Heavily treatment-experienced people living with HIV in the OPERA® cohort: population characteristics and clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Multi-class resistance, intolerance, and drug-drug interactions can result in unique antiretroviral (ART) combinations for heavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people living with HIV (PLWH). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between HTE and non-HTE PLWH. METHODS: Eligible ART-experienced PLWH in care in the OPERA® Cohort were identified in a cross-sectional manner on December 31, 2016 and observed from the date of initiation of the ART regimen taken on December 31, 2016 until loss to follow up, death, study end (December 31, 2018), or becoming HTE (non-HTE group only). In the absence of resistance data, HTE was defined based on the ART regimens used (i.e., exposed to ≥ 3 core agent classes or regimen suggestive of HTE). Time to virologic undetectability, failure, and immunologic preservation were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods; cumulative probabilities were compared between the two groups. Regimen changes, incident morbidities, and death were described. RESULTS: A total of 24,183 PLWH (2277 HTE PLWH, 21,906 non-HTE) were followed for a median of 28 months (IQR 21, 38). Viremic HTE PLWH (viral load [VL] ≥ 50 copies/mL) were less likely to achieve undetectability (VL < 50 copies/mL; 24-month cumulative probability: 80% [95% Confidence Interval 77-82]) than their non-HTE counterparts (85% [84-86]). No difference was observed in the probability of maintaining VLs < 200 copies/mL over the first 48 months after achieving suppression (< 50 copies/mL). HTE PLWH were less likely than non-HTE PLWH to maintain CD4 cell counts ≥ 200 cells/µL (24-month cumulative probability: 95% HTE [91-93]; 97% non-HTE [97-97]), and more likely to change regimens (45% HTE; 41% non-HTE). Incident non-AIDS defining event (ADE) morbidities were common in both populations, though more likely among HTE PLWH (45%) than non-HTE PLWH (35%). Incident ADE morbidities and deaths were uncommon among HTE (ADEs 5%; deaths 2%) and non-HTE (ADEs 2%; deaths 1%) PLWH. CONCLUSIONS: HTE PLWH were at greater risk of unfavorable treatment outcomes than non-HTE PLWH, suggesting additional therapeutic options are needed for this vulnerable population.

Virologic Outcomes Among People Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus With High Pretherapy Viral Load Burden Initiating on Common Core Agents.

BACKGROUND: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) with viral loads (VLs) ≥100 000 copies/mL are less likely to achieve virologic success, but few studies have characterized real-world treatment outcomes. METHODS: ART-naive PLWH with VLs ≥100 000 copies/mL initiating dolutegravir (DTG), elvitegravir (EVG), raltegravir (RAL), or darunavir (DRV) between 12 August 2013 and 31 July 2017 were identified from the OPERA database. Virologic failure was defined as (i) 2 consecutive VLs ≥200 copies/mL after 36 weeks of ART; (ii) 1 VL ≥200 copies/mL with core agent discontinuation after 36 weeks; (iii) 2 consecutive VLs ≥200 copies/mL after suppression (≤50 copies/mL) before 36 weeks; or (iv) 1 VL ≥200 copies/mL with discontinuation after suppression before 36 weeks. Cox modeling estimated the association between regimen and virologic failure. RESULTS: There were 2038 ART-naive patients with high VL who initiated DTG (36%), EVG (46%), DRV (16%), or RAL (2%). Median follow-up was 18.1 (interquartile range, 12.4-28.9) months. EVG and DTG initiators were similar at baseline, but RAL initiators were older and more likely to be female with low CD4 cell counts while DRV initiators differed notably on factors associated with treatment failure. Virologic failure was experienced by 9.2% DTG, 13.2% EVG, 18.4% RAL, and 18.8% DRV initiators. Compared to DTG, the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) was 1.46 (1.05-2.03) for EVG, 2.24 (1.50-3.34) for DRV, and 4.13 (1.85-9.24) for RAL. CONCLUSIONS: ART-naive PLWH with high VLs initiating on DTG were significantly less likely to experience virologic failure compared to EVG, RAL, and DRV initiators.Antiretroviral therapy-naïve people living with HIV (PLWH) initiating therapy with viral loads ≥100,000 copies/mL varied markedly at baseline. In adjusted models, PLWH initiating dolutegravir-based regimens were less likely to experience virologic failure as compared to elvitegravir, raltegravir and darunavir initiators.

Antiretroviral therapy and liver disorders in the OPERA® cohort.

INTRODUCTION: A comprehensive assessment of liver disorders was conducted among people living with HIV (PLWH) on a new antiretroviral regimen based on common core agents. METHODS: Treatment-naïve and experienced PLWH first initiating dolutegravir (DTG), elvitegravir (EVG), raltegravir (RAL), or darunavir (DRV) in the OPERA® cohort were included if they had ⩾1 liver chemistry test performed both within 12 months before regimen start and over follow-up. Liver disorders were defined as a diagnosis of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) or moderate/severe liver chemistry elevations (LCE). History of liver disorders experienced within 12 months of initiation was summarized. Liver disorders occurring during follow-up were described as prevalent (all disorders) or incident (disorders occurring among PLWH without a history of liver disorders or advanced liver fibrosis). RESULTS: Out of 16,024 PLWH, 38% initiated DTG, 43% EVG, 5% RAL, and 14% DRV. EVG users were younger and had a lower likelihood of comorbidities or lipid-lowering agent use than DTG users. EVG users were significantly less likely to have a history of moderate/severe LCE or to have prevalent moderate LCE. RAL users were older and had a higher likelihood of comorbidities or lipid-lowering agent use than DTG users. RAL users were significantly more likely to have a history of advanced liver fibrosis and prevalent moderate/severe LCE during follow-up. DRV users were older and had a lower likelihood of lipid-lowering agent use than DTG users. There was no difference in history of LCE, nor in prevalent or incident LCE between DRV and DTG users. No DILI diagnoses were recorded. Discontinuation following a liver disorder was rare (<1%) across all groups. CONCLUSION: While PLWH with comorbidities may have been channeled away from EVG and toward DTG and RAL, the incidence of moderate/severe LCE did not differ between DTG and EVG, RAL, and DRV. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Liver disorders and HIV treatment A comprehensive assessment of liver disorders was conducted using data from the OPERA® cohort, which provides anonymous patient-level clinical data from electronic health records. People living with HIV (PLWH) who were starting a new HIV treatment regimen that included one of four common HIV drugs were included in this study. Liver disorders included drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and moderate or severe liver chemistry elevations. History of a disorder was defined as liver disorders that occurred before starting the new treatment. Prevalent disorders were those that occurred after starting the new treatment in the whole population. Incident disorders were those that occurred after starting the new treatment, but only among PLWH without any history of liver disorders.Out of 16,024 PLWH, 38% initiated dolutegravir (DTG), 43% elvitegravir (EVG), 5% raltegravir (RAL), and 14% darunavir (DRV). EVG users were younger and less likely to have other diseases or use cholesterol lowering drugs compared to DTG users. They were also less likely to have a history of moderate/severe liver chemistry elevations or to have prevalent moderate liver chemistry elevations. RAL users were older and more likely to have other diseases or use cholesterol lowering drugs compared to DTG users. They were also more likely to have prevalent moderate/severe liver chemistry elevations than DTG users. DRV users were older and less likely to use cholesterol lowering agents compared to DTG users. There was no difference in history of liver chemistry elevations, or in prevalent, or incident liver chemistry elevations between DRV and DTG users. There were no DILI diagnoses and discontinuation of treatment following liver disorders was rare across all groups. Overall, the incidence of liver disorders after starting a new HIV treatment regimen did not differ between four common antiretroviral drugs.

Virologic Outcomes Among ART-Naïve Individuals Initiating Dolutegravir, Elvitegravir, Raltegravir or Darunavir: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Dolutegravir (DTG), Elvitegravir (EVG), Raltegravir (RAL) and Darunavir (DRV) are commonly prescribed core agents for antiretroviral therapy (ART), and a need exists to compare their clinical effectiveness, as defined by virologic failure risks in real-world settings. METHODS: This observational analysis of a US clinical cohort consisted of ART-naïve people living with HIV (PLWH) in the OPERA database initiating DTG-, EVG-, RAL- or DRV-based regimens between August 2013 and July 2016, with follow-up to July 2017. PLWH were observed from first core agent initiation until core agent discontinuation, clinical activity cessation, death, or study end. Key outcomes included viral suppression (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) and confirmed virologic failure (two consecutive viral loads > 200 copies/mL or a viral load > 200 copies/mL followed by discontinuation). Association between core agent and time to virologic failure was assessed with multivariate Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Overall, 4049 ART-naïve PLWH initiated EVG (47.4%), DTG (34.7%), DRV (14.6%), or RAL (3.2%). DTG and EVG initiators had generally similar baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, including race, risk of infection, baseline viral load, and baseline CD4 levels. RAL and DRV initiators were older and generally sicker than DTG initiators. During follow-up, more DTG initiators achieved virologic suppression (78.7%) compared with EVG (73.6%; p < 0.05), RAL (51.9%; p < 0.0001) and DRV (48.6%; p < 0.0001) initiators. Compared to DTG, both RAL and DRV were associated with higher rates of virologic failure, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 4.70 (3.03, 7.30) and 2.38 (1.72, 3.29), respectively. No difference was observed between EVG and DTG with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (0.94, 1.64). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort representative of PLWH in care in the US, ART-naïve PLWH prescribed DTG had better virologic outcomes than RAL and DRV, but had virologic failure risks comparable to EVG, although RAL and DRV were preferentially prescribed to sicker individuals. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare.

Virologic Effectiveness of Abacavir/Lamivudine with Darunavir/Ritonavir Versus Other Protease Inhibitors in Treatment-Experienced HIV-Infected Patients in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The standard of care for HIV treatment is a three-drug regimen consisting of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and either a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, a protease inhibitor (PI) or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor. Darunavir boosted with ritonavir (DRV/r) is the only preferred PI in the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) HIV treatment guidelines for antiretroviral-naïve patients, recommended in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine for antiretroviral-naïve patients. For treatment-experienced and certain antiretroviral-naïve patients, abacavir and lamivudine (ABC/3TC) in combination with DRV/r is considered an effective and tolerable alternative, despite limited research on the effectiveness of this particular combination. This study evaluated virologic outcomes in treatment-experienced patients taking ABC/3TC + DRV/r compared to treatment-experienced patients taking ABC/3TC with any other PI. METHODS: Treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients initiating their first regimen containing ABC/3TC in combination with any PI in the year 2005 or later were selected from the Observational Pharmaco-Epidemiology Research and Analysis (OPERA®) cohort, a prospective observational cohort reflecting routine medical care. Viral load measurements taken during follow-up were compared between patients taking ABC/3TC + DRV/r and ABC/3TC with a PI other than DRV/r. Logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between regimen exposure and viral load suppression. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients initiating ABC/3TC + DRV/r and 525 patients initiating ABC/3TC + a non-darunavir PI were included. Patients in both treatment groups had comparable clinical indicators (viral load, CD4) at baseline. A regimen of ABC/3TC + DRV/r was more likely to be prescribed in the later years of the study period, leading to a shorter median follow-up in the DRV/r treatment group (as-treated analysis: 14 vs. 17 months, p = 0.04; intent-to-treat analysis: 33 vs. 68 months, p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for year of regimen initiation, among other factors, indicated no statistically significant differences in achieving an undetectable viral load for patients taking DRV/r with ABC/3TC compared with other PIs, both in the as-treated (odds ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 0.84 [0.53-1.34]) and intent-to-treat analyses (0.82 [0.48-1.40]). Patients in both treatment groups also showed similar reductions in viral load (median darunavir vs. non-darunavir: -23.0 vs. -23.0 copies/mL; p = 0.72) and gains in CD4 T cell counts (median darunavir vs. non-darunavir: 106 vs. 108 cells/mm3; p = 0.59] while being treated with the regimen of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving ABC/3TC + DRV/r appear to experience similar treatment benefit to patients taking ABC/3TC with other PIs in terms of achieving suppression, as well as absolute reductions in viral load and CD4 lymphocyte gains.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter trial of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir for initial HIV treatment.

BACKGROUND: Abacavir sulfate/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and tenofovir DF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) are widely used nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial HIV-1 treatment. This is the first completed, randomized clinical trial to directly compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these agents, each in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS: Six hundred and eighty-eight antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomized in this double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter, noninferiority study to receive a once-daily regimen of either ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg or TDF/FTC 300 mg/200 mg, both with lopinavir/ritonavir 800 mg/200 mg. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/ml at week 48 (missing = failure, switch included analysis) and the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events over 96 weeks. RESULTS: At week 48, 68% in the ABC/3TC group vs. 67% in the TDF/FTC group achieved an HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/ml (intent-to-treat exposed missing = failure, 95% confidence interval on the difference -6.63 to 7.40, P = 0.913), demonstrating the noninferiority of ABC/3TC to TDF/FTC at week 48. Noninferiority of the two regimens was sustained at week 96 (60% vs. 58%, respectively, 95% confidence interval -5.41 to 9.32, P = 0.603). In addition, efficacy of both regimens was similar in patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA >or= 100 000 copies/ml or CD4 cell counts below 50 cells/microl. Median CD4 recovery (ABC/3TC vs. TDF/FTC, cells/microl) was +250 vs. +247 by week 96. Premature study discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in both groups. Protocol-defined virologic failure occurred in 14% of patients in both groups. CONCLUSION: Both ABC/3TC and TDF/FTC provided comparable antiviral efficacy, safety, and tolerability when each was combined with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive patients.

The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir-ritonavir is a preferred protease inhibitor co-formulation for initial HIV-1 treatment. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir has shown similar efficacy and safety to lopinavir-ritonavir when each is combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We compared the two treatments directly in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS: This open-label, non-inferiority study included 878 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients randomised to receive either fosamprenavir-ritonavir 700 mg/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily, each with the co-formulation of abacavir-lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL at week 48 and treatment discontinuations because of an adverse event. The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed to at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00085943. FINDINGS: At week 48, non-inferiority of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to lopinavir-ritonavir (95% CI around the treatment difference -4.84 to 7.05) was shown, with 315 of 434 (73%) patients in the fosamprenavir-ritonavir group and 317 of 444 (71%) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL. Treatment discontinuations due to an adverse event were few and occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups (fosamprenavir-ritonavir 53, 12%; lopinavir-ritonavir 43, 10%). Diarrhoea, nausea, and abacavir hypersensitivity were the most frequent drug-related grade 2-4 adverse events. Treatment-emergent drug resistance was rare; no patient had virus that developed reduced susceptibility to fosamprenavir-ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir. INTERPRETATION: Fosamprenavir-ritonavir twice daily in treatment-naive patients provides similar antiviral efficacy, safety, tolerability, and emergence of resistance as lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine.