Effect of HIV Antibody VRC01 on Viral Rebound after Treatment Interruption.

BACKGROUND: The discovery of potent and broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has made passive immunization a potential strategy for the prevention and treatment of HIV infection. We sought to determine whether passive administration of VRC01, a bNAb targeting the HIV CD4-binding site, can safely prevent or delay plasma viral rebound after the discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We conducted two open-label trials (AIDS Clinical Trials Group [ACTG] A5340 and National Institutes of Health [NIH] 15-I-0140) of the safety, side-effect profile, pharmacokinetic properties, and antiviral activity of VRC01 in persons with HIV infection who were undergoing interruption of ART. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were enrolled, and one serious alcohol-related adverse event occurred. Viral rebound occurred despite plasma VRC01 concentrations greater than 50 µg per milliliter. The median time to rebound was 4 weeks in the A5340 trial and 5.6 weeks in the NIH trial. Study participants were more likely than historical controls to have viral suppression at week 4 (38% vs. 13%, P=0.04 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the A5340 trial; and 80% vs. 13%, P<0.001 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the NIH trial) but the difference was not significant at week 8. Analyses of virus populations before ART as well as before and after ART interruption showed that VRC01 exerted pressure on rebounding virus, resulting in restriction of recrudescent viruses and selection for preexisting and emerging antibody neutralization-resistant virus. CONCLUSIONS: VRC01 slightly delayed plasma viral rebound in the trial participants, as compared with historical controls, but it did not maintain viral suppression by week 8. In the small number of participants enrolled in these trials, no safety concerns were identified with passive immunization with a single bNAb (VRC01). (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTG A5340 and NIH 15-I-0140 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02463227 and NCT02471326 .).

Amdoxovir versus placebo with enfuvirtide plus optimized background therapy for HIV-1-infected subjects failing current therapy (AACTG A5118).

BACKGROUND: Amdoxovir (2,6-diaminopurine dioxolane; DAPD) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) with activity against wild-type and NRTI-resistant viruses. METHODS: ACTG A5118 assessed the antiretroviral activity and safety of DAPD (300 mg orally, twice daily) versus placebo in combination with enfuvirtide (ENF) plus an optimized background (OB) regimen in subjects with failure of two or more antiretroviral (ARV) regimens. The primary endpoints for comparison were time-averaged area under the curve minus baseline (AAUCMB) of plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration at 24 weeks and time to first serious (DAIDS toxicity table Grade > or = 3) adverse event (AE). An unplanned interim review recommended closing enrollment because the study was unlikely to demonstrate a difference between arms. The 18 subjects on study, nine in each arm, were unblinded and allowed to continue study treatment through 48 weeks. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed the median AAUCMB was -0.9 log10 copies/mL (95% CI = -2.2, -.0.1) in the DAPD arm and -0.9 log10 copies/ml (95% CI = -1.1, -0.1) in the placebo arm (P = 0.69). Median CD4+ T-cell increase was 79 cells/mm3 (95% CI =1, 115) in the DAPD arm and 60 (95% CI =1, 101) in the placebo arm (P = 0.45). Time to first serious AE did not differ between arms (P = 0.91). Mild decreases of creatinine clearance were observed with similar frequency between arms; no subject developed lens opacities. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DAPD to ENF plus OB in advanced subjects with highly resistant virus appeared safe, but did not add statistically significant antiretroviral activity at 24 weeks in this small study.

Raltegravir in second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings (SELECT): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: For second-line antiretroviral therapy, WHO recommends a boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, concerns about toxicity and cross-resistance motivated a search for regimens that do not contain NRTIs. We aimed to assess whether boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir would be non-inferior to boosted lopinavir plus NRTIs for virological suppression in resource-limited settings. METHODS: A5273 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) research sites in nine resource-limited countries (three sites each in India and South Africa, two each in Malawi and Peru, and one each in Brazil, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, and Zimbabwe). Adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL after at least 24 weeks on a regimen based on a non-NRTI inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400 mg raltegravir twice a day (raltegravir group) or to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NRTIs selected from an algorithm (eg, zidovudine after failure with tenofovir and vice versa; NRTI group). Randomised group assignment was done with a computer algorithm concealed to site personnel, and stratified by HIV-1 RNA viral load, CD4 cell count, and intention to use zidovudine, with the groups balanced by each site. The primary endpoint was time to confirmed virological failure (two measurements of HIV-1 RNA viral load >400 copies per mL) at or after week 24 in the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing the cumulative probability of virological failure by 48 weeks. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01352715. FINDINGS: Between March 13, 2012, and Oct 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 515 participants: 260 to the raltegravir group and 255 to the NRTI group; two participants in the raltegravir group and one in the NRTI group were excluded from analyses because of ineligibility. By the end of follow-up (October, 2014), 96 participants had virological failure (46 in the raltegravir group and 50 in the NRTI group). By 48 weeks, the cumulative probability of virological failure was 10·3% (95% CI 6·5-14·0) in the raltegravir group and 12·4% (8·3-16·5) in the NRTI group, with a weighted difference of -3·4% (-8·4 to 1·5), indicating that raltegravir was non-inferior, but not superior, to NRTIs. 62 (24%) participants in the raltegravir group and 81 (32%) in the NRTI group had grade 3 or higher adverse events; 19 (7%) and 29 (11%), respectively, had serious adverse events. Three participants in each group died, all from HIV-related causes. INTERPRETATION: In settings with extensive NRTI resistance but no available resistance testing, our data support WHO's recommendation for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus NRTI for second-line antiretroviral therapy. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir is an appropriate alternative, especially if NRTI use is limited by toxicity. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.