Brief Report: Long-Term (96-Week) Efficacy and Safety After Switching From Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate to Tenofovir Alafenamide in HIV-Infected, Virologically Suppressed Adults.

In a double-blind, phase 3 trial, 663 HIV-infected, virologically suppressed adults were randomized to switch to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF; n = 333) vs. remain on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; n = 330), each coformulated with emtricitabine (FTC), while continuing their third agent (boosted protease inhibitor or unboosted third agent). At week 96, 88.6% on FTC/TAF and 89.1% on FTC/TDF had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter [adjusted difference -0.5% (95% confidence interval: -5.3 to 4.4%)]. Proteinuria, albuminuria, proximal renal tubular function, and bone mineral density improved after switching to TAF- from TDF-containing regimens. These longer-term data support FTC/TAF as a safe, well-tolerated, and durable nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone.

ARIES 144 week results: durable virologic suppression in HIV-infected patients simplified to unboosted atazanavir/abacavir/lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: The open-label study ARIES (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00440947) utilized a ritonavir (/r)-boosted protease inhibitor treatment simplification strategy. Antiretroviral-naïve subjects received abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) + atazanavir/ ritonavir (ATV/r) from baseline through randomization at week 36, then maintained or discontinued ritonavir for an additional 108 weeks. Non-inferiority of the unboosted regimen was demonstrated at week 84. In this optional extension phase, virologic suppression and adverse events were assessed through week 144. METHODS: Patients were randomized at week 36 if they had confirmed HIV RNA <50 copies/mL by week 30 and no previous virologic failure (VF; defined as failure to achieve HIV RNA <400 copies/mL or confirmed rebound after achieving HIV RNA ≥400 copies/mL). Three hundred sixty-nine subjects who completed 84 weeks in ARIES participated in the extension phase and maintained their randomized regimen for an additional 60 weeks post randomization. RESULTS: At week 144, 146/189 (77%) versus 132/180 (73%) subjects in the unboosted ATV and ATV/r groups, respectively, maintained HIV RNA <50 copies/mL. Post randomization (weeks 36-144), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events were more common in the ATV/r-treated (23%) compared to the ATV-treated (13%) group; the most frequently reported was increased serum bilirubin (6% of ATV-treated subjects vs 14 % of ATV/r-treated subjects). During the extension phase, 3% (11/369) of subjects met protocol-defined VF (5 ATV-treated and 6 ATV/ r-treated subjects); one ATV/r-treated subject had treatment-emergent major viral resistance-associated mutations. The median change in fasting triglycerides from baseline to week 144 was significantly different (P=.001) in the ATV-treated (-8.5 mg/dL) compared to the ATV/r-treated (28.5 mg/dL) groups. CONCLUSIONS: These long-term study results demonstrate that ATV in combination with ABC/3TC is a potent, well-tolerated regimen in patients who have achieved initial suppression on a ritonavir-boosted regimen.

Similar efficacy of raltegravir when used with or without a protease inhibitor in treatment-experienced patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiclass-resistant HIV-1 have limited treatment options. Raltegravir, an inhibitor of integrase, has shown excellent efficacy when used with protease inhibitors (Pis) in patients with drug-resistant HIV-1. Limited data are available however about the outcomes when using raltegravir without Pis in this population. METHODS: Medical records of subjects who received raltegravir as part of the Merck EAP study 0518 were reviewed and abstracted at participating sites. Eligibility criteria included HIV positivity, age ≥ 16 years, limited or no treatment options due to resistance or intolerance to multiple antiretroviral regimens, detectable viremia on current treatment regimen, and documented resistance to at least one drug in each antiretroviral class (PI, NNRTI, and nucleoside analogue). Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected locally using a standardized collection form. Genotypic susceptibility scores (GSS) were determined from the most recent genotypic resistance test available prior to the initiation of raltegravir. The main objective was to compare virologic results in patients who received raltegravir with a PI versus those who received raltegravir without a PI. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-two subjects were evaluated from the respective sites in the EAP trial, of whom 340 were evaluable. The baseline mean HIV RNA was 4.6 log copies/ mL, and the mean CD4 cell count was 159 cells/µL. The median number of total and new antiretroviral agents in the background regimen was 4 and 2, respectively. Among the 254 patients who received a PI, the most common PI used was darunavir (89%). Etravirine was commonly used in both groups: 39% of the PI group and 67% of the non-PI group. At week 12, 67% of PI patients and 64% of non-PI patients achieved HIV RNA <75 copies/mL and 85% and 86%, respectively, achieved HIV RNA <400 copies/mL GSS, which was similar in both groups at baseline, predicted achieving an HIV RNA of <400 and 75 copies/mL at week 12 (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-experienced patients, the combination of raltegravir with a regimen not containing a PI (used with etravirine in two-thirds of patients) had similar virologic activity when compared to more standard regimens using raltegravir with a PI. The main determinant of efficacy was the number of active drugs as measured by GSS. These data expand the potential utility of raltegravir in patients with multidrug-resistant HIV.

Similar efficacy and tolerability of atazanavir compared with atazanavir/ritonavir, each with abacavir/lamivudine after initial suppression with abacavir/lamivudine plus ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: Treatment simplification strategies involving induction with a ritonavir (RTV)-boosted (/r) protease inhibitor regimen followed by simplification (without RTV) are appealing because they may offer sustained virologic suppression while minimizing potential long-term adverse effects associated with RTV. METHODS: This open-label, randomized, noninferiority study enrolled 515 antiretroviral therapy-naive patients to receive abacavir/lamivudine plus atazanavir/RTV (ATV/r) followed by randomization at week 36 (N = 419) to maintain or discontinue RTV for an additional 48 weeks. Eligibility for randomization required confirmed HIV RNA level below 50 copies/ml and no virologic failure. Protocol-defined virologic failure after week 36 was confirmed rebound of HIV RNA level at least 400 copies/ml. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV RNA level below 50 copies/ml at week 84 (time to loss of virologic response). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00440947. RESULTS: At week 84, noninferiority of ATV to ATV/r (95% confidence interval around the treatment difference -1.75 to 12.48%) was demonstrated with 181 of 210 (86%) patients in the ATV group and 169 of 209 (81%) in the ATV/r group maintaining HIV RNA level below 50 copies/ml. During the randomized phase (weeks 36-84), 10 versus 14% of patients in the ATV and ATV/r arms, respectively, experienced a drug-related grades 2-4 adverse event with hyperbilirubinemia being the most frequently reported (4 versus 10%). The overall rate of protocol-defined virologic failure was 2%; no patient had virus that developed a major protease inhibitor mutation. CONCLUSION: ATV in combination with abacavir/lamivudine is a potent and well tolerated regimen in patients who have achieved initial suppression on an induction regimen and represents a viable treatment simplification strategy.

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.

Subgroup analyses of maraviroc in previously treated R5 HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We conducted subanalyses of the combined results of the Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients (MOTIVATE) 1 and MOTIVATE 2 studies to better characterize the efficacy and safety of maraviroc in key subgroups of patients. METHODS: We analyzed pooled data from week 48 from the two studies according to sex, race or ethnic group, clade, CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) delta32 genotype, viral load at the time of screening, the use or nonuse of enfuvirtide in optimized background therapy (OBT), the baseline CD4 cell count, the number of active antiretroviral drugs coadministered, the first use of selected background agents, and tropism at baseline. Changes in viral tropism and the CD4 count at treatment failure were evaluated. Data on aminotransferase levels in patients coinfected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) were also analyzed. RESULTS: A treatment benefit of maraviroc plus OBT over placebo plus OBT was shown in all subgroups, including patients with a low CD4 cell count at baseline, those with a high viral load at screening, and those who had not received active agents in OBT. Analyses of the virologic response according to the first use of selected background drugs showed the additional benefit of adding a potent new drug to maraviroc at the initiation of maraviroc therapy. More patients in whom maraviroc failed had a virus binding to the CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) at failure, but there was no evidence of a decrease in the CD4 cell count at failure in such patients as compared with those in whom placebo failed. Subanalyses involving patients coinfected with HBV or HCV revealed no evidence of excess hepatotoxic effects as compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Subanalyses of pooled data from week 48 indicate that maraviroc provides a valuable treatment option for a wide spectrum of patients with R5 HIV-1 infection who have been treated previously. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00098306 and NCT00098722.)

First large, multicenter, open-label study utilizing HLA-B*5701 screening for abacavir hypersensitivity in North America.

A hypersensitivity reaction is associated with abacavir in approximately 2-8% of exposed patients. The frequency of the HLA-B*5701 allele varies across racial groups and significantly correlates with risk of hypersensitivity. Studies in Europe and Western Australia demonstrated that prospective screening can significantly reduce the rate of hypersensitivity by avoiding the use of abacavir in patients carrying the HLA-B*5701 allele. Prospective HLA-B*5701 screening in a large, racially diverse North American population resulted in less than 1% of individuals diagnosed with a suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction (ABC HSR) and no positive skin patch test through 30 weeks among HLA-B*5701-negative individuals.

A 96-week comparison of lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy followed by lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy versus efavirenz combination therapy.

Antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected volunteers received zidovudine/lamivudine plus either lopinavir/ritonavir (n=104) or efavirenz (n=51). Lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects demonstrating 3 consecutive monthly HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL started lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. In previous-failure=failure analysis, 48% (lopinavir/ritonavir) and 61% (efavirenz) maintained HIV-1 RNA at <50 copies/mL through week 96, (P= .17; 95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference, -29% to 4%); in noncompletion=failure analysis, 60% (lopinavir/ritonavir) and 63% (efavirenz) maintained HIV-1 RNA at <50 copies/mL at week 96 (P= .73; 95% CI for the difference, -19% to 13%). Significant sparing of peripheral lipoatrophy was noted in the lopinavir/ritonavir simplification strategy. This study has provided important information for future studies using treatment simplified to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy.

T-1249 retains potent antiretroviral activity in patients who had experienced virological failure while on an enfuvirtide-containing treatment regimen.

BACKGROUND: T-1249 is a 39-amino acid synthetic peptide fusion inhibitor (FI) shown to preserve antiretroviral activity in vitro against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) isolates that have decreased susceptibility to enfuvirtide (ENF). METHODS: A 10-day phase 1/2 study of the safety and antiretroviral activity of T-1249 was conducted in 53 HIV-1-infected adults with detectable viremia while on an ENF-containing treatment regimen. RESULTS: From FI-naive baseline levels, the geometric mean (GM) decrease in susceptibility to ENF was 116.3-fold, and the GM decrease in susceptibility to T-1249 was 2.0-fold. Patients continued to administer their failing treatment regimen but replaced ENF with T-1249 at a dose of 192 mg/day. T-1249 was generally well tolerated; injection site reactions, which were generally mild, were the most commonly reported adverse event (64% of patients). The median change from levels of HIV-1 RNA at baseline to levels on day 11 was -1.26 log(10) copies/mL (95% confidence interval, -1.40 to -1.09 log(10) copies/mL); on day 11, a decrease from baseline HIV-1 RNA levels of >/=1.0 log(10) copies/mL was seen in 73% of patients. Antiretroviral activity, as measured by levels of HIV-1 RNA, was not predicted by baseline susceptibility to T-1249 or to ENF; genotypic substitutions that emerged during T-1249 treatment were identified in virus from some patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that FIs constitute an expanding class of antiretroviral agents with the potential to be sequenced.

SOLO: 48-week efficacy and safety comparison of once-daily fosamprenavir /ritonavir versus twice-daily nelfinavir in naive HIV-1-infected patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the magnitude and durability of the antiviral response to fosamprenavir (FPV) plus ritonavir (RTV) once-daily (FPV/r QD) with nelfinavir twice-daily (NFV BID), each administered with abacavir and lamivudine twice-daily. METHODS: An international, phase III, randomized, open-label study in antiretroviral therapy-naive, HIV-infected adults. RESULTS: Patients with advanced HIV disease received FPV/r QD (n = 322) or NFV BID (n = 327). At week 48, 69% of patients in the FPV/r QD group and 68% in the NFV BID group had plasma HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) < 400 copies/ml, whereas 55% of patients in the FPV/r QD group and 53% in the NFV BID group had vRNA < 50 copies/ml (intent to treat, rebound/discontinuation = failure). More patients in the NFV BID group (17%) experienced virological failure than in the FPV/r QD group (7%). Efficacy of FPV/r QD was maintained in patients with CD4+ cell counts < 50 x 10 cells/l or vRNA >/= 100 000 copies/ml at entry. At week 48, median CD4+ cell counts were increased to 203 x 10 cells/l (FPV/r QD group) and 207 x 10 cells/l (NFV BID group). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Diarrhea was more common on NFV BID than on FPV/r QD (16 versus 9%; P = 0.008). Fasting lipid profile results were generally favorable in both treatment arms. FPV/r QD maintained plasma amprenavir (APV) trough concentrations above the mean phenotypic drug-susceptibility (IC50) for wild-type virus for APV. CONCLUSION: As a first choice protease inhibitor with a low daily pill burden, FPV/r QD was well tolerated and provided potent, durable antiviral suppression.

Twice-daily Trizivir versus Combivir-abacavir in antiretroviral-experienced adults with human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection: a formulation-switch trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To establish the clinical equivalence (noninferiority) of one tablet containing abacavir 300 mg-lamivudine 150 mg-zidovudine 300 mg (Trizivir) versus a tablet containing lamivudine 150 mg-zidovudine 300 mg (Combivir) given with one abacavir (ABC) 300-mg tablet, administered twice/day, in antiretroviral-experienced, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1-infected patients. DESIGN: Randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, formulation-switch study. SETTING: Twenty seven outpatient treatment sites. PATIENTS: Adults with HIV-1 RNA levels of 400 copies/ml or less and CD4+ cell counts above 200 cells/mm3 who had been treated for 16 weeks or more with highly active antiretroviral therapy containing Combivir-ABC. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Trizivir (97 patients) or Combivir-ABC (98) for 24 weeks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary study end point was the proportion of patients who maintained less than a 0.5-log10 increase from baseline in HIV-1 RNA (virologic success) through week 24. Clinical equivalence of the treatments was established if the 95.1% lower confidence limit (LCL) for the difference in proportion of virologic success with Trizivir minus Combivir-ABC was -0.12 or greater. Trizivir was clinically equivalent to Combivir-ABC. The intent-to-treat observed analysis at week 24 with Trizivir and Combivir-ABC showed a similar rate of virologic success (83% [80/97] and 77% [75/98], respectively, 95.1% LCL -0.026), of patients with HIV-1 RNA levels of 400 or fewer copies/ml (99% [82/83] and 93% [77/83], respectively, 95.1% LCL 0.021), and of patients with HIV-1 RNA levels of fewer than 50 copies/ml (89% [74/83] and 77% [64/83], respectively, 95.1% LCL 0.038). The intent-to-treat missing = failure analysis showed comparable results. Changes in CD4+ cell count from baseline, overall mean self-reported adherence (Trizivir 97%, Combivir-ABC 92%), and adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments. No ABC-related hypersensitivity reactions occurred. CONCLUSION: Trizivir was clinically equivalent to Combivir-ABC and may be substituted for the latter to simplify treatment and reduce pill burden.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in nucleoside-resistant HIV-1 infection: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to antiretroviral agents remains a leading cause of treatment failure for patients infected with HIV-1. OBJECTIVE: To describe the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir DF) compared with placebo in patients with detectable viral replication despite current antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study through 24 weeks. After 24 weeks, all patients received open-label tenofovir DF for the remainder of the 48-week study. SETTING: 75 North American, European, and Australian HIV clinics. PATIENTS: 552 HIV-1-infected adults who were receiving antiretroviral therapy and had stable HIV-1 RNA levels ranging from 400 to 10,000 copies/mL. MEASUREMENTS: Change in HIV-1 RNA level (time-weighted average from baseline through week 24); proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities and adverse events; and genotypic HIV-1 resistance testing in a separate substudy at baseline, week 24, and week 48. RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease in HIV-1 RNA level through week 24 (the primary end point) was observed in the tenofovir DF group versus the placebo group (-0.61 log10 copies/mL vs. -0.03 log10 copies/mL, respectively [P < 0.001]; difference, -0.58 log10 copies/mL [95% CI, -0.68 to -0.49 log10 copies/mL]). In a virologic substudy, 94% of 253 patients had plasma isolates expressing reverse transcriptase mutations associated with nucleoside resistance mutations at baseline. Through week 24, the incidence of clinical adverse events was similar between patients receiving placebo and those receiving tenofovir DF (14% vs. 13%). No evidence of tenofovir DF-related toxicity was seen through week 48. CONCLUSION: In treatment-experienced patients with suboptimal viral suppression, tenofovir DF significantly reduced HIV-1 RNA level and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo.

Lamivudine 300 mg QD versus continued lamivudine 150 mg BID with stavudine and a protease inhibitor in suppressed patients.

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy (sustained virologic suppression) and safety/tolerability of a switch to lamivudine 300 mg once daily (QD) versus continued lamivudine 150 mg twice daily (BID) in virologically suppressed patients (HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL for > or =3 months) on stable (> or =6 months) therapy with lamivudine 150 mg BID plus stavudine and either indinavir or nelfinavir. METHOD: Eighty-nine suppressed patients > or =18 years old with CD4 counts >50 cells/mm(3) were enrolled in this phase II, open-label, multicenter, randomized, stratified (by pretrial protease inhibitor [PI]), parallel-group clinical trial. Eighty-one patients received either lamivudine 300 mg QD (n = 39) or 150 mg BID (n = 42) with their pretrial stavudine/PI regimens for 24 weeks. RESULTS: A high rate of virologic suppression was sustained with both regimens throughout the trial. At week 24, intent-to-treat:exposed (missing = failure) analyses showed no statistically significant differences in the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL (95% [QD] vs. 90% [BID]) or <50 copies/mL (82% [QD] vs. 81% [BID]) or in the median change from baseline in CD4 counts (+42 cells/mm(3) [QD] vs. +22 cells/mm(3) [BID]). Both regimens were well tolerated. No patient experienced virologic failure, clinical disease progression, or a drug-related serious adverse event during the trial. Self-reported medication adherence was high in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who experience virologic suppression with a regimen of lamivudine 150 mg BID in combination with stavudine/PI can maintain that suppression by continuing their regimen or switching to lamivudine 300 mg QD and continuing the other components. Adverse event profiles were comparable among treatment regimens, and no new safety concerns were raised.

Abacavir expanded access program for adult patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1.

Expanded access programs (EAPs) provide medication to patients with life-threatening, treatment-refractory illnesses before regulatory approval and allow the acquisition of safety information. A 2-part, multisite EAP to evaluate abacavir, a carbocyclic nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor for use in combination antiretroviral therapy, was conducted. The EAP involved >13,000 adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) who no longer responded to commercially available treatment regimens. Part A (open-label trials) examined the efficacy, safety, and tolerance of abacavir, and part B (provision of abacavir through expanded access) assessed only the occurrence of serious adverse events. By month 2 of abacavir-containing treatment, plasma HIV-1 RNA levels decreased by > or =0.5 log(10) in 31.4% of patients, and 5.6% of the patients had HIV-1 RNA levels decrease to <400 copies/mL. Drug-related serious adverse events were reported by 7.7% of patients, the most common of which were nausea, skin rash, diarrhea, malaise or fatigue, and fever. Approximately 4.6% of patients experienced a hypersensitivity reaction that was possibly drug related. Overall, the types and incidences of adverse events reported in the abacavir EAP were similar to those reported in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials evaluating abacavir.