Preclinical characterization of a non-peptidomimetic HIV protease inhibitor with improved metabolic stability.

Protease inhibitors (PIs) remain an important component of antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV-1 infection due to their high genetic barrier to resistance development. Nevertheless, the two most commonly prescribed HIV PIs, atazanavir and darunavir, still require co-administration with a pharmacokinetic boosting agent to maintain sufficient drug plasma levels which can lead to undesirable drug-drug interactions. Herein, we describe GS-9770, a novel investigational non-peptidomimetic HIV PI with unboosted once-daily oral dosing potential due to improvements in its metabolic stability and its pharmacokinetic properties in preclinical animal species. This compound demonstrates potent inhibitory activity and high on-target selectivity for recombinant HIV-1 protease versus other aspartic proteases tested. In cell culture, GS-9770 inhibits Gag polyprotein cleavage and shows nanomolar anti-HIV-1 potency in primary human cells permissive to HIV-1 infection and against a broad range of HIV subtypes. GS-9770 demonstrates an improved resistance profile against a panel of patient-derived HIV-1 isolates with resistance to atazanavir and darunavir. In resistance selection experiments, GS-9770 prevented the emergence of breakthrough HIV-1 variants at all fixed drug concentrations tested and required multiple protease substitutions to enable outgrowth of virus exposed to escalating concentrations of GS-9770. This compound also remained fully active against viruses resistant to drugs from other antiviral classes and showed no in vitro antagonism when combined pairwise with drugs from other antiretroviral classes. Collectively, these preclinical data identify GS-9770 as a potent, non-peptidomimetic once-daily oral HIV PI with potential to overcome the persistent requirement for pharmacological boosting with this class of antiretroviral agents.

Biterapia con atazanavir/ritonavir más raltegravir versus terapia triple en segunda línea: Ensayo ARTE / ATV/r+RAL (DT) after failure with NNRTI

Antecedentes: La terapia dual ha surgido como un nuevo concepto para el tratamiento del VIH. Este estudio tenía como objetivo comparar un régimen dual basado en ATV/r + RAL (TD) frente a estándar de tres drogas con ATV/r + TDF/FTC (TT) luego del fracaso de un primer esquema ba-sado en INNTR.ClinicalTrials.gov, Número: NCT01829802.Método: Estudio piloto abierto, multicéntrico y aleatoriza-do. Resultado primario: proporción de sujetos con ARN del VIH-1 menor a 50 copias/mL en semana 48 (S48). Resulta-dos secundarios: discontinuaciones asociadas a eventos adversos (EA), tiempo transcurrido hasta la supresión viral, desarrollo de mutaciones de resistencia a la integrasa y proteasa, cambio en recuento de CD4. Resultados: De los 57 participantes seleccionados, 34 fue-ron asignados aleatoriamente para recibir: TD (n: 18) o TT (n: 16). En semana 48, 67% (n: 12/18) en TD tuvo respues-ta virológica y 88% (n: 14/16) en rama según el análisis FDA, intención de tratamiento/expuestos (p = NS) y 73% (TD) y 93% (TT) según análisis por protocolo (p = NS). El cambio de CD4 entre basal - S48: +119 y +52 células/µL en DT y TT, respectivamente. Cuatro participantes en TD y uno en TT presentaron fracaso virológico en la semana 48. Un participante desarrolló una mutación de resistencia a integrasa (155H).Conclusión: ATV/r+RAL como terapia dual de segunda línea mostró una tendencia al fracaso virológico más frecuente, en comparación con TT, aunque el estudio piloto no tenía potencia para demostrar esta diferencia. Este estudio está registrado en ClinicalTrials.gov, Número: NCT01829802

Background: Dual therapy has emerged as a novel concept for HIV treatment. This study was aimed at comparing a nucleoside-sparing dual regimen consisting of ATV/r + RAL (DT) vs standard therapy of ATV/r + TDF/FTC (TT) among individuals failing first NNRTI-containing treatment.Methods: Randomized multicenter open-label pilot study. Primary outcome: proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA below the limit of detection (<50 copies/mL) at 48 weeks (W48). Secondary outcomes: proportion of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs), time until viral suppression, time until loss of virological response, development of integrase resistance mutations, and absolute change in CD4 counts. The primary outcome was analyzed using the FDA snapshot analysis.Results: Out of 57 participants screened, 34 were randomized to receive: DT (n: 18) or TT (n: 16). At W48, virological response was achieved in 67% (n: 12/18) of participants receiving DT and 88% (n: 14/16) receiving TT by FDA snapshot analysis (p = NS) and 73% and 93% by per-protocol analysis (p = NS). CD4 cell count median change from baseline to W48 was +119 and + 52 cell/µL in DT and TT, respectively. Four participants receiving DT and one TT presented virological failure at W48, with low pVL. One participant developed an integrase resistance mutation (155H) and suppressed later on TT.Conclusion: ATV/r+RAL as second-line therapy showed a trend to more frequent virological failure, compared to TT, although the study was unpowered to prove this difference. No major differences were seen in tolerance or toxicity.This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT01829802

Uso de Ivermectina e Atazanavir no tratamento da Covid-19: uma revisão de escopo / Use of Ivermectin and Atazanavir in the treatment of Covid-19: a scoping review / Uso de Ivermectina y Atazanavir en el tratamiento de Covid-19: una revisión de alcance

Objetivo: Examinar e mapear as evidências científicas sobre a eficácia do uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de COVID-19. Metodologia: Scoping Review, baseado nos procedimentos recomendados pelo Instituto Joanna Briggs. Estabeleceu-se a pergunta norteadora: "Quais são as evidências científicas sobre o uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de pacientes com sintomas leves de COVID-19?". Foram realizadas buscas em seis bases de dados nacionais e internacionais, sobre trabalhos publicados até dezembro de 2022. Dos 357 estudos encontrados, 22 foram selecionados para leitura na íntegra, resultando em uma amostra final de 11 estudos analisados. Resultados: As 11 publicações analisadas foram publicadas de 2020 a 2022 durante período pandêmico, de âmbito nacional e internacional com delineamento de estudos experimentais, do tipo ensaio clínico com randomização. Apenas 03 estudos (25%) testaram o atazanavir como intervenção conjugada a outras drogas, não evidenciando melhorias significativas em relação ao seu uso. Já no tratamento com Ivermectina, dos oito (75%) estudos que a testaram, apenas três (37,5%) recomendaram seu uso e cinco (62,5%) não suportam seu uso para tratamento de COVID-19 leve. O tempo de resolução dos sintomas variou de 8 a 10 dias nos braços tratados com ivermectina e em média 07 dias no tratamento com atazanavir. Não se detectou eventos adversos graves relacionados ao uso das duas drogas. Conclusão: As evidências que recomendavam o uso de ivermectina datam do início do período pandêmico, 2020, mas posteriormente, com a realização de ensaios clínicos robustos e controlados, novas evidências não suportam o uso de ivermectina e atazanavir no tratamento de COVID-19 leve mostrando que não houve diferença no tempo de resolução dos sintomas, na taxa de mortalidade, taxa de internação na UTI e tempo de hospitalização.

Objective: To examine and map the scientific evidence on the effectiveness of using ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Methodology: Scoping Review, based on the procedures recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The guiding question was established, "What is the scientific evidence on the use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of patients with mild symptoms of COVID-19?" Searches were conducted in six national and international databases on papers published until December 2022. Of the 357 studies found, 22 were selected for reading in full, resulting in a final sample of 11 studies analyzed. Results: The 11 publications analyzed were published from 2020 to 2022 during pandemic period, of national and international scope with experimental study design, of clinical trial type with randomization. Only 03 studies (25%) tested atazanavir as a combined intervention with other drugs, showing no significant improvements in relation to its use. As for the treatment with Ivermectin, of the eight (75%) studies that tested it, only three (37.5%) recommended its use and five (62.5%) did not support its use for treating mild COVID-19. The time to symptom resolution ranged from 8 to 10 days in the ivermectin-treated arms and on average 07 days in the atazanavir treatment. No serious adverse events related to the use of the two drugs were detected. Conclusion: evidence recommending the use of ivermectin dates back to the beginning of the pandemic period, 2020, but subsequently, with robust controlled clinical trials, new evidence does not support the use of ivermectin and atazanavir in the treatment of mild COVID-19 showing that there was no difference in time to symptom resolution, mortality rate, ICU admission rate, and length of hospital stay.

Objetivo: Examinar y mapear la evidencia científica sobre la eficacia del uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de COVID-19. Metodología: Scoping Review, basada en los procedimientos recomendados por el Instituto Joanna Briggs. La pregunta guía era: "¿Cuál es la evidencia científica sobre el uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de pacientes con síntomas leves de COVID-19? Se realizaron búsquedas en seis bases de datos nacionales e internacionales, en artículos publicados hasta diciembre de 2022. De los 357 estudios encontrados, se seleccionaron 22 para su lectura completa, lo que dio lugar a una muestra final de 11 estudios analizados. Resultados: Las 11 publicaciones analizadas fueron publicadas entre 2020 y 2022 durante el periodo pandémico, de ámbito nacional e internacional con diseño de estudio experimental, de tipo ensayo clínico con aleatorización. Apenas 03 estudios (25%) probaron el atazanavir como intervención combinada con otras drogas, sin evidenciar mejoras significativas en relación con su uso. En cuanto al tratamiento con Ivermectina, de los ocho (75%) estudios que la probaron, sólo tres (37,5%) recomendaron su uso y cinco (62,5%) no apoyaron su uso para tratar la COVID-19 leve. El tiempo transcurrido hasta la resolución de los síntomas osciló entre 8 y 10 días en los brazos tratados con ivermectina y una media de 07 días en el tratamiento con atazanavir. No se detectaron acontecimientos adversos graves relacionados con el uso de los dos fármacos. Conclusión: las pruebas que recomiendan el uso de ivermectina se remontan al inicio del periodo pandémico, 2020, pero posteriormente, con ensayos clínicos controlados sólidos, las nuevas pruebas no apoyan el uso de ivermectina y atazanavir en el tratamiento de la COVID-19 leve, lo que demuestra que no hubo diferencias en el tiempo hasta la resolución de los síntomas, la tasa de mortalidad, la tasa de ingreso en la UCI y la duración de la estancia hospitalaria.

Prevalence and predictors of glucose metabolism disorders among People Living with HIV on combination antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated prevalence and predictors of glucose metabolism disorders (GMDs) among People Living with HIV (PLWH) on efavirenz- and atazanavir/ritonavir-based combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved adult PLWH on efavirenz- (n = 240) and atazanavir/ritonavir-based (n = 111) cART. The prevalence of GMDs was determined by fasting serum glucose, insulin, and homeostasis model assessment. A logistic regression model was used to determine predictors. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of GMDs for all regimens was 27.6% (97/351) [95% CI 23.0-32.6%] s, with 31.1% (75/240) [95% CI 25.4-37.5%] for efavirenz-based and 19.8% (22/111) [95% CI 12.9-28.5%)] for atazanavir/ritonavir-based cART group. The prevalence of impaired fasting glycemia was significantly higher (p = 0.026) in the efavirenz- [(15.4%) (37/240); 95%CI (11.1-20.6%)] than atazanavir/ritonavir-based [(7.2%) (8/111), (95%CI (3.2-13.7%)] cART. However, no significant difference was observed in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance between the two regimens. Age ≥46 years old and specific type of ARV contained in cART, such as TDF, were independent predictors of GMD in both groups. Whereas the male gender and BMI category were predictors of GMDs among EFV-based cART group, AZT- and ABC- containing regimens and triglyceride levels were predictors in the ATV/r-based group. CONCLUSIONS: GMDs were highly prevalent among adults on EFV- than ATV/r-based cARTs. Age ≥46 years and TDF-containing cARTs are common predictors in both regimens. Close monitoring for impaired fasting glucose during long-term EFV-based cART is recommended for early diagnosis of type-2 diabetes and management.

Comparing the outcomes of treatment with INF-ß 1-a (interferon beta-1a) and IFN-ß 1-b (interferon beta-1b) among COVID-19 inpatients.

BACKGROUND: IFNßs are known as one of the most promising drugs used for COVID-19 treatment. This study aimed to investigate the effects of treatment with INF-ß 1-a (interferon beta-1a) and IFN-ß 1-b (interferon beta-1b) on COVID-19 inpatients. METHODS: In this study, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical treatment outcomes of 100 patients with COVID-19 who received IFN-ß 1-a and IFN-ß 1-b during their hospitalization period. The rate of discharge from the hospital was considered equal to the clinical improvement and then evaluated as a primary outcome. Moreover, mortality, ICU admission and length of ICU stay, frequency of intubation and use of mechanical ventilation, duration of hospitalization, laboratory factors, and medications were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median discharge time of IFN-ß 1a recipients was approximately equal to that of IFN-ß 1-b recipients as 9 (5-10) days and 7 (5-11) days, respectively (HR = 2.43, P = 0.75). Mortality rate was also estimated as 10% among IFN-ß 1-a recipients and 14% among IFN-ß 1-b recipients, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.190). ICU hospitalization rate for the IFN-ß 1-a recipients and IFN-ß 1-b recipients was 26% and 36%, respectively. In addition, no significant difference was found between these two intervention groups in terms of ICU length of stay (1 (0-2) vs. 1 (0-4.25(, respectively,) P = 0.357). There was no significant difference between the two study groups in terms of frequency of mechanical ventilation and length of hospital stay. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of shortening the disease time, clinical improvements and other outcomes.

Changes in lipidomic profile by anti-retroviral treatment regimen: An ACTG 5257 ancillary study.

ABSTRACT: High cardiovascular disease risk in people living with HIV is partly attributed to antiretroviral therapy (ART). Lipid response to ART has been extensively studied, yet, little is known how small molecule lipids respond to Integrase inhibitor-based (INSTI-based) compared to Protease inhibitor-based (PI-based) ART regimens.Ancillary study to a phase 3, randomized, open-label trial [AIDS Clinical Trial Group A5257 Study] in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r), ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r) (both PI-based), or raltegravir with Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate-TDF plus emtricitabine (RAL, INSTI-based).We examined small molecule lipid response in a subcohort of 75 participants. Lipidomic assays of plasma samples collected pre- and post-ART treatment (48 weeks) were conducted using ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The effect of ART regimens was regressed on lipid species response adjusting for the baseline covariates (lipids, age, sex, race, CD4 level, BMI, and smoking). Results were validated in the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems study (N = 16).Out of 417 annotated lipids, glycerophospholipids (P = .007) and sphingolipids (P = .028) had a higher response to ATV/r and DRV/r compared to RAL. The lysophosphatidylcholine (LPCs(16:1),(17:1),(20:3)) and phosphophatidylcholine species (PCs(40:7),(38:4)) had an opposite response to RAL versus ATV/r in the discovery and validation cohort. The INSTI-based regimen had an opposite response of ceramide species ((d38:1), (d42:2)), PCs((35:2), (38:4)), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs(38:4), (38:6)), and sphingomyelin(SMd38:1) species compared with the PI-based regimens. There were no differences observed between 2 PI-based regimens.We observed differences in response of small molecule lipid species by ART regimens in treatment-naive people living with HIV.

Outcome of a HIV Positive Patient Infected with COVID-19 After an Autologous Bone Marrow Transplantation: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) announced the SARS-COV-2 disease pandemic on March 9, 2020. With the advent of this disease, another health burden was added to about 37.9 million people in the world who are infected with HIV and are suffering from various diseases. These people may be at serious risk of COVID-19. Information about the effects of COVID-19 on people living with HIV, is limited. CASE PRESENTATION: We reported a 61-year-old man who was a known case of HIV from 6 years ago that was being treated with HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy). He also had a history of Hodgkin's lymphoma from 4 years ago who underwent autologous bone marrow transplantation (BMT) 2 weeks before given referral to our hospital. He complained of weakness, anorexia, and fever. RT-PCR for SARS-COV-2-RNA was positive in his nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swab. He was diagnosed with COVID-19 infection and treated with atazanavir. After one week, the patient discharged in a good general state. CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, it is the first report of COVID-19 infection in an HIV positive patient after BMT in Iran. Despite his immunodeficiency, COVID-19 disease had mild manifestations and he had a good prognosis. We hope that our report and that of others can remain promising to doctors and HIV patients cross fingers for COVID-19 recovery.

Identifying side effects of commonly used drugs in the treatment of Covid 19.

To increase the success in Covid 19 treatment, many drug suggestions are presented, and some clinical studies are shared in the literature. There have been some attempts to use some of these drugs in combination. However, using more than one drug together may cause serious side effects on patients. Therefore, detecting drug-drug interactions of the drugs used will be of great importance in the treatment of Covid 19. In this study, the interactions of 8 drugs used for Covid 19 treatment with 645 different drugs and possible side effects estimates have been produced using Graph Convolutional Networks. As a result of the experiments, it has been found that the hematopoietic system and the cardiovascular system are exposed to more side effects than other organs. Among the focused drugs, Heparin and Atazanavir appear to cause more adverse reactions than other drugs. In addition, as it is known that some of these 8 drugs are used together in Covid-19 treatment, the side effects caused by using these drugs together are shared. With the experimental results obtained, it is aimed to facilitate the selection of the drugs and increase the success of Covid 19 treatment according to the targeted patient.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of the Efficacy and Safety of Interferon ß-1a in Treatment of Severe COVID-19.

To the best of our knowledge, there is no published study on the use of interferon ß-1a (IFN ß-1a) in the treatment of severe COVID-19. In this randomized clinical trial, the efficacy and safety of IFN ß-1a were evaluated in patients with severe COVID-19. Forty-two patients in the interferon group received IFN ß-1a in addition to the national protocol medications (hydroxychloroquine plus lopinavir-ritonavir or atazanavir-ritonavir). Each 44-µg/ml (12 million IU/ml) dose of interferon ß-1a was subcutaneously injected three times weekly for two consecutive weeks. The control group consisted of 39 patients who received only the national protocol medications. The primary outcome of the study was time to reach clinical response. Secondary outcomes were duration of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit stay, 28-day mortality, effect of early or late administration of IFN on mortality, adverse effects, and complications during the hospitalization. Between 29 February and 3 April 2020, 92 patients were recruited, and a total of 42 patients in the IFN group and 39 patients in the control group completed the study. As the primary outcome, time to the clinical response was not significantly different between the IFN and the control groups (9.7 ± 5.8 versus 8.3 ± 4.9 days, respectively, P = 0.95). On day 14, 66.7% versus 43.6% of patients in the IFN group and the control group, respectively, were discharged (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 6.37). The 28-day overall mortality was significantly lower in the IFN than the control group (19% versus 43.6%, respectively, P = 0.015). Early administration significantly reduced mortality (OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 1.5 to 118). Although IFN did not change the time to reach the clinical response, adding it to the national protocol significantly increased discharge rate on day 14 and decreased 28-day mortality. (This study is in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials under identifier IRCT20100228003449N28.).

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 15 de maio de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on May 15, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referente ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 21 artigos e 24 protocolos.

Informe diário de evidências COVID-19: busca realizada em 29 de maio de 2020 / COVID-19 daily evidence report: search conducted on May 29, 2020

O Informe Diário de Evidências é uma produção do Ministério da Saúde que tem como objetivo acompanhar diariamente as publicações científicas sobre tratamento farmacológico e vacinas para a COVID-19. Dessa forma, são realizadas buscas estruturadas em bases de dados biomédicas, referente ao dia anterior desse informe. Não são incluídos estudos pré-clínicos (in vitro, in vivo, in silico). A frequência dos estudos é demonstrada de acordo com a sua classificação metodológica (revisões sistemáticas, ensaios clínicos randomizados, coortes, entre outros). Para cada estudo é apresentado um resumo com avaliação da qualidade metodológica. Essa avaliação tem por finalidade identificar o grau de certeza/confiança ou o risco de viés de cada estudo. Para tal, são utilizadas ferramentas já validadas e consagradas na literatura científica, na área de saúde baseada em evidências. Cabe ressaltar que o documento tem caráter informativo e não representa uma recomendação oficial do Ministério da Saúde sobre a temática. Foram encontrados 13 artigos e 13 protocolos.

Atazanavir para a COVID-19: revisão sistemática rápida / Atazanavir for COVID-19: rapid systematic review

CONTEXTO: Esta foi uma revisão rápida desenvolvida durante a epidemia da COVID-19 no Brasil no intuito de informar cientificamente, e de modo imparcial, a tomada de decisão em saúde. OBJETIVOS: Identificar, avaliar sistematicamente e sumarizar as melhores evidências científicas disponíveis sobre a eficácia e a segurança do uso do atazanavir para COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Revisão sistemática rápida (rapid review methodology). RESULTADOS: Foram realizadas buscas sistemáticas nas principais bases de dados, as buscas foram realizadas no dia 13 de abril de 2020 e atualizadas no dia 28 de abril de 2020. Após o processo de seleção, não foi identificado nenhum estudo clínico realizado com o atazanavir para o tratamento de pacientes com COVID-19. Também não há estudos em andamento. Os estudos disponíveis foram realizados in vitro e apresentam resultados contraditórios. Em um dos estudos os autores relataram que não foi observada atividade antiviral do atazanavir contra a SARS CoV-2. Em outro estudo, o atazanavir sozinho e associado ao ritonavir apresentou inibição da replicação viral de SARS-CoV-2 em diferentes linhagens celulares, e a associação de ritonavir ao atazanavir demostrou ser ainda mais potente na inibição da replicação de SARS-CoV-2 comparado com atazanavir sozinho e com cloroquina. A ação inibitória de atazanavir isolado e associado ao ritonavir também foi comprovada em células epiteliais pulmonares humanas. CONCLUSÃO: Apesar dos resultados divergentes dos estudos in vitro, o atazanavir é um medicamento em potencial a ser avaliado em ensaios clínicos quanto a eficácia no tratamento da COVID-19. Até o momento, o uso de atazanavir no tratamento da COVID-19 permanece não comprovado e depende de testes clínicos para que haja avanço no reconhecimento de sua eficácia.(AU)

Antiretroviral Therapy Concentrations Differ in Gut vs. Lymph Node Tissues and Are Associated With HIV Viral Transcription by a Novel RT-ddPCR Assay.

BACKGROUND: Most HIV-infected cells during antiretroviral therapy (ART) persist in lymphoid tissues. Studies disagree on whether suboptimal tissue ART concentrations contribute to ongoing HIV replication during viral suppression. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study in virally-suppressed HIV+ participants measuring lymphoid tissue ART [darunavir (DRV), atazanavir (ATV), and raltegravir (RAL)] concentrations by LC-MS/MS assay. Tissue and plasma ART concentrations were used to estimate TPRs and drug-specific tissue:inhibitory concentration ratios (TICs). HIV DNA and sequentially produced HIV RNA transcripts were quantified from rectal biopsies using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays. RESULTS: Tissue samples were collected in duplicate from 19 participants: 38 rectal, 8 ileal (4 RAL, 2 DRV, 2 ATV), and 6 lymph node (4 RAL, 2 DRV) samples. Overall, median TICs were higher for RAL than DRV or ATV (both P = 0.006). Median TICs were lower in lymph nodes vs. ileum (0.49 vs. 143, P = 0.028) or rectum (33, P = 0.019), and all ART levels were below target concentrations. Higher rectal TICs were associated with lower HIV RNA transcripts (read-through, long LTR, and Nef, P all < 0.026) and a lower long LTR RNA/long LTR DNA ratio (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: We observed higher tissue ART concentrations in ileum and rectum compared with lymph nodes. We observed higher HIV transcription in participants with lower rectal ART concentrations. These findings add to the limited data supporting the idea that viral transcription may be influenced by ART concentrations in lymphoid tissues. Further exploration of tissue pharmacokinetics is needed in future HIV eradication strategies.

Uso de atazanavir para el tratamiento de pacientes con diagnóstico de COVID-19 / Use of atazanavir for the treatment of patients diagnosed with COVID-19

INTRODUCCIÓN: Oseltamivir (Tamiflu ®) es un producto farmacéutico con indicación para el tratamiento y prevención de la gripe por influenza en adultos y en niños1 . A la fecha, ninguna organización internacional, incluyendo la CDC de EEUU2 o la OMS3 ha establecido recomendaciones específicas para el manejo clínico de pacientes con COVID-19 con antivirales o terapias inmunomoduladoras. Esto es, no se dispone de recomendaciones para el uso de Oseltamivir u otro antirretroviral en pacientes con COVID-19 debido a la ausencia de evidencia sobre la eficacia y seguridad de los antirretrovirales en pacientes con COVID-19. METODOS: Ante la ausencia de medicamentos con evidencia de eficacia y seguridad, actualmente la comunidad internacional está alentando a las personas con esta enfermedad a participar en ensayos clínicos que evalúen la eficacia y seguridad de terapias de soporte o terapias específicas para la enfermedad 4 5 . El portal clinical trials de los EEUU (última revisión: 14 de marzo de 2020)6 tiene a la fecha registrados tres ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA) con el objetivo de evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de oseltamivir en ECAs. El primero viene evaluando el uso de oseltamivir, lopinavir-ritonavir y arbidol (NCT04255017, registrado el 05 de febrero de 2020). El segundo, busca evaluar la eficacia y seguridad de ritonavir y oseltamivir (NCT04261270, registrado el 07 de febrero de 2020). El tercer ECA, el uso de diversas combinaciones de inhibidores de la proteasa, oseltamivir, favipiravir y cloroquin para el tratamiento de COVID-19 (NCT04303299, registrado el 11 de marzo del presente año). Estos serían los tres ECA que v

Antiretroviral therapy and vaginally administered contraceptive hormones: a three-arm, pharmacokinetic study.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions between orally administered antiretroviral therapy (ART) and hormones released from an intravaginal ring are not known. We hypothesised that ART containing either efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir would alter plasma concentrations of vaginally administered etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol but that ART concentrations would be unchanged during use of an intravaginal ring. METHODS: We did a parallel, three-group, pharmacokinetic evaluation at HIV clinics in Asia (two sites), South America (five), sub-Saharan Africa (three), and the USA (11) between Dec 30, 2014, and Sept 12, 2016. We enrolled women with HIV who were either ART-naive (control group; n=25), receiving efavirenz-based ART (n=25), or receiving atazanavir-ritonavir-based ART (n=24). Women receiving ART were required to be on the same regimen for at least 30 days, with 400 copies or less per mL of plasma HIV-1 RNA; women not receiving ART had CD4 counts of 350 cells per µL or less. We excluded participants who had a bilateral oophorectomy or conditions that were contraindicated in the intravaginal ring product labelling. An intravaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol was inserted at entry (day 0). Single plasma samples for hormone concentrations were collected on days 7, 14, and 21 after intravaginal ring insertion. The primary outcome was the plasma concentration of etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol on day 21. Etonogestrel and ethinylestradiol concentrations were compared between each ART group and the control group by geometric mean ratio (GMR) with 90% CIs and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. As secondary outcomes, efavirenz or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir concentrations were assessed by 8-h intensive pharmacokinetic sampling at entry before intravaginal ring insertion and before intravaginal ring removal on day 21. Antiretroviral areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-8 h) were compared before and after intravaginal ring insertion by GMR (90% CI) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01903031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 30, 2014, and Sept 12, 2016, we enrolled 84 participants in the study; ten participants were excluded from the primary hormone analysis. 74 participants met the primary endpoint: 25 in the control group, 25 in the efavirenz group, and 24 in the atazanavir group. On day 21 of intravaginal ring use, participants receiving efavirenz had 79% lower etonogestrel (GMR 0·21, 90% CI 0·16-0·28; p<0·0001) and 59% lower ethinylestradiol (0·41, 0·32-0·52; p<0·0001) concentrations compared with the control group. By contrast, participants receiving ritonavir-boosted atazanavir had 71% higher etonogestrel (1·71, 1·37-2·14; p<0·0001), yet 38% lower ethinylestradiol (0·62, 0·49-0·79; p=0·0037) compared with the control group. The AUC0-8 h of efavirenz or atazanavir did not differ between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Hormone exposure was significantly lower when an intravaginal ring contraceptive was combined with efavirenz-based ART. Further studies designed to examine pharmacodynamic endpoints, such as ovulation, when intravaginal ring hormones are combined with efavirenz are warranted. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, through the AIDS Clinical Trials Group and the International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

Confirmation of the drug-drug interaction potential between cobicistat-boosted antiretroviral regimens and hormonal contraceptives.

BACKGROUND: Cobicistat (COBI), a CYP3A inhibitor, is a pharmacokinetic enhancer that increases exposures of the HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) atazanavir (ATV) and darunavir (DRV). The potential drug interaction between COBI-boosted PIs and hormonal contraceptives, which are substrates of intestinal efflux transporters and extensively metabolized by CYP enzymes, glucuronidation and sulfation, was evaluated. METHODS: This was a Phase I, open-label, two cohort (n=18/cohort), fixed-sequence study in healthy females that evaluated the drug-drug interaction (DDI) between multiple-dose ATV+COBI or DRV+COBI and single-dose drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol (EE). DDIs were evaluated using 90% confidence intervals of the geometric least-squares mean ratios of the test (drospirenone/EE+boosted PI) versus reference (drospirenone/EE) using lack of DDI boundaries of 70-143%. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: 29/36 participants completed the study. Relative to drospirenone/EE alone, drospirenone area under the plasma concentration versus time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf) was 1.6-fold and 2.3-fold higher, and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) was unaltered, upon coadministration with DRV+COBI and ATV+COBI, respectively. EE AUCinf decreased 30% with drospirenone/EE + DRV+COBI and was unchanged with ATV+COBI + drospirenone/EE, relative to drospirenone/EE alone. Study treatments were generally well tolerated. The majority of adverse events were mild and consistent with known safety profiles of the compounds. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with COBI-mediated CYP3A inhibition, drospirenone exposure increased following coadministration with COBI-containing regimens, with a greater increase with ATV+COBI. Thus, clinical monitoring for drospirenone-associated hyperkalaemia is recommended with DRV+COBI and ATV+COBI should not be used with drospirenone. Lower EE exposure with DRV+COBI may be attributed to inductive effects of DRV on CYP enzymes and/or intestinal efflux transporters (that is, P-gp) involved in EE disposition.

Risk factors for kidney disease among HIV-1 positive persons in the methadone program.

BACKGROUND: Kidney injury is a serious comorbidity among HIV-infected patients. Intravenous drug use is listed as one of the risk factors for impaired renal function; however, this group is rarely assessed for specific renal-related risks. METHODS: Patients attending methadone program from 1994 to 2015 were included in the study. Data collected included demographic data, laboratory tests, antiretroviral treatment history, methadone dosing and drug abstinence. Patients' drug abstinence was checked monthly on personnel demand. We have evaluated two study outcomes: (1) having at least one or (2) three eGFR < 60 ml/min (MDRD formula). RESULTS: In total, 267 persons, with 2593 person-years of follow-up were included into analyses. At the time of analyses, 251 (94%) were on antiretroviral therapy (ARV). Fifty-two (19.5%) patients had 1eGFR and 20 (7.5%) 3eGFR < 60. In univariate analysis, factors significantly increasing the odds of impaired renal function were: female gender, detectable HIV RNA on ART, age at registration per 5 years older, atazanavir use and time on antiretroviral treatment per 1 year longer. In the multivariate model, only female gender (OR 4.7; p = 0.002), time on cART (OR 1.11; p = 0.01) and baseline eGFR (OR 0.71; p = 0.001) were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated a high rate of kidney function impairment among HIV-1 positive patients in the methadone program. All risk factors for decreased eGFR in this subpopulation of patients were similar to those described for general HIV population with very high prevalence in women. These findings imply the need for more frequent kidney function monitoring in this subgroup of patients.

Similar neurocognitive outcomes after 48 weeks in HIV-1-infected participants randomized to continue tenofovir/emtricitabine + atazanavir/ritonavir or simplify to abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurocognitive disorders can persist in many patients despite achieving viral suppression while on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Neurocognitive function over 48 weeks was evaluated using a Cogstate test battery assessing psychomotor function, attention, learning, and working memory in 293 HIV-1-infected, ART-experienced, and virologically suppressed adults. The ASSURE study randomized participants 1:2 to remain on tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) or simplify to abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir (ABC/3TC + ATV). Neurocognitive z-scores were computed using demographically adjusted normative data and were classified as "impaired" (defined as either a z-score ≤ - 2 or having 2 or more standardized individual test z-scores ≤ - 1); while higher scores (equaling better performance) were classified as "normal". By z-scores, 54.7% of participants had impaired neurocognition at baseline and 50.2% at week 48. There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) in the baseline-adjusted performance between treatment groups for any individual test or by z-score. Specific demographic and medical risk factors were evaluated by univariate analysis for impact on neurocognitive performance. Factors with p < 0.10 were evaluated by backwards regression analysis to identify neurocognition-correlated factors after accounting for treatment, assessment, and baseline. Four risk factors at baseline for impaired neurocognition were initially identified: lower CD4 nadir lymphocyte counts, higher Framingham risk scores, and interleukin-6 levels, and a history of psychiatric disorder not otherwise specified, however none were found to moderate the effect of treatment on neurocognition. In this aviremic, treatment-experienced population, baseline-adjusted neurocognitive function remained stable and equivalent over 48 weeks with both TDF/FTC + ATV/r-treated and in the ART-simplified ABC/3TC + ATV treatment groups.