Advances in the Development of Therapeutics for Cytomegalovirus Infections.

The development of therapeutics for cytomegalovirus (CMV) infections, while progressing, has not matched the pace of new treatments of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections; nevertheless, recent developments in the treatment of CMV infections have resulted in improved human health and perhaps will encourage the development of new therapeutic approaches. First, the deployment of ganciclovir and valganciclovir for both the prevention and treatment of CMV infections and disease in transplant recipients has been further improved with the licensure of the efficacious and less toxic letermovir. Regardless, late-onset CMV disease, specifically pneumonia, remains problematic. Second, the treatment of congenital CMV infections with valganciclovir has beneficially improved both hearing and neurologic outcomes, both fundamental advances for these children. In these pediatric studies, viral load was decreased but not eliminated. Thus, an important lesson learned from studies in both populations is the need for new antiviral agents and the necessity for combination therapies as has been shown to be beneficial in the treatment of HIV infections, among others. The development of monoclonal antibodies, sirtuins, and cyclopropovir may provide new treatment options.

Letermovir Resistance Analysis in a Clinical Trial of Cytomegalovirus Prophylaxis for Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Letermovir (LET), a cytomegalovirus (CMV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) terminase inhibitor, was recently approved for prophylaxis of CMV infection in adult CMV-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cytomegalovirus genotyping was performed to identify LET-resistance-associated variants (RAVs) among subjects in a Phase 3 trial. METHODS: The CMV UL56 and UL89 genes, encoding subunits of CMV DNA terminase, were sequenced from plasma collected from subjects with clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi). Novel variants were evaluated by recombinant phenotyping to assess their potential to confer resistance to LET. RESULTS: Genotyping was successful for 50 of 79 LET subjects with CS-CMVi. Resistance-associated variants (encoding pUL56 V236M and C325W) were detected independently in subjects 1 and 3 who experienced CS-CMVi while receiving LET prophylaxis, and 2 other variants (encoding pUL56 E237G and R369T) were detected >3 weeks after subjects 2 and 3, respectively, had discontinued LET prophylaxis and received preemptive therapy with ganciclovir. CONCLUSIONS: The detected incidence of CMV resistance among subjects who received LET as prophylaxis in this Phase 3 trial was low. The LET RAVs that were detected mapped to the CMV UL56 gene at positions associated with reduced susceptibility to LET based on resistance selections in cell culture.

A Mortality Analysis of Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in CMV-seropositive Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial, letermovir reduced clinically significant cytomegalovirus infections (CS-CMVi) and all-cause mortality at week 24 versus placebo in CMV-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. This post hoc analysis of phase 3 data further investigated the effects of letermovir on all-cause mortality. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated by treatment group for all-cause mortality. Observations were censored at trial discontinuation for reasons other than death or at trial completion. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox modeling, adjusting for risk factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: Of 495 patients with no detectable CMV DNA at randomization, 437 had vital-status data available through week 48 post-HCT at trial completion (101 deaths, 20.4%). Following letermovir prophylaxis, the HR for all-cause mortality was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35-0.98; P = .04) at week 24 and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49-1.11; P = .14) at week 48 post-HCT versus placebo. Incidence of all-cause mortality through week 48 post-HCT in the letermovir group was similar in patients with or without CS-CMVi (15.8 vs 19.4%; P = .71). However, in the placebo group, all-cause mortality at week 48 post-HCT was higher in patients with versus those without CS-CMVi (31.0% vs 18.2%; P = .02). The HR for all-cause mortality in patients with CS-CMVi was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.21-1.00; P = .05) at week 48 for letermovir versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir may reduce mortality by preventing or delaying CS-CMVi in HCT recipients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02137772.

Outcomes of patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization in the phase III trial of letermovir for the prevention of CMV infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Letermovir, a cytomegalovirus (CMV) terminase-complex inhibitor, is indicated for prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in adult CMV-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial, letermovir significantly reduced the risk of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) vs placebo through Week 24 post-HCT. This analysis investigated outcomes in participants with detectable CMV DNA at randomization, who were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis. In total, 70 of 565 randomized participants had detectable CMV DNA at randomization (letermovir 48; placebo 22). Study treatment completion rates were greater in letermovir-treated participants compared with placebo (52.1% vs 9.1%). The incidence of CS-CMVi or imputed primary endpoint events through Week 24 were 64.6% and 90.9% in the letermovir and placebo groups, respectively (treatment difference -26.1%; P = .010). Kaplan-Meier event rates for CS-CMVi onset through Week 14 (end-of-treatment period) were 33.1% for letermovir and 86.6% for placebo (P < .001). Median viral loads at the CS-CMVi events was similar in both treatment arms. All-cause mortality through Week 24 posttransplant was 15.0% for letermovir and 18.2% for placebo; through Week 48, mortality rates were 26.5% and 40.9%, respectively (P = .268). Overall, clinical outcomes were similar to those reported for participants with undetectable CMV DNA at randomization.

Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus in Hematopoietic-Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection remains a common complication after allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation. Letermovir is an antiviral drug that inhibits the CMV-terminase complex. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned CMV-seropositive transplant recipients, 18 years of age or older, in a 2:1 ratio to receive letermovir or placebo, administered orally or intravenously, through week 14 after transplantation; randomization was stratified according to trial site and CMV disease risk. Letermovir was administered at a dose of 480 mg per day (or 240 mg per day in patients taking cyclosporine). Patients in whom clinically significant CMV infection (CMV disease or CMV viremia leading to preemptive treatment) developed discontinued the trial regimen and received anti-CMV treatment. The primary end point was the proportion of patients, among patients without detectable CMV DNA at randomization, who had clinically significant CMV infection through week 24 after transplantation. Patients who discontinued the trial or had missing end-point data at week 24 were imputed as having a primary end-point event. Patients were followed through week 48 after transplantation. RESULTS: From June 2014 to March 2016, a total of 565 patients underwent randomization and received letermovir or placebo beginning a median of 9 days after transplantation. Among 495 patients with undetectable CMV DNA at randomization, fewer patients in the letermovir group than in the placebo group had clinically significant CMV infection or were imputed as having a primary end-point event by week 24 after transplantation (122 of 325 patients [37.5%] vs. 103 of 170 [60.6%], P<0.001). The frequency and severity of adverse events were similar in the two groups overall. Vomiting was reported in 18.5% of the patients who received letermovir and in 13.5% of those who received placebo; edema in 14.5% and 9.4%, respectively; and atrial fibrillation or flutter in 4.6% and 1.0%, respectively. The rates of myelotoxic and nephrotoxic events were similar in the letermovir group and the placebo group. All-cause mortality at week 48 after transplantation was 20.9% among letermovir recipients and 25.5% among placebo recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir prophylaxis resulted in a significantly lower risk of clinically significant CMV infection than placebo. Adverse events with letermovir were mainly of low grade. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02137772 ; EudraCT number, 2013-003831-31 .).

Comparison of the metabolic effects of ritonavir-boosted darunavir or atazanavir versus raltegravir, and the impact of ritonavir plasma exposure: ACTG 5257.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic effects following combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) vary by regimen type. Changes in metabolic effects were assessed following cART in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5257 study, and correlated with plasma ritonavir trough concentrations (C24). METHODS: Treatment-naive adult subjects were randomized to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or darunavir, or raltegravir-based cART. Changes in lipids and other metabolic outcomes over time were estimated. Differences between arms were estimated with 97.5% confidence intervals and compared using pairwise Student t tests. Associations between ritonavir C24 and lipid changes at week 48 were evaluated via linear regression. RESULTS: Analyses included 1797 subjects with baseline fasting data. Baseline lipid profiles and metabolic syndrome rates (approximately 21%) were similar across arms. Comparable increases occurred in total cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with the boosted protease inhibitors (PIs); each PI had greater increases relative to raltegravir (all P ≤ .001 at week 96). Metabolic syndrome incident rates by week 96 (approximately 22%) were not different across arms. Ritonavir C24 was not different by arm (P = .89) (median, 69 ng/mL and 74 ng/mL in the atazanavir and darunavir arms, respectively) and were not associated with changes in lipid measures (all P > .1). CONCLUSIONS: Raltegravir produced the most favorable lipid profile. Metabolic syndrome rates were high at baseline and increased to the same degree in all arms. Ritonavir C24 was not different in the PI arms and had no relationship with the modest but comparable increases in lipids observed with either atazanavir or darunavir. The long-term clinical significance of the lipid changes noted with the PIs relative to raltegravir deserves further evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT 00811954.

Efficacy and tolerability of 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive volunteers infected with HIV-1: a randomized, controlled equivalence trial.

BACKGROUND: Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing initial antiretroviral regimens to show equivalence for virologic efficacy and tolerability. DESIGN: A phase 3, open-label study randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio with follow-up for at least 96 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00811954). SETTING: 57 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico. PATIENTS: Treatment-naive persons aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA levels greater than 1000 copies/mL without resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors. INTERVENTION: Atazanavir, 300 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d; raltegravir, 400 mg twice daily; or darunavir, 800 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d, plus combination emtricitabine, 200 mg/d, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg/d. MEASUREMENTS: Virologic failure, defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks or greater than 200 copies/mL at or after 24 weeks, and tolerability failure, defined as discontinuation of atazanavir, raltegravir, or darunavir for toxicity. A secondary end point was a combination of virologic efficacy and tolerability. RESULTS: Among 1809 participants, all pairwise comparisons of incidence of virologic failure over 96 weeks showed equivalence within a margin of equivalence defined as -10% to 10%. Raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir were equivalent for tolerability, whereas ritonavir-boosted atazanavir resulted in a 12.7% and 9.2% higher incidence of tolerability discontinuation than raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir, respectively, primarily because of hyperbilirubinemia. For combined virologic efficacy and tolerability, ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, and raltegravir was superior to both protease inhibitors. Antiretroviral resistance at the time of virologic failure was rare but more frequent with raltegravir. LIMITATION: The trial was open-label, and ritonavir was not provided. CONCLUSION: Over 2 years, all 3 regimens attained high and equivalent rates of virologic control. Tolerability of regimens containing raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to that of the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir regimen. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Fixed-Dose Combination Tablets in Adolescents Living With HIV: Results Through Week 96 from IMPAACT 2014.

BACKGROUND: IMPAACT 2014 study is a phase I/II, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized study of doravirine (DOR) co-formulated with lamivudine (3TC) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) as fixed-dose combination (DOR FDC) in adolescents with HIV-1. We report the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of DOR FDC through 96 weeks. METHODS: Participants were adolescents aged 12 to <18 years who weighed at least 45 kg and who were either antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve or virologically suppressed without documented resistance mutations to DOR/3TC/TDF. The efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL assessed at weeks 48 and 96 using the observed failure approach. Safety and tolerability outcomes were incidence of adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations. RESULTS: A total of 45 adolescents, median age 15 (range, 12-17) years, 58% females, were enrolled and 2 (4.4%) participants were ARV naïve. Of the 45 participants, 42 (93.3%) completed the study and 41 (91.1%) completed the study treatment. At week 48, 41/42 (97.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87.4-99.9) and week 96, 37/40 (92.5%; 95% CI, 79.6-98.4) participants had achieved or maintained HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL. There were no treatment-related discontinuations due to AEs and no drug-related AEs ≥grade 3 or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: We found once-daily dosing of DOR FDC to be safe and well tolerated for maintaining viral suppression through 96 weeks in adolescents living with HIV-1.

Efficacy of raltegravir versus efavirenz when combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients: week-192 overall and subgroup analyses from STARTMRK.

We compared 4 years of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine and either raltegravir or efavirenz from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Through 192 weeks, raltegravir produced durable and consistent viral suppression and immune restoration compared with efavirenz irrespective of baseline demographic and prognostic factors, including in patients with high viral loads.

A nucleoside- and ritonavir-sparing regimen containing atazanavir plus raltegravir in antiretroviral treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients: SPARTAN study results.

BACKGROUND: Nucleoside and ritonavir (RTV) toxicities have led to increased interest in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and RTV-sparing antiretroviral regimens. SPARTAN was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noncomparative pilot study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and resistance profile of an investigational NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen (experimental atazanavir [ATV] dose 300 mg bid + raltegravir [RAL] 400 mg bid [ATV+RAL]). The reference regimen consisted of ATV 300 mg/RTV 100 mg qd + tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg/emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg qd (ATV/r+TDF/FTC). METHODS: Treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA ≥5,000 copies/mL were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily ATV+RAL (n=63) or once-daily ATV/r+TDF/FTC (n=31). Efficacy at 24 weeks was determined by confirmed virologic response (CVR; HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) with noncom-pleters counted as failures based on all treated subjects. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with CVR HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 74.6% (47/63) in the ATV+RAL arm and 63.3% (19/30) in the ATV/r+TDF/FTC arm. Systemic exposure to ATV in the ATV+RAL regimen was higher than historically observed with ATV/r+TDF/ FTC. Incidence of Grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia was higher on ATV+RAL (20.6%; 13/63) than on ATV/r+TDF/FTC (0%). The criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [VF]: HIV-RNA ≥400 copies/mL) was met in 6/63 patients on ATV+RAL, and 1/30 on ATV/r+TDF/FTC; 4 VFs on ATV+RAL developed RAL resistance. CONCLUSIONS: ATV+RAL, an experimental NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen, achieved virologic suppression rates comparable to current standards of care for treatment-naïve patients. The overall profile did not appear optimal for further clinical development given its development of resistance to RAL and higher rates of hyperbilirubinemia with twice-daily ATV compared with ATV/RTV.

Exposure-Response Analyses of Letermovir Following Oral and Intravenous Administration in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Recipients.

The cytomegalovirus (CMV) viral terminase inhibitor letermovir is approved for prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in adult CMV-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients. In a phase III trial (NCT02137772), letermovir significantly reduced clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) rate vs. placebo through Week 24 (primary end point) and Week 14 (secondary end point) post transplantation. Here, exposure-response relationships were investigated using efficacy and selected safety end points from the phase III trial to inform the proposed clinical dose. Post hoc exposure estimates were derived from a population pharmacokinetic model. No significant exposure dependencies were found for CS-CMVi through Week 24 or Week 14 among letermovir-treated participants. Evaluated covariates had no impact on exposure-efficacy relationships and letermovir plasma exposure did not affect time of CS-CMVi onset. There was no dependence between adverse event incidence and letermovir exposure. These results support current dosing recommendations in several countries and regions, including the United States and European Union.

Long-term treatment with raltegravir or efavirenz combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine for treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients: 156-week results from STARTMRK.

BACKGROUND: We compared 3 years of antiretroviral therapy with raltegravir or efavirenz as part of a combination regimen in the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies/mL and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind, noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Outcomes included viral suppression, adverse events, and changes from baseline metabolic parameters. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans were obtained on a convenience sample of patients at prespecified time points to assess changes in body fat composition. RESULTS: At week 156 counting noncompleters as failures, 212 (75.4%) of 281 versus 192 (68.1%) of 282 had vRNA levels <50 copies/mL in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 7.3% (-0.2, 14.7), noninferiority P < .001]. Mean changes from baseline CD4 count were 332 and 295 cells/mm³ in the raltegravir and efavirenz arms, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 37 (4, 69)]. Consistent virologic and immunologic efficacy was maintained across prespecified demographic and baseline prognostic subgroups for both treatment groups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (49% vs 80%; P < .001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients, with discontinuations due to adverse events in 5% and 7%, respectively. Elevations in fasting lipid levels (including LDL- and HDL-cholesterol) were consistently lower in the raltegravir than efavirenz group (P < .005). Fat gain was 19% in 25 raltegravir recipients and 31% in 32 efavirenz recipients at week 156. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir produced durable viral suppression and immune restoration that was at least equivalent to efavirenz through 156 weeks of therapy. Both regimens were well tolerated, but raltegravir was associated with fewer drug-related clinical adverse events and smaller elevations in lipid levels. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00369941.

Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. METHODS: The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. FINDINGS: 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol -12.6%vs 1.0%, non-HDL cholesterol -15.0%vs 2.6%, and triglycerides -42.2%vs 6.2%. At week 24, 293 (84.4%, 95% CI 80.2-88.1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -11.2 to -1.3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION: Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. FUNDING: Merck.

Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. FINDINGS: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per microL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86.1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81.9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4.2%, 95% CI -1.9 to 10.3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0.0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44.1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77.0%]; difference -32.8%, 95% CI -40.2 to -25.0, p<0.0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. INTERPRETATION: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: Merck.

Safety and immunogenicity of a replication-incompetent adenovirus type 5 HIV-1 clade B gag/pol/nef vaccine in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity of the MRK adenovirus type 5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clade B gag/pol/nef vaccine, a replication-incompetent adenovirus type 5-vectored vaccine designed to elicit cell-mediated immunity against conserved human immunodeficiency virus proteins, was assessed in a phase 1 trial. METHODS: Healthy adults not infected with human immunodeficiency virus were enrolled in a multicenter, dose-escalating, blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate a 3-dose homologous prime-boost regimen of the trivalent MRK adenovirus type 5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine containing from 3 x 10(6) to 1 x 10(11) viral particles per 1-mL dose administered on day 1, during week 4 and during week 26. Adverse events were recorded for 29 days after each intradeltoid injection. The primary immunogenicity end point was the proportion of study participants with a positive unfractionated Gag-, Pol-, or Nef-specific interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot response measured 4 weeks after administration of the last dose. RESULTS: Of 259 randomized individuals, 257 (99%) received > or = 1 dose of vaccine or placebo and were included in the safety analyses. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot results were available for 217 study participants (84%) at week 30. No serious vaccine-related adverse events occurred. No study participant discontinued participation because of vaccine-related adverse events. The frequency of injection-site reactions was dose dependent. Vaccine doses of > or = 3 x 10(9) viral particles elicited positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot responses to > or = 1 vaccine component in > 60% of recipients. High baseline antibody titers against adenovirus type 5 diminished enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot responses at all doses except the 3 x 10(10) viral particle dose. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccine was generally well tolerated and induced cell-mediated immune responses against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 peptides in most healthy adults. Despite these findings, vaccination in a proof-of-concept trial with use of this vaccine was discontinued because of lack of efficacy.

Influence of Sex/Gender and Race on Responses to Raltegravir Combined With Tenofovir-Emtricitabine in Treatment-Naive Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infected Patients: Pooled Analyses of the STARTMRK and QDMRK Studies.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women and blacks merits particular scrutiny because these groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials. METHODS: To document the effects of raltegravir across sex and racial lines, we conducted a pooled subgroup analysis of the efficacy and safety of raltegravir 400 mg BID plus tenofovir-emtricitabine by sex (women vs men) and self-identified race (black vs non-black) using phase 3 studies in treatment-naive patients. RESULTS: Study participants included 42 black women, 102 non-black women, 48 black men, and 477 non-black men. Clade B infections were less common in women (43.8%) than men (84.6%) and in blacks (45.6%) than non-blacks (80.5%). Baseline CD4 counts were ≤200 cells/µL in 52.2% of blacks and 31.6% of non-blacks. Black men had the largest proportion of patients with baseline CD4 counts <50 cells/µL and the highest nontreatment-related discontinuation rate among the 4 sex-by-race subgroups. Human immunodeficiency virus-ribonucleic acid levels <50 copies/mL were achieved at week 48 in 92.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.1-98.5) of black women, 93.6% (95% CI, 86.6-97.6) of non-black women, 82.9% (95% CI, 67.9-92.8) of black men, and 91.4% (95% CI, 88.4-93.8) of non-black men. Serious clinical adverse events were reported in 9.0% of women versus 8.8% of men and in 11.1% of blacks versus 8.5% of non-blacks. CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis of patients with previously untreated HIV-1 infection receiving raltegravir plus tenofovir-emtricitabine, generally comparable results were achieved across sex and racial subgroups. However, black men had a lower response rate than either black women or non-black men, partially attributable to lower baseline CD4 counts and higher discontinuation rates.

Raltegravir 1200 mg once daily versus raltegravir 400 mg twice daily, with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, for previously untreated HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Once daily regimens are preferred for HIV-1 treatment, to facilitate adherence and improve quality of life. We compared a new once daily formulation of raltegravir to the currently marketed twice daily formulation. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority study, we enrolled participants aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA of 1000 or more copies per mL and no previous antiretroviral treatment at 139 sites worldwide. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to raltegravir 1200 mg (two 600 mg tablets) orally once daily or raltegravir 400 mg (one tablet) orally twice daily, each with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine orally once daily, for up to 96 weeks. A computer-generated allocation schedule stratified randomisation by screening HIV-1 RNA value and co-infection with hepatitis B or C. Participants, sponsor personnel, investigators, and study site personnel involved in the treatment or evaluation of the participants were unaware of the treatment group assignments. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 40 copies per mL at week 48 assessed with the US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. We assessed efficacy and safety in all participants who received one dose or more of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02131233. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2014, and Dec 5, 2014, 802 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 533 to once daily treatment and 269 to twice daily; 797 received study therapy, 531 once daily and 266 twice daily. At week 48, 472 (89%) of 531 once daily recipients and 235 (88%) of 266 twice daily recipients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 40 copies per mL (treatment difference 0·5%, 95% CI -4·2 to 5·2). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 130 (24%) of 531 participants in the once daily group (one of which was serious; none led to treatment discontinuation) and 68 (26%) of 266 participants in the twice daily group (two of which were serious; two led to treatment discontinuation). The most common drug-related adverse events were nausea (39 [7%] vs 18 [7%]), headache (16 [3%] vs 12 [5%]), and dizziness (12 [2%] vs eight [3%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: A once daily raltegravir 1200 mg regimen was non-inferior compared with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. These results support the use of raltegravir 1200 mg once daily for first-line therapy. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of indinavir-based therapy in protease inhibitor-naive adults with advanced HIV infection.

A double-blind, randomized study of zidovudine-experienced, PI- and lamivudine-naive adults with baseline CD4 cell counts of < or =50 cells/mm3 had demonstrated that the HIV suppression achieved with zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir therapy was superior to that achieved with dual-nucleoside or indinavir-only regimens after 24 weeks of therapy. In a 192-week extension of the study, 371 participants received open-label indinavir with or without other antiretroviral drugs. One hundred and eight subjects were originally randomized to receive triple therapy. After 216 weeks, the proportion of subjects with HIV RNA levels of <500 copies/mL were 34%, according to a general estimating equation analysis, 92%, according to an observed data analysis, and 24%, according to an intention-to-treat analysis counting noncompleters as failures; the proportions of subjects with HIV RNA levels of <50 copies/mL were 31%, 85%, and 22%, respectively. Hyperbilirubinemia (experienced by 31% of subjects), nausea (17%), abdominal pain (14%), and nephrolithiasis (13%) were the most common drug-related adverse events during the extension.

Safety Profile of the Merck Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Clade B gag DNA Plasmid Vaccine With and Without Adjuvants.

The immunogenicity results from 3 phase I trials of the Merck DNA human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccine have previously been reported. Because preventive DNA vaccine strategies continue to be leveraged for diverse infections, the safety and tolerability results from these studies can inform the field moving forward, particularly regarding adverse reactions and adjuvants. No serious vaccine-related adverse events were reported during the 3-dose priming phase. Pain at the injection site was more common with adjuvanted formulations than with the phosphate-buffered saline diluent alone. Febrile reactions were usually low grade. Although the AlPO4 or CRL1005 adjuvants used in these studies did not significantly enhance the immunogenicity of the DNA vaccine, adverse events were numerically more common with adjuvanted formulations than without adjuvants.

Comparison of illumina and 454 deep sequencing in participants failing raltegravir-based antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: The impact of raltegravir-resistant HIV-1 minority variants (MVs) on raltegravir treatment failure is unknown. Illumina sequencing offers greater throughput than 454, but sequence analysis tools for viral sequencing are needed. We evaluated Illumina and 454 for the detection of HIV-1 raltegravir-resistant MVs. METHODS: A5262 was a single-arm study of raltegravir and darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-naïve patients. Pre-treatment plasma was obtained from 5 participants with raltegravir resistance at the time of virologic failure. A control library was created by pooling integrase clones at predefined proportions. Multiplexed sequencing was performed with Illumina and 454 platforms at comparable costs. Illumina sequence analysis was performed with the novel snp-assess tool and 454 sequencing was analyzed with V-Phaser. RESULTS: Illumina sequencing resulted in significantly higher sequence coverage and a 0.095% limit of detection. Illumina accurately detected all MVs in the control library at ≥0.5% and 7/10 MVs expected at 0.1%. 454 sequencing failed to detect any MVs at 0.1% with 5 false positive calls. For MVs detected in the patient samples by both 454 and Illumina, the correlation in the detected variant frequencies was high (R2 = 0.92, P<0.001). Illumina sequencing detected 2.4-fold greater nucleotide MVs and 2.9-fold greater amino acid MVs compared to 454. The only raltegravir-resistant MV detected was an E138K mutation in one participant by Illumina sequencing, but not by 454. CONCLUSIONS: In participants of A5262 with raltegravir resistance at virologic failure, baseline raltegravir-resistant MVs were rarely detected. At comparable costs to 454 sequencing, Illumina demonstrated greater depth of coverage, increased sensitivity for detecting HIV MVs, and fewer false positive variant calls.