Randomized comparison of renal effects, efficacy, and safety with once-daily abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir/emtricitabine, administered with efavirenz, in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected adults: 48-week results from the ASSERT study.

BACKGROUND: Abacavir/lamivudine and tenofovir/emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used first-line antiretroviral therapies, yet few studies have comprehensively compared their safety profiles. METHODS: Forty-eight-week data are presented from this multicenter, randomized, open-label study comparing the safety profiles of abacavir/lamivudine and tenofovir/emtricitabine, both administered with efavirenz, in HLA-B*5701-negative HIV-1-infected adults. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty-five subjects were enrolled in the study. The overall rate of withdrawal was high (28%). Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline were similar between arms [difference 0.953 mL.min.1.73 m (95% confidence interval: -1.445 to 3.351), P = 0.435]. Urinary excretion of retinol-binding protein and beta-2 microglobulin increased significantly more in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm (+50%; +24%) compared with the abacavir/lamivudine arm (no change; -47%) (P < 0.0001). A lower proportion achieved viral load <50 copies per milliliter in the abacavir/lamivudine arm (114 of 192, 59%) compared with the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm (137 of 193, 71%) [difference 11.6% (95% confidence interval: 2.2 to 21.1)]. The overall virological failure rate was low. The adverse event rate was similar between arms (except drug hypersensitivity, reported more in the abacavir/lamivudine arm). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate between the arms, however, increases in markers of tubular dysfunction were observed in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm, the long-term consequence of which is unclear. A significant difference in efficacy favoring tenofovir/emtricitabine was observed.

Short-term safety and tolerability of a once-daily fixed-dose abacavir-lamivudine combination versus twice-daily dosing of abacavir and lamivudine as separate components: findings from the ALOHA study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term (12 wks) safety and tolerability of a once-daily, fixed-dose abacavir-lamivudine combination versus twice-daily dosing of the separate components, both with background antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN: Phase IIIB, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study. SETTING: One hundred forty-six human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics. PATIENTS: Six hundred eighty antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients with HIV type 1 RNA greater than 1000 copies/ml at baseline. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to receive either abacavir 600 mg-lamivudine 300 mg once/day or abacavir 300 mg twice/day and lamivudine 150 mg twice/day. Subjects were stratified based on choice of third or fourth antiretroviral drug (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI], NNRTI, or protease inhibitor), assigned before randomization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was occurrence of grades 2-4 adverse events and serious adverse events; abacavir hypersensitivity reactions were considered serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics were similar between the once-daily (455 patients) and twice-daily (225 patients) groups. The rates of all grades 2-4 adverse events were similar: once-daily 33% (150 patients), twice-daily 31% (69). A slightly larger proportion of patients in the twice-daily group experienced drug-related grades 2-4 adverse events: once-daily 10% (47), twice-daily 16% (36). Rates of all serious adverse events (once-daily 11% [49], twice-daily 10% [22]) and drug-related serious adverse events (once-daily 5% [21], twice-daily 8% [17]) were similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was 5.3% (once-daily 4.4% [20], twice-daily 7.1% [16]), with a higher rate for the NNRTI stratum of the twice-daily group (8.6% [10]) than in any other stratum (once-daily, NNRTI 4.3% [10]; twice-daily, protease inhibitor 5.6% [6]; once-daily, protease inhibitor 4.6% [10]). CONCLUSION: In the short-term, the rates of adverse events in the once-daily and twice-daily groups appeared to be similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction in the once-daily group was lower than the rate in the twice-daily group.

Prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance and resistance-associated mutations in antiretroviral therapy-naïve HIV-infected individuals from 40 United States cities.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of drug-resistant HIV strains to antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve subjects can negatively impact therapy response. As treatment strategies and utilization of antiretroviral drugs evolve, patterns of transmitted mutations may shift. METHOD: Paired genotypic and phenotypic susceptibility data were retrospectively analyzed for 317 ART-naïve, HIV-infected subjects from 40 small and major metropolitan cities in the Northeastern, Midwestern, Southern, Southwestern, and Northwestern United States during 2003. RESULTS: Using current (January 2007) PhenoSense cutoffs, HIV-from 8% of subjects had reduced susceptibility to > or = 1 drug. By class, < 1% had reduced susceptibility to protease inhibitors (PIs), and 1% had reduced susceptibility to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs); reduced susceptibility to > or = 1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTIs) was seen in 7% of subjects, with 4% of all subjects having reduced susceptibility to all NNRTIs. IAS-USA-defined NRTI, NNRTI, and/or major PI HIV-drug resistance-associated mutations were detected for 0% of the subjects. HIV risk factors included homosexual contact (74%), heterosexual contact (28%), and injectable drug use/transfusion/other (7%). Reduced susceptibility to > or = 1 drug was significantly higher (p = .034) for white subjects than African Americans and Hispanics/others. CONCLUSION: The high prevalence of drug resistance in these ART-naïve subjects suggests that transmitted resistance is occurring widely within the United States. HIV genotyping and/or phenotyping for antiretroviral-naïve patients seeking treatment should be considered, especially if the therapy will include an NNRTI.

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.

Dose separation does not overcome the pharmacokinetic interaction between fosamprenavir and lopinavir/ritonavir.

Previous investigations have shown a significant negative two-way drug interaction between fosamprenavir (FPV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients and seronegative volunteers. This randomized, nonblinded, three-way crossover study of HIV-seronegative adult volunteers investigated dose separation and increased doses of RTV as a means to overcome the interaction between FPV and LPV/RTV. Eleven HIV-seronegative volunteers were given FPV plus LPV/RTV at 700 mg plus 400/100 mg every 12 hours (q12h) simultaneously for 10 days and then randomized to receive each of three 7-day treatments in one of six possible sequences, as follows: FPV plus LPV/RTV at 700 mg plus 400 mg/100 mg q12h simultaneously, FPV/RTV at 700 mg/100 mg q12h plus LPV/RTV at 400 mg/100 mg q12h, with doses separated by 4 h, and FPV/RTV at 1,400 mg/200 mg in the morning plus LPV/RTV at 800 mg/200 mg in the evening. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on day 8 of each treatment, and samples were analyzed for FPV, amprenavir (APV), LPV, and RTV concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Geometric mean ratios (GMR [with 95% confidence intervals]) for the 4- and 12-h dose separation strategies compared to simultaneous administration were calculated for the areas under the concentration-time curves from 0 to 24 h. Compared to simultaneous administration, RTV exposures increased with both 4-h and 12-h dose separation strategies (GMR, 5.30 [3.66 to 7.67] and 4.45 [3.09 to 6.41], respectively). LPV exposures also significantly increased with both 4-h and 12-h dose separation strategies (GMR, 1.76 [1.34 to 2.32] and 1.43 [1.02 to 2.01], respectively). However, both the 4- and 12-h strategies resulted in greater reductions in APV exposure (0.67 [0.54 to 0.83] and 0.77 [0.59 to 0.99], respectively) compared to simultaneous administration. Additional investigations are warranted to determine the optimal dosing of FPV with LPV/RTV.

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.

Coadministration of lopinavir/ritonavir and phenytoin results in two-way drug interaction through cytochrome P-450 induction.

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) is a CYP3A4 inhibitor and substrate; it also may induce cytochrome P-450 (CYP) isozymes. Phenytoin (PHT) is a CYP3A4 inducer and CYP2C9/CYP2C19 substrate. This study quantified the pharmacokinetic (PK) drug interaction between LPV/RTV and PHT. Open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, PK study in healthy volunteers. Subjects in arm A (n = 12) received LPV/RTV 400/100 mg twice daily (BID) (days 1-10), followed by LPV/RTV 400/100 mg BID + PHT 300 mg once daily (QD) (days 11-22). Arm B (n = 12) received PHT 300 mg QD (days 1-11), followed by PHT 300 mg QD + LPV/RTV 400/100 mg BID (days 12-23). Plasma samples were collected on day 11 and day 22; PK parameters were compared by geometric mean ratio (GMR, day 22:day 11). P values <0.05 were considered significant. Following PHT addition, LPV area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-12h) decreased from 70.9 +/-37.0 to 49.6 +/- 25.1 microg.h/mL (GMR 0.67, P = 0.011) and C0h decreased from 6.0 +/- 3.2 to 3.6 +/- 2.3 microg/mL (GMR 0.54, P = 0.001). Following LPV/RTV addition, PHT AUC0-24h decreased from 191.0+/-89.2 to 147.8+/-104.5 microg.h/mL (GMR 0.69, P = 0.009) and C0h decreased from 7.0+/-4.0 to 5.3+/-4.1 microg/mL (GMR 0.66, P = 0.033). Concomitant LPV/RTV and PHT use results in a 2-way drug interaction. Phenytoin appears to increase LPV clearance via CYP3A4 induction, which is not offset by the presence of low-dose RTV. LPV/RTV may increase PHT clearance via CYP2C9 induction. Management should be individualized to each patient; dosage or medication adjustments may be necessary.

Outcomes of dual-protease inhibitor salvage therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients referred to a telephone consultation service.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical outcomes of dual-protease inhibitor salvage therapy in heavily experienced patients after their providers consulted the National HIV Telephone Consultation Service (Warmline, 800-933-3413). DESIGN: Observational survey study. SETTING: Consultation service for United States health care providers. PATIENTS: Thirty-one human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients who had received previous treatment with at least two protease inhibitor--or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor--based regimens and had a viral load of at least 1000 copies/ml. INTERVENTION: Patients whose providers consulted Warmline regarding antiretroviral salvage regimens were identified through a review of telephone calls from January-July 2001. Virologic and immunologic outcomes were determined for patients who had received a regimen containing either ritonavir and indinavir or ritonavir and amprenavir. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were percentages of patients with a viral load less than 500 copies/ml at 3 and 6 months and changes in log10 viral load and CD4+ cell count at 3 and 6 months compared with baseline values. By using intent-to-treat analysis, a viral load less than 500 copies/ml was achieved in 35% of the 31 patients at 3 months and in 32% of them at 6 months. By using as-treated analysis, this outcome was achieved in 48% of 23 patients who continued therapy at 3 months and in 59% of 17 patients who continued therapy at 6 months. At 3 months (23 patients) and 6 months (17 patients), respectively, changes in viral load were -1.7 log10 copies/ml (p<0.001) and -1.4 log10 copies/ml (p<0.001), and changes in CD4+ cell count were +99 cells/mm3 (p<0.001) and +95 mm3 (p=0.012), compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: Significant improvements in virologic and immunologic markers occurred in patients heavily experienced with antiretroviral therapy after starting dual-protease inhibitor treatment regimens. Salvage therapy guided by Warmline consultation appears to be beneficial for this patient population with limited treatment options.

Kaletra (lopinavir/ritonavir).

OBJECTIVE: To review the pharmacology, virology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and clinical use of lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra, Abbott Laboratories). DATA SOURCES: English-language MEDLINE and AIDSline searches were performed (1966-July 2001) using lopinavir, ABT-378, and Kaletra as key words. Abstracts from infectious diseases and HIV scientific meetings were identified. Abbott Laboratories provided additional published and unpublished information. DATA EXTRACTION: All publications, meeting abstracts, and unpublished information were reviewed and relevant items included. In vitro and preclinical studies were included as well as Phase II and III clinical trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: Lopinavir/ritonavir is a fixed-dose protease inhibitor (PI) combination used for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Lopinavir, the active component of this combination, is extensively metabolized by CYP3A4 and produces low systemic concentrations when used alone. Ritonavir potently inhibits CYP3A4 and is used to enhance the systemic exposure of lopinavir. This combination results in lopinavir concentrations that greatly exceed those necessary in vitro to inhibit both wild-type and PI-resistant HIV isolates. In clinical trials with antiretroviral naïve and experienced patients, lopinavir/ritonavir was effective at suppressing HIV-RNA and increasing CD4+ T cell counts. Compared with other PIs, lopinavir/ritonavir may have advantages in the areas of pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and resistance. Toxicity, drug interactions, and medication adherence are important considerations surrounding its clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: Lopinavir/ritonavir is an effective option for the treatment of HIV-1-infected individuals when used in combination with other antiretroviral agents. It may be used as a component of initial therapy or salvage therapy; future studies will better define its place in therapy.