Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant protein RBD fusion heterodimer vaccine against SARS-CoV-2.

In response to COVID-19 pandemic, we have launched a vaccine development program against SARS-CoV-2. Here we report the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant protein RBD fusion heterodimeric vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (PHH-1V) evaluated in a phase 1-2a dose-escalation, randomized clinical trial conducted in Catalonia, Spain. 30 young healthy adults were enrolled and received two intramuscular doses, 21 days apart of PHH-1V vaccine formulations [10 µg (n = 5), 20 µg (n = 10), 40 µg (n = 10)] or control [BNT162b2 (n = 5)]. Each PHH-1V group had one safety sentinel and the remaining participants were randomly assigned. The primary endpoint was solicited events within 7 days and unsolicited events within 28 days after each vaccination. Secondary endpoints were humoral and cellular immunogenicity against the variants of concern (VOCs) alpha, beta, delta and gamma. All formulations were safe and well tolerated, with tenderness and pain at the site of injection being the most frequently reported solicited events. Throughout the study, all participants reported having at least one mild to moderate unsolicited event. Two unrelated severe adverse events (AE) were reported and fully resolved. No AE of special interest was reported. Fourteen days after the second vaccine dose, all participants had a >4-fold change in total binding antibodies from baseline. PHH-1V induced robust humoral responses with neutralizing activities against all VOCs assessed (geometric mean fold rise at 35 days p < 0.0001). The specific T-cell response assessed by ELISpot was moderate. This initial evaluation has contributed significantly to the further development of PHH-1V, which is now included in the European vaccine portfolio.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05007509EudraCT No. 2021-001411-82.

LiverScreen project: study protocol for screening for liver fibrosis in the general population in European countries.

BACKGROUND: The development of liver cirrhosis is usually an asymptomatic process until late stages when complications occur. The potential reversibility of the disease is dependent on early diagnosis of liver fibrosis and timely targeted treatment. Recently, the use of non-invasive tools has been suggested for screening of liver fibrosis, especially in subjects with risk factors for chronic liver disease. Nevertheless, large population-based studies with cost-effectiveness analyses are still lacking to support the widespread use of such tools. The aim of this study is to investigate whether non-invasive liver stiffness measurement in the general population is useful to identify subjects with asymptomatic, advanced chronic liver disease. METHODS: This study aims to include 30,000 subjects from eight European countries. Subjects from the general population aged ≥ 40 years without known liver disease will be invited to participate in the study either through phone calls/letters or through their primary care center. In the first study visit, subjects will undergo bloodwork as well as hepatic fat quantification and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by vibration-controlled transient elastography. If LSM is ≥ 8 kPa and/or if ALT levels are ≥1.5 x upper limit of normal, subjects will be referred to hospital for further evaluation and consideration of liver biopsy. The primary outcome is the percentage of subjects with LSM ≥ 8kPa. In addition, a health economic evaluation will be performed to assess the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of such an intervention. The project is funded by the European Commission H2020 program. DISCUSSION: This study comes at an especially important time, as the burden of chronic liver diseases is expected to increase in the coming years. There is consequently an urgent need to change our current approach, from diagnosing the disease late when the impact of interventions may be limited to diagnosing the disease earlier, when the patient is asymptomatic and free of complications, and the disease potentially reversible. Ultimately, the LiverScreen study will serve as a basis from which diagnostic pathways can be developed and adapted to the specific socio-economic and healthcare conditions in each country. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03789825 ).

Population screening for liver fibrosis: Toward early diagnosis and intervention for chronic liver diseases.

Cirrhosis, highly prevalent worldwide, develops after years of hepatic inflammation triggering progressive fibrosis. Currently, the main etiologies of cirrhosis are non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol-related liver disease, although chronic hepatitis B and C infections are still major etiological factors in some areas of the world. Recent studies have shown that liver fibrosis can be assessed with relatively high accuracy noninvasively by serological tests, transient elastography, and radiological methods. These modalities may be utilized for screening for liver fibrosis in at-risk populations. Thus far, a limited number of population-based studies using noninvasive tests in different areas of the world indicate that a significant percentage of subjects without known liver disease (around 5% in general populations and a higher rate -18% to 27%-in populations with risk factors for liver disease) have significant undetected liver fibrosis or established cirrhosis. Larger international studies are required to show the harms and benefits before concluding that screening for liver fibrosis should be applied to populations at risk for chronic liver diseases. Screening for liver fibrosis has the potential for changing the current approach from diagnosing chronic liver diseases late when patients have already developed complications of cirrhosis to diagnosing liver fibrosis in asymptomatic subjects providing the opportunity of preventing disease progression.

Effect of Intranodally Administered Dendritic Cell-Based HIV Vaccine in Combination With Pegylated Interferon α-2a on Viral Control Following ART Discontinuation: A Phase 2A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Introduction: Functional cure has been proposed as an alternative to lifelong antiretroviral therapy and therapeutic vaccines represent one of the most promising approaches. Materials and Methods: We conducted a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the safety, immunogenicity, and effect on viral dynamics of a therapeutic vaccine produced with monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MD-DC) loaded with a high dose of heat-inactivated autologous (HIA) HIV-1 in combination with pegylated interferon alpha 2a (IFNα-2a) in people with chronic HIV-1. Results: Twenty-nine male individuals on successful ART and with CD4+ ≥450 cells/mm3 were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive three ultrasound-guided inguinal intranodal immunizations, one every 2 weeks: (1) vaccine ~107 MD-DC pulsed with HIA-HIV-1 (1010 HIV RNA copies) (n = 8); (2) vaccine plus three doses of 180 mcg IFNα-2a at weeks 4-6 (n = 6); (3) placebo = saline (n = 7); and (4) placebo plus three doses of 180 mcg IFNα-2a (n = 8). Thereafter, treatment was interrupted (ATI). Vaccines, IFNα-2a, and the administration procedures were safe and well tolerated. All patients' viral load rebounded during the 12-week ATI period. According to groups, changes in viral set-point between pre-ART and during ATI were not significant. When comparing all groups, there was a tendency in changes in viral set-point between the vaccine group vs. vaccine + IFNα-2a group (>0.5log10p = 0.05). HIV-1-specific T-cell responses (IFN-Æ´ Elispot) were higher at baseline in placebo than in the vaccine group (2,259 ± 535 vs. 900 ± 200 SFC/106 PBMC, p = 0.028). A significant difference in the change of specific T-cell responses was only observed at week 4 between vaccine and placebo groups (694 ± 327 vs. 1,718 ± 282 SFC/106 PBMC, p = 0.04). No effect on T-cell responses or changes in viral reservoir were observed after INFα-2a administration. Discussion: Results from this study show that intranodally administered DC therapeutic vaccine in combination with IFNα-2a was safe and well-tolerated but had a minimal impact on viral dynamics in HIV-1 chronic infected participants. Clinical Trial Registration: (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), identifier NCT02767193.

Safety of two different doses of simvastatin plus rifaximin in decompensated cirrhosis (LIVERHOPE-SAFETY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Statins have beneficial effects on intrahepatic circulation and decrease portal hypertension and rifaximin modulates the gut microbiome and might prevent bacterial translocation in patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, this drug combination might be of therapeutic benefit in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. However, there is concern regarding the safety of statins in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. We assessed the safety of two different doses of simvastatin, in combination with rifaximin, in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. METHODS: We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in patients with decompensated cirrhosis and moderate-to-severe liver failure from nine university hospitals in six European countries (Italy, France, Holland, Germany, the UK, and Spain). Patients older than 18 years with Child-Pugh class B or C disease were eligible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive either simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day, simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day, or placebo of both medications for 12 weeks. Randomisation was stratified according to Child-Pugh class (B vs C) and restricted using blocks of multiples of three. The primary endpoint was development of liver or muscle toxicity, as defined by changes in liver aminotransferases (aspartate aminotransferase [AST] and alanine aminotransferase [ALT]), alkaline phosphastase, and creatine kinase. The study is registered with the European Union Clinical Trials Register, 2016-004499-23, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03150459. FINDINGS: The study recruitment period was between July 28, 2017, and Jan 2, 2018. Follow-up finished on March 12, 2018. 50 patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day (n=18), simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day (n=16), or placebo of both medications (n=16). Six patients (two from each group) were excluded. Therefore, the full analysis set included 44 patients (16 in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin 1200 mg/day group, 14 in the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin mg/day group, and 14 in the placebo group). After a safety analyses when the first ten patients completed treatment, treatment was stopped prematurely in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group due to recommendations by the data safety monitoring board. Patients in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group showed a significant increase in AST and ALT compared with the placebo group (mean differences between the groups at the end of treatment for AST 130 IU/L [95% CI 54 to 205; p=0·0009] and for ALT 61 IU/L [22 to 100; p=0·0025]. We observed no significant differences at 12 weeks in AST and ALT between the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin and placebo group (for AST -14 IU/L [-91 to 64; p=0·728] and for ALT -8 IU/L [-49 to 33; p=0·698]). We observed no significant differences in alkaline phosphatase between the the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin or the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin groups compared with placebo. Patients in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group showed an increase in creatine kinase at the end of treatment compared with patients in the placebo group (1009 IU/L [208 to 1809]; p=0·014). We observed no significant changes in creatine kinase in the simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin group (4·2 IU/L [-804 to 813]; p=0·992). Three (19%) patients in the simvastatin 40 mg/day group developed liver and muscle toxicity consistent with rhabdomyolysis. The number of patients who stopped treatment because of adverse events was significantly higher in the simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin group (nine [56%] of 16 patients) compared with the other two groups (two [14%] of 14 for both groups; p=0·017). There were no serious unexpected adverse reactions reported during the study. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with simvastatin 40 mg/day plus rifaximin in patients with decompensated cirrhosis was associated with a significant increase in adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal, particularly rhabdomyolysis, compared with simvastatin 20 mg/day plus rifaximin. We recommend simvastatin 20 mg/day as the dose to be used in studies investigating the role of statins in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. FUNDING: Horizon 20/20 European programme.

Comparison of Safety and Vector-Specific Immune Responses in Healthy and HIV-Infected Populations Vaccinated with MVA-B.

There are few studies comparing the safety and immunogenicity of the same HIV immunogen in healthy volunteers and HIV-infected individuals. We analyzed demographics, adverse events (AEs), and immunogenicity against vaccinia virus in preventive (RISVAC02, n = 24 low-risk HIV-negative volunteers) and therapeutic (RISVAC03, n = 20 successfully treated chronically HIV-1-infected individuals) vaccine phase-I clinical trials that were performed with the same design and the same immunogen (modified vaccinia virus Ankara-B: MVA-B). Total AEs were significantly higher in HIV-infected patients (mean AEs/patient 6.6 vs. 12.8 (p < 0.01)). Conversely, the number of AEs related to vaccination (AEsRV) was similar between both groups. No grade III or IV AEsRV were observed in either clinical trial. Regarding the immunogenicity, the proportion of anti-vaccinia virus antibody responders was similar in both studies. Conversely, the magnitude of response was significantly higher in HIV-infected patients (median binding antibodies at w8 267 vs. 1600 U/mL (p = 0.002) and at w18 666 vs. 3200 U/mL (p = 0.003)). There was also a trend towards higher anti-vaccinia virus neutralizing activity in HIV-infected individuals (proportion of responders 37% vs. 63% (p = 0.09); median IC50 32 vs. 64 (p = 0.054)). This study confirms the safety of MVA-B independent of HIV serostatus. HIV-infected patients showed higher immune responses against vaccinia virus.

Phase I clinical trial of an intranodally administered mRNA-based therapeutic vaccine against HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of therapeutic vaccines against HIV-1 infection has been modest. New inerts to redirect responses to vulnerable sites are urgently needed to improve these results. DESIGN: We performed the first-in-human clinical trial with naked mRNA (iHIVARNA) combining a dendritic cell activation strategy (TriMix:CD40L+CD70+caTLR4 RNA) with a novel HIV immunogen sequences (HTI immunogen). METHODS: A dose escalation, phase I clinical trial was performed in 21 chronic HIV-1-infected patients under ART who received three intranodal doses of mRNA (weeks 0, 2 and 4) as follow: TriMix-100 g, TriMix-300 g, TriMix-300 g with HTI-300 g, TriMix-300 g with HTI-600 g, TriMix-300 g with HTI-900 g. Primary end-point was safety and secondary-exploratory end-points were immunogenicity, changes in viral reservoir and transcriptome. RESULTS: Overall, the vaccine was secure and well tolerated. There were 31 grade 1/2 and 1 grade 3 adverse events, mostly unrelated to the vaccination. Patients who received the highest dose showed a moderate increase in T-cell responses spanning HTI sequence at week 8. In addition, the proportion of responders receiving any dose of HTI increased from 31% at w0 to 80% postvaccination. The intervention had no impact on caHIV-DNA levels, however, caHIV-RNA expression and usVL were transiently increased at weeks 5 and 6 in the highest dose of iHIVARNA, and these changes were positively correlated with HIV-1-specific-induced immune responses. CONCLUSION: This phase I dose-escalating trial showed that iHIVARNA administration was safe and well tolerated, induced moderate HIV-specific T-cell responses and transiently increased different viral replication readouts. These data support further exploration of iHIVARNA in a phase II study. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02413645.

Correction: Safety and vaccine-induced HIV-1 immune responses in healthy volunteers following a late MVA-B boost 4 years after the last immunization.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0186602.].

Safety and vaccine-induced HIV-1 immune responses in healthy volunteers following a late MVA-B boost 4 years after the last immunization.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that an HIV vaccine regimen including three doses of HIV-modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector expressing HIV-1 antigens from clade B (MVA-B) was safe and elicited moderate and durable (1 year) T-cell and antibody responses in 75% and 95% of HIV-negative volunteers (n = 24), respectively (RISVAC02 study). Here, we describe the long-term durability of vaccine-induced responses and the safety and immunogenicity of an additional MVA-B boost. METHODS: 13 volunteers from the RISVAC02 trial were recruited to receive a fourth dose of MVA-B 4 years after the last immunization. End-points were safety, cellular and humoral immune responses to HIV-1 and vector antigens assessed by ELISPOT, intracellular cytokine staining (ICS) and ELISA performed before and 2, 4 and 12 weeks after receiving the boost. RESULTS: Volunteers reported 64 adverse events (AEs), although none was a vaccine-related serious AE. After 4 years from the 1st dose of the vaccine, only 2 volunteers maintained low HIV-specific T-cell responses. After the late MVA-B boost, a modest increase in IFN-γ T-cell responses, mainly directed against Env, was detected by ELISPOT in 5/13 (38%) volunteers. ICS confirmed similar results with 45% of volunteers showing that CD4+ T-cell responses were mainly directed against Env, whereas CD8+ T cell-responses were similarly distributed against Env, Gag and GPN. In terms of antibody responses, 23.1% of the vaccinees had detectable Env-specific binding antibodies 4 years after the last MVA-B immunization with a mean titer of 96.5. The late MVA-B boost significantly improved both the response rate (92.3%) and the magnitude of the systemic binding antibodies to gp120 (mean titer of 11460). HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies were also enhanced and detected in 77% of volunteers. Moreover, MVA vector-specific T cell and antibody responses were boosted in 80% and 100% of volunteers respectively. CONCLUSIONS: One boost of MVA-B four years after receiving 3 doses of the same vaccine was safe, induced moderate increases in HIV-specific T cell responses in 38% of volunteers but significantly boosted the binding and neutralizing antibody responses to HIV-1 and to the MVA vector. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01923610.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus raltegravir each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing two regimens. METHODS: A prospective, open, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV were randomized to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or raltegravir (400 mg). The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01576731. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-twenty-one individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 122 to raltegravir (n = 243). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 43% with no significant difference between arms. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 191). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm than in the raltegravir arm (34.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.04), as was the number of patients lost to follow-up at day 28 (32.6% versus 21.6%, P = 0.08) and the proportion of patients with low adherence (49.2% versus 30.8%, P = 0.03). Adverse events were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (73.4% versus 60.2%, P = 0.007). There was an HIV seroconversion at day 90 in the raltegravir arm in a patient who had multiple potential sexual risk exposures before and after receiving PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no differences between arms regarding PEP non-completion, poor adherence and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data support the use of raltegravir as the preferred third drug in current PEP recommendations.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS: PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

Dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression (OLE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess therapeutic non-inferiority of dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir and lamivudine to triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients from 32 HIV units in hospitals in Spain and France. Eligible patients were HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL, for at least 6 months on triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir (twice daily) plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide, with no resistance or virological failure to these drugs, and no positive hepatitis B serum surface antigen. Investigators at each centre randomly assigned patients (1:1; block size of four; stratified by time to suppression [<1 year or >1 year] and nadir CD4 cell count [<100 cells per µL or >100 cells per µL]; computer-generated random sequence) to continue triple treatment or switch to dual treatment (oral lopinavir 400 mg and oral ritonavir 100 mg twice daily plus oral lamivudine 300 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was response to treatment in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients) at 48 weeks. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01471821. FINDINGS: Between Oct 1, 2011, and April 1, 2013, we randomly assigned 250 participants to continue triple treatment (127 [51%] patients) or switch to dual treatment (123 [49%] patients). In the intention-to-treat population, 110 (86·6%) of 127 patients in the triple-treatment group responded to treatment versus 108 (87·8%) of 123 in the dual-treatment group (difference -1·2% [95% CI -9·6 to 7·3]; p=0·92), meeting the criteria for non-inferiority. Serious adverse events occurred in eight (7%) patients in the triple-treatment group and five (4%) in the dual-treatment group (p=0·515), and study drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in four (3%) in the triple-treatment group and one (1%) in the dual-treatment group (p=0·223). INTERPRETATION: Dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine has non-inferior therapeutic efficacy and is similarly tolerated to triple treatment. FUNDING: AbbVie and Red Temática Cooperativa de Investigación en Sida.

Safety and immunogenicity of a modified vaccinia Ankara-based HIV-1 vaccine (MVA-B) in HIV-1-infected patients alone or in combination with a drug to reactivate latent HIV-1.

OBJECTIVES: The safety, immunogenicity, impact on the latent reservoir and rebound of viral load after therapeutic HIV-1 vaccination with recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara-based (MVA-B) HIV-1 vaccine expressing monomeric gp120 and the fused Gag-Pol-Nef polyprotein of clade B with or without a drug to reactivate latent HIV-1 (disulfiram) were assessed. METHODS: HIV-1-infected patients were randomized to receive three injections of MVA-B (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10). Twelve patients (eight who received vaccine and four who were given placebo) received a fourth dose of MVA-B followed by 3 months of disulfiram. Combined ART (cART) was discontinued 8 weeks after the last dose of MVA-B. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01571466. RESULTS: MVA-B was safe and well tolerated. A minor, but significant, increase in the T cell responses targeting vaccine inserts of Gag was observed [a median of 290, 403 and 435 spot-forming-cells/10(6) PBMCs at baseline, after two vaccinations and after three vaccinations, respectively; P = 0.02 and P = 0.04]. After interruption of cART, a modest delay in the rebound of the plasma viral load in participants receiving vaccine but not disulfiram was observed compared with placebo recipients (P = 0.01). The dynamics of the viral load rebound did not change in patients receiving MVA-B/disulfiram. No changes in the proviral reservoir were observed after disulfiram treatment. CONCLUSIONS: MVA-B vaccination was a safe strategy to increase Gag-specific T cell responses in chronically HIV-1-infected individuals, but it did not have a major impact on the latent reservoir or the rebound of plasma viral load after interruption of cART when given alone or in combination with disulfiram.

Differential body composition effects of protease inhibitors recommended for initial treatment of HIV infection: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether metabolic or body composition effects differ between protease inhibitor-based regimens recommended for initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. METHODS: ATADAR is a phase 4, open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Stable antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults were randomly assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine daily. Predefined endpoints were treatment or virological failure, drug discontinuation due to adverse effects, and laboratory and body composition changes at 96 weeks. RESULTS: At 96 weeks, 56 (62%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 62 (71%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of treatment failure (estimated difference 8.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -.6 to 21.6) and 71 (79%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 75 (85%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of virological failure (estimated difference 6.3%; 95% CI, -.5 to 17.6). Seven patients discontinued atazanavir/ritonavir and 5 discontinued darunavir/ritonavir due to adverse effects. Total and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol similarly increased in both arms, but there was a greater increase in triglycerides in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm. At 96 weeks, body fat (estimated difference 2862.2 gr; 95% CI, 726.7 to 4997.7; P = .0090), limb fat (estimated difference 1403.3 gr; 95% CI, 388.4 to 2418.2; P = .0071), and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (estimated difference 28.4 cm(2); 95% CI, 1.9 to 55.0; P = .0362) increased more in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm than in darunavir/ritonavir arm. Body fat changes in the atazanavir/ritonavir arm were associated with higher insulin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: We found no major differences between atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir in efficacy, clinically relevant side effects, or plasma cholesterol fractions. However, atazanavir/ritonavir led to higher triglycerides and more total and subcutaneous fat than darunavir/ritonavir. Also, fat gains with atazanavir/ritonavir were associated with insulin resistance. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01274780.

Creatine kinase elevation in HIV-1-infected patients receiving raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for significant creatine kinase elevation in HIV-1-infected patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort involving all consecutive patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral regimen between June 2005 and December 2010. METHODS: Significant creatine kinase elevation was defined as an elevation of at least 3-fold from the upper limit of normal (ULN) (grade 2, WHO classification) while receiving raltegravir. Blood analysis at each visit included at least creatine kinase, as well as plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count. RESULTS: There were 475 patients who had been exposed to raltegravir for a median of 11.5 (IQR 8.2-15.2) months. An increase of creatine kinase ≥ 3-fold ULN was detected in 53 (11.2%) patients, representing an incidence of 3.8/100 person-years. Symptoms were reported by seven patients (1.5%), they showed either grade 1 (n = 3) or 2 (n = 4) creatine kinase increases. The median duration of raltegravir therapy before creatine kinase elevation was 5.9 (IQR 3.3-9.3) months. Evidence of creatine kinase elevation prior to raltegravir therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 3.30; 95% CI 1.59 ± 6.86; P = 0.001], abnormal baseline creatine kinase (HR 3.24; 95% CI 1.63 ± 6.45; P = 0.001) and male gender (HR 4.17; 95% CI 1.33 ± 1.27; P = 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for creatine kinase elevation during raltegravir treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Although ≈ 1 in 10 patients on raltegravir therapy developed significant creatine kinase elevation as defined in this study, symptoms were uncommon, not severe and occurred in patients with easily identifiable risk factors.

Abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir/emtricitabine in virologically suppressed patients switching from ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors to raltegravir.

There are few clinical data on the combination abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir. We compared the outcomes of patients from the SPIRAL trial receiving either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine at baseline who had taken at least one dose of either raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. For the purpose of this analysis, treatment failure was defined as virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/ml) or discontinuation of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events, consent withdrawal, or lost to follow-up. There were 143 (72.59%) patients with tenofovir/emtricitabine and 54 (27.41%) with abacavir/lamivudine. In the raltegravir group, there were three (11.11%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and eight (10.96%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference 0.15%; 95% CI -17.90 to 11.6). In the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group, there were four (14.81%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and 12 (17.14%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference -2.33%; 95% CI -16.10 to 16.70). Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased through the study more pronouncedly with abacavir/lamivudine than with tenofovir/emtricitabine and differences in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio between both combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tended to be higher in the raltegravir group, although differences at 48 weeks were not significant. While no patient discontinued abacavir/lamivudine due to adverse events, four (2.80%) patients (all in the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group) discontinued tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events (p=0.2744). The results of this analysis do not suggest that outcomes of abacavir/lamivudine are worse than those of tenofovir/emtricitabine when combined with raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults.

Changes in cardiovascular biomarkers in HIV-infected patients switching from ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors to raltegravir.

BACKGROUND: : Switching from boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) to raltegravir (RAL) results in a better plasma lipid profile than continuing PI/r. Whether this strategy affects plasma biomarkers associated with atherosclerosis is unknown. METHODS: : We assessed 48-week changes in fasting lipids and several biomarkers including serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), osteoprotegerin, interleukin (IL) 6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), E-selectin and P-selectin, adiponectin, insulin, and D-dimer in otherwise healthy, virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients treated with PI/r who randomly switched from PI/r to RAL or continued with PI/r in the SPIRAL trial. Biomarkers and lipids at baseline and 48-week changes between both study arms were compared. Correlations between changes in biomarkers and changes in lipids were also evaluated. RESULTS: : Of 273 patients initiating study drugs in the SPIRAL trial, 233 (119 RAL, 114 PI/r) remained on allocated therapy for 48 weeks and had sera available for the purpose of this substudy. Triglycerides (-28%, P < 0.0001), total (-14%, P < 0.0001), low-density lipoprotein (-9%, P = 0.0069), and high-density lipoprotein (-10%, P = 0.0017) cholesterol decreased in RAL relative to the PI/r group. Among biomarkers, hsCRP (-40%, P < 0.0001), MCP-1 (-20%, P = 0.0003), osteoprotegerin (-13%, P = 0.0024), IL-6 (-46%,P < 0.0001), TNF-α (-27%, P = 0.0011), insulin (-26%, P < 0.0001), and D-dimer (-8%, P = 0.0187) decreased in RAL relative to PI/r group, whereas IL-10 (+1%, P = 0.7773), ICAM-1 (-6%, P = 0.1255), VCAM-1(0%, P = 0.8671), E-selectin (-9%, P = 0.2174), P-selectin (-6%, P = 0.3865), and adiponectin (+8%, P = 0.2028) remained unchanged. Biomarkers and lipids changes at 48 weeks were weakly correlated. CONCLUSION: : Switching from PI/r to RAL induced significant changes in several cardiovascular biomarkers that were not completely explained by lipid changes.

Safety and immunogenicity of a modified pox vector-based HIV/AIDS vaccine candidate expressing Env, Gag, Pol and Nef proteins of HIV-1 subtype B (MVA-B) in healthy HIV-1-uninfected volunteers: A phase I clinical trial (RISVAC02).

BACKGROUND: To investigate the safety and immunogenicity of a modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector expressing HIV-1 antigens from clade B (MVA-B), a phase-I, doubled-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed. METHODS: 30 HIV-uninfected volunteers at low risk of HIV-1 infection were randomly allocated to receive 3 intramuscular injections (1×10(8)pfu/dose) of MVA-B (n=24) or placebo (n=6) at weeks 0, 4 and 16. All volunteers were followed 48 weeks. Primary end-points were adverse events and immunogenicity. RESULTS: A total of 169 adverse events were reported, 164 of grade 1-2, and 5 of grade 3 (none related to vaccination). Overall 75% of the volunteers showed positive ELISPOT responses at any time point. The magnitude (median) of the total responses induced was 288SFC/10(6)PBMC at week 18. Antibody responses against Env were observed in 95% and 72% of vaccinees at week 18 and 48, respectively. HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies were detected in 33% of volunteers. CONCLUSIONS: MVA-B was safe, well tolerated and elicited strong and durable T-cell and antibody responses in 75% and 95% of volunteers, respectively. These data support further exploration of MVA-B as an HIV-1 vaccine candidate. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT00679497.