Acute Kidney Injury After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guided by Intravascular Ultrasound.

Purpose We investigated the impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on reducing the incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods Ninety-nine patients were enrolled in this prospective cohort who were not randomly assigned to angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention or intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. The patients were hospitalized at the Vietnam National Heart Institute - Bach Mai Hospital between 2019 and 2020. Acute kidney injury incidence during hospitalization was the primary endpoint. Results A total of 99 patients were divided into two groups: the intravascular ultrasound-guided group (33 participants) and the angiography-guided group (66 participants). The mean ± SD contrast volume of each group was 95.2 ± 37.1 mL and 133.0 ± 36.0 mL for the ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided groups, with P < 0.0001. Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (IVUS-guided PCI) was associated with reduced acute kidney injury incidence during hospitalization: 0.0% vs. 12.12% and P = 0.049. Conclusions Intravascular ultrasound is a safe imaging tool that guides percutaneous coronary intervention and significantly reduces the rate of acute kidney injury compared to angiography alone. Patients who have a high chance of experiencing acute kidney injury benefit from using intravascular ultrasound.

Safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin in participants with and without cirrhosis with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part B): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with excellent efficacy across genotypes and in diverse populations. Part A of the C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 trials led to the selection of a three-drug regimen of grazoprevir (MK-5172; an HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor; 100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (MK-8408; an NS5A inhibitor; 60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; an HCV NS5B polymerase inhibitor; 450 mg/day). Part B of the studies tested this combination as a single formulation in different treatment durations in a broader population. METHODS: Part B of these randomised, phase 2, open-label clinical trials enrolled individuals from 15 countries who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1-6 (HCV RNA ≥10 000 IU/mL) with or without compensated cirrhosis. Those with genotype 1, genotype 2, genotype 4, or genotype 6 were treatment-naive; those with genotype 3 could be treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Randomisation occurred centrally using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment for 8, 12, or 16 weeks with a fixed-dose combination of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy (SVR12), defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification (either target detected unquantifiable or target not detected [<15 IU/mL]). The trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720. FINDINGS: 676 participants were randomly assigned between Feb 18, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016. In all 675 participants who received at least one dose of study drug (full analysis set), SVR12 for the 8-week regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with and without ribavirin was achieved in 39 (93% [95% CI 81-99]) of 42 participants with genotype 1a, 45 (98% [88-100]) of 46 with genotype 1b, 54 (86% [75-93]) of 63 with genotype 2, 98 (95% [89-98]) of 103 with genotype 3, and seven (100% [59-100]) of seven participants with genotype 4. SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 87 (99% [95% CI 94-100]) of 88 participants with genotype 1, 61 (98% [91-100]) of 62 with genotype 2, and four (100% [40-100]) of four with genotype 6. Among participants with cirrhosis who were infected with genotype 3, SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 28 (97% [95% CI 82-100]) of 29 of those who were treatment-naive and 29 (100% [88-100]) of 29 who were treatment-experienced. SVR12 for the 16-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 26 (100% [95% CI 87-100]) of 26 participants with genotype 2 infection and 72 (96% [89-99]) of 75 participants with genotype 3 infection. The most common adverse events were headache (143 [22%] of 664), fatigue (129 [19%] of 664), and nausea (83 [13%] of 664). 16 (2%) of 664 participants had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The combined regimen of grazoprevir (100 mg/day), ruzasvir (60 mg/day), and uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day) has the potential to provide a simplified treatment for HCV that is effective and well tolerated in most individuals infected with HCV, as well as a shorter duration of treatment in many individuals. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Safety and efficacy of an 8-week regimen of grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir compared with grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir in participants without cirrhosis infected with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1, 2, or 3 (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part A): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with pan-genotypic efficacy are needed. The goals of part A of C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 were to compare the efficacies of two doses (300 mg or 450 mg once daily) of uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; NS5B inhibitor) in an 8-week regimen combined with grazoprevir (NS3/4A inhibitor; 100 mg once daily) and an NS5A inhibitor, either elbasvir (50 mg once daily) or ruzasvir (MK-8408; 60 mg once daily), and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of these combination regimens in individuals infected with genotypes 1, 2, or 3. METHODS: Part A of these phase 2, randomised, multicentre, open-label, clinical trials enrolled participants from 11 countries, aged 18 years or older, chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1, 2, or 3, with HCV RNA of at least 10 000 IU/mL, without evidence of cirrhosis, who had not received previous treatment for HCV infection. Within each HCV genotype, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of 4, to open-label treatment to one of four treatment groups: grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (300 mg/day); grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day); grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus elbasvir (50 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (300 mg/day); or grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus elbasvir (50 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day), according to a computer-generated allocation schedule. Randomisation was centrally implemented using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12; HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantitation at 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy) in the per-protocol analysis set, which included all participants who were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720. FINDINGS: 241 participants were randomised between Feb 18, 2015, and March 16, 2015. 240 participants completed 8 weeks of treatment and reached follow-up 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Of the four regimens, grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg had the most consistently high SVR12 (>90%) for participants infected with genotype 1 (21 [91%] of 23), genotype 2 (15 [94%] of 16), and genotype 3 (20 [91%] of 22). In particular, among those with genotype 2 infection, the grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg regimen had a higher SVR12 (15 [94%] of 16) than the grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 300 mg regimen (ten [71%] of 14), grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir 300 mg regimen (11 [69%] of 16), or grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg regimen (nine [60%] of 15). Overall, the most common adverse events were headache (55 [23%] of 240), fatigue (47 [20%] of 240), and nausea (32 [13%] of 240). Two (<1%) of 240 participants had serious adverse events (pharyngeal abscess and keratitis), which were not considered drug related by the respective investigators. INTERPRETATION: These results support further evaluation of the three-drug direct-acting antiviral agent regimen of grazoprevir 100 mg plus ruzasvir 60 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg among a more diverse HCV-infected population, including those with compensated cirrhosis, previous treatment with an interferon-containing regimen, and HCV-HIV co-infection. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Concomitant proton pump inhibitor use does not reduce the efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir: A pooled analysis of 1,322 patients with hepatitis C infection.

Concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use reduces plasma concentrations of certain nonstructural protein 5A inhibitors, which are key components of modern hepatitis C infection (HCV) treatments. These reduced concentrations may decrease efficacy, leading to challenging treatment failures due to the development of resistance-associated substitutions. This post-hoc analysis assessed 12-week sustained viral response (SVR12) and pharmacokinetics of fixed-dose combination elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in patients with HCV infection and self-reported PPI use. Data were derived from six phase 3 EBR/GZR trials with treatment-naive or treatment-experienced genotype 1- or 4-infected patients, with or without compensated cirrhosis. Baseline PPI use was defined as ≥7 consecutive days of use between study days -7 and 7. Bivariate analyses assessed PPI use and factors associated with SVR12 with sex, age (continuous and dichotomous), cirrhosis status, prior treatment status, baseline HCV RNA (continuous and dichotomous), HCV genotype, and baseline resistance-associated substitutions as variables in the models. Overall, 12% (162/1,322) of EBR/GZR-treated patients reported baseline PPI use. Of those, 96% achieved SVR12. In patients without PPI use, 97% achieved SVR12. PPI use was not a predictive factor in achieving SVR12 based on a univariate analysis (P = 0.188). In the bivariate models, none of the interaction terms involving PPI use were statistically significant. There was no significant effect of PPI usage, regardless of adjustment for considered factors. The estimated area under the curve and maximum concentration values for EBR were comparable among patients with and without reported PPI use. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that PPI use with EBR/GZR had no clinically significant effect on SVR12 rates in genotype 1/4-infected patients with or without compensated cirrhosis. (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02092350, NCT02105467, NCT02105662, NCT02105688, NCT02105701, NCT02358044) (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:757-764).

Efficacy and safety of grazoprevir (MK-5172) and elbasvir (MK-8742) in patients with hepatitis C virus and HIV co-infection (C-EDGE CO-INFECTION): a non-randomised, open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV-1. The C-EDGE CO-INFECTION study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of grazoprevir (MK-5172) plus elbasvir (MK-8742) in patients with HCV and HIV co-infection. METHODS: In this uncontrolled, non-randomised, phase 3, open-label, single-arm study, treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection and HIV co-infection, with or without cirrhosis, were enrolled from 37 centres in nine countries across Europe, the USA, and Australia. Patients were either naive to treatment with any antiretroviral therapy (ART) or stable on ART for at least 8 weeks. All patients received grazoprevir 100 mg plus elbasvir 50 mg in a fixed-dose combination tablet once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <15 IU/mL) 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). The primary population for efficacy analyses was all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105662. FINDINGS: Between June 11, 2014, and Aug 29, 2014, 218 patients were enrolled and received grazoprevir plus elbasvir for 12 weeks, all of whom completed follow-up at week 12. SVR12 was achieved by 210 (96%) of 218 patients (95% CI 92·9-98·4). One patient did not achieve SVR12 because of a non-virological reason, and seven patients without cirrhosis relapsed (two subsequently confirmed as reinfections). All 35 patients with cirrhosis achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were fatigue (29; 13%), headache (27; 12%), and nausea (20; 9%). No patient discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Two patients receiving ART had transient HIV viraemia. INTERPRETATION: This HCV treatment regimen seems to be effective and well tolerated for patients co-infected with HIV with or without cirrhosis. These data are consistent with previous trials of this regimen in the monoinfected population. This regimen continues to be studied in phase 3 trials. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Association between first-year virological response to raltegravir and long-term outcomes in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We explored the relationship between virological response in the first year of treatment and long-term outcomes in the BENCHMRK studies. METHODS: Patients failing antiretroviral treatment with 3-class resistant HIV-1 received double-blinded raltegravir (or placebo) with optimized background therapy (OBT) until week 156, followed by open-label raltegravir with OBT up to week 240. In this exploratory analysis of patients randomized to raltegravir, virological response over weeks 16-48 was categorized as continuous suppression (CS; viral RNA [vRNA] always <50 copies/ml), low-level viraemia (LLV; vRNA always <400 copies/ml, >50 copies/ml at least once), or not suppressed (NS; vRNA >400 copies/ml at least once). The association between these first-year vRNA response categories and baseline factors was analysed with univariate and multivariate models. Virological and immunological outcomes for years 2-5 were assessed by first-year vRNA response category (observed failure approach). RESULTS: Baseline vRNA, baseline CD4(+) T-cell count and rapid viral decay (vRNA <50 copies/ml between weeks 2-12) correlated with first-year vRNA response (P<0.001); only rapid viral decay remained significant by multiple regression. Virological response rates were similar in the LLV and CS groups and lowest in the NS group. CD4(+) T-cell count increased through week 240 in the CS and LLV groups. Time to loss of virological response (confirmed vRNA ≥400 copies/ml) through week 240 did not support as strong a difference between the LLV and CS groups (log-rank P=0.11) as previously reported through weeks 156 and 192 (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-experienced patients on a raltegravir-based regimen with early LLV may have long-term virological and immunological benefit when their therapy is maintained.

Efficacy and safety of raltegravir for treatment of HIV for 5 years in the BENCHMRK studies: final results of two randomised, placebo-controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Two randomised, placebo-controlled trials-BENCHMRK-1 and BENCHMRK-2-investigated the efficacy and safety of raltegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor. We report final results of BENCHMRK-1 and BENCHMRK-2 combined at 3 years (the end of the double-blind phase) and 5 years (the end of the study). METHODS: Integrase-inhibitor-naive patients with HIV resistant to three classes of drug and who were failing antiretroviral therapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to raltegravir 400 mg twice daily or placebo, both with optimised background treatment. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until week 156, after which all patients were offered open-label raltegravir until week 240. The primary endpoint was previously assessed at 16 weeks. We assessed long-term efficacy with endpoints of the proportion of patients with an HIV viral load of less than 50 copies per mL and less than 400 copies per mL, and mean change in CD4 cell count, at weeks 156 and 240. FINDINGS: 1012 patients were screened for inclusion. 462 were treated with raltegravir and 237 with placebo. At week 156, 51% in the raltegravir group versus 22% in the placebo group (non-completer classed as failure) had viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL, and 54% versus 23% had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL. Mean CD4 cell count increase (analysed by an observed failure approach) was 164 cells per µL versus 63 cells per µL. After week 156, 251 patients (54%) from the raltegravir group and 47 (20%) from the placebo group entered the open-label raltergravir phase; 221 (47%) versus 44 (19%) completed the entire study. At week 240, viral load was less than 50 copies per mL in 193 (42%) of all patients initially assigned to raltegravir and less than 400 copies per mL in 210 (45%); mean CD4 cell count increased by 183 cells per µL. Virological failure occurred in 166 raltegravir recipients (36%) during the double-blind phase and in 17 of all patients (6%) during the open-label phase. The most common drug-related adverse events at 5 years in both groups were nausea, headache, and diarrhoea, and occurred in similar proportions in each group. Laboratory test results were similar in both treatment groups and showed little change after year 2. INTERPRETATION: Raltegravir has a favourable long-term efficacy and safety profile in integrase-inhibitor-naive patients with triple-class resistant HIV in whom antiretroviral therapy is failing. Raltegravir is an alternative for treatment-experienced patients, particularly those with few treatment options. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of raltegravir in a diverse cohort of HIV-infected patients: 48-week results from the REALMRK Study.

The racial diversity and gender distribution of HIV-infected patients make it essential to confirm the safety and efficacy of raltegravir in these populations. A multicenter, open-label, single-arm observational study was conducted in a diverse cohort of HIV-infected patients (goals: ≥25% women; ≥50% blacks in the United States), enrolling treatment-experienced patients failing or intolerant to current antiretroviral therapy (ART) and treatment-naive patients (limited to ≤20%). All patients received raltegravir 400 mg b.i.d. in a combination antiretroviral regimen for up to 48 weeks. A total of 206 patients received study treatment at 34 sites in the United States, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and South Africa: 97 (47%) were female and 153 (74%) were black [116 (56%) in the United States]. Of these, 185 patients were treatment experienced: 97 (47%) were failing and 88 (43%) were intolerant to current therapy; 21 patients (10%) were treatment naive. Among treatment-intolerant patients, 55 (63%) had HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml at baseline. Overall, 15% of patients discontinued: 13% of men, 18% of women, 14% of blacks, and 17% of nonblacks. At week 48, HIV RNA was <50 copies/ml in 60/94 (64%) patients failing prior therapy, 61/80 (76%) patients intolerant to prior therapy, and 16/21 (76%) treatment-naive patients. Response rates were similar for men vs. women and black vs. nonblack patients. Drug-related clinical adverse events were reported by 8% of men, 18% of women, 14% of blacks, and 9% of nonblacks. After 48 weeks of treatment in a diverse cohort of HIV-infected patients, raltegravir was generally safe and well tolerated with potent efficacy regardless of gender or race.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of once-daily versus twice-daily raltegravir in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients.

QDMRK was a phase III clinical trial of raltegravir given once daily (QD) (800-mg dose) versus twice daily (BID) (400 mg per dose), each in combination with once-daily coformulated tenofovir-emtricitabine, in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analyses were conducted using a 2-step approach: individual non-model-based PK parameters from observed sparse concentration data were determined, followed by statistical analysis of potential relationships between PK and efficacy response parameters after 48 weeks of treatment. Sparse PK sampling was performed for all patients (QD, n = 380; BID, n = 384); selected sites performed an intensive PK evaluation at week 4 (QD, n = 22; BID, n = 20). In the intensive PK subgroup, daily exposures (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h [AUC(0-24)]) were similar between the two regimens, but patients on 800 mg QD experienced ~4-fold-higher maximum drug concentration in plasma (C(max)) values and ~6-fold-lower trough drug concentration (C(trough)) values than those on 400 mg BID. Geometric mean (GM) C(trough) values were similarly lower in the sparse PK analysis. With BID dosing, there was no indication of any significant PK/PD association over the range of tested PK parameters. With QD dosing, C(trough) values correlated with the likelihood of virologic response. Failure to achieve an HIV RNA level of <50 copies/ml appeared predominantly at high baseline HIV RNA levels in both treatment arms and was associated with lower values of GM C(trough) in the 800-mg-QD arm, though other possible drivers of efficacy, such as time above a threshold concentration, could not be evaluated due to the sparse sampling scheme. Together, these findings emphasize the importance of the shape of the plasma concentration-versus-time curve for long-term efficacy.

Clinical efficacy of raltegravir against B and non-B subtype HIV-1 in phase III clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the long-term efficacy of raltegravir according to HIV-1 subtype (B and non-B) using data from three phase III studies in treatment-experienced (BENCHMRK-1 and 2) and treatment-naive (STARTMRK) HIV-infected patients. METHODS: HIV-1 subtypes were identified from baseline plasma specimens using genotypic data of the PhenoSense GT test (Monogram Biosciences, South San Francisco, California, USA). Non-B subtypes were combined for the current analyses due to small numbers of each specific subtype. An observed failure approach was used (only discontinuations due to lack of efficacy were treated as failures). Resistance evaluation was performed in patients with documented virologic failure. RESULTS: Seven hundred and forty-three patients received raltegravir and 519 received comparator (efavirenz in STARTMRK; optimized background therapy in BENCHMRK). Non-B subtype virus (A, A/C, A/D, A/G, A1, AE, AG, B/G, BF, C, D, D/F, F, F1, G, and complex) was isolated at baseline in 98 (13%) raltegravir recipients and 62 (12%) comparator recipients. Subtypes AE and C were most common, isolated in 41 and 43 patients, respectively. The proportion of raltegravir recipients achieving HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml was similar between non-B and B subtypes (STARTMRK: 94.5 vs. 88.7%; BENCHMRK-1 and 2: 66.7 vs. 60.7%); change in CD4 cell count also was similar between non-B and B subtypes (STARTMRK: 243 vs. 221 cells/µl; BENCHMRK-1 and 2: 121 vs. 144 cells/µl). Phenotypic resistance to raltegravir in non-B virus was associated with integrase mutations observed previously in subtype B virus. CONCLUSION: In phase III studies in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients, raltegravir showed comparable and potent clinical efficacy against B and non-B HIV-1 subtypes.

Raltegravir: the first HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor in the HIV armamentarium.

Raltegravir is the first integrase strand transfer inhibitor approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. As the first agent in this new class of antiretroviral therapies, raltegravir has demonstrated safety and efficacy in treatment-naive as well as heavily pretreated HIV-infected patients failing therapy with multidrug-resistant virus. Raltegravir has a favorable drug interaction profile that permits both administration to a wide, demographically diverse patient population and coadministration with many other therapeutic agents, including antiretroviral agents and supportive medications, without restrictions or dose adjustment. Data through 96 weeks of follow-up in three phase III studies, protocol 021 (STARTMRK) in treatment-naive patients, and protocols 018 (BENCHMRK-1) and 019 (BENCHMRK-2) in treatment-experienced patients, demonstrated the potent and durable antiretroviral and immunologic effects and the favorable long-term safety profile of raltegravir in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Raltegravir represents an important addition to the current armamentarium for the treatment of HIV infection.

Long-term safety from the raltegravir clinical development program.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir has demonstrated potent and durable efficacy and a favorable safety profile in 3 phase III studies in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection. This manuscript provides a review of the raltegravir safety profile using data from these and other studies in the clinical development program. METHODS: Comprehensive 96-week safety data from STARTMRK (raltegravir versus efavirenz, each with tenofovir/emtricitabine) and BENCHMRK (raltegravir versus placebo, each with optimized background therapy) are summarized. A cumulative meta-analysis of raltegravir 400 mg bid was conducted across the entire development program. RESULTS: In STARTMRK, drug-related adverse events (AEs) occurred less frequently with raltegravir than efavirenz. In BENCHMRK, the most common drug-related AEs occurred at generally similar frequencies in both groups. Drug-related serious AEs were uncommon. Rash was observed in raltegravir-treated patients at a higher frequency than placebo but a lower frequency than efavirenz. Depression and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome occurred at similar rates for raltegravir and comparators. Isolated elevations of creatine kinase were more common with raltegravir than placebo but occurred without clinical manifestations. The frequency of aminotransferase elevations was greater in patients with viral hepatitis co-infection, but similar in the raltegravir and comparator groups. The relative risk (95% CI) of cancer was 0.75 (0.30, 1.91) indicating no difference between raltegravir and comparator. Overall trends in the cumulative meta-analysis were similar to those observed in the phase III studies. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term data from the phase III clinical trials demonstrate that raltegravir was generally well-tolerated in both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with HIV infection.

Long-term efficacy and safety of the HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir in patients with limited treatment options in a Phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir in combination therapy has demonstrated potent suppression of HIV-1 with a favorable safety profile. This report provides 96-week efficacy and safety data from Protocol 005, a Phase II study. METHODS: HIV-infected patients with very limited treatment options and failing antiretroviral therapy were randomized to raltegravir 200, 400, or 600 mg or placebo b.i.d., plus optimized background therapy for >or=24 weeks; all patients were then offered open-label raltegravir 400 mg b.i.d. Efficacy measurements included changes in viral load and CD4 count from baseline and percent of patients with HIV-1 RNA <400 and <50 copies/mL. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-three patients received raltegravir and 45 received placebo. No dose-dependent differentiation in the safety or antiviral activity of raltegravir was observed during the double-blind phase. For the combined raltegravir groups, mean change in viral load from baseline was -1.60 log10 copies/mL at week 48 and -1.38 log10 copies/mL at week 96 (observed failure approach). At week 48, HIV-1 RNA levels were <400 copies/mL in 68% of raltegravir recipients and <50 copies/mL in 55%; these levels were maintained in 55% and 48% of raltegravir recipients, respectively, at week 96 (noncompleter = failure). There were few discontinuations of raltegravir (4%) due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir with OBT had a potent and sustained antiretroviral effect and was generally well tolerated through 96 weeks.

Long-term efficacy and safety of Raltegravir combined with optimized background therapy in treatment-experienced patients with drug-resistant HIV infection: week 96 results of the BENCHMRK 1 and 2 Phase III trials.

BENCHMRK-1 and -2 are ongoing double-blind phase III studies of raltegravir in patients experiencing failure of antiretroviral therapy with triple-class drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus infection. At week 96 (combined data), raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) plus optimized background therapy was generally well tolerated, with superior and durable antiretroviral and immunological efficacy, compared with optimized background therapy alone.

Antiretroviral therapy with the integrase inhibitor raltegravir alters decay kinetics of HIV, significantly reducing the second phase.

OBJECTIVE: Raltegravir (MK-0518) belongs to the new class of HIV integrase inhibitors. To date, there have been no reports investigating the potential for differential effects on viral dynamics with integrase inhibitors relative to current antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: Patients in this phase II study (P004) were antiretroviral treatment naive. Part 1 of this study compared monotherapy with raltegravir (100 mg, 200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg twice daily) with placebo over 10 days. In part 2, patients were enrolled for 48 weeks of combination therapy, with randomization to one of the four dosages of raltegravir or to efavirenz, in addition to tenofovir and lamivudine. Mathematical models were used to investigate processes underlying viral dynamics. RESULTS: From day 15 through to day 57, individuals in the raltegravir arm were significantly more likely to have HIV RNA < 50 copies/ml (P < or = 0.047). Plasma viral loads were 70% lower at initiation of second-phase decay for individuals taking raltegravir than for those taking efavirenz (P < 0.0001). This challenges the current hypothesis that second-phase virus originates from infected long-lived cells, as an integrase inhibitor should not impact on viral production from this cell population. Mathematical modeling supported two hypotheses as consistent with these observations: (i) that second-phase virus arises from cells newly infected by long-lived infected cells and (2) that it arises from activation of latently infected cells with full-length unintegrated HIV DNA. CONCLUSIONS: These observations challenge the current understanding of HIV-1 turnover and compartmentalization. They also indicate the promise of this new integrase inhibitor raltegravir.