Attenuated humoral responses in HIV after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination linked to B cell defects and altered immune profiles.

We assessed a cohort of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) (n = 110) and HIV negative controls (n = 64) after 1, 2 or 3 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. At all timepoints, PLWH had significantly lower neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers than HIV-negative controls. We also observed a delayed development of neutralization in PLWH that was underpinned by a reduced frequency of spike-specific memory B cells (MBCs). Improved neutralization breadth was seen against the Omicron variant (BA.1) after the third vaccine dose in PLWH but lower nAb responses persisted and were associated with global MBC dysfunction. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination induced robust T cell responses that cross-recognized variants in PLWH. Strikingly, individuals with low or absent neutralization had detectable functional T cell responses. These PLWH had reduced numbers of circulating T follicular helper cells and an enriched population of CXCR3+CD127+CD8+T cells after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Attenuated humoral responses in HIV infection after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are linked to global B cell defects and cellular immune profiles.

People living with HIV (PLWH) on suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ART) can have residual immune dysfunction and often display poorer responses to vaccination. We assessed in a cohort of PLWH (n=110) and HIV negative controls (n=64) the humoral and spike-specific B-cell responses following 1, 2 or 3 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. PLWH had significantly lower neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers than HIV-negative controls at all studied timepoints. Moreover, their neutralization breadth was reduced with fewer individuals developing a neutralizing response against the Omicron variant (BA.1) relative to controls. We also observed a delayed development of neutralization in PLWH that was underpinned by a reduced frequency of spike-specific memory B cells (MBCs) and pronounced B cell dysfunction. Improved neutralization breadth was seen after the third vaccine dose in PLWH but lower nAb responses persisted and were associated with global, but not spike-specific, MBC dysfunction. In contrast to the inferior antibody responses, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination induced robust T cell responses that cross-recognized variants in PLWH. Strikingly, a subset of PLWH with low or absent neutralization had detectable functional T cell responses. These individuals had reduced numbers of circulating T follicular helper cells and an enriched population of CXCR3 + CD127 + CD8 + T cells after two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which may compensate for sub-optimal serological responses in the event of infection. Therefore, normalisation of B cell homeostasis could improve serological responses to vaccines in PLWH and evaluating T cell immunity could provide a more comprehensive immune status profile in these individuals and others with B cell imbalances.

Integration of population pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics: an aid to optimal nevirapine dose selection in HIV-infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: Nevirapine is metabolized by CYP2B6 and polymorphisms within the CYP2B6 gene partly explain inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics. The aim of this study was to model the complex relationship between nevirapine exposure, weight and genetics (based on combined analysis of CYP2B6 516G > T and 983T > C single nucleotide polymorphisms). METHODS: Non-linear mixed-effects modelling was used to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters from 275 patients. Simulations of the nevirapine concentration profile were performed with dosing regimens of 200 mg twice daily and 400 mg once daily for individuals with body weights of 50, 70 and 90 kg in combination with CYP2B6 genetic variation. RESULTS: A one-compartment model with first-order absorption best described the data. Population clearance was 3.5 L/h with inter-patient variability of 24.6%. 516T homozygosity and 983C heterozygosity were associated with 37% and 40% lower clearance, respectively. Body weight was the only significant demographic factor influencing clearance, which increased by 5% for every 10 kg increase. For individuals with higher body weight, once-daily nevirapine was associated with a greater risk of sub-therapeutic drug exposure than a twice-daily regimen. This risk was offset in individuals who were 516T homozygous or 983C heterozygous in which drug exposure was optimal for  >  95% of patients with body weight of ≤ 70 kg. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that a 400 mg once-daily dose could be implemented in accordance with CYP2B6 polymorphism and body weight. However, the use of nevirapine once daily (immediate release; off-label) in the absence of therapeutic drug monitoring is not recommended due to the risk of inadequate exposure to nevirapine in a high proportion of patients. There are different considerations for the extended-release formulation (nevirapine XR) that demonstrate minimal peak-to-trough fluctuations in plasma nevirapine levels.

Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. METHODS: The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. FINDINGS: 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol -12.6%vs 1.0%, non-HDL cholesterol -15.0%vs 2.6%, and triglycerides -42.2%vs 6.2%. At week 24, 293 (84.4%, 95% CI 80.2-88.1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -11.2 to -1.3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION: Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. FUNDING: Merck.

Prescribing and using self-injectable antiretrovirals: how concordant are physician and patient perspectives?

BACKGROUND: The selection of agents for any treatment regimen is in part influenced by physician and patient attitudes. This study investigated attitudinal motivators and barriers to the use of self-injectable antiretroviral agents among physicians and patients and measured the degree of concordance between physician and patient perspectives. METHODS: Attitudes toward prescribing and usage of self-injectable antiretroviral therapy (SIAT) were assessed by structured interview in 2 cohorts sampled from the European Union and the USA: 499 HIV-treating physicians and 603 treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. Motivators and barriers to prescribing SIAT were identified from statistical analysis of the associations between physicians' ratings of enfuvirtide-based therapy compared to standard oral-based therapy and 2 indicators of enfuvirtide prescribing behavior. Patients' attitudes were assessed by their responses to a written profile of enfuvirtide and their ratings of the likelihood of accepting a treatment offer. RESULTS: Both indicators of SIAT prescribing behavior were predicted by the same pattern of physician beliefs. Nonprescribing was associated with: (1) the belief that offering enfuvirtide would be perceived negatively by patients, leading to treatment refusal and nonadherence; (2) the belief that prescribing enfuvirtide is harder to justify in terms of time/resources; and (3) a lack of confidence in the efficacy and use of enfuvirtide in practice (all p < 0.05). However, physicians' beliefs were not in concordance with patients' views. After reading a profile of enfuvirtide, 76% patients said that they would be moderately or highly likely to accept a treatment offer, although most (72%) had not discussed enfuvirtide with their doctor. Patients' beliefs predicted the likelihood of accepting enfuvirtide. CONCLUSION: Physician and patient beliefs about SIAT influence prescribing behavior and compliance yet may not be concordant, with patients having more positive attitudes towards SIAT than anticipated by physicians.

Prevalence and predictors of antiretroviral drug resistance in newly diagnosed HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVES: To determine prevalence and predictors of antiretroviral drug resistance in newly diagnosed individuals with HIV-1 infection, using a systematic approach to avoid selection bias. METHODS: Plasma samples from all persons diagnosed HIV-1 seropositive at a large London centre between April 2004 and February 2006 underwent sequencing of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes. Subtype was assigned by phylogenetic analysis. Resistance was scored according to the IAS-USA list (2005) modified to include T215revertants and exclude isolated E44D or V118I and minor protease mutations. Recent seroconversion was identified by HIV antibody avidity testing. RESULTS: The cohort of 239 included 169 (70.7%) males, 126 (52.7%) homosexuals, 118 (49.5%) persons of white ethnicity and 144 (60.0%) persons born outside the UK. Subtypes included B 134 (56.1%), C 46 (19.2%), A 17 (7.1%), other non-B 42 (17.6%). The prevalence of resistance mutations was 17/239 (7.1%; 95% confidence interval 4.5-11.1%), comprising 10/239 (4.2%) nucleoside/nucleotide RT inhibitor (NRTI); 4/239 (1.7%) non-nucleoside RT inhibitor (NNRTI) and 4/239 (1.7%) protease inhibitor (PI) associated mutations. Dual-class (NRTI + PI) resistance mutations were detected in 1/239 (0.4%) person. The prevalence of resistance mutations was 7/85 (8.2%) and 10/154 (6.5%) in persons with recent and established infection, respectively. In multivariate analysis, having been born in the UK and high CD4 count, but not gender, age, risk group, ethnicity or subtype, were independent predictors of resistance. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected UK cohort, subtypes other than B accounted for 43.9% of new HIV-1 diagnoses. The prevalence of resistance mutations was 7.1% and highest in those born in the UK.

Theoretical rationale for the use of sequential single-drug antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Subpopulations of HIV with mutations associated with resistance to antiretroviral drugs often have reduced replicative capacity, so virus with resistance mutations for all existing and new antiretroviral drugs is likely to be appreciably impaired. Issues of toxicity, quality of life and economics mean that the simultaneous use of all these drugs in combination is unrealistic. We aimed to explore the use of sequential monotherapy regimens using a mathematical model of quasi-species dynamics, to see if these could take advantage of the poor replicative capacity of highly resistant virus. METHODS: We assume for each of seven drugs that a single mutation is associated with the ability to replicate (effective reproductive ratio, R > 1) in the presence of that drug as monotherapy. Parameters included were drug efficacy, the cost of resistance mutations and the number of new target cells arising daily. RESULTS: The use of seven drugs in a daily/weekly sequential monotherapy cycle led to substantial viral suppression (in the presence of all resistant viral subpopulations) for a wider range of parameter values than a continuous five-drug regimen. Although on any one day/week there is a viral subpopulation with R > 1 (e.g. that with resistance only to the current drug), this subpopulation does not have time to grow sufficiently during the short period when that drug is being taken. CONCLUSION: These results provide a rationale for trials of sequential regimens, using as wide a number of drugs with different resistance-associated mutations as possible, as a potential 'resistance-proof' strategy for achieving significant viral load suppression.

Human immunodeficiency virus rebound after suppression to <400 copies/mL during initial highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens, according to prior nucleoside experience and duration of suppression.

This study evaluated 1433 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), 409 (28%) of whom had prior nucleoside experience and achieved an HIV load of <400 copies/mL by 24 weeks of therapy. Three hundred seven patients experienced virus rebound during a total of 2773.3 person-years of follow-up. There was a higher rate of virus rebound among the patients with pre-HAART nucleoside experience (relative hazard [RH], 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 2.22-3.84; P<.0001) and a decreasing rate of virus rebound with increasing duration of virus suppression (i.e., time since achieving a virus load of <400 HIV RNA copies/mL) among both the nucleoside-experienced and naive patients (P<.0001), but the difference between the groups persisted into the third year of follow-up (P=.0007). Even patients who had experienced <2 months of nucleoside therapy before beginning HAART had an increased risk of virus rebound (RH, 1.95; P=.009). It appears that only a small period of pre-HAART nucleoside therapy is sufficient to confer a disadvantage, in terms of risk of virus rebound, that persists for several years.