Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for treatment of hepatitis C virus in sofosbuvir-experienced, NS5A treatment-naïve patients: Findings from two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We report data from two similarly designed studies that evaluated the efficacy, safety, and optimal duration of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) ± ribavirin (RBV) for retreatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) in individuals who failed to achieve sustained virological response (SVR) with prior SOF-based, non-NS5A inhibitor-containing regimens. METHODS: The RESCUE study enrolled HCV mono-infected adults with genotype (GT) 1 or 4. Non-cirrhotic participants were randomized to 12 weeks of LDV/SOF or LDV/SOF + RBV. Compensated cirrhotic participants were randomized to LDV/SOF + RBV (12 weeks) or LDV/SOF (24 weeks). The AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5348 study randomized genotype 1 adults with HCV/HIV co-infection to LDV/SOF + RBV (12 weeks) or LDV/SOF (24 weeks). Both studies used SVR at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: In the RESCUE study, 82 participants were randomized and treated, and all completed treatment. Overall, SVR12 was 88% (72/82); 81-100% in non-cirrhotic participants treated with LDV/SOF or LDV/SOF + RBV for 12 weeks and 80-92% in cirrhotic participants treated with LDV/SOF + RBV for 12 weeks or LDV/SOF for 24 weeks. Adverse events (AEs), mostly mild-to-moderate in severity, were experienced by 78% of participants, with headache and fatigue most frequently reported. One serious AE, not related to treatment, was observed. No premature discontinuations of study drug, or deaths occurred. In the A5348 study, seven participants were randomized (cirrhotic n = 1; GT1a n = 5) and all attained SVR12, with no serious AEs or premature discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: In this SOF-experienced, NS5A inhibitor-naïve population, which included participants with cirrhosis or HCV/HIV co-infection, high SVR12 rates were achieved.

HIV/HCV therapy with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir after randomized switch to emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide-based single-tablet regimens.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines advocate the treatment of HCV in all HIV/HCV co-infected individuals. The aim of this randomized, open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02707601; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02707601) was to evaluate the safety/efficacy of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) co-administered with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) or rilpivirine/F/TAF (R/F/TAF) in HIV-1/HCV co-infected participants. METHODS: Participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and chronic HCV-genotype (GT) 1 (HCV treatment-naïve ± compensated cirrhosis or HCV treatment-experienced non-cirrhotic) were randomized 1:1 to switch to E/C/F/TAF or R/F/TAF. If HIV suppression was maintained at Week 8, participants received 12 weeks of LDV/SOF. The primary endpoint was sustained HCV virologic response 12 weeks after LDV/SOF completion (SVR12). RESULTS: Of 150 participants, 148 received ≥1 dose of HIV study drug and 144 received LDV/SOF (72 in each F/TAF group; 83% GT1a, 94% HCV treatment-naïve, 12% cirrhotic). Overall, SVR12 was 97% (95% confidence interval: 93-99%). Black race did not affect SVR12. Of four participants not achieving SVR12, one had HCV relapse, one had HCV virologic non-response due to non-adherence, and two missed the post-HCV Week 12 visit. Of 148 participants, 96% receiving E/C/F/TAF and 95% receiving R/F/TAF maintained HIV suppression at Week 24; no HIV resistance was detected. No participant discontinued LDV/SOF or E/C/F/TAF due to adverse events; one participant discontinued R/F/TAF due to worsening of pre-existing hypercholesterolemia. Renal toxicity was not observed in either F/TAF regimen during LDV/SOF co-administration. In conclusion, high rates of HCV SVR12 and maintenance of HIV suppression were achieved with LDV/SOF and F/TAF-based regimens. CONCLUSION: This study supports LDV/SOF co-administered with an F/TAF-based regimen in HIV-1/HCV-GT1 co-infected patients.

Serious renal impairment occurs rarely with use of tenofovir DF.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effects (up to 6 months) of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) use on renal function in patients being treated for HIV-1 infection. METHOD: The charts of 447 HIV-1-infected patients who received at least three months of tenofovir DF treatment were reviewed. Data collected included demographics, concurrent antiretrovirals, other concurrent medications, CD4 counts and HIV-1 viral loads, and serum creatinine values while on tenofovir DF. Data collection was truncated at 6 months. RESULTS: Baseline serum creatinine (SCr) was 1.0 mg/dL, with a calculated creatinine clearance (CLCr) of 95.2 mL/min (using the Cockroft-Gault equation). There was no significant change in SCr or CLCr at 12 weeks (1.1 mg/dL and 92.7 mL/min, respectively) or 24 weeks (1.1 mg/dL and 92.9 mL/min, respectively). All three patients with grade 2 increases in SCr had other medical reasons for an increased SCr (one patient each had indinavir-associated nephrolithiasis, lactic acidosis, and pancreatitis). No patients experienced any complications from these increases in SCr. CONCLUSION: Increases in SCr and CLCr within the first 6 months of tenofovir DF therapy were rare. Although no clinical nephrotoxicity was observed, continued observation of renal function is warranted in patients predisposed to renal impairment.

Early virologic failure in a pilot study evaluating the efficacy of therapy containing once-daily abacavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir DF in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients.

Previous investigational data using abacavir (ABC), lamuvidine (3TC), and zidovudine has suggested the possibility of triple nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) therapy as an option in the treatment of HIV infection. We performed a pilot study to assess the potency of once daily ABC+ 3TC+ tenofovir (TDF) in the treatment of HIV-infected naive patients. CD4 and HIV-viral load (VL) were followed monthly. Patients were considered to be nonresponder/failing if there was no reduction in VL by >/= 2 log(10) by week 8 and/or a rebound in VL after initial suppression. Resistance testing was then obtained. Nineteen patients naive to antiretroviral therapy (3 women and 16 men) were enrolled, of whom, 2 did not return (withdrew from study at week 2). Median VL and CD4 count at baseline were 147,167 copies per milliliter (5.16 log(10); [range, 7650->750,000]) and 277 cells/mm(3) (range, 59-598). Eight patients had VL > 100000 at baseline. Of 17 patients eligible for follow-up, 5 (27%) were responders (virologic success). Twelve patients (63%) were considered nonresponders and/or with virologic failure. The study was prematurely interrupted because of a high rate of treatment failure. Resistance testing available for 11 nonresponders (58%) showed: 2 patients with wild-type, 5 patients with M184V (reducing susceptibility to 3TC and ABC), 4 patients with M184V+K65R (K65R is responsible for reducing susceptibility to ABC, 3TC and TDF), and none with K65R alone. In conclusion, the combination of ABC, 3TC and TDF cannot be recommended for the initial regimen in HIV treatment-naive patients.

Switching to coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir versus continuation of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor with emtricitabine and tenofovir in virologically suppressed adults with HIV (STRATEGY-NNRTI): 48 week results of a randomised, open-label, phase 3b non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir) might be a safe and efficacious switch option for virologically suppressed patients with HIV who have neuropsychiatric side-effects on a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or who are on a multitablet NNRTI-containing regimen and want a regimen simplification. We assessed the non-inferiority of such a switch compared with continuation of an NNRTI-containing regimen. METHODS: STRATEGY-NNRTI is a 96 week, international, multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority trial enrolling adults (≥18 years) with HIV-1 and plasma HIV RNA viral load below 50 copies per mL for at least 6 months on an NNRTI plus emtricitabine and tenofovir regimen. With a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we randomly allocated participants (2:1; blocks of six, stratified by efavirenz use at screening) to switch to coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir (switch group) or continue the NNRTI plus emtricitabine and tenofovir regimen (no-switch group). Key eligibility criteria included no history of virological failure and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 70 mL per min or greater. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma viral loads below 50 copies per mL at week 48 based on a snapshot algorithm with a non-inferiority margin of 12% (assessed by modified intention to treat). This trial is ongoing and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01495702. FINDINGS: Between Dec 29, 2011, and Dec 13, 2012, we randomly allocated 439 participants to treatment: 290 participants in the switch group and 143 participants in the no-switch group received treatment and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. At week 48, 271 (93%) of 290 participants in the switch group and 126 (88%) of 143 participants in the no-switch group maintained plasma viral loads below 50 copies per mL (difference 5·3%, 95% CI -0·5 to 12·0; p=0·066). We detected no treatment-emergent resistance in either group. Safety events leading to discontinuation were uncommon in both groups: six (2%) of 291 participants in the switch group and one (1%) of 143 in the no-switch group. INTERPRETATION: Coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir seems to be efficacious and well tolerated in virologically suppressed adults with HIV and might be a suitable alternative for patients on an NNRTI with emtricitabine and tenofovir regimen considering a regimen modification or simplification. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Trends in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase resistance-associated mutations and antiretroviral prescription data from 2003-2010.

BACKGROUND: The selection of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs for treatment of HIV-1 infection is based on several factors including potency, toxicity, resistance and ease of administration. Emtricitabine (FTC) or lamivudine (3TC), components of recommended initial ARV regimens, are structurally related and share the same resistance mutation (M184V/I). However they differ with respect to potency and incidence of M184V/I. METHODS: Resistance-associated mutation (RAM) prevalence data were obtained from genotype test results performed in a large reference laboratory from 2003-2010; subsets of data were defined by mutation pattern to resemble those following failure of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based combination therapy. Mutational trend data were compared to contemporaneous ARV prescription information. RESULTS: In the unfiltered data set (n=107,231), the prevalence in 2010 decreased compared to 2003 for all nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) RAMs, such as M184V/I (44.0% to 17.9%), T215Y (22.7% to 4.1%), and K65R (4.3% to 2.1%). Among samples resembling those typical of first-line NNRTI-based failures, prevalence of K103N increased slightly, but prevalence of M184V/I decreased (49.8% to 36.8%), as did other NRTI RAMs. These decreases were coincident with a shift in ARV prescriptions away from zidovudine and 3TC towards tenofovir and FTC, and an increase in use of fixed-dose combinations. CONCLUSIONS: RAM prevalence decreased substantially since 2003 among samples submitted for resistance testing in the US. The causes of this decrease are multifactorial, but our results suggest a possible role of increased use of potent ARVs that are available as fixed-dose combinations or as single-tablet regimens.

Intracellular pharmacokinetics of tenofovir diphosphate, carbovir triphosphate, and lamivudine triphosphate in patients receiving triple-nucleoside regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential for a pharmacologic mechanism to explain suboptimal virologic responses observed in a triple-nucleoside only regimen containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), abacavir (ABC), and lamivudine (3TC). METHODS: This was a prospective evaluation of intracellular concentrations and pharmacokinetics of tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP), carbovir triphosphate (CBV-TP), and lamivudine triphosphate (3TC-TP) in patients on triple-nucleoside regimens. Fifteen patients on a stable TDF plus ABC plus a third nucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitor (3TC [n = 13], stavudine [n = 2]) regimen discontinued TDF or ABC, replacing it with a nonnucleoside RT inhibitor or protease inhibitor. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were collected after the last dose of TDF or ABC at baseline and over 12 to 96 hours as well as at days 14 and 28 after discontinuation. Nucleotide concentrations were measured directly using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry; changes after ABC or TDF discontinuation would provide evidence of an intracellular drug interaction. RESULTS: Intracellular nucleotide concentrations of the continued drugs were unaffected when TDF or ABC was discontinued. Intracellular levels of TFV-DP exhibited less inter- and intrapatient variability than CBV-TP or 3TC-TP. TFV-DP also had persistent intracellular levels on TDF discontinuation (median half-life of 150 hours, range: 60 to >175 hours). CBV-TP concentrations fell to below the limit of detection in all patients by 72 hours after the last ABC dose in accordance with a median half-life of 18 hours (range: 12-19 hours). CONCLUSIONS: An intracellular drug interaction does not explain the suboptimal viral response in patients treated with the nucleoside-only regimen of TDF, ABC, and 3TC.