A Lead-In with Silibinin Prior to Triple-Therapy Translates into Favorable Treatment Outcomes in Difficult-To-Treat HIV/Hepatitis C Coinfected Patients.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of first-generation protease inhibitor based triple-therapy against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is limited in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver fibrosis and non-response to previous peginterferon-ribavirin. These patients have a low chance of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR) using first generation triple-therapy, with a success rate of only 20%. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin followed by triple-therapy in this difficult-to-treat patient group. METHODOLOGY: Inclusion criteria were HIV/HCV coinfection with advanced liver fibrosis and documented previous treatment failure on peginterferon-ribavirin. The intervention was a lead-in therapy with intravenous silibinin 20 mg/kg/day for 14 days, followed by triple-therapy (peginterferon-ribavirin and telaprevir) for 12 weeks, and peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 36 weeks. Outcome measurements were HCV-RNA after silibinin lead-in and during triple-therapy, SVR data at week 12, and safety and tolerability of silibinin. RESULTS: We examined sixteen HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with previous peginterferon-ribavirin failure, of whom 14 had a fibrosis grade METAVIR ≥F3. All were on successful antiretroviral therapy. Median (IQR) HCV-RNA decline after silibinin therapy was 2.65 (2.1-2.8) log10 copies/mL. Fifteen of sixteen patients (94%) had undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12, eleven patients (69%) showed end-of-treatment response (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 48), and ten patients (63%) reached SVR at week 12 (SVR 12). Six of the sixteen patients (37%) did not reach SVR 12: One patient had rapid virologic response (RVR) (i.e., undetectable HCV-RNA at week 4) but stopped treatment at week 8 due to major depression. Five patients had RVR, but experienced viral breakthroughs at week 21, 22, 25, or 32, or a relapse at week 52. The HIV RNA remained below the limit of detection in all patients during the complete treatment period. No serious adverse events and no significant drug-drug interactions were associated with silibinin. CONCLUSION: A lead-in with silibinin before triple-therapy was safe and highly effective in difficult-to-treat HIV/HCV coinfected patients, with a pronounced HCV-RNA decline during the lead-in phase, which translates into 63% SVR. An add-on of intravenous silibinin to standard of care HCV treatment is worth further exploration in selected difficult-to-treat patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01816490.

Limited clinical benefit of minority K103N and Y181C-variant detection in addition to routine genotypic resistance testing in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients.

OBJECTIVE: The presence of minority nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-resistant HIV-1 variants prior to antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been linked to virologic failure in treatment-naive patients. DESIGN: We performed a large retrospective study to determine the number of treatment failures that could have been prevented by implementing minority drug-resistant HIV-1 variant analyses in ART-naïve patients in whom no NNRTI resistance mutations were detected by routine resistance testing. METHODS: Of 1608 patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study, who have initiated first-line ART with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and one NNRTI before July 2008, 519 patients were eligible by means of HIV-1 subtype, viral load and sample availability. Key NNRTI drug resistance mutations K103N and Y181C were measured by allele-specific PCR in 208 of 519 randomly chosen patients. RESULTS: Minority K103N and Y181C drug resistance mutations were detected in five out of 190 (2.6%) and 10 out of 201 (5%) patients, respectively. Focusing on 183 patients for whom virologic success or failure could be examined, virologic failure occurred in seven out of 183 (3.8%) patients; minority K103N and/or Y181C variants were present prior to ART initiation in only two of those patients. The NNRTI-containing, first-line ART was effective in 10 patients with preexisting minority NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 variant. CONCLUSION: As revealed in settings of case-control studies, minority NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 variants can have an impact on ART. However, the implementation of minority NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 variant analysis in addition to genotypic resistance testing (GRT) cannot be recommended in routine clinical settings. Additional associated risk factors need to be discovered.

Replicative phenotyping adds value to genotypic resistance testing in heavily pre-treated HIV-infected individuals--the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Replicative phenotypic HIV resistance testing (rPRT) uses recombinant infectious virus to measure viral replication in the presence of antiretroviral drugs. Due to its high sensitivity of detection of viral minorities and its dissecting power for complex viral resistance patterns and mixed virus populations rPRT might help to improve HIV resistance diagnostics, particularly for patients with multiple drug failures. The aim was to investigate whether the addition of rPRT to genotypic resistance testing (GRT) compared to GRT alone is beneficial for obtaining a virological response in heavily pre-treated HIV-infected patients. METHODS: Patients with resistance tests between 2002 and 2006 were followed within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS). We assessed patients' virological success after their antiretroviral therapy was switched following resistance testing. Multilevel logistic regression models with SHCS centre as a random effect were used to investigate the association between the type of resistance test and virological response (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL or ≥1.5 log reduction). RESULTS: Of 1158 individuals with resistance tests 221 with GRT+rPRT and 937 with GRT were eligible for analysis. Overall virological response rates were 85.1% for GRT+rPRT and 81.4% for GRT. In the subgroup of patients with >2 previous failures, the odds ratio (OR) for virological response of GRT+rPRT compared to GRT was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00-2.09). Multivariate analyses indicate a significant improvement with GRT+rPRT compared to GRT alone (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.31-2.15). CONCLUSIONS: In heavily pre-treated patients rPRT-based resistance information adds benefit, contributing to a higher rate of treatment success.