Trends in mortality in people with HIV from 1999 to 2020: a multi-cohort collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Mortality among people with HIV declined with the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy. We investigated trends over time in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in people with HIV from 1999-2020. METHODS: Data were collected from the D:A:D cohort from 1999 through January 2015 and RESPOND from October 2017 through 2020. Age-standardized all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates, classified using Coding Causes of Death in HIV (CoDe), were calculated. Poisson regression models were used to assess mortality trends over time. RESULTS: Among 55716 participants followed for a median of 6 years (IQR 3-11), 5263 participants died (crude mortality rate [MR] 13.7/1000 PYFU; 95%CI 13.4-14.1). Changing patterns of mortality were observed with AIDS as the most common cause of death between 1999- 2009 (n = 952, MR 4.2/1000 PYFU; 95%CI 4.0-4.5) and non-AIDS defining malignancy (NADM) from 2010 -2020 (n = 444, MR 2.8/1000 PYFU; 95%CI 2.5-3.1). In multivariable analysis, all-cause mortality declined over time (adjusted mortality rate ratio [aMRR] 0.97 per year; 95%CI 0.96, 0.98), mostly from 1999 through 2010 (aMRR 0.96 per year; 95%CI 0.95-0.97), and with no decline shown from 2011 through 2020 (aMRR 1·00 per year; 95%CI 0·96-1·05). Mortality due all known causes except NADM also declined over the entire follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Mortality among people with HIV in the D:A:D and/or RESPOND cohorts decreased between 1999 and 2009 and was stable over the period from 2010 through 2020. The decline in mortality rates was not fully explained by improvements in immunologic-virologic status or other risk factors.

Plasma Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 RNA and CD4+ T-Cell Counts Are Determinants of Virological Nonsuppression Outcomes With Initial Integrase Inhibitor-Based Regimens: A Prospective RESPOND Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data regarding baseline determinants of virological nonsuppression outcomes in persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) starting antiretroviral treatment (ART). We evaluated the impact of different baseline variables in the RESPOND cohort. METHODS: We included treatment-naive participants aged ≥18 who initiated 3-drug ART, in 2014-2020. We assessed the odds of virological suppression (VS) at weeks 48 and 96 using logistic regression. Viral blips, low-level viremia (LLV), residual viremia (RV), and virological failure (VF) rates were assessed using Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 4310 eligible participants, 72% started integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens. At 48 and 96 weeks, 91.0% and 93.3% achieved VS, respectively. At 48 weeks, Kaplan-Meier estimates of rates were 9.6% for viral blips, 2.1% for LLV, 22.2% for RV, and 2.1% for VF. Baseline HIV-1 RNA levels >100 000 copies/mL and CD4+ T-cell counts ≤200/µL were negatively associated with VS at weeks 48 (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51 [95% confidence interval, .39-.68] and .40 [.27-.58], respectively) and 96 and with significantly higher rates of blips, LLV, and RV. CD4+ T-cell counts ≤200/µL were associated with higher risk of VF (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.12 [95% confidence interval, 2.02-4.83]). Results were consistent in those starting INSTIs versus other regimens and those starting dolutegravir versus other INSTIs. CONCLUSIONS: Initial high HIV-1 RNA and low CD4+ T-cell counts are associated with lower rates of VS at 48 and 96 weeks and higher rates of viral blips, LLV, and RV. Low baseline CD4+ T-cell counts are associated with higher VF rates. These associations remain with INSTI-based and specifically with dolutegravir-based regimens. These findings suggest that the impact of these baseline determinants is independent of the ART regimen initiated.

Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide in older individuals with HIV: Results of a 96-week, phase 3b, open-label, switch trial in virologically suppressed people ≥65 years of age.

OBJECTIVES: Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) is an effective treatment for HIV-1 infection; however, clinical trial data in older people living with HIV (PLWH) are lacking. The primary 24-week and secondary 48-week analyses of study GS-US-380-4449 (NCT03405935), which assessed the efficacy and safety of switching to B/F/TAF in older PLWH, have been published. Here we report the results of the final 96-week analyses from the study. METHODS: In this 96-week, phase 3b, open-label, single-arm trial, virologically suppressed PLWH aged ≥65 years switched from elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide or a tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimen to B/F/TAF. Viral suppression, resistance, immune response, safety, tolerability and adherence were evaluated through week 96. RESULTS: Of 90 participants screened, 86 were enrolled and switched to B/F/TAF. No participants had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/ml (by FDA Snapshot algorithm) at weeks 72 or 96; virologic suppression rates were 94.2% (81/86; 95% CI 87.0-98.1) and 74.4% (64/86; 95% CI 63.9-83.2), respectively. No treatment-emergent resistance was observed, and CD4 counts remained stable. There were no study drug-related serious adverse events. Three participants experienced drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events that led to premature drug discontinuation. There were no clinically relevant changes from baseline to week 96 in fasting lipid parameters, and the median change in body weight at week 96 was 0.0 kg (IQR -2.3, 2.0). Median self-reported adherence was 100% (IQR 100-100%). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to B/F/TAF is an effective long-term option for virologically suppressed adults ≥65 years of age, with favourable safety and tolerability profiles in this population.

Incidence of hypertension in people with HIV who are treated with integrase inhibitors versus other antiretroviral regimens in the RESPOND cohort consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of hypertension in people living with HIV receiving integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) or boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) in the RESPOND consortium of HIV cohorts. METHODS: Eligible people with HIV were aged ≥18 years who initiated a new three-drug ART regimen for the first time (baseline), did not have hypertension, and had at least two follow-up blood pressure (BP) measurements. Hypertension was defined as two consecutive systolic BP measurements ≥140 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mmHg or initiation of antihypertensives. Multivariable Poisson regression was used to determine adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of hypertension, overall and in those who were ART naïve or experienced at baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 4606 people living with HIV were eligible (INSTIs 3164, NNRTIs 807, PIs 635). The median baseline systolic BP, diastolic BP, and age were 120 (interquartile range [IQR] 113-130) mmHg, 78 (70-82) mmHg, and 43 (34-50) years, respectively. Over 8380.4 person-years (median follow-up 1.5 [IQR 1.0-2.7] years), 1058 (23.0%) participants developed hypertension (incidence rate 126.2/1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 118.9-134.1). Participants receiving INSTIs had a higher incidence of hypertension than those receiving NNRTIs (aIRR 1.76; 95% CI 1.47-2.11), whereas the incidence was no different in those receiving PIs (aIRR 1.07; 95% CI 0.89-1.29). The results were similar when the analysis was stratified by ART status at baseline. CONCLUSION: Although unmeasured confounding and channelling bias cannot be excluded, INSTIs were associated with a higher incidence of hypertension than were NNRTIs, but rates were similar to those of PIs overall, in ART-naïve and ART-experienced participants within RESPOND.

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Antiretroviral Therapy for the Prevention of HIV-1 Transmission.

BACKGROUND: An interim analysis of data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052 trial showed that antiretroviral therapy (ART) prevented more than 96% of genetically linked infections caused by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in serodiscordant couples. ART was then offered to all patients with HIV-1 infection (index participants). The study included more than 5 years of follow-up to assess the durability of such therapy for the prevention of HIV-1 transmission. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1763 index participants to receive either early or delayed ART. In the early-ART group, 886 participants started therapy at enrollment (CD4+ count, 350 to 550 cells per cubic millimeter). In the delayed-ART group, 877 participants started therapy after two consecutive CD4+ counts fell below 250 cells per cubic millimeter or if an illness indicative of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (i.e., an AIDS-defining illness) developed. The primary study end point was the diagnosis of genetically linked HIV-1 infection in the previously HIV-1-negative partner in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Index participants were followed for 10,031 person-years; partners were followed for 8509 person-years. Among partners, 78 HIV-1 infections were observed during the trial (annual incidence, 0.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7 to 1.1). Viral-linkage status was determined for 72 (92%) of the partner infections. Of these infections, 46 were linked (3 in the early-ART group and 43 in the delayed-ART group; incidence, 0.5%; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7) and 26 were unlinked (14 in the early-ART group and 12 in the delayed-ART group; incidence, 0.3%; 95% CI, 0.2 to 0.4). Early ART was associated with a 93% lower risk of linked partner infection than was delayed ART (hazard ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.22). No linked infections were observed when HIV-1 infection was stably suppressed by ART in the index participant. CONCLUSIONS: The early initiation of ART led to a sustained decrease in genetically linked HIV-1 infections in sexual partners. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; HPTN 052 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00074581 .).

Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 or 4 and past direct-acting antiviral treatment failure.

Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) who have virological failure (VF) after treatment containing a nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor have limited retreatment options. MAGELLAN-1 Part 2 was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ribavirin (RBV)-free glecaprevir and pibrentasvir (G/P; 300 mg/120 mg) in patients with chronic HCV and past VF on at least one NS3/4A protease and/or NS5A inhibitor-containing therapy. Patients with compensated liver disease, with or without cirrhosis, and HCV genotype (GT) 1, 4, 5, or 6 were randomized 1:1 to receive 12 or 16 weeks of G/P. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR) at 12 weeks posttreatment (SVR12). Among 91 patients treated, 87 had GT1 and 4 had GT4 infection. SVR12 was achieved by 89% (39 of 44) and 91% (43 of 47) of patients who received 12 and 16 weeks of G/P, respectively. Virological relapse occurred in 9% (4 of 44) of patients treated with 12 weeks of G/P; there were no relapses with 16 weeks of treatment. Past treatment history with one class of inhibitor (protease or NS5A) had no impact on SVR12, whereas past treatment with both classes of inhibitors was associated with lower SVR12 rate. The most common adverse event (AE) was headache (≥10% of patients), and there were no serious AEs assessed as related to study drugs or AEs leading to discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Sixteen weeks of G/P treatment achieved a high SVR12 rate in patients with HCV GT1 infection and past failure to regimens containing either NS5A inhibitors or NS3 protease inhibitors. (Hepatology 2018;67:1253-1260).

Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (GS-US-380-1489): a double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended components of initial antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bictegravir is a novel, potent INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bictegravir coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination versus coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. METHODS: We did this double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America. We enrolled HIV-1 infected adults (aged ≥18 years) who were previously untreated (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL); HLA-B*5701-negative; had no hepatitis B virus infection; screening genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine, tenofovir, lamivudine, and abacavir; and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or more. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size of four), to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg, with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 copies per mL, >100 000 to ≤400 000 copies per mL, or >400 000 copies per mL), CD4 count (<50 cells per µL, 50-199 cells per µL, or ≥200 cells per µL), and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, participants, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607930. FINDINGS: Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we randomly assigned 631 participants to receive coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315), of whom 314 and 315 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL was achieved in 92·4% of patients (n=290 of 314) in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 93·0% of patients (n=293 of 315) in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference -0·6%, 95·002% CI -4·8 to 3·6; p=0·78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. No individual developed treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug. Incidence and severity of adverse events was mostly similar between groups except for nausea, which occurred less frequently in patients given bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than in those given dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (10% [n=32] vs 23% [n=72]; p<0·0001). Adverse events related to study drug were less common with bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than with dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (26% [n=82] vs 40% [n=127]), the difference being driven by a higher incidence of drug-related nausea in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (5% [n=17] vs 17% [n=55]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: At 48 weeks, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide achieved virological suppression in 92% of previously untreated adults and was non-inferior to coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with no treatment-emergent resistance. Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was safe and well tolerated with better gastrointestinal tolerability than dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. Because coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide does not require HLA B*5701 testing and provides guideline-recommended treatment for individuals co-infected with HIV and hepatitis B, this regimen might lend itself to rapid or same-day initiation of therapy in the clinical setting. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Safety and Effectiveness of Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir, With or Without Ribavirin, in Treatment-Experienced Patients With Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus Infection and Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 12 or 24 weeks treatment with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, in treatment-experienced patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis in routine clinical practice. Patients were followed in a multi-center, prospective, observational cohort study (HCV-TARGET). METHODS: We collected data from 667 treatment-experienced adults with chronic genotype 1 HCV infection who began treatment with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, from 2011 through September 15, 2016, according to the regional standards of care, at academic (n = 39) and community (n = 18) centers in the United States, Canada, Germany, and Israel. Information was collected from medical records and abstracted into a unique centralized data core. Independent monitors systematically reviewed data entries for completeness and accuracy. Demographic, clinical, adverse event, and virologic data were collected every 12 weeks during treatment and during the follow-up period. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response, defined as a level of HCV RNA below the lower limit of quantification or undetectable at a minimum 64 days after the end of treatment (SVR12). The per-protocol population (n = 610) was restricted to patients who completed 12 or 24 weeks of treatment (±2 weeks) and had final virologic outcomes available. RESULTS: The per-protocol analysis revealed that 579 patients (93.8%) achieved an SVR12, including 50/51 patients who received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 12 weeks (98%), 384/408 patients who received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 24 weeks (94.1%), 68/70 patients who received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 12 weeks (97.1%), and 57/60 patients who received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 24 weeks (95%). On multivariate analysis, neither treatment duration nor the addition of ribavirin was associated with SVR12. Compensated cirrhosis (odds ratio [OR] compared to decompensated cirrhosis, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.16-5.02), albumin ≥ 3.5 g/dL (OR, 3.15; 95% CI 1.46-6.80), or total bilirubin ≤ 1.2 mg/dL (OR 3.34; 95% CI, 1.59-7.00) were associated with SVR12. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of safety and effectiveness data from the HCV-TARGET study, we found treatment with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, to be effective and well tolerated by treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1 HCV infection and compensated cirrhosis. There were no significant differences in rate of SVR12 among patients treated with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 12 or 24 weeks, with or without ribavirin. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis appear to benefit from the addition of ribavirin or extension of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir treatment to 24 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT10474811.

Comorbidities Among US Patients With Prevalent HIV Infection-A Trend Analysis.

Objective: Quantify proportion of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with specific comorbidities receiving healthcare coverage from commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare payers. Methods: Data from MarketScan research databases were used to select adult HIV-infected patients from each payer. Treated HIV-infected patients were matched to HIV-negative controls. Cross-sectional analyses were performed between 2003 and 2013 among HIV-infected patients to quantify the proportion with individual comorbidities over the period, by payer. Results: Overall, 36298 HIV-infected patients covered by commercial payers, 26246 covered by Medicaid payers, and 1854 covered by Medicare payers were identified between 2003 and 2013. Essential hypertension (31.4%, 39.3%, and 76.2%, respectively), hyperlipidemia (29.2%, 22.1%, and 49.6%), and endocrine disease (21.8%, 27.2%, and 54.0%) were the most common comorbidities. Comparison of data from 2003 to data from 2013 revealed significant increases across payers in the percentage of patients with the comorbidities specified above (P < .05). Across all payers, the proportions of treated HIV-infected patients with deep vein thrombosis, hepatitis C, renal impairment, thyroid disease, and liver disease from 2003 to 2013 was significantly greater (P < .05) than for matched controls. Conclusions: Comorbidities are common among the aging HIV-infected population and have increased over time. There should be a consideration in treatment choices for HIV infection, including the choices of antiretroviral regimens.

Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2016 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel.

IMPORTANCE: New data and therapeutic options warrant updated recommendations for the use of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to treat or to prevent HIV infection in adults. OBJECTIVE: To provide updated recommendations for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adults (aged ≥18 years) with established HIV infection, including when to start treatment, initial regimens, and changing regimens, along with recommendations for using ARVs for preventing HIV among those at risk, including preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A panel of experts in HIV research and patient care convened by the International Antiviral Society-USA reviewed data published in peer-reviewed journals, presented by regulatory agencies, or presented as conference abstracts at peer-reviewed scientific conferences since the 2014 report, for new data or evidence that would change previous recommendations or their ratings. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in the PubMed and EMBASE databases through April 2016. Recommendations were by consensus, and each recommendation was rated by strength and quality of the evidence. FINDINGS: Newer data support the widely accepted recommendation that antiretroviral therapy should be started in all individuals with HIV infection with detectable viremia regardless of CD4 cell count. Recommended optimal initial regimens for most patients are 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI). Other effective regimens include nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or boosted protease inhibitors with 2 NRTIs. Recommendations for special populations and in the settings of opportunistic infections and concomitant conditions are provided. Reasons for switching therapy include convenience, tolerability, simplification, anticipation of potential new drug interactions, pregnancy or plans for pregnancy, elimination of food restrictions, virologic failure, or drug toxicities. Laboratory assessments are recommended before treatment, and monitoring during treatment is recommended to assess response, adverse effects, and adherence. Approaches are recommended to improve linkage to and retention in care are provided. Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine is recommended for use as preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection in persons at high risk. When indicated, postexposure prophylaxis should be started as soon as possible after exposure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Antiretroviral agents remain the cornerstone of HIV treatment and prevention. All HIV-infected individuals with detectable plasma virus should receive treatment with recommended initial regimens consisting of an InSTI plus 2 NRTIs. Preexposure prophylaxis should be considered as part of an HIV prevention strategy for at-risk individuals. When used effectively, currently available ARVs can sustain HIV suppression and can prevent new HIV infection. With these treatment regimens, survival rates among HIV-infected adults who are retained in care can approach those of uninfected adults.

Primary care guidelines for the management of persons infected with HIV: 2013 update by the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) were prepared by an expert panel of the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace those published in 2009. The guidelines are intended for use by healthcare providers who care for HIV-infected patients. Since 2009, new antiretroviral drugs and classes have become available, and the prognosis of persons with HIV infection continues to improve. However, with fewer complications and increased survival, HIV-infected persons are increasingly developing common health problems that also affect the general population. Some of these conditions may be related to HIV infection itself or its treatment. HIV-infected persons should be managed and monitored for all relevant age- and sex-specific health problems. New information based on publications from the period 2009-2013 has been incorporated into this document.

Primary care guidelines for the management of persons infected with HIV: 2013 update by the HIV medicine association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) were prepared by an expert panel of the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. These updated guidelines replace those published in 2009. The guidelines are intended for use by healthcare providers who care for HIV-infected patients. Since 2009, new antiretroviral drugs and classes have become available, and the prognosis of persons with HIV infection continues to improve. However, with fewer complications and increased survival, HIV-infected persons are increasingly developing common health problems that also affect the general population. Some of these conditions may be related to HIV infection itself or its treatment. HIV-infected persons should be managed and monitored for all relevant age- and sex-specific health problems. New information based on publications from the period 2009-2013 has been incorporated into this document.

Lower pill burden and once-daily antiretroviral treatment regimens for HIV infection: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary antiretroviral treatment regimens are simpler than in the past, with lower pill burden and once-daily dosing frequency common. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of pill burden and once-daily vs twice-daily dosing on ART adherence and virological outcomes. METHODS: A literature search of 4 electronic databases through 31 March 2013 was used. RCTs comparing once-daily vs twice-daily ART regimens that also reported on adherence and virological suppression were included. Study design, study population characteristics, intervention, outcome measures, and study quality were extracted. Study quality was rated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 6312 adult patients). Higher pill burden was associated with both lower adherence rates (P = .004) and worse virological suppression (P < .0001) in both once-daily and twice-daily subgroups, although the association with adherence in the once-daily subgroup was not statistically significant. The average adherence was modestly higher in once-daily regimens than twice-daily regimens (weighted mean difference = 2.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 3.87; P = .0002). Patients on once-daily regimens did not achieve virological suppression more frequently than patients on twice-daily regimens (relative risk [RR] = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03; P = .50). Both adherence and viral load suppression decreased over time, but adherence decreased less with once-daily dosing than with twice-daily dosing. CONCLUSIONS: Lower pill burden was associated with both better adherence and virological suppression. Adherence, but not virological suppression, was slightly better with once- vs twice-daily regimens.

Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral therapy that reduces viral replication could limit the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in serodiscordant couples. METHODS: In nine countries, we enrolled 1763 couples in which one partner was HIV-1-positive and the other was HIV-1-negative; 54% of the subjects were from Africa, and 50% of infected partners were men. HIV-1-infected subjects with CD4 counts between 350 and 550 cells per cubic millimeter were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive antiretroviral therapy either immediately (early therapy) or after a decline in the CD4 count or the onset of HIV-1-related symptoms (delayed therapy). The primary prevention end point was linked HIV-1 transmission in HIV-1-negative partners. The primary clinical end point was the earliest occurrence of pulmonary tuberculosis, severe bacterial infection, a World Health Organization stage 4 event, or death. RESULTS: As of February 21, 2011, a total of 39 HIV-1 transmissions were observed (incidence rate, 1.2 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.7); of these, 28 were virologically linked to the infected partner (incidence rate, 0.9 per 100 person-years, 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3). Of the 28 linked transmissions, only 1 occurred in the early-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.27; P<0.001). Subjects receiving early therapy had fewer treatment end points (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.88; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The early initiation of antiretroviral therapy reduced rates of sexual transmission of HIV-1 and clinical events, indicating both personal and public health benefits from such therapy. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; HPTN 052 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00074581.).

Discontinuation of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for presumed renal adverse events in treatment-naïve HIV-1 patients: meta-analysis of randomized clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) as a component of antiretroviral therapy (ART) have been demonstrated in clinical trials. TDF nephrotoxicity has been reported in both HIV-infected and noninfected patients. This meta-analysis explored the frequency of discontinuation attributed to renal adverse events (AEs) in randomized, controlled clinical studies that used TDF-containing regimens for ART-naïve, HIV-infected patients. METHODS: A literature search of 4 electronic databases through October 31, 2013 was utilized. RCTs included were limited to randomized, prospective, comparative design in ART treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infections receiving ART. Studies included trials containing TDF treatment regimens, with or without a non-TDF control group. Study design, follow-up, size of study population, treatment group, patient demographics, number of patients exposed to TDF or non-TDF control, baseline characteristics, investigator-defined criteria for renal AEs, and number of discontinuations due to a presumed renal AEs were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinical studies met the selection criteria. Treatment duration ranged from 48 to 288 weeks. Renal AEs led to study drug discontinuation in 44 of 10,129 patients exposed to TDF (0.43%; 95% CI, 0.32%-0.58%) and 2 of 2,013 patients exposed to non-TDF-containing regimens (0.10%; 95% CI, 0.01%-0.36%). In 5 randomized, controlled studies that included a non-TDF comparator, the estimated risk difference between the treatment groups (TDF vs non-TDF) was 0.50% (95% CI, 0.13%-0.86%; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical studies using TDF-containing regimens, the rate of discontinuations due to renal AEs was low, but was slightly higher than in studies using non-TDF comparators.

Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2014 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel.

IMPORTANCE: New data and antiretroviral regimens expand treatment choices in resource-rich settings and warrant an update of recommendations to treat adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). OBJECTIVE: To provide updated treatment recommendations for adults with HIV, emphasizing when to start treatment; what treatment to start; the use of laboratory monitoring tools; and managing treatment failure, switches, and simplification. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA SYNTHESIS: An International Antiviral Society-USA panel of experts in HIV research and patient care considered previous data and reviewed new data since the 2012 update with literature searches in PubMed and EMBASE through June 2014. Recommendations and ratings were based on the quality of evidence and consensus. RESULTS: Antiretroviral therapy is recommended for all adults with HIV infection. Evidence for benefits of treatment and quality of available data increase at lower CD4 cell counts. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) and a third single or boosted drug, which should be an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (dolutegravir, elvitegravir, or raltegravir), a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz or rilpivirine) or a boosted protease inhibitor (darunavir or atazanavir). Alternative regimens are available. Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy is generally not recommended, but NRTI-sparing approaches may be considered. New guidance for optimal timing of monitoring of laboratory parameters is provided. Suspected treatment failure warrants rapid confirmation, performance of resistance testing while the patient is receiving the failing regimen, and evaluation of reasons for failure before consideration of switching therapy. Regimen switches for adverse effects, convenience, or to reduce costs should not jeopardize antiretroviral potency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated in all individuals who are willing and ready to start treatment. Regimens should be selected or changed based on resistance test results with consideration of dosing frequency, pill burden, adverse toxic effect profiles, comorbidities, and drug interactions.

Cobicistat versus ritonavir as a pharmacoenhancer of atazanavir plus emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive HIV type 1-infected patients: week 48 results.

BACKGROUND: Cobicistat (COBI) is a pharmacoenhancer with no antiretroviral activity in vitro. METHODS: An international, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COBI versus ritonavir (RTV) as a pharmacoenhancer of atazanavir (ATV) in combination with emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in treatment-naive patients. The primary end point was a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA load of <50 copies/mL at week 48 by the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm; the noninferiority margin was 12%. RESULTS: A total of 692 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment arm and received study drug (344 in the COBI group vs 348 in the RTV group). At week 48, virologic success was achieved in 85% of COBI recipients and 87% of RTV recipients (difference, -2.2% [95% confidence interval, -7.4% to 3.0%]); among patients with a baseline HIV-1 RNA load of >100 000 copies/mL, rates were similar (86% vs 86%). Similar percentages of patients in both groups had serious adverse events (10% of COBI recipients vs 7% of RTV recipients) and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment with the study drug (7% vs 7%). Median increases in the serum creatinine level were 0.13 and 0.09 mg/dL, respectively, for COBI and RTV recipients. CONCLUSIONS: COBI was noninferior to RTV in combination with ATV plus FTC/TDF at week 48. Both regimens achieved high rates of virologic success. Safety and tolerability profiles of the 2 regimens were comparable. Once-daily COBI is a safe and effective pharmacoenhancer of the protease inhibitor ATV.

Universal antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection: should US treatment guidelines be applied to resource-limited settings?

US treatment guidelines now recommend antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), regardless of CD4 count, both for the benefit of infected individuals and to prevent HIV transmission. In an effort to meet the critical goal of treating all HIV-infected persons worldwide, there is movement toward extrapolating these guidelines and the data supporting them to resource-limited settings. While economic and practical barriers to universal ART are widely recognized, there has been little discussion of the ethical considerations resulting from global disparities in the safety and efficacy of universal ART in these settings. We argue that the risk-benefit considerations for initiating ART are not the same worldwide due to limitations in the ART regimens used, laboratory monitoring, and consistent availability of ART, which raises ethical questions about universally applying US guidelines in resource-limited settings at the present time.

Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir versus co-formulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, analysis of results after 48 weeks.

BACKGROUND: The integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in a single tablet given once daily. We compared the efficacy and safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with standard of care-co-formulated efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF-as initial treatment for HIV infection. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, treatment-naive patients from outpatient clinics in North America were randomly assigned by computer-generated allocation sequence with a block size of four in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF, once daily, plus matching placebo. Patients and study staff involved in giving study treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting and analysing data were masked to treatment allocation. Eligibility criteria included screening HIV RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more, and susceptibility to efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01095796. FINDINGS: 700 patients were randomly assigned and treated (348 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, 352 with EFV/FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF; 305/348 (87·6%) versus 296/352 (84·1%) of patients had HIV RNA concentrations of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (difference 3·6%, 95% CI -1·6% to 8·8%). Proportions of patients discontinuing drugs for adverse events did not differ substantially (13/348 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group vs 18/352 in the EFV/FTC/TDF group). Nausea was more common with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF than with EFV/FTC/TDF (72/348 vs 48/352) and dizziness (23/348 vs 86/352), abnormal dreams (53/348 vs 95/352), insomnia (30/348 vs 49/352), and rash (22/348 vs 43/352) were less common. Serum creatinine concentration increased more by week 48 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group than in the EFV/FTC/TDF group (median 13 µmol/L, IQR 5 to 20 vs 1 µmol/L, -6 to 8; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the only single-tablet, once-daily, integrase-inhibitor-based regimen for initial treatment of HIV infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.