Endoscopic Third Ventriculostomy in Patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1: A Multicenter International Experience.

BACKGROUND: Hydrocephalus in patients with neurofibromatosis (NF) type 1 is usually obstructive and may arise secondary to tumoral or nontumoral causes. Treatment of hydrocephalus in these patients is often challenging owing to combined pathologies and unique anatomic changes. The use of endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) as treatment has rarely been described in this group. We aimed to characterize indications, considerations, and outcome of ETV in patients with NF 1 gathered in a multicenter international cohort. METHODS: Five centers participated in this retrospective study. Following institutional review board approval, data and images were collected. Patients of all ages with NF 1 who underwent ETV for treatment of obstructive hydrocephalus were included. Patients who had no postoperative radiologic or clinical follow-up were excluded. ETV failure was defined as recurrent clinical or radiologic signs of hydrocephalus. RESULTS: The study included 42 patients. Common etiologies for hydrocephalus were aqueductal/tectal tumor (31%), aqueductal web (26%), and aqueductal stenosis owing to NF-related changes (14%). Ten patients had a preoperative diagnosis of optic pathway glioma. ETV failures were identified in 6 patients within 1 month, in 3 patients within 9 months, and in 1 patient within 4 years. ETV was successful in 32 patients (76%) with a mean follow up of 59.4 months ± 50.9 (range, 4 months to 15 years). CONCLUSIONS: ETV is a safe treatment for selected patients with NF 1 and obstructive hydrocephalus. Individual anatomic and pathologic aspects should be taken into consideration.

Raltegravir versus Efavirenz regimens in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week efficacy, durability, subgroup, safety, and metabolic analyses.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed the 96-week results in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. METHODS: Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies per milliliter and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. RESULTS: At week 96 counting noncompleters as failures, 81% versus 79% achieved vRNA levels <50 copies per milliliter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Delta (95% confidence interval) = 2% (-4 to 9), noninferiority P < 0.001]. Mean change in baseline CD4 count was 240 and 225 cells per cubic millimeter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Delta (95% confidence interval) = 15 (-13 to 42)]. Treatment effects were consistent across prespecified baseline demographic and prognostic subgroups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (47% versus 78%; P < 0.001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients. Both regimens had modest effects on serum lipids and glucose levels and on body fat composition. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir exhibited durable antiretroviral activity that was noninferior to the efficacy of efavirenz through 96 weeks of therapy. Subgroup analyses were generally consistent with the overall findings. Both regimens were well tolerated.

Activity of elvitegravir, a once-daily integrase inhibitor, against resistant HIV Type 1: results of a phase 2, randomized, controlled, dose-ranging clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase 2, randomized, active-controlled, 48-week study assessed the noninferiority of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) integrase inhibitor elvitegravir to comparator ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (CPI/r) in treatment-experienced subjects. METHODS: Subjects had HIV RNA levels 1000 copies/mL and 1 protease resistance mutation. Subjects received nucleoside or nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with or without T-20 and either CPI/r or once-daily elvitegravir at a dose of 20 mg, 50 mg, or 125 mg (blinded to dose) with ritonavir. After week 8, the independent data monitoring committee stopped the elvitegravir 20 mg arm and allowed subjects in the elvitegravir 50 mg and 125 mg arms to add protease inhibitors. The primary end point was the time-weighted average change from baseline in HIV RNA level through week 24 (DAVG(24)). RESULTS: A total of 278 subjects with a median of 11 protease and 3 thymidine analog mutations were randomized and treated. One-half of subjects received NRTIs without expected antiviral activity. Compared with the DAVG(24) for the CPI/r arm (-1.19 log(10) copies/mL), the elvitegravir 50 mg arm was noninferior (-1.44 log(10) copies/mL), and the elvitegravir 125 mg arm was superior (-1.66 log(10) copies/mL; P = .021). Efficacy was impacted by activity of background agents. There was no relationship between elvitegravir dosage and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Elvitegravir was well-tolerated and produced rapid virologic suppression that was durable with active background therapy. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT00298350.

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.

Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. FINDINGS: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per microL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86.1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81.9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4.2%, 95% CI -1.9 to 10.3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0.0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44.1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77.0%]; difference -32.8%, 95% CI -40.2 to -25.0, p<0.0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. INTERPRETATION: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: Merck.

Efficacy and safety of etravirine (TMC125) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients: 48-week results of a phase IIb trial.

Forty-eight-week results from a randomized, multicentre, part-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial assessing the efficacy and safety of 400 and 800 mg etravirine twice daily (phase IIb formulation) and optimized background regimen versus standard-of-care regimen are presented. Both etravirine doses demonstrated sustained virological suppression at 48 weeks and a favourable tolerability profile. Etravirine demonstrated higher efficacy than control, irrespective of the number of detectable nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistance-associated mutations at baseline or active background antiretrovirals.

Efficacy and safety of etravirine (TMC125) in patients with highly resistant HIV-1: primary 24-week analysis.

OBJECTIVE: TMC125-C223 is an open-label, partially blinded, randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of two dosages of etravirine (TMC125), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with activity against wild-type and NNRTI-resistant HIV-1. DESIGN: A total of 199 patients were randomly assigned 2: 2: 1 to twice-daily etravirine 400 mg, 800 mg and control groups, respectively. The primary endpoint was a change in viral load from baseline at week 24 in the intention-to-treat population. METHODS: Patients had HIV-1 with genotypic resistance to approved NNRTIs and at least three primary protease inhibitor (PI) mutations. Etravirine groups received an optimized background of at least two approved antiretroviral agents [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and/or lopinavir/ritonavir and/or enfuvirtide]. Control patients received optimized regimens of at least three antiretroviral agents (NRTIs or PIs and/or enfuvirtide). RESULTS: The mean change from baseline in HIV-1 RNA at week 24 was -1.04, -1.18 and -0.19 log10 copies/ml for etravirine 400 mg twice a day, 800 mg twice a day and the control group, respectively (P < 0.05 for both etravirine groups versus control). Etravirine showed no dose-related effects on safety and tolerability. No consistent pattern of neuropsychiatric symptoms was observed. There were few hepatic adverse events, and rashes were predominantly early onset and mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: Etravirine plus an optimized background significantly reduced HIV-1-RNA levels from baseline after 24 weeks in patients with substantial NNRTI and PI resistance, and demonstrated a favorable safety profile compared with control.

Pilot study of once-daily simplification therapy with abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine and efavirenz for treatment of HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the efficacy and safety of the abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine fixed-dose combination tablet administered as two tablets once daily (qd) versus one tablet twice daily (bid) in combination with efavirenz (EFV). METHOD: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study with a 24-week treatment period in 7 outpatient HIV clinics in the United States. Patients currently receiving an initial regimen of abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV qd for at least 6 months with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for at least 3 months and a screening CD4+ cell count > or = 200 cells/mm3 were eligible. Thirty-six patients enrolled, and 35 (97%) completed the study. Participants were randomized to switch to 2 tablets of abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine qd plus EFV qd (QD arm) or continue current treatment (BID arm) for 24 weeks. RESULTS: Efficacy, safety, and adherence were evaluated. Median baseline CD4+ cell count was 521 cells/mm3. At week 24, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL was achieved for 94% of participants in the QD arm and 89% in the BID arm by intent-to-treat, missing = failure analysis (95% confidence interval for difference: > or = 0.29 to +0.18, p = 1.000). At week 24, median CD4+ cell count change from baseline was +26 cells/mm3 for the QD arm and -39 cells/mm3 for BID arm. One patient randomized to the QD arm met virologic failure criteria (confirmed HIV-1 RNA >120 copies/mL) at week 20 and viral genotype showed M184V. After failure, this patient revealed he never took EFV throughout the entire study after randomization, effectively receiving only abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine qd alone. Median adherence was slightly higher in the QD arm, although both arms had broad variability and overlapping interquartile ranges. Adverse events were infrequent and occurred with similar frequency between arms; treatment-related adverse events were abdominal pain, flatulence, nausea, headache, and abnormal dreams (1 patient [3%] for each adverse event). No patients withdrew due to adverse events, and no abacavir hypersensitivity reactions were reported. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study of patients suppressed on abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV, 94% of participants switching to abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine qd plus EFV maintained virologic suppression, compared to 89% of participants continuing abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV.

Early virologic nonresponse to tenofovir, abacavir, and lamivudine in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive subjects.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral combinations that reduce the number of pills and dosing frequency have the potential to simplify therapy. We compared 2 regimens dosed as 2 pills once daily. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, both administered once daily with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected subjects. After reports of early nonresponse, an unplanned interim analysis was performed. Virologic nonresponse was defined as (1) a <2.0-log(10) copies/mL decrease in HIV-1 RNA level by week 8, (2) an HIV-1 RNA rebound of > or =1.0 log(10) copies/mL above the nadir, or (3) for subjects with 2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA measurements <50 copies/mL, a subsequent increase to >400 copies/mL on 2 consecutive occasions. RESULTS: We randomized 340 subjects. Median baseline HIV-1 RNA level and CD4+ cell count were 4.7 log(10) copies/mL and 251 cells/mm3, respectively; 194 subjects with HIV-1 RNA data from > or =8 weeks were included in the interim analysis. Virologic nonresponse occurred in 50 (49%) of 102 subjects in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm, compared with 5 (5%) of 92 of subjects in the efavirenz arm (P<.001). Within 12 weeks, viral genotypes for nonresponders in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm showed M184V or I/M/V mixtures in 40 (98%) of 41 subjects and K65R and M184V or mixtures in 22 (54%) of 41 subjects. The protocol was immediately amended to modify the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm. The efavirenz arm continued unchanged; after 48 weeks, 120 (71%) of 169 subjects achieved HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL. CONCLUSION: The tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/abacavir/lamivudine regimen resulted in an unexpected and unacceptably high rate of nonresponse and incidence of K65R and M184V/I. This 3-drug regimen should not be used.

Abacavir, efavirenz, didanosine, with or without hydroxyurea, in HIV-infected adults failing initial nucleoside/protease inhibitor-containing regimens.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea (HU) is an immunomodulatory agent that has been documented to enhance the antiretroviral activity of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, such as abacavir (ABC) and didanosine (ddI), and would be expected to improve virologic efficacy. METHODS: A 48-week, phase IV, multicenter, open-label, proof-of-concept clinical trial was conducted to evaluate second-line, protease inhibitor (PI)-sparing therapy with ABC/efavirenz (EFV)/ddI plus HU or without HU in HIV-infected subjects failing to achieve HIV-1 RNA < or = 400 copies/mL after > or = 16 weeks of treatment with lamivudine/zidovudine or lamivudine/stavudine, plus 1 or 2 PIs. Subjects were assigned to ABC (300 mg twice daily)/ EFV (600 mg once daily)/ ddI (400 mg once daily) plus HU (500 mg twice daily) (n = 30) or this regimen without HU (n = 24). RESULTS: Baseline mean HIV-1 RNA was 3.86 log10 copies/mL and CD4+ cell count was 345 cells/mm3. A similar percentage of subjects in the non-HU arm (58%) and HU arm (53%) completed the study. Intent-to-treat: missing = failure analysis showed no differences in proportions of subjects in the non-HU and HU arms achieving undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA levels at week 24 (< 400 copies/mL: 58% [14/24] vs 57% [17/30], P = 0.899; < 50 copies/mL (50% [12/24] vs 47% [14/30], P = 0.780). Median change from baseline in CD4+ cell count in the non-HU and HU arms at week 48 was +114 cells/mm3 and -63 cells/mm3 (P = 0.007), respectively. Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although more subjects in the HU arm withdrew prematurely from the study due to adverse events (23% vs 4%). Four cases of possible ABC-related hypersensitivity were observed. CONCLUSION: ABC/EFV/ddI was an effective and well-tolerated second-line regimen for nucleoside/PI-experienced HIV-infected subjects. The addition of HU blunted the CD4+ cell response, did not appear to enhance antiviral activity, and resulted in more treatment-limiting adverse events.