Efficacy of enfuvirtide in patients infected with drug-resistant HIV-1 in Europe and Australia.

BACKGROUND: The T-20 vs. Optimized Regimen Only Study 2 (TORO 2) compared the efficacy and safety of 24 weeks of treatment with the fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide in combination with an optimized background antiretroviral regimen with the efficacy and safety of the optimized background regimen alone. METHODS: The patients had previous treatment with each of the three classes of antiretroviral drugs, documented resistance to each class, or both and a plasma level of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA of at least 5000 copies per milliliter. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either enfuvirtide (90 mg twice daily) plus a background regimen optimized with the aid of resistance testing (enfuvirtide group) or the background regimen alone (control group). RESULTS: Of the 512 patients who underwent randomization, 335 in the enfuvirtide group and 169 in the control group received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one follow-up measurement of plasma HIV-1 RNA. The median base-line plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 5.1 log10 copies per milliliter in both groups. The median CD4+ cell count was 98.0 cells per cubic millimeter in the enfuvirtide group and 101.5 cells per cubic millimeter in the control group. Patients had a median of seven years of previous treatment and had received a median of 12 antiretroviral drugs. The background regimen comprised a mean of four antiretroviral drugs in both groups. At 24 weeks, the least-squares mean change from base line in the plasma viral load (intention-to-treat, last observation carried forward) was a decrease of 1.429 log10 copies per milliliter in the enfuvirtide group and a decrease of 0.648 log10 copies per milliliter in the control group, a difference of 0.781 log10 copies per milliliter (P<0.001). The mean increase in the CD4+ cell count was greater in the enfuvirtide group (65.5 cells per cubic millimeter) than in the control group (38.0 cells per cubic millimeter, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of enfuvirtide to an optimized background regimen provided significant viral suppression and immunologic benefit over a 24-week period in HIV-1-infected patients who had previously received multiple antiretroviral drugs.

Enfuvirtide, an HIV-1 fusion inhibitor, for drug-resistant HIV infection in North and South America.

BACKGROUND: The T-20 vs. Optimized Regimen Only Study 1 (TORO 1) was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of enfuvirtide (T-20), a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) fusion inhibitor. METHODS: Patients from 48 sites in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil with at least six months of previous treatment with agents in three classes of antiretroviral drugs, resistance to drugs in these classes, or both, and with at least 5000 copies of HIV-1 RNA per milliliter of plasma were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive enfuvirtide plus an optimized background regimen of three to five antiretroviral drugs or such a regimen alone (control group). The primary efficacy end point was the change in the plasma HIV-1 RNA level from base line to week 24. RESULTS: A total of 501 patients underwent randomization, and 491 received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one measurement of plasma HIV-1 RNA after treatment began. The two groups were balanced in terms of the median base-line HIV-1 RNA level (5.2 log10 copies per milliliter in both groups), median CD4+ cell count (75.5 cells per cubic millimeter in the enfuvirtide group, and 87.0 cells per cubic millimeter in the control group), demographic characteristics, and previous antiretroviral therapy. At 24 weeks, the least-squares mean change from base line in the viral load (intention-to-treat, last observation carried forward) was a decrease of 1.696 log10 copies per milliliter in the enfuvirtide group, and a decrease of 0.764 log10 copies per milliliter in the control group (P<0.001). The mean increases in CD4+ cell count were 76 cells per cubic millimeter and 32 cells per cubic millimeter, respectively (P<0.001). Reactions at the site of the injections were reported by 98 percent of patients receiving enfuvirtide. There were more cases of pneumonia in the enfuvirtide group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of enfuvirtide to an optimized antiretroviral regimen provided significant antiretroviral and immunologic benefit through 24 weeks in patients who had previously received multiple antiretroviral drugs and had multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection.

A controlled Phase II trial assessing three doses of enfuvirtide (T-20) in combination with abacavir, amprenavir, ritonavir and efavirenz in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive HIV-infected adults.

Enfuvirtide is a novel antiretroviral that blocks HIV-1 cell fusion and viral entry. This Phase II, controlled, open-label, randomized, multicentre dose-ranging trial explored the safety, antiviral activity and pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide, administered by subcutaneous (s.c.) injection, in 71 HIV-1-infected, protease inhibitor-experienced, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naive adults for 48 weeks. Study participants were randomized to receive enfuvirtide at a deliverable dose of 45, 67.5 or 90 mg twice daily; the 45 mg twice daily dose required 2 injections/day, while the higher doses required 4 injections/day. A background oral antiretroviral (ARV) regimen of abacavir (300 mg twice daily), amprenavir (1200 mg twice daily), ritonavir (200 mg twice daily) and efavirenz (600 mg once daily) was provided with enfuvirtide. A control group received the background ARV regimen alone. All potential participants underwent an HIV genotype at screen to ensure a homogenous population and to exclude patients with evidence of genotypic resistance to NNRTIs. Overall, the tolerability of the combination of abacavir, amprenavir, ritonavir, efavirenz and enfuvirtide was generally comparable to control through 48 weeks. No enfuvirtide dose-dependent adverse events (AEs) were observed across treatment groups. Injection site reactions (ISRs) occurred at least once in 68.5% of the enfuvirtide-treated population, and most ISRs were mild to moderate in severity, with no apparent dose relationship. Excluding ISRs, the most common treatment-emergent AEs were nausea, diarrhoea, dizziness and fatigue; with no clinically significant differences in the incidence of AEs observed between the control and enfuvirtide groups. Each treatment group benefited from ARV therapy, with a trend of increasing antiviral and immunological activity associated with increasing enfuvirtide dose. At 48 weeks, the median HIV-1 RNA change from baseline for the ITT population was -2.24 log10 copies/ml for the combined enfuvirtide groups compared with -1.87 log10 copies/ml for the control group. In addition, 54.9% of patients in the enfuvirtide group achieved HIV-1 RNA < or = 400 copies/ml versus 36.8% of patients in the control group. These results indicate that enfuvirtide has a favourable safety profile and is a promising new antiviral agent for HIV-infected patients who have been on previously failing ARV regimens.

Safety, tolerability, and plasma pharmacokinetics of high-strength formulations of enfuvirtide (T-20) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: Enfuvirtide, a HIV-1 membrane fusion inhibitor, is the first viral entry inhibitor approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infected patients in the USA. Parenteral administration of enfuvirtide in clinical trials has been safe and has resulted in significant decreases in plasma viral load, even in the setting of extensive previous treatment and multi-drug resistance to conventional antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. Previous formulations have required two injections administered twice-daily (BID). OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of two high-strength 100 mg/ml formulations of enfuvirtide (carbonate [CO(3)] and tromethamine [TRIS] buffer) and of the current formulation (50 mg/ml CO(3) formulation) at doses of 90 mg (deliverable) BID and 67.5 mg (deliverable) BID in treatment-experienced patients. STUDY DESIGN: This was a phase II, multi-center, open-label, sequential cross-over pharmacokinetic, efficacy, and safety study. Study design included two treatment variables; dose (90 mg or 67.5 mg BID) and formulation (A: 50 mg/ml CO(3), B: 100 mg/ml CO(3) or C; 100 mg/ml TRIS). RESULTS: Forty-six treatment-experienced participants were sequentially enrolled into three treatment cohorts. All cohorts had similar safety profiles and only one patient discontinued due to an adverse event. Pharmacokinetic data indicated that the high-strength 100 mg/ml CO(3) formulation was bioequivalent to the 50 mg/ml CO(3) formulation whereas the TRIS formulation was not. At 48 weeks, 59.1%, 66.7% and 16.7% had <400 copies per milliliter HIV-1 RNA in the 90 MgCO(3), 67.5 MgCO(3) and 90 mg TRIS cohorts with median suppression of HIV-1 RNA of 2.97, 3.48, and 0.87 log(10)copies per milliliter, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon bioequivalence data and the convenience and similarity in safety and virological effect with the 50 mg/ml formulation, the 100 mg/ml CO(3) formulation was selected for use in clinical efficacy studies of enfuvirtide.

Enfuvirtide (T-20) cross-reactive glycoprotein 41 antibody does not impair the efficacy or safety of enfuvirtide.

The present study investigated the effect of enfuvirtide cross-reactive glycoprotein 41 (gp41) antibody on the efficacy or safety of enfuvirtide in patients participating in 1 of 2 24-week phase 3 clinical trials (T-20 vs. optimized regimen only [TORO] 1 and TORO 2). Serum samples from human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients receiving enfuvirtide plus optimized background (OB) and from patients receiving OB only were evaluated for enfuvirtide cross-reactive gp41 antibodies. Most patients had detectable levels of antibody at baseline; 78% of patients treated with enfuvirtide plus OB had a > or =30% decrease in level of antibody, compared with 43% of patients treated with OB only. Baseline antibody status did not influence virological responses to enfuvirtide-containing treatment. Favorable virological responses were more common among patients who experienced a > or =30% decrease from baseline than among those who experienced either an increase or a lesser decrease. A decrease in virus load correlated with a decrease in level of antibody. Safety was unaffected by the presence of positive antibody at any time point or change in level of antibody. There was no evidence that enfuvirtide cross-reactive gp41 antibody affects the efficacy or safety of enfuvirtide.