Cytomegalovirus IgG is Associated With Physical Function But Not Muscle Density in People With HIV.

BACKGROUND: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) seropositivity is associated with poor outcomes, including physical function impairment, in people without HIV. We examined associations between CMV IgG titer and physical function in virologically suppressed people with HIV (PWH). METHODS: REPRIEVE is a double-blind randomized trial evaluating pitavastatin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in PWH. This analysis focused on participants enrolled in a substudy with additional biomarker testing, imaging [coronary CT angiography], and physical function measures at entry. CMV IgG was measured using quantitative enzyme immunoassay, physical function by Short Physical Performance Battery, and muscle density and area by CT. Associations between CMV IgG (risk factor) and outcomes were evaluated using the partial Spearman correlation and linear and log-binomial regression. RESULTS: Among 717 participants, 82% male, the median CMV IgG was 2716 (Q1, Q3: 807, 6672) IU/mL, all above the limit of quantification. Among 631 participants with imaging, there was no association between CMV IgG and CT-based muscle density or area, controlling for age (r = -0.03 and r = -0.01, respectively; P ≥ 0.38). Among 161 participants with physical function data, higher CMV IgG was associated with poorer overall modified Short Physical Performance Battery score ( P = 0.02), adjusted for age, nadir CD4, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: Higher CMV IgG titer was associated with poorer physical function, not explained by previous immune compromise, inflammation, or muscle density or area. Further mechanistic studies are needed to understand this association and whether CMV-specific therapy can affect physical function in PWH.

Pitavastatin versus pravastatin in adults with HIV-1 infection and dyslipidaemia (INTREPID): 12 week and 52 week results of a phase 4, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV-1 infection are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than seronegative adults. Treatment of dyslipidaemia with statins has been challenging in people with HIV because of an increased potential for drug interactions due to competing cytochrome P450 metabolism between statins and commonly used antiretroviral agents. Neither pitavastatin nor pravastatin depend on cytochrome P450 for primary metabolism. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pitavastatin versus pravastatin in adults with HIV and dyslipidaemia. METHODS: In the INTREPID (HIV-infected patieNts and TREatment with PItavastatin vs pravastatin for Dyslipidemia) randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 4 trial (INTREPID, we recruited adults aged 18-70 years with controlled HIV (with CD4 counts >200 cells per µL and HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per mL) on antiretroviral therapy for at least 6 months and dyslipidaemia (LDL cholesterol 3·4-5·7 mmol/L and triglycerides ≤4·5 mmol/L) from 45 sites in the USA and Puerto Rico. Patients being treated with darunavir, or who had homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia or any condition causing secondary dyslipidaemia, or a history of statin intolerance, diabetes, or coronary artery disease were not eligible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to pitavastatin 4 mg or pravastatin 40 mg with matching placebos once daily orally for 12 weeks, followed by a 40 week safety extension. Randomisation was stratified by viral hepatitis B or C coinfection and computer-generated. Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was percentage change in fasting serum LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 and the primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis included all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01301066. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2011, and March 29, 2013, we randomly assigned 252 patients to the pitavastatin (n=126) or pravastatin group (n=126). LDL cholesterol reduction was 31·1% with pitavastatin and 20·9% with pravastatin (least squares mean difference -9·8%, 95% CI -13·8 to -5·9; p<0·0001) at 12 weeks. At week 52, four patients (3%) in the pitavastatin group and six (5%) in the pravastatin group had virological failure, with no significant difference between treatments. Both treatments had neutral effects on glucose metabolism parameters. 85 patients treated with pitavastatin (68%) and 88 patients treated with pravastatin (70%) reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and these caused study discontinuation in six patients (5%) versus five patients (4%). No serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant and none were treatment-related according to investigator assessment. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea in the pitavastatin group (n=12, 10%) and upper respiratory tract infection in the pravastatin group (n=14, 11%). 11 treatment-emergent serious adverse events were noted in seven patients (6%) in the pitavastatin group (atrial septal defect, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chest pain, diverticulitis, enterovesical fistula, gastroenteritis, viral gastroenteritis, herpes dermatitis, multiple fractures, respiratory failure, and transient ischaemic attack) and four events in three patients (2%) in the pravastatin group (cerebrovascular accident, arteriosclerosis coronary artery, myocardial infraction, and muscle haemorrhage). In the pravastatin treatment group, one additional patient discontinued due to an adverse event (prostate cancer that was diagnosed during the screening period, 42 days before first dose of study treatment, and therefore was not a treatment-emergent adverse event). INTERPRETATION: The INTREPID results support guideline recommendations for pitavastatin as a preferred drug in the treatment of dyslipidaemia in people with HIV. FUNDING: Kowa Pharmaceuticals America and Eli Lilly and Company.

High Accuracy of Common HIV-Related Oral Disease Diagnoses by Non-Oral Health Specialists in the AIDS Clinical Trial Group.

OBJECTIVE: Many studies include oral HIV-related endpoints that may be diagnosed by non-oral-health specialists (non-OHS) like nurses or physicians. Our objective was to assess the accuracy of clinical diagnoses of HIV-related oral lesions made by non-OHS compared to diagnoses made by OHS. METHODS: A5254, a cross-sectional study conducted by the Oral HIV/AIDS Research Alliance within the AIDS Clinical Trial Group, enrolled HIV-1-infected adults participants from six clinical trial units (CTU) in the US (San Francisco, New York, Chapel Hill, Cleveland, Atlanta) and Haiti. CTU examiners (non-OHS) received standardized training on how to perform an oral examination and make clinical diagnoses of specific oral disease endpoints. Diagnoses by calibrated non-OHS were compared to those made by calibrated OHS, and sensitivity and specificity computed. RESULTS: Among 324 participants, the majority were black (73%), men (66%), and the median CD4+ cell count 138 cells/mm(3). The overall frequency of oral mucosal disease diagnosed by OHS was 43% in US sites, and 90% in Haiti. Oral candidiasis (OC) was detected in 153 (47%) by OHS, with erythematous candidiasis (EC) the most common type (39%) followed by pseudomembranous candidiasis (PC; 26%). The highest prevalence of OC (79%) was among participants in Haiti, and among those with CD4+ cell count ≤ 200 cells/mm(3) and HIV-1 RNA > 1000 copies/mL (71%). The sensitivity and specificity of OC diagnoses by non-OHS were 90% and 92% (for EC: 81% and 94%; PC: 82% and 95%). Sensitivity and specificity were also high for KS (87% and 94%, respectively), but sensitivity was < 60% for HL and oral warts in all sites combined. The Candida culture confirmation of OC clinical diagnoses (as defined by ≥ 1 colony forming unit per mL of oral/throat rinse) was ≥ 93% for both PC and EC. CONCLUSION: Trained non-OHS showed high accuracy of clinical diagnoses of OC in comparison with OHS, suggesting their usefulness in studies in resource-poor settings, but detection of less common lesions may require OHS.

Immunogenicity and safety of the quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in HIV-1-infected women.

BACKGROUND: Women infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are disproportionately affected by human papillomavirus (HPV)-related anogenital disease, particularly with increased immunosuppression. AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol A5240 was a trial of 319 HIV-infected women in the United States, Brazil, and South Africa to determine immunogenicity and safety of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in 3 strata based on screening CD4 count: >350 (stratum A), 201-350 (stratum B), and ≤200 cells/µL (stratum C). METHODS: Safety and serostatus of HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18 were examined. HPV serological testing was performed using competitive Luminex immunoassay (HPV-4 cLIA). HPV type-specific seroconversion analysis was done for participants who were seronegative for the given type at baseline. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 36 years; 11% were white, 56% black, and 31% Hispanic. Median CD4 count was 310 cells/µL, and 40% had undetectable HIV-1 load. No safety issues were identified. Seroconversion proportions among women at week 28 for HPV types 6, 11,16, and 18 were 96%, 98%, 99%, and 91%, respectively, for stratum A; 100%, 98%, 98%, and 85%, respectively, for stratum B, and 84%, 92%, 93%, and 75%, respectively, for stratum C. CONCLUSIONS: The quadrivalent HPV vaccine targeted at types 6, 11, 16, and 18 was safe and immunogenic in HIV-infected women aged 13-45 years. Women with HIV RNA load >10 000 copies/mL and/or CD4 count <200 cells/µL had lower rates of seroconversion rates. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00604175.