. We assessed whether bacterial vaginosis is an effect modifier of the association between hormonal contraception and HIV seroconversion in female sex workers (FSWs) in Mombasa, Kenya. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: Data collected from HIV-negative FSWs from 1993 to 2017 were analyzed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the relationship between HIV seroconversion and use of DMPA, OCPs, or hormonal contraceptive implants (Norplant, Jadelle). RESULTS: A total of 1985 women contributed 7127 person-years of follow-up; 307 women seroconverted to HIV (4.32/100 person-years). DMPA was significantly associated with elevated risk of HIV seroconversion in women with [aHR 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.25; P = 0.02] and without (aHR 2.08, 95% CI 1.46-2.97; P < 0.001) bacterial vaginosis (interaction P = 0.4). Similarly, OCP use was associated with increased HIV risk both in the presence (aHR 1.50, 95% CI 0.94-2.39; P = 0.09) and absence (aHR 1.61, 95% CI 0.99-2.64; P = 0.06) of bacterial vaginosis (interaction P = 0.9), though neither stratum reached statistical significance. Implants were not associated with HIV seroconversion overall (aHR 0.99, 95% CI 0.40-2.45; P = 0.9), or in women with (aHR 0.65, 95% CI 0.16-2.72; P = 0.6) and without (aHR 1.39, 95% CI 0.43-4.46; P = 0.6) bacterial vaginosis (interaction P = 0.5). CONCLUSION: Bacterial vaginosis had no effect on the associations between hormonal contraceptives and HIV seroconversion in this cohort. Contraceptive implants were not associated with increased HIV risk compared with no contraception.

Evaluation of a mosaic HIV-1 vaccine in a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2a clinical trial (APPROACH) and in rhesus monkeys (NHP 13-19).

BACKGROUND: More than 1·8 million new cases of HIV-1 infection were diagnosed worldwide in 2016. No licensed prophylactic HIV-1 vaccine exists. A major limitation to date has been the lack of direct comparability between clinical trials and preclinical studies. We aimed to evaluate mosaic adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26)-based HIV-1 vaccine candidates in parallel studies in humans and rhesus monkeys to define the optimal vaccine regimen to advance into clinical efficacy trials. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2a trial (APPROACH). Participants were recruited from 12 clinics in east Africa, South Africa, Thailand, and the USA. We included healthy, HIV-1-uninfected participants (aged 18-50 years) who were considered at low risk for HIV-1 infection. We randomly assigned participants to one of eight study groups, stratified by region. Participants and investigators were blinded to the treatment allocation throughout the study. We primed participants at weeks 0 and 12 with Ad26.Mos.HIV (5 × 1010 viral particles per 0·5 mL) expressing mosaic HIV-1 envelope (Env)/Gag/Pol antigens and gave boosters at weeks 24 and 48 with Ad26.Mos.HIV or modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA; 108 plaque-forming units per 0·5 mL) vectors with or without high-dose (250 µg) or low-dose (50 µg) aluminium adjuvanted clade C Env gp140 protein. Those in the control group received 0·9% saline. All study interventions were administered intramuscularly. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of the vaccine regimens and Env-specific binding antibody responses at week 28. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed at week 52. All participants who received at least one vaccine dose or placebo were included in the safety analysis; immunogenicity was analysed using the per-protocol population. We also did a parallel study in rhesus monkeys (NHP 13-19) to assess the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of these vaccine regimens against a series of six repetitive, heterologous, intrarectal challenges with a rhesus peripheral blood mononuclear cell-derived challenge stock of simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV-SF162P3). The APPROACH trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02315703. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 393 participants to receive at least one dose of study vaccine or placebo in the APPROACH trial. All vaccine regimens demonstrated favourable safety and tolerability. The most commonly reported solicited local adverse event was mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site (varying from 69% to 88% between the different active groups vs 49% in the placebo group). Five (1%) of 393 participants reported at least one grade 3 adverse event considered related to the vaccines: abdominal pain and diarrhoea (in the same participant), increased aspartate aminotransferase, postural dizziness, back pain, and malaise. The mosaic Ad26/Ad26 plus high-dose gp140 boost vaccine was the most immunogenic in humans; it elicited Env-specific binding antibody responses (100%) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis responses (80%) at week 52, and T-cell responses at week 50 (83%). We also randomly assigned 72 rhesus monkeys to receive one of five different vaccine regimens or placebo in the NHP 13-19 study. Ad26/Ad26 plus gp140 boost induced similar magnitude, durability, and phenotype of immune responses in rhesus monkeys as compared with humans and afforded 67% protection against acquisition of SHIV-SF162P3 infection (two-sided Fisher's exact test p=0·007). Env-specific ELISA and enzyme-linked immunospot assay responses were the principal immune correlates of protection against SHIV challenge in monkeys. INTERPRETATION: The mosaic Ad26/Ad26 plus gp140 HIV-1 vaccine induced comparable and robust immune responses in humans and rhesus monkeys, and it provided significant protection against repetitive heterologous SHIV challenges in rhesus monkeys. This vaccine concept is currently being evaluated in a phase 2b clinical efficacy study in sub-Saharan Africa (NCT03060629). FUNDING: Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV, National Institutes of Health, Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Henry M Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, US Department of Defense, and International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.

Etravirine combined with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir for HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced adults: Week 48 results of a phase IV trial.

OBJECTIVE: VIOLIN (TMC125IFD3002; NCT01422330) evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of etravirine with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: In a 48-week, phase IV, single-arm, multicenter study, patients on prior antiretroviral therapy (⩾8 weeks) who needed to change regimen for virologic failure (viral load ⩾ 500 copies/mL) or simplification/adverse events (viral load < 50 copies/mL) received etravirine 200 mg bid with ⩾1 other active antiretroviral, excluding darunavir/ritonavir or only nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. RESULTS: Of 211 treated patients, 73% (n = 155) had baseline viral load ⩾ 50 copies/mL and 27% (n = 56) had baseline viral load < 50 copies/mL. Protease inhibitors were the most common background antiretrovirals (83%). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse event (17%). Serious adverse events (no rash) occurred in 5% of patients; none were etravirine related. Overall, median etravirine AUC12h was 5390 ng h/mL and C0h was 353 ng/mL (N = 199). Week 48 virologic response rates (viral load < 50 copies/mL; Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm) were 48% (74/155) (baseline viral load ⩾ 50 copies/mL) and 75% (42/56) (baseline viral load < 50 copies/mL). Virologic failure rates were 42% and 13%, respectively. The most frequently emerging etravirine resistance-associated mutations in virologic failures were Y181C, E138A, and M230L. Virologic response rates for patients with baseline viral load ⩾ 50 copies/mL were 38% (30/79) (non-adherent) versus 64% (44/69) (adherent subset). CONCLUSION: Etravirine 200 mg bid in combination with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir was well tolerated in the studied treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected population. The overall etravirine safety and tolerability profile and pharmacokinetics (specifically in those patients who were adherent) were similar to those previously observed for etravirine in HIV-1-infected adults. The relatively high level of non-adherence, also observed in the pharmacokinetic assessments, negatively impacted virologic response, especially in patients with ⩾50 copies/mL at baseline.

Targeted screening of at-risk adults for acute HIV-1 infection in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute HIV-1 infection (AHI) have elevated infectivity, but cannot be diagnosed using antibody-based testing. Approaches to screen patients for AHI are urgently needed to enable counselling and treatment to reduce onward transmission. METHODS: We pooled data from four African studies of high-risk adults that evaluated symptoms and signs compatible with acute retroviral syndrome and tested for HIV-1 at each visit. AHI was defined as detectable plasma viral load or p24 antigen in an HIV-1-antibody-negative patient who subsequently seroconverted. Using generalized estimating equation, we identified symptoms, signs, and demographic factors predictive of AHI, adjusting for study site. We assigned a predictor score to each statistically significant predictor based on its beta coefficient, summing predictor scores to calculate a risk score for each participant. We evaluated the performance of this algorithm overall and at each site. RESULTS: We compared 122 AHI visits with 45 961 visits by uninfected patients. Younger age (18-29 years), fever, fatigue, body pains, diarrhoea, sore throat, and genital ulcer disease were independent predictors of AHI. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) for the algorithm was 0.78, with site-specific AUCs ranging from 0.61 to 0.89. A risk score of at least 2 would indicate AHI testing for 5-50% of participants, substantially decreasing the number needing testing. CONCLUSION: Our targeted risk score algorithm based on seven characteristics reduced the number of patients needing AHI testing and had good performance overall. We recommend this risk score algorithm for use by HIV programs in sub-Saharan Africa with capacity to test high-risk patients for AHI.

Pharmacokinetics of Etravirine Combined with Atazanavir/Ritonavir and a Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor in Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced, HIV-1-Infected Patients.

Objectives. TEACH (NCT00896051) was a randomized, open-label, two-arm Phase II trial to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine and atazanavir/ritonavir and safety and efficacy in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. Methods. After a two-week lead-in of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg, 44 patients received etravirine 200 mg bid with one NRTI, plus atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or 400/100 mg qd (n = 22 each group) over 48 weeks. Results. At steady-state etravirine with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd or 400/100 mg qd decreased atazanavir C min⁡ by 18% and 9%, respectively, with no change in AUC24 h or C max⁡ versus atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd alone (Day -1). Etravirine AUC12 h was 24% higher and 16% lower with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 or 400/100 mg qd, respectively, versus historical controls. At Week 48, no significant differences were seen between the atazanavir/ritonavir groups in discontinuations due to adverse events (9.1% each group) and other safety parameters, the proportion of patients with viral load <50 copies/mL (intent-to-treat population, noncompleter = failure) (50.0%, atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd versus 45.5%, 400/100 mg qd), and virologic failures (31.8% versus 27.3%, resp.). Conclusions. Etravirine 200 mg bid can be combined with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd and an NRTI in HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced patients without dose adjustment.

Week 48 results of a Phase IV trial of etravirine with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced adults.

INTRODUCTION: In DUET, etravirine (ETR) 200 mg bid had durable efficacy and a favourable safety profile versus placebo, both arms with an optimised background regimen (BR) including darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r). TMC125IFD3002 (VIOLIN; NCT01422330) investigated ETR plus ARVs other than DRV/r. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a 48 week, Phase IV, open-label, single-arm, multicentre study. HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced adult patients on=8 weeks ARV therapy prior to screening, switching either for virologic failure (VF) (viral load [VL] =500 c/mL) or regimen simplification/AEs (RS/AE) (VL<50 c/mL), received active ETR 200 mg bid with an investigator-selected BR of =1 active ARVs, but excluding DRV/r or NRTIs only. The primary objective was to evaluate safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK). RESULTS: Of 211 treated patients, 55% were female, 61% black/African American. 155 patients (73%) had baseline (BL) VL=50 c/mL versus 56 (27%) with BL VL<50 c/mL. Between these two latter subgroups, median BL VL was 4.42 versus 1.28 log10 c/mL and CD4+ count 238 versus 410.5 cells/mm(3). Overall, 96% previously used <2 NNRTIs and 99% used=5 PIs; median number of BL NNRTI RAMs was 2, PI RAMs 5 and NRTI RAMs 1. Overall, most common BR ARVs were PIs (83%), mostly lopinavir/r (62%) and mostly used alone (20%) or with 1 or 2 NRTIs (61%). Raltegravir was used in 9% of patients. Most frequent AEs (any cause/grade) were diarrhoea (17%) and URTI (8%). Incidence of grade 3-4 AEs was 13%, serious AEs 5% (no rashes; none ETR related), AEs leading to discontinuation 4%, AEs possibly related to ETR 23% and AEs of interest: rash (any type) 4%, hepatic 6% and neuropsychiatric 3%. At week 48, VF and RS/AE virologic responses (% patients with VL<50 c/mL; FDA Snapshot) were: 48% (74/155) and 75% (42/56), respectively. VF rates were 42% and 13%; 10% and 13% had no VL data in the week 48 window. The percentage of patients adherent to treatment (assessed based on PK sampling plus ETR pill count) was 47% (69/148) and 57% (30/53), in VF and RS/AE, respectively. Median CD4+ count (NC=F) increases were 0.0 and 24.0 cells/mm(3). In 29/49 of VFs with genotypic data at failure, ETR RAMs emerging in =5 patients were Y181C, E138A and M230L. The geometric mean ETR AUC12h was 4877 ng.h/mL and C0h 293 ng/mL (N=199). CONCLUSIONS: RESULTS of this study were consistent with those for ETR in other similar populations and support the use of ETR 200 mg bid with a non-DRV/r based BR.

Safety and immunogenicity of an adjuvanted protein therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine in subjects with HIV-1 infection: a randomised placebo-controlled study.

The human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) vaccine candidate F4/AS01 has previously been shown to induce potent and persistent polyfunctional CD4(+) T-cell responses in HIV-1-seronegative volunteers. This placebo-controlled study evaluated two doses of F4/AS01 1-month apart in antiretroviral treatment (ART)-experienced and ART-naïve HIV-1-infected subjects (1:1 randomisation in each cohort). Safety, HIV-1-specific CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell responses, absolute CD4(+) T-cell counts and HIV-1 viral load were monitored for 12 months post-vaccination. Reactogenicity was clinically acceptable and no vaccine-related serious adverse events were reported. The frequency of HIV-1-specific CD4(+) T-cells 2 weeks post-dose 2 was significantly higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group in both cohorts (p<0.05). Vaccine-induced HIV-1-specific CD4(+) T-cells exhibited a polyfunctional phenotype, expressing at least CD40L and IL-2. No increase in HIV-1-specific CD8(+) T-cells or change in CD8(+) T-cell activation marker expression profile was detected. Absolute CD4(+) T-cell counts were variable over time in both cohorts. Viral load remained suppressed in ART-experienced subjects. In ART-naïve subjects, a transient reduction in viral load from baseline was observed 2 weeks after the second F4/AS01 dose, which was concurrent with a higher frequency of HIV-1-specific CD4(+) T-cells expressing at least IL-2 in this cohort. In conclusion, F4/AS01 showed a clinically acceptable reactogenicity and safety profile, and induced polyfunctional HIV-1-specific CD4(+) T-cell responses in ART-experienced and ART-naïve subjects. These findings support further clinical investigation of F4/AS01 as a potential HIV-1 vaccine for therapeutic use in individuals with HIV-1 infection.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir after administration of an oral suspension with low-dose ritonavir and with or without food.

This 2-part, phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study (NCT00752310) assessed ritonavir-boosted darunavir bioavailability (oral suspension vs. tablets), and steady-state darunavir pharmacokinetics (suspension). Part 1: 20 healthy adults randomly received 3 treatments with a ≥7-day washout between treatments; twice-daily ritonavir (100 mg, days 1-5) with darunavir (600 mg, day 3) as 2 × 300-mg tablets (fed, reference), or 6 mL of a 100-mg/mL suspension (fed or fasted, test). Part 2: 18 healthy volunteers received twice-daily darunavir (suspension, 600 mg days 1-6, one dose day 7) with twice-daily ritonavir (100 mg, days 1-9). Darunavir pharmacokinetics were evaluated (part 1 day 3; part 2 day 7). Safety/tolerability were assessed. In part 1, 90% confidence intervals for darunavir Cmax and AUC were all within 80-125% for suspension (fed or fasted) versus tablets (fed). Steady-state darunavir (suspension) pharmacokinetics in part 2 were similar to historic controls (tablets). No clinically relevant differences in adverse events or laboratory abnormalities occurred between treatments. Darunavir administered as an oral suspension or tablets (both with low-dose ritonavir) showed comparable bioavailability in healthy adults after a single dose. Steady-state darunavir pharmacokinetics (suspension, 600/100 mg twice daily) were consistent with historic controls; this formulation is considered suitable for pediatric use and for adults who cannot swallow tablets.

Effect of baseline characteristics on the efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ ritonavir in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naïve ARTEMIS patients at week 96.

OBJECTIVES: ARTEMIS demonstrated significantly greater efficacy of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg versus lopinavir/ritonavir 800/200 mg (total daily dose) in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients at week 96. The influence of baseline characteristics on efficacy and safety was analyzed in DRV/r patients. METHODS: Patients received once-daily DRV/r plus fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine. Week 96 efficacy and safety data were analyzed by gender (males, n=239; females, n=104), age (≤30, n=115; 31-45, n=175; >45, n=53), race (Asian, n=44; Black, n=80; Caucasian/White, n=137; Hispanic, n=77), and hepatitis B and/or C virus coinfection (n=43). RESULTS: Week 96 virologic response rates (HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/mL) were as follows: gender: 79% for both males and females; age: 72% (≤30), 81% (31-45), and 89% (>45); race: 96% (Asian), 71% (Black), 77% (Caucasian/White), and 79% (Hispanic); coinfection status: 72% (coinfected) and 80% (non-coinfected). The incidence of treatment-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and laboratory abnormalities were comparable across gender, age, and race subgroups. Coinfected patients had a higher incidence of liver-related ADRs than non-coinfected patients. CONCLUSIONS: DRV/r 800/100 mg qd is an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for treatment-naïve patients of different gender, age, race, or coinfection status.

Virological characterization of patients failing darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir treatment in the ARTEMIS study: 96-week analysis.

BACKGROUND: In the Phase III ARTEMIS Trial, treatment-naive patients received once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg (n = 343) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg (total daily dose; n = 346) plus fixed-dose tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. The primary outcome measure was non-inferiority of DRV/r versus LPV/r (HIV type-1 [HIV-1] RNA<50 copies/ml). Here, a detailed 96-week resistance analysis is presented. METHODS: Virological failures (VFs) were defined as patients who had lost (rebounders) or who had never achieved (never suppressed) HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml after week 12. Genotypic and phenotypic determinations were performed on plasma samples with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/ml. The end point was defined as the last on-treatment visit with available genotype and/or phenotype. RESULTS: The VF rate was significantly lower in DRV/r (12%, n = 40) versus LPV/r patients (17%, n = 59; P = 0.0437). Among DRV/r patients, 24 rebounded and 16 were never suppressed, whereas among LPV/r patients, 33 rebounded and 26 were never suppressed. Transient HIV-1 RNA increases (≥ 50 copies/ml) occurred in 50% (n = 12) DRV/r and 48% (n = 16) LPV/r rebounders; these viral levels returned to undetectable by end point without any changes to the study regimen. No major (primary) protease inhibitor (PI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) developed in VFs with an available genotype at baseline and end point, and almost all developing minor PI RAMs were polymorphic. At end point, all VFs with available phenotypes at baseline and end point remained susceptible to all PIs, including study PIs. CONCLUSIONS: The VF rate was lower with DRV/r than LPV/r. The findings of this resistance analysis confirmed the lack of development of major PI RAMs and the preservation of phenotypic susceptibility to all PIs in patients with VF.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir and rifabutin coadministered in HIV-negative healthy volunteers.

The drug-drug interaction between rifabutin (RFB) and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) was examined in a randomized, three-way crossover study of HIV-negative healthy volunteers who received DRV/r 600/100 mg twice a day (BID) (treatment A), RFB 300 mg once a day (QD) (treatment B), and DRV/r 600/100 mg BID plus RFB 150 mg every other day (QOD) (treatment C). The sequence of treatments was randomized, and each treatment period lasted 12 days. Full pharmacokinetic profiles were determined for DRV, ritonavir, and RFB and its active metabolite, 25-O-desacetylrifabutin (desRFB), on day 13. The DRV and ritonavir areas under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to 12 h (AUC(12h)) increased by 57% and 66%, respectively, in the presence of RFB. The RFB exposure was comparable between treatment with RFB QD alone (treatment B) and treatment with DRV/r plus RFB QOD (treatment C); however, based on least-square means ratios, the minimum plasma concentration (C(min)) increased by 64% and the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) decreased by 28%, respectively. The exposure (AUC within the dosage interval and at steady state [AUC(τ)]) to desRFB was considerably increased (by 881%) following treatment with DRV/r/RFB. The exposure to the parent drug plus the metabolite increased 1.6-fold in the presence of DRV/r. Adverse events (AEs) were more commonly reported during combined treatment (83% versus 44% for RFB and 28% for DRV/r); similarly, grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 17% versus 11% and 0%, respectively, of volunteers. Eighteen of 27 volunteers (66.7%) prematurely discontinued the trial; all volunteers discontinuing for safety reasons (n = 9) did so during RFB treatment phases. These results suggest that DRV/r may be coadministered with RFB with a dose adjustment of RFB to 150 mg QOD and increased monitoring for RFB-related AEs. Based on the overall safety profile of DRV/r, no dose adjustment of DRV/r is considered to be warranted. Given the safety profile seen with the combination of RFB with a boosted protease inhibitor in this and other studies, it is not recommended to conduct further studies with this combination in healthy volunteers.

Suboptimal adherence to darunavir/ritonavir has minimal effect on efficacy compared with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-infected patients: 96 week ARTEMIS data.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how treatment adherence differences in ARTEMIS (96 week analysis) affected clinical outcome, and to assess factors impacting adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARTEMIS is a Phase III trial, in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients, comparing efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (800/200 mg total daily dose), each with a fixed-dose background tenofovir and emtricitabine regimen. Self-reported treatment adherence was assessed using the Modified Medication Adherence Self-Report Inventory (M-MASRI). In post-hoc analyses, mean adherence from weeks 4-96 was used to assess overall adherence for each patient, and transformed into a binary variable (>95% , adherent; < or = 95% , suboptimally adherent). RESULTS: Overall adherence was high: 83% of darunavir/ritonavir-treated patients and 78% of lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients were >95% adherent. The difference in virological response rate for adherent versus suboptimally adherent patients was smaller for darunavir/ritonavir (6% difference: 82% versus 76%, P = 0.3312) than for lopinavir/ritonavir (25% difference: 78% versus 53%, P < 0.0001). In suboptimally adherent patients, a higher virological response rate was seen with darunavir/ritonavir (76%) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (53%) (P < 0.01). Suboptimally adherent patients (both treatment groups) reported more adverse events (AEs), including gastrointestinal AEs, than adherent patients. Darunavir/ritonavir had a lower rate of AEs, including gastrointestinal AEs, than lopinavir/ritonavir, in adherent and suboptimally adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal adherence had no significant effect on the virological response rate with once-daily darunavir/ritonavir treatment. In contrast, the lopinavir/ritonavir response rate was significantly reduced in suboptimally adherent patients compared with adherent patients. Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir resulted in a higher virological response rate in suboptimally adherent patients compared with lopinavir/ritonavir.

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/microl 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.