Safety and Immunogenicity of Ad26-Vectored HIV Vaccine With Mosaic Immunogens and a Novel Mosaic Envelope Protein in HIV-Uninfected Adults: A Phase 1/2a Study.

BACKGROUND: Developing a cross-clade, globally effective HIV vaccine remains crucial for eliminating HIV. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1/2a study enrolled healthy HIV-uninfected adults at low risk for HIV infection. They were randomized (1:4:1) to receive 4 doses of an adenovirus 26-based HIV-1 vaccine encoding 2 mosaic Gag and Pol, and 2 mosaic Env proteins plus adjuvanted clade C gp140 (referred to here as clade C regimen), bivalent protein regimen (clade C regimen plus mosaic gp140), or placebo. Primary end points were safety and antibody responses. RESULTS: In total 152/155 participants (clade C, n = 26; bivalent protein, n = 103; placebo, n = 26) received ≥1 injection. The highest adverse event (AE) severity was grade 3 (local pain/tenderness, 12%, 2%, and 0% of the respective groups; solicited systemic AEs, 19%, 15%, 0%). HIV-1 mosaic gp140-binding antibody titers were 79 595 ELISA units (EU)/mL and 137 520 EU/mL in the clade C and bivalent protein groups (P < .001) after dose 4 and 16 862 EU/mL and 25 162 EU/mL 6 months later. Antibody response breadth against clade C gp140 and clade C/non-clade C gp120 was highest in the bivalent protein group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding mosaic gp140 to the clade C regimen increased and broadened the elicited immune response without compromising safety or clade C responses. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02935686.

Safety and immunogenicity of two heterologous HIV vaccine regimens in healthy, HIV-uninfected adults (TRAVERSE): a randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1/2a study.

BACKGROUND: Bioinformatically designed mosaic antigens increase the breadth of HIV vaccine-elicited immunity. This study compared the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a newly developed, tetravalent Ad26 vaccine with the previously tested trivalent formulation. METHODS: This randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1/2a study (TRAVERSE) was done at 11 centres in the USA and one centre in Rwanda. Eligible participants were adults aged 18 to 50 years, who were HIV-uninfected, healthy at screening based on their medical history and a physical examination including laboratory assessment and vital sign measurements, and at low risk of HIV infection in the opinion of study staff, who applied a uniform definition of low-risk guidelines that was aligned across sites. Enrolled participants were randomly assigned at a 2:1 ratio to tetravalent and trivalent groups. Participants in tetravalent and trivalent groups were then further randomly assigned at a 5:1 ratio to adenovirus 26 (Ad26)-vectored vaccine and placebo subgroups. Randomisation was stratified by region (USA and Rwanda) and based on a computer-generated schedule using randomly permuted blocks prepared under the sponsor's supervision. We masked participants and investigators to treatment allocation throughout the study. On day 0, participants received a first injection of tetravalent vaccine (Ad26.Mos4.HIV or placebo) or trivalent vaccine (Ad26.Mos.HIV or placebo), and those injections were repeated 12 weeks later. At week 24, vaccine groups received a third dose of tetravalent or trivalent together with clade C gp140, and this was repeated at week 48, with placebos again administered to the placebo group. All study vaccines and placebo were administered by intramuscular injection in the deltoid muscle. We assessed adverse events in all participants who received at least one study injection (full analysis set) and Env-specific binding antibodies in all participants who received at least the first three vaccinations according to the protocol-specified vaccination schedule, had at least one measured post-dose blood sample collected, and were not diagnosed with HIV during the study (per-protocol set). This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02788045. FINDINGS: Of 201 participants who were enrolled and randomly assigned, 198 received the first vaccination: 110 were in the tetravalent group, 55 in the trivalent group, and 33 in the placebo group. Overall, 185 (93%) completed two scheduled vaccinations per protocol, 180 (91%) completed three, and 164 (83%) completed four. Solicited, self-limiting local, systemic reactogenicity and unsolicited adverse events were similar in vaccine groups and higher than in placebo groups. All participants in the per-protocol set developed clade C Env binding antibodies after the second vaccination, with higher total IgG titres after the tetravalent vaccine than after the trivalent vaccine (10 413 EU/mL, 95% CI 7284-14 886 in the tetravalent group compared with 5494 EU/mL, 3759-8029 in the trivalent group). Titres further increased after the third and fourth vaccinations, persisting at least through week 72. Other immune responses were also higher with the tetravalent vaccine, including the magnitude and breadth of binding antibodies against a cross-clade panel of Env antigens, and the magnitude of IFNγ ELISPOT responses (median 521 SFU/106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells [PBMCs] in the tetravalent group and median 282 SFU/106 PBMCs in the trivalent group after the fourth vaccination) and Env-specific CD4+ T-cell response rates after the third and fourth vaccinations. No interference by pre-existing Ad26 immunity was identified. INTERPRETATION: The tetravalent vaccine regimen was generally safe, well-tolerated, and found to elicit higher immune responses than the trivalent regimen. Regimens that use this tetravalent vaccine component are being advanced into field trials to assess efficacy against HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health, Henry M Jackson Foundation for Advancement of Military Medicine and the US Department of Defense, Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, & Harvard, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention.

Comparison of shortened mosaic HIV-1 vaccine schedules: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial (IPCAVD010/HPX1002) and a preclinical study in rhesus monkeys (NHP 17-22).

BACKGROUND: Current efficacy studies of a mosaic HIV-1 prophylactic vaccine require four vaccination visits over one year, which is a complex regimen that could prove challenging for vaccine delivery at the community level, both for recipients and clinics. In this study, we evaluated the safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of shorter, simpler regimens of trivalent Ad26.Mos.HIV expressing mosaic HIV-1 Env/Gag/Pol antigens combined with aluminium phosphate-adjuvanted clade C gp140 protein. METHODS: We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial (IPCAVD010/HPX1002) at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA, USA. We included healthy, HIV-uninfected participants (aged 18-50 years) who were considered at low risk for HIV infection and had not received any vaccines in the 14 days before study commencement. We randomly assigned participants via a computer-generated randomisation schedule and interactive web response system to one of three study groups (1:1:1) testing different regimens of trivalent Ad26.Mos.HIV (5 × 1010 viral particles per 0·5 mL) combined with 250 µg adjuvanted clade C gp140 protein. They were then assigned to treatment or placebo subgroups (5:1) within each of the three main groups. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until the end of the follow-up period. Group 1 received Ad26.Mos.HIV alone at weeks 0 and 12 and Ad26.Mos.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 at weeks 24 and 48. Group 2 received Ad26.Mos.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 at weeks 0, 12, and 24. Group 3 received Ad26.Mos.HIV alone at week 0 and Ad26.Mos.HIV plus adjuvanted gp140 at weeks 8 and 24. Participants in the control group received 0·5 mL of 0·9% saline. All study interventions were administered intramuscularly. The primary endpoints were Env-specific binding antibody responses at weeks 28, 52, and 72 and safety and tolerability of the vaccine regimens for 28 days after the injection. All participants who received at least one vaccine dose or placebo were included in the safety analysis; immunogenicity was analysed using the per-protocol population. The IPCAVD010/HPX1002 trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02685020. We also did a parallel preclinical study in rhesus monkeys to test the protective efficacy of the shortened group 3 regimen. FINDINGS: Between March 7, 2016, and Aug 19, 2016, we randomly assigned 36 participants to receive at least one dose of study vaccine or placebo, ten to each vaccine group and two to the corresponding placebo group. 30 (83%) participants completed the full study, and six (17%) discontinued it prematurely because of loss to follow-up, withdrawal of consent, investigator decision, and an unrelated death from a motor vehicle accident. The two shortened regimens elicited comparable antibody titres against autologous clade C Env at peak immunity to the longer, 12-month regimen: geometric mean titre (GMT) 41 007 (95% CI 17 959-93 636) for group 2 and 49 243 (29 346-82 630) for group 3 at week 28 compared with 44 590 (19 345-102 781) for group 1 at week 52). Antibody responses remained increased (GMT >5000) in groups 2 and 3 at week 52 but were highest in group 1 at week 72. Antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, Env-specific IgG3, tier 1A neutralising activity, and broad cellular immune responses were detected in all groups. All vaccine regimens were well tolerated. Mild-to-moderate pain or tenderness at the injection site was the most commonly reported solicited local adverse event, reported by 28 vaccine recipients (93%) and two placebo recipients (33%). Grade 3 solicited systemic adverse events were reported by eight (27%) vaccine recipients and no placebo recipients; the most commonly reported grade 3 systemic symptoms were fatigue, myalgia, and chills. The shortened group 3 regimen induced comparable peak immune responses in 30 rhesus monkeys as in humans and resulted in an 83% (95% CI 38·7-95, p=0·004 log-rank test) reduction in per-exposure acquisition risk after six intrarectal challenges with SHIV-SF162P3 at week 54, more than 6 months after final vaccination. INTERPRETATION: Short, 6-month regimens of a mosaic HIV-1 prophylactic vaccine elicited robust HIV-specific immune responses that were similar to responses elicited by a longer, 12-month schedule. Preclinical data showed partial protective efficacy of one of the short vaccine regimens in rhesus monkeys. Further clinical studies are required to test the suitability of the shortened vaccine regimens in humans. Such shortened regimens would be valuable to increase vaccine delivery at the community level, particularly in resource-limited settings. FUNDING: Ragon Institute (Massachusetts General Hospital, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Harvard University; Cambridge, MA, USA) and Janssen Vaccines & Prevention (Leiden, Netherlands).

First-in-Human Randomized, Controlled Trial of Mosaic HIV-1 Immunogens Delivered via a Modified Vaccinia Ankara Vector.

Background: Mosaic immunogens are bioinformatically engineered human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) sequences designed to elicit clade-independent coverage against globally circulating HIV-1 strains. Methods: This phase 1, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled healthy HIV-uninfected adults who received 2 doses of a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA)-vectored HIV-1 bivalent mosaic immunogen vaccine or placebo on days 0 and 84. Two groups were enrolled: those who were HIV-1 vaccine naive (n = 15) and those who had received an HIV-1 vaccine (Ad26.ENVA.01) 4-6 years earlier (n = 10). We performed prespecified blinded cellular and humoral immunogenicity analyses at days 0, 14, 28, 84, 98, 112, 168, 270, and 365. Results: All 50 planned vaccinations were administered. Vaccination was safe and generally well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Both cellular and humoral cross-clade immune responses were elicited after 1 or 2 vaccinations in all participants in the HIV-1 vaccine-naive group. Env-specific responses were induced after a single immunization in nearly all subjects who had previously received the prototype Ad26.ENVA.01 vaccine. Conclusions: No safety concerns were identified, and multiclade HIV-1-specific immune responses were elicited. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02218125.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Relationships of Etravirine in HIV-1-Infected, Treatment-Experienced Children and Adolescents in PIANO.

PIANO (NCT00665847) investigated etravirine pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety in children and adolescents. Treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients (≥6 to <18 years) received etravirine 5.2 mg/kg twice daily (maximum 200 mg twice daily) plus background antiretrovirals. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed, and etravirine C0h and AUC0-12h were estimated. Relationships among intrinsic/extrinsic factors and etravirine pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetics with pharmacodynamics were assessed. The best model describing etravirine pharmacokinetics consisted of a single compartment with sequential zero- and first-order absorption following a lag time. Interindividual variability terms were included on clearance (CL/F) and the first-order input rate constant (KA). The final model estimates (coefficient of variation, %) for CL/F and KA were 46.3 (11) L/h and 1.07 (34) h-1 , respectively. Overall, median (range) estimated etravirine C0h and AUC0-12h were 287 (2-2276) ng/mL and 4560 (62-28,865) ng · h/mL, respectively. Exposure was slightly lower in adolescents vs children. Sex and adherence did not affect etravirine pharmacokinetics. Factors significantly affecting etravirine exposure were body weight (higher with lower weight), race (lower in Asians than in white or black patients), and the use of certain HIV protease inhibitors. Virologic response (<50 copies/mL at week 48) was lower in the lowest etravirine AUC0-12h quartile vs the upper 3 quartiles (41% vs 67% to 76%). Rash occurred more frequently in the highest quartile than in the lower 3 quartiles (52% versus 8% to 20%). Etravirine 5.2 mg/kg twice daily in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected children and adolescents provides comparable exposure to that in adults receiving etravirine 200 mg twice daily and is the recommended dose for children and adolescents.

Assessment of etravirine resistance in HIV-1-infected paediatric patients using population and deep sequencing: final results of the PIANO study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed etravirine resistance in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected children (n=41)/adolescents (n=60) who received twice-daily etravirine 5.2 mg/kg and a background regimen (boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, optional enfuvirtide/raltegravir) in a Phase II, open-label, multicentre trial (PIANO). METHODS: In addition to phenotypes, viral genotypes were assessed by population and deep sequencing (PS and DS) in virological failures (VFs; baseline and end point) and responders (baseline). Minority resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were defined as those with frequencies above 1% and not detected with PS. RESULTS: By week 48, 41/101 (40.6%) patients experienced VF; 17/41 (41.5%) VFs and 22/54 (40.8%) responders had ≥1 baseline etravirine RAM by PS, mainly A98G, K101E, V106I and G190A. Baseline minority etravirine RAMs (n) were detected in 8/40 VFs (V90I [2], A98G [1], L100I [1], V106I [1], E138G [1] and Y181C [2]) and 5/38 responders (V90I [3], A98G [1], V106I [1] and E138G [1]). The most frequent emerging non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs detected by PS (≥3 VFs; n) were the etravirine RAMs Y181C (8), V90I (3), L100I (3) and E138A (3). In 15 of 29 (51.7%) VFs with baseline DS/PS and end point PS data, ≥1 emerging etravirine RAM was detected by PS, which was not detected at baseline by DS in most cases (12/15 [80.0%]). In 10/26 (38.5%) VFs with baseline/end point DS data, ≥1 additional emerging minority etravirine RAM was detected. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of etravirine resistance in adults, adolescents and children experiencing VF are similar. The presence of minority etravirine RAMs at baseline was not consistently associated with treatment failure. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00665847.

Pharmacokinetics of Etravirine Combined with Atazanavir/Ritonavir and a Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor in Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced, HIV-1-Infected Patients.

Objectives. TEACH (NCT00896051) was a randomized, open-label, two-arm Phase II trial to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine and atazanavir/ritonavir and safety and efficacy in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. Methods. After a two-week lead-in of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg, 44 patients received etravirine 200 mg bid with one NRTI, plus atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or 400/100 mg qd (n = 22 each group) over 48 weeks. Results. At steady-state etravirine with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd or 400/100 mg qd decreased atazanavir C min⁡ by 18% and 9%, respectively, with no change in AUC24 h or C max⁡ versus atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd alone (Day -1). Etravirine AUC12 h was 24% higher and 16% lower with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 or 400/100 mg qd, respectively, versus historical controls. At Week 48, no significant differences were seen between the atazanavir/ritonavir groups in discontinuations due to adverse events (9.1% each group) and other safety parameters, the proportion of patients with viral load <50 copies/mL (intent-to-treat population, noncompleter = failure) (50.0%, atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd versus 45.5%, 400/100 mg qd), and virologic failures (31.8% versus 27.3%, resp.). Conclusions. Etravirine 200 mg bid can be combined with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd and an NRTI in HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced patients without dose adjustment.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine or rilpivirine and telaprevir in healthy volunteers: A randomized, two-way crossover trial.

Coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) may require treatment with an HIV non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), for example, rilpivirine or etravirine, and an HCV direct-acting antiviral drug such as telaprevir. In a two-panel, two-way, crossover study, healthy volunteers were randomized to receive etravirine 200 mg twice daily ± telaprevir 750 mg every 8 hours or rilpivirine 25 mg once daily ± telaprevir 750 mg every 8 hours. Pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted for each drug at steady-state when given alone and when coadministered; statistical analyses were least-square means with 90% confidence intervals. Telaprevir minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) decreased 25%, 10%, and 16%, respectively, when coadministered with etravirine and 11%, 3%, and 5%, respectively, when coadministered with rilpivirine. Telaprevir did not affect etravirine pharmacokinetics, but increased rilpivirine Cmin, Cmax, and AUC by 93%, 49%, and 78%, respectively. Both combinations were generally well tolerated. The small decrease in telaprevir exposure when coadministered with etravirine is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The interaction between telaprevir and rilpivirine is not likely to be clinically relevant under most circumstances. No dose adjustments are deemed necessary when they are coadministered.

Single-dose pharmacokinetics of pediatric and adult formulations of etravirine and swallowability of the 200-mg tablet: results from three Phase 1 studies.

OBJECTIVES: Three studies were conducted to assess the pharmacokinetics, methods of administration and ease of swallowability of etravirine tablets. METHODS: Two randomized studies in healthy adults investigated the single-dose pharmacokinetics of etravirine in various dosage strengths and the effects of dispersion in water and film-coating. A third study explored swallowability of etravirine 200-mg tablets in HIV-infected patients. First study: 37 volunteers received 1 × 100-mg non-coated tablet (reference), 4 × 25-mg noncoated tablets and 1 × 100-mg non-coated tablet dispersed in 100 ml water. Second study: 24 volunteers received 2 × 100-mg non-coated tablets (reference), 2 × 100-mg coated tablets, 1 × 200-mg non-coated and 1 × 200-mg coated tablet. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using non-compartmental analysis and least square means (LSM) ratios and 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Third study: 49 virologically-suppressed patients already on an etravirine-containing regimen rated the swallowability of two etravirine formulations (200-mg non-coated and 200-mg coated tablets). RESULTS: In the first study LSM ratios (90% CI) for the etravirine area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) administered either as 4 × 25-mg tablets or 100-mg tablet dispersed were: 0.91 (0.85 to 0.98) and 0.97 (0.90 to 1.03), respectively. In the second study, when comparing a 200-mg non-coated and coated tablet to 2 × 100-mg non-coated tablets, LSM ratios for etravirine AUC were 98 to 99%. In the third study, more patients rated the 200-mg than the 100-mg tablets as acceptable to swallow (70% vs. 43%). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable etravirine exposures were observed regardless of formulation or method of administration (i.e., dispersion); 200-mg tablets were rated as easier to swallow than 100-mg tablets.

Pharmacokinetics and short-term safety of etravirine in combination with fluconazole or voriconazole in HIV-negative volunteers.

The nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor etravirine, approved for use in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients, is a substrate and inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and a substrate and inhibitor of CYP2C9/CYP2C19. Pharmacokinetic interactions and safety of etravirine 200 mg twice daily coadministered with fluconazole 200 mg daily or voriconazole 200 mg twice daily, both inhibitors of CYP3A4, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19, were evaluated in an open-label, randomized, 3-period crossover trial in 18 HIV-negative volunteers. Based on least squares means (LSM) ratios, coadministration of etravirine with fluconazole or voriconazole resulted in higher etravirine exposures (area under plasma concentration-time curve from 0-12 hours [AUC(12) (h) ] 1.86- and 1.36-fold, respectively). Fluconazole pharmacokinetics were unchanged with etravirine coadministration (AUC(12) (h) LSM ratio: 0.94), and voriconazole plasma concentrations were slightly raised (AUC(12) (h) LSM ratio: 1.14). All treatments and combinations were well tolerated, with no grade 3 or 4 adverse events observed during treatment. There was 1 adverse event-related trial withdrawal during treatment with fluconazole alone (leukocyturia). The most frequent adverse events were headache and blurred vision (11 and 8 volunteers, respectively), with blurred vision occurring exclusively during voriconazole-alone treatment. Pharmacokinetic interactions between etravirine and fluconazole or voriconazole are not expected to be clinically relevant; no dose adjustments are required during coadministration.

Pre-existing mutations in the rilpivirine Phase III trials ECHO and THRIVE: prevalence and impact on virological response.

BACKGROUND: Rilpivirine (RPV), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), was approved for HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive adults based on data from two Phase III trials. In the screening population, the prevalence of 49 NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) and the impact of allowed NNRTI RAMs on virological response to an RPV- or efavirenz (EFV)-containing regimen were analysed. METHODS: ECHO and THRIVE were global, Phase III, doubleblind, double-dummy, randomized trials in antiretroviral treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults to determine whether RPV 25 mg once daily had non-inferior efficacy versus EFV 600 mg once daily, both given with tenofovir/emtricitabine (ECHO) or tenofovir/emtricitabine, zidovudine/lamivudine or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The prevalence of 49 NNRTI RAMs, including the predefined list of 39 NNRTI RAMs used to exclude patients with potential resistance to RPV or EFV, was investigated at screening by population sequencing (including mixtures) using the virco(®)TYPE HIV-1 genotyping assay. RESULTS: Of the 1,796 screened patients in whom genotypic resistance results were available, 372 (21%) had NNRTI RAMs. Of 527 screening failures, 148 (28%) were due to the presence of NNRTI RAMs. The presence of allowed NNRTI RAMs was associated with comparable response rates to the overall population (RPV 84.3% versus EFV 82.3%, intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response): V90I (82.4% and 100% for RPV and EFV, respectively), V106I (85.7% and 93.3%), V179I (87.7% and 94.0%) and V189I (100.0% and 88.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the ECHO and THRIVE screened population suggests that transmitted NNRTI resistance is prevalent in treatment-naive patients but prevalence of the 15 RPV RAMs remains low. The four allowed NNRTI RAMs present at baseline did not affect RPV response at week 48.

Similar predictions of etravirine sensitivity regardless of genotypic testing method used: comparison of available scoring systems.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to compare various genotypic scoring systems commonly used to predict virological outcome to etravirine, and examine their concordance with etravirine phenotypic susceptibility. METHODS: Six etravirine genotypic scoring systems were assessed: Tibotec 2010 (based on 20 mutations; TBT 20), Monogram, Stanford HIVdb, ANRS, Rega (based on 37, 30, 27 and 49 mutations, respectively) and virco(®)TYPE HIV-1 (predicted fold change based on genotype). Samples from treatment-experienced patients who participated in the DUET trials and with both genotypic and phenotypic data (n=403) were assessed using each scoring system. Results were retrospectively correlated with virological response in DUET. κ coefficients were calculated to estimate the degree of correlation between the different scoring systems. RESULTS: Correlation between the five scoring systems and the TBT 20 system was approximately 90%. Virological response by etravirine susceptibility was comparable regardless of which scoring system was utilized, with 70-74% of DUET patients determined as susceptible to etravirine by the different scoring systems achieving plasma viral load <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml. In samples classed as phenotypically susceptible to etravirine (fold change in 50% effective concentration ≤3), correlations with genotypic score were consistently high across scoring systems (≥70%). CONCLUSIONS: In general, the etravirine genotypic scoring systems produced similar results, and genotype-phenotype concordance was high. As such, phenotypic interpretations, and in their absence all genotypic scoring systems investigated, may be used to reliably predict the activity of etravirine.

Effect of mutations at position E138 in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase on phenotypic susceptibility and virologic response to etravirine.

The contribution of E138 mutations to etravirine resistance was investigated. Amino acids at position E138 after failure with etravirine in DUET were A (n = 1), G (n = 5), K (n = 3), P (n = 1), Q (n = 5), and V (n = 2). At baseline, only E138A and Q were found at 3.0% and 2.5%, respectively. Virologic response (less than 50 copies/mL) was observed in six of 12 and eight of 10 patients with E138A and E138Q, respectively. Site-directed mutants harboring E138A/G/K/Q/R or S showed etravirine fold change values of 2.9, 2.4, 2.6, 3.0, 3.6, and 2.8, respectively. E138G, K, and Q were added to the existing etravirine-weighted genotypic score including 17 etravirine resistance-associated mutations.

Connection domain mutations in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase do not impact etravirine susceptibility and virologic responses to etravirine-containing regimens.

Connection domain mutations (CDMs) in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) alter susceptibility to some nucleoside/nonnucleoside RT inhibitors (NRTIs/NNRTIs). Their effects on susceptibility and virologic responses to etravirine were analyzed. Seventeen CDMs were evaluated: L283I, E312Q, G333D, G333E, G335C, G335D, N348I, A360I, A360T, A360V, V365I, T369I, A371V, A376S, I393L, E399D, and E399G. CDM prevalence and effects on virologic responses were analyzed retrospectively using clinical data. The effects on etravirine susceptibility were assessed in clinical samples and confirmed using site-directed mutants. The most prevalent CDMs (>10%) were A371V, E399D, A376S, N348I, A360T, G333E, and L283I. CDM presence was positively correlated with thymidine analogue-associated mutations, but not with NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). The presence or number of CDMs did not significantly reduce etravirine susceptibility, although small reductions were seen in samples with G333D, N348I, A360V, T369I, and A376S. N348I, E399G, and N348I/T369I were associated with reduced etravirine susceptibility when present with K103N, L100I, or Y181C. N348I or T369I was associated with reduced etravirine susceptibility when present with K101P or K103R/V179D. Virologic responses to an etravirine-containing regimen were slightly diminished when G333D, G335D, or A376S was present, but this was not confirmed in subgroups with higher baseline resistance or without etravirine RAMs. CDMs alone do not confer substantial reductions in etravirine susceptibility but can further reduce etravirine susceptibility in combination with certain NNRTI mutations. Since virologic responses to etravirine were not affected by CDMs, the clinical impacts of these mutations on etravirine susceptibility appear to be minimal.

Efficacy and safety of etravirine at week 96 in treatment-experienced HIV type-1-infected patients in the DUET-1 and DUET-2 trials.

BACKGROUND: Durable efficacy and long-term safety of antiretroviral therapy are important goals in the management of treatment-experienced patients. The 96-week efficacy and safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) etravirine were evaluated in the Phase III DUET trials. METHODS: HIV type-1-infected treatment-experienced adults with viral loads >5,000 copies/ml and NNRTI and protease inhibitor resistance were randomized to receive etravirine 200 mg or placebo, each twice daily and in combination with a background regimen of darunavir/ritonavir twice daily, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and optional enfuvirtide. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with viral load <50 copies/ml (intent-to-treat analysis, time-to-loss of virological response algorithm) at week 24. Results from both trials were combined in the pre-specified pooled 96-week analysis. RESULTS: In total, 599 patients received etravirine and 604 received placebo. At week 96, 57% of patients in the etravirine group versus 36% in the placebo group had a viral load <50 copies/ml (P<0.0001); 91% and 88% of patients, respectively, had maintained this response from week 48. Mean increases in CD4(+) T-cell count from baseline at week 96 were 128 cells/mm(3) with etravirine versus 86 cells/mm(3) with placebo (P<0.0001). With the exception of rash, which was reported more frequently with etravirine than placebo (21% versus 12%, respectively; P<0.0001), the safety and tolerability profile of etravirine was similar to placebo over the treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: Etravirine, in combination with an antiretroviral background regimen, provided durable virological and immunological responses with no new safety concerns in treatment-experienced patients over 96 weeks in the DUET trials.

Etravirine: clinical review of a treatment option for HIV type-1-infected patients with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance.

Despite our progressive understanding of HIV type-1 (HIV-1) infection and the development of a number of antiretroviral agents to delay the onset of AIDS, there remains a need for agents with improved efficacy and safety. In particular, therapy options for treatment-experienced adult patients have been limited by the presence of drug-resistant virus, which often leads to a reduced virological response in these patients. The recently approved non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor etravirine has demonstrated durable and superior efficacy over placebo and a favourable tolerability profile in HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced patients, offering a valuable new therapeutic option. This review examines the clinical development and drug profile of etravirine, placing it in the context of other antiretrovirals available for treatment-experienced patients.

Characterization of genotypic and phenotypic changes in HIV-1-infected patients with virologic failure on an etravirine-containing regimen in the DUET-1 and DUET-2 clinical studies.

The randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III DUET studies enrolled treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. We examined the genotypic and phenotypic changes at endpoint relative to baseline, including the emergence of individual reverse transcriptase (RT) mutations, in patients who received the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) etravirine and experienced virologic failure by rebound by the time of the Week 96 analysis. Patients received etravirine 200 mg twice-daily in combination with a background regimen containing darunavir/ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and optional enfuvirtide. Virologic failure by rebound occurred in 93 (15.5%) etravirine-treated patients (compared with 170 [28.1%] placebo-treated patients). Patients experiencing virologic failure had more baseline antiretroviral resistance and lower activity of the background regimen relative to those not experiencing failure. Emergence of NNRTI resistance-associated mutations was observed in 55 of 93 patients. The most frequently emerging RT mutations were V179F, V179I, and Y181C, with positions K101 and E138 also showing frequent changes. Mutations usually emerged in a background of multiple other NNRTI mutations and were, in most cases, associated with a decrease in phenotypic sensitivity to etravirine at endpoint. Further analysis is needed to clarify the role of mutations at position 138 as determinants of etravirine resistance.

Safety of etravirine in HIV-1/hepatitis B and/or C virus co-infected patients: pooled 96 week results from the Phase III DUET trials.

OBJECTIVES: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients are frequently co-infected with hepatitis B and/or C virus (HBV/HCV). The safety of etravirine was investigated over 96 weeks in patients co-infected with HIV type-1 (HIV-1) and HBV and/or HCV in the Phase III DUET trials. DUET-1 and DUET-2 are registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00254046 and NCT00255099, respectively). METHODS: Treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients with documented non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance were randomized to receive either etravirine 200 mg or placebo, both twice daily plus a background regimen of darunavir/ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and optional enfuvirtide. Hepatitis co-infection status was confirmed by hepatitis B surface antigen or HCV antibody and qualitative HCV RNA. Co-infected patients were eligible if they did not require anti-hepatitis treatment and were clinically stable, with aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) concentrations <5× the upper limit of normal. Adverse events (AEs) and laboratory parameters were analysed. RESULTS: Data were available for 566 etravirine- and 564 placebo-treated patients, of whom 72 (13%) and 68 (12%), respectively, were co-infected with HBV/HCV. Irrespective of co-infection status, the etravirine and placebo groups were comparable for the incidence of grade 3/4 AEs [co-infected: 31 (43%) versus 31 (46%) patients, respectively; non-co-infected: 200 (40%) versus 176 (35%), respectively] and serious AEs [co-infected: 25 (35%) versus 25 (37%), respectively; non-co-infected: 123 (25%) versus 119 (24%), respectively]. Consistent with the underlying hepatitis, relative to non-co-infected patients the co-infected patients, had a higher incidence of hepatic AEs [co-infected: 13 (18%) etravirine-treated versus 10 (15%) placebo-treated patients; non-co-infected: 36 (7%) versus 32 (6%), respectively], and grade 3/4 elevation of AST [co-infected: 8 (11%) versus 5 (7%), respectively; non-co-infected: 14 (3%) versus 9 (2%), respectively] and ALT [co-infected: 10 (14%) versus 6 (9%), respectively; non-co-infected: 14 (3%) versus 8 (2%), respectively]. Discontinuation due to hepatic AEs was low and comparable between the treatment groups, regardless of co-infection status (two co-infected patients in each treatment group; five etravirine-treated versus two placebo-treated non-co-infected patients). CONCLUSIONS: Etravirine demonstrated a similar safety profile to placebo in the subgroup of patients co-infected with HIV and HBV and/or HCV in the DUET trials. The incidence and severity of AEs with etravirine was generally comparable to placebo irrespective of co-infection status.

Short communication: activity of etravirine on different HIV type 1 subtypes: in vitro susceptibility in treatment-naive patients and week 48 pooled DUET study data.

Etravirine (ETR) has previously shown potent in vitro activity against different primary HIV-1 isolates and demonstrated durable efficacy in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients in the Phase III DUET studies. The antiviral activity and efficacy of ETR against HIV-1 subtypes B and non-B were further investigated. The effect of HIV-1 subtype on ETR fold change in EC(50) value (FC) was analyzed in HIV-1 recombinant clinical isolates from 673 treatment-naive patients enrolled in other Tibotec studies. Subgroup analyses from the DUET studies of the effect of HIV-1 subtype on the proportion of patients with viral load (VL) <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml were also conducted using pooled week 48 data. Genotype/subtype and phenotype determinations were performed using the vircoTYPE HIV-1 and Antivirogram assays, respectively. In vitro results from treatment-naive patients indicated comparable median ETR FC in virus isolates from patients infected with subtype B or non-B (1.1 vs. 1.2, respectively). HIV-1 subtype data were available for 594 and 595 patients in the ETR and placebo groups of the DUET studies, respectively; 94% of patients harbored subtype B. Baseline characteristics were similar across the different subtypes, with the exception of a higher number of sensitive NRTIs used in patients with subtype non-B. At week 48, virological responses in the ETR group were higher in patients with subtype non-B versus B (73% vs. 60%, respectively). ETR was equally effective in suppressing viral replication in patients infected with HIV-1 subtype B or various HIV-1 non-B subtypes.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of etravirine with and without darunavir/ritonavir or raltegravir in treatment-experienced patients: analysis of the etravirine early access program in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Etravirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, was provided through an international early access program (EAP) prior to regulatory approval. METHODS: The Phase III, nonrandomized, open-label EAP investigated etravirine 200 mg twice daily plus a background regimen (BR) in patients who had failed multiple antiretroviral regimens. Efficacy and safety are reported for HIV-infected adults from the United States through week 48, including subgroups receiving etravirine +/- darunavir/ritonavir and/or raltegravir. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 2578 patients; 62.4% and 56.7% of patients received darunavir/ritonavir and raltegravir, respectively, in their BR. At week 48, 62.3% of patients achieved viral loads <75 copies per milliliter; responses across subgroups were similar. Median CD4 count increase from baseline was >100 cells per cubic millimeter. No unexpected safety concerns emerged; serious AEs and deaths due to AEs, considered possibly related to etravirine, occurred in 2.0% and 0.3% of patients, respectively. Discontinuations due to AEs were low overall (4.4%) and comparable across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Etravirine combined with a BR, often including other new antiretrovirals, such as darunavir/ritonavir and/or raltegravir, provided an effective treatment option in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1.