Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: The optimal sequencing of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure of the second three-drug regimen. RESULTS: A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2.3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure of the second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the first virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the first virologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of antiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study.

Antiretroviral therapy in acute and recent HIV infection: a prospective multicenter stratified trial of intentionally interrupted treatment.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy in early HIV infection may enhance outcome and viral control may be better in acute versus recent infection 24 weeks after treatment interruption. METHODS: A prospective trial of treatment stratified by acute versus recent HIV-1 infection. If HIV viral load <50 copies/ml after at least 52 weeks, treatment was interrupted. If viremia rebounded, treatment and interruption were repeated. The primary endpoint was maintaining viral load less than 5000 copies/ml for 24 weeks following treatment interruption. RESULTS: Of the 121 patients enrolled at 15 sites, ninety-five percent were men, median age was 34 years; 69% were white. Median viral load was higher in acute HIV-1 infection (210 000 copies/ml) than recent HIV-1 infection (43 000 copies/ml). The 73 primary endpoint patients (28 acute HIV-1 infection, 45 recent HIV-1 infection) had significantly higher baseline CD4 T-cell counts (P = 0.044) and lower viral load (P = 0.016). The primary endpoint was achieved in 29 (40%) of the 73 and in 24% of the 121 enrolled overall. There was no significant outcome difference (P = 0.81) between the acute HIV-1 infection [43%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24-63%] and recent HIV-1 infection (38%, 95% CI 24-53%) groups. Differences after longer follow-up can not be ascertained by this trial. Baseline viral load less than 100 000/ml 22/46 (48%) compared with more than 100 000/ml, 7/27 (26%) and higher baseline CD4 immune activation predicted success. CONCLUSION: Forty percent of patients treated during acute HIV-1 infection or recent HIV-1 infection sustained a viral load less than 5000 copies/ml after 24 weeks of treatment interruption.

Durability of response to treatment among antiretroviral-experienced subjects: 48-week results from AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 359.

The 24-week extension of AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 359, a study of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected, indinavir-experienced patients, was designed to study the durability of "salvage" treatment regimens. Patients received saquinavir in combination with either ritonavir or nelfinavir and, in addition, delavirdine, adefovir, or both. Patients who demonstrated a virologic response at weeks 12-16 were eligible to continue therapy in the extension through week 48. Of the 105 eligible subjects who were enrolled in the extension, 86 (82%) completed 48 weeks, and 49 (57%) of those 86 had HIV RNA levels

Comparison of two indinavir/ritonavir regimens in the treatment of HIV-infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic enhancement of protease inhibitors (PIs) with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) for salvage therapy is increasingly common. The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of indinavir (IDV)/RTV at 800/200 mg (arm A) and 400/400 mg (arm B) administered twice daily in HIV-infected subjects failing their first PI-based regimen. METHODS: A phase I/II, randomized, open-label, 24-week study was conducted. Formal 12-hour pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed, and study visits occurred at baseline; at weeks 1, 2, and 4; and every 4 week thereafter for 24 weeks. Clinical symptoms and laboratory assessments were collected. Subjects were allowed to switch arms because of toxicity. RESULTS: Forty-four subjects were enrolled (22 per arm). IDV predose concentration, maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve were significantly higher in arm A. Fifty-five percent and 45% of subjects in arms A and B responded (<200 copies/mL at week 24; P = 0.76), respectively. CD4 cell responses were similar. All subjects had IDV-sensitive virus at baseline and at virologic failure. Tolerability was comparable, but all grade 3 or higher triglyceride increases occurred in arm B and more subjects in arm B switched because of toxicity (5 vs. 1 triglyceride increases). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest formal pharmacokinetic evaluation of 2 dosage combinations of IDV/RTV in HIV-infected individuals. Pharmacokinetic parameters were consistent with previous results in patients but lower than in seronegative controls. Both regimens exhibited similar tolerability and response rates. High toxicity with a low response suggests that the optimum IDV/RTV combination would include an RTV dose <400 mg and an IDV dose <800 mg in this population.