Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in People Living with Controlled HIV: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have a similar prevalence of psoriasis as the general population, though incidence and severity correlate with HIV viral load. Adequately treating HIV early renders the infection a chronic medical condition and allows PLHIV with a suppressed viral load (PLHIV-s) to live normal lives. Despite this, safety concerns and a lack of high-level data have hindered the use of systemic psoriasis therapies in PLHIV-s. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework that supports healthcare professionals and patients discussing the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in PLHIV-s. Our goal was to address the primary question, are responses to systemic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis in PLHIV-s similar to those in the non-HIV population? METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial data were absent. In this instance, we reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in PLHIV. Recommendations on systemic treatment for psoriasis in PLHIV were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified seven indirect indicators of immune function informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) functional assays, (2) vaccine response, (3) life expectancy, (4) psoriasis manifestations, (5) rate of infections, (6) rate of malignancies, and (7) organ transplant outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Drug-related benefits and risks when treating a patient with systemic psoriasis therapies are similar for non-HIV patients and PLHIV with a suppressed viral load and normalized CD4 counts. Prior to initiating psoriasis treatment in PLHIV, HIV replication should be addressed by an HIV specialist. Exercise additional caution for patients with a suppressed viral load and discordant CD4 responses on antiretroviral therapy.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) develop psoriasis as often as everyone else. We asked: what are effective and safe treatments when PLHIV need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis?HIV infection attacks the immune system. When HIV is not treated, the immune system declines. A less effective immune system makes it harder for the body to fight infections and certain cancers. Psoriasis is a skin condition caused by overactive immune cells. Effective psoriasis treatments reduce immune-cell activity. There are some concerns that treatments for psoriasis may not work and could worsen infections or cancers.To answer the question, we gathered 11 dermatologists and 4 HIV specialists. We reviewed the international scientific literature on PLHIV and psoriasis. The absence of direct evidence and volume of information to review made the process challenging. The end results were worthwhile.We concluded that people who are diagnosed early and take antiretroviral therapy to control their HIV infection (PLHIV-c) can live long, healthy lives. Accordingly, we determined that PLHIV-c can likely expect the same safety and efficacy for systemic psoriasis treatments as the general population. Treatment decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis through consultation with the patient and treating physician(s).Pillars of modern medicine are evidence-based care and collaborative decision-making. Too often, neither care provider nor patient are adequately informed. We have tried to fill one information gap for PLHIV and psoriasis. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent.

Tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: an updated meta-analysis of 14 894 patients across 14 trials.

BACKGROUND: Both tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine demonstrate excellent efficacy and safety overall, but concerns remain over specific changes in markers of bone and renal function. Lower plasma tenofovir concentrations are seen with TAF and in unboosted regimens. We assess TAF vs. TDF safety with and without booster coformulation. METHODS: A previous systematic review was updated with recent clinical trials. TAF vs. TDF efficacy and safety were compared in boosted and unboosted subgroups. Efficacy was measured by viral suppression. Key safety endpoints included all adverse events, serious adverse events, Grades 3-4 adverse events and adverse event discontinuation. Further specific renal and bone markers were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 14 clinical trials comparing TDF and TAF regimens were identified. A significant difference (P = 0.0004) in efficacy was shown in the boosted subgroup in favour of TAF, but no difference was seen in the unboosted subgroup. There were no significant differences between TAF and TDF for any of the key safety endpoints analysed. No differences were seen for the bone markers analysed. No difference was found for renal tubular events. There was a difference in risk for discontinuation due to renal adverse events when boosted (P = 0.03), but none when unboosted. CONCLUSION: Across all main safety endpoints, no differences between TAF and TDF are seen. Boosted TDF regimens were associated with lesser comparative efficacy than boosted TAF and a higher risk of renal event discontinuation. However, modern antiretroviral regimens are more commonly unboosted. This study finds no difference in efficacy or safety in unboosted TAF vs. TDF.

Analysis of Pharmacovigilance Databases for Dolutegravir Safety in Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: The Botswana Tsepamo study reported neural tube defects (NTDs) in 4 of 426 (0.94%) infants of women receiving preconception dolutegravir (DTG) antiretroviral therapy (ART) vs 14 of 11 300 (0.12%) receiving preconception non-DTG ART. Data are needed to investigate this potential safety signal. Clinicians, patients, and pharmaceutical companies can report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to pharmacovigilance databases. Data from ADRs reported to various pharmacovigilance databases were searched for NTDs. METHODS: Four pharmacovigilance databases (World Health Organization [WHO] VigiAccess; United Kingdom Medicines Health Regulatory Authority [UK MHRA]; European Medicines Agency [EMA] EudraVigilance; US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System [FAERS]) with online data availability were analyzed for NTD reports for 4 integrase inhibitors (DTG, raltegravir, elvitegravir, bictegravir), 2 protease inhibitors (darunavir, atazanavir), and 2 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nevirapine, efavirenz). Reports in the system organ class "congenital or familial disorders" were searched for NTDs. RESULTS: NTDs have been reported among infants born from women taking a wide range of antiretrovirals in 4 pharmacovigilance databases (WHO VigiAccess, 116 reactions; UK MHRA, 8 cases; EMA EudraVigilance, 20 cases; FAERS, 44 cases). Six NTDs were identified for DTG across the pharmacovigilance databases. Cases were very hard to interpret, given the lack of clear denominators. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacovigilance databases have many limitations, most importantly lack of a clear denominator for patients exposed to the drug of interest and duplicate cases that are difficult to identify. Given widespread use of new antiretroviral drugs worldwide and anticipated use of new drugs, prospective follow-up of pregnant women and birth surveillance studies such as Tsepamo are critically needed.

Global access of rifabutin for the treatment of tuberculosis - why should we prioritize this?

INTRODUCTION: Rifabutin, a rifamycin of equivalent potency to rifampicin, has several advantages in its pharmacokinetic and toxicity profile, particularly in HIV co-infected patients on combined antiretroviral therapy (cART). In this commentary, we evaluate evidence supporting increased global use of rifabutin and highlight key recommendations for action. DISCUSSION: Although extrapolation of data from HIV uninfected patients would suggest non-inferiority, there has been no randomized controlled study comparing rifabutin versus rifampicin in the outcomes of relapse-free cure, in drug susceptible tuberculosis (TB), in HIV co-infected patients on currently utilized cART regimens or in paediatric populations. An important advantage of rifabutin is that compared to the dose adjustments required with rifampicin, it can be co-administered with the integrase strand transfer inhibitors raltegravir or dolutegravir without the need for dose adjustments. This strategy would be easier to implement in a programmatic setting and would save costs. We have assessed cost incentives to utilize rifabutin and have estimated generic costs for a range of rifabutin dosage scenarios. Where facilities are present for drug re-challenge and monitoring for drug toxicity and cross-reactivity, rifabutin offers a switch alternative for adverse drug reactions (ADR)s attributed to rifampicin. This would negate the need to prolong treatment in the absence of a rifamycin as part of short-course multidrug therapy. There is evidence of incomplete cross-resistance to rifampicin and rifabutin. Rifabutin may be useful in rifampicin-resistant TB, in an estimated 20% of cases, based on phenotypic or genotypic rifabutin susceptibility testing. CONCLUSIONS: Rifabutin should be available globally as a first-line rifamycin in HIV co-infected individuals and as a switch option in cases of rifampicin associated ADRs. Further studies are needed to ascertain the utility of rifabutin in rifampicin-resistant rifabutin-susceptible TB.

Optimizing responses to drug safety signals in pregnancy: the example of dolutegravir and neural tube defects.

INTRODUCTION: The unexpected identification of a neural tube defect (NTD) safety signal with preconception dolutegravir (DTG) exposure in the Botswana Tsepamo birth outcomes study brought into sharp focus the need for reliable data on use of new antiretrovirals in pregnancy, improved pharmacovigilance systems to evaluate safety of new drugs being introduced into populations including women of reproductive potential, and balanced risk-benefit messaging when a safety signal is identified. DISCUSSION: The Tsepamo study NTD safety signal and accompanying regulatory responses led to uncertainty about the most appropriate approach to DTG use among women of reproductive potential, affecting global DTG roll-out plans, and limiting DTG use in adolescent girls and women. It also revealed a tension between a public health approach to antiretroviral treatment (ART) and individual choice, and highlighted difficulties interpreting and messaging an unexpected safety signal with uncertainty about risk. This difficulty was compounded by the lack of high-quality data on pregnancy outcomes from women receiving ART outside the Tsepamo surveillance sites and countries other than Botswana, resulting in a prolonged period of uncertainty while data on additional exposures are evaluated to refute or confirm the initial safety signal. We discuss principles for evaluating and introducing new drugs in the general population that would ensure collection of appropriate data to inform drug safety in adolescent girls and women of reproductive potential and minimize confusion about drug use in this population when a safety signal is identified. CONCLUSIONS: The response to a signal suggesting a possible safety risk for a drug used in pregnancy or among women who may become pregnant needs to be rapid and comprehensive. It requires the existence of appropriately designed surveillance systems with broad population coverage; data analyses that examine risk-benefit trade-offs in a variety of contexts; guidance to transform this risk-benefit balance into effective and agreed-upon policy; involvement of the affected community and other key stakeholders; and a communication plan for all levels of knowledge and complexity. Implementation of this proposed framework for responding to safety signals is needed to ensure that any drug used in pregnancy can be rapidly and appropriately evaluated should a serious safety alert arise.

Renal safety of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a pooled analysis of 26 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) has been associated with improvement in markers of renal dysfunction in individual randomized trials; however, the comparative incidence of clinically significant renal events remains unclear. DESIGN: We used a pooled data approach to increase the person-years of drug exposure analysed, maximizing our ability to detect differences in clinically significant outcomes. METHODS: We pooled clinical renal safety data across 26 treatment-naive and antiretroviral switch studies to compare the incidence of proximal renal tubulopathy and discontinuation due to renal adverse events between participants taking TAF-containing regimens vs. those taking TDF-containing regimens. We performed secondary analyses from seven large randomized studies (two treatment-naive and five switch studies) to compare incidence of renal adverse events, treatment-emergent proteinuria, changes in serum creatinine, creatinine clearance, and urinary biomarkers (albumin, beta-2-microglobulin, and retinol binding protein-to-creatinine ratios). RESULTS: Our integrated analysis included 9322 adults and children with HIV (n = 6360 TAF, n = 2962 TDF) with exposure of 12 519 person-years to TAF and 5947 to TDF. There were no cases of proximal renal tubulopathy in participants receiving TAF vs. 10 cases in those receiving TDF (P < 0.001), and fewer individuals on TAF (3/6360) vs. TDF (14/2962) (P < 0.001) discontinued due to a renal adverse event. Participants initiating TAF-based vs. TDF-based regimens had more favourable changes in renal biomarkers through 96 weeks of therapy. CONCLUSION: These pooled data from 26 studies, with over 12 500 person-years of follow-up in children and adults, support the comparative renal safety of TAF over TDF.

Immediate Versus Deferred Switching From a Boosted Protease Inhibitor-based Regimen to a Dolutegravir-based Regimen in Virologically Suppressed Patients With High Cardiovascular Risk or Age ≥50 Years: Final 96-Week Results of the NEAT022 Study.

Background: Both immediate and deferred switching from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r)-based regimen to a dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimen may improve lipid profile. Methods: European Network for AIDS Treatment 022 Study (NEAT022) is a European, open-label, randomized trial. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults aged ≥50 years or with a Framingham score ≥10% were eligible if HIV RNA was <50 copies/mL. Patients were randomized to switch from PI/r to DTG immediately (DTG-I) or to deferred switch at week 48 (DTG-D). Week 96 endpoints were proportion of patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL, percentage change of lipid fractions, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Four hundred fifteen patients were randomized: 205 to DTG-I and 210 DTG-D. The primary objective of noninferiority at week 48 was met. At week 96, treatment success rate was 92.2% in the DTG-I arm and 87% in the DTG-D arm (difference, 5.2% [95% confidence interval, -.6% to 11%]). There were 5 virological failures in the DTG-I arm and 5 (1 while on PI/r and 4 after switching to DTG) in the DTG-D arm without selection of resistance mutations. There was no significant difference in terms of grade 3 or 4 AEs or treatment-modifying AEs. Total cholesterol and other lipid fractions (except high-density lipoprotein) significantly (P < .001) improved both after immediate and deferred switching to DTG overall and regardless of baseline PI/r strata. Conclusions: Both immediate and deferred switching from a PI/r to a DTG regimen in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients ≥50 years old or with a Framingham score ≥10% was highly efficacious and well tolerated, and improved the lipid profile. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02098837 and EudraCT: 2013-003704-39.

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: is there a true difference in efficacy and safety?

BACKGROUND: Higher plasma tenofovir concentrations are associated with higher risks of renal and bone adverse events. The pharmacokinetic boosters ritonavir (RTV) and cobicistat (COBI) significantly increase plasma area under the curve (AUC) concentrations of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), by 25-37%. When combined with RTV or COBI, the dose of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is lowered from 25 mg to 10 mg daily, but the TDF dose is maintained at 300 mg daily. OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences in safety and efficacy between tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in regimens with and without the pharmacokinetic boosters RTV and COBI. METHODS: A PubMed/Embase search inclusive of dates up to 17 July 2017 identified 11 randomised head-to-head trials (8111 patients) of TDF versus TAF. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate pooled risk differences and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models. A pre-defined sub-group analysis compared TAF with TDF, either when boosted with RTV or COBI, or when unboosted. RESULTS: Nine clinical trials compared TAF and TDF for treatment of HIV-1 and two were for hepatitis B treatment. The eleven clinical trials documented 4574 patients with boosting RTV or COBI in both arms, covering 7198 patient-years of follow-up. Some 3537 patients received unboosted regimens, totalling 3595 patient-years of follow-up. Boosted TDF-treated patients showed borderline lower HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL (P=0.05), more bone fractures (P=0.04), larger decreases in bone mineral density (P<0.001), and more discontinuations for bone (P=0.03) or renal (P=0.002) adverse events. By contrast, there were no significant differences in HIV RNA suppression rates or clinical safety endpoints between unboosted TAF and unboosted TDF. CONCLUSIONS: TDF boosted with RTV or COBI was associated with higher risks of bone and renal adverse events, and lower HIV RNA suppression rates, compared with TAF. By contrast, when ritonavir and cobicistat were not used, there were no efficacy differences between TAF and TDF, and marginal differences in safety. The health economic value of TAF versus low-cost generic TDF may be limited when these drugs are used without cobicistat or ritonavir.

Risks of cardiovascular or central nervous system adverse events and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome, for dolutegravir versus other antiretrovirals: meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Results from nonrandomized cohort studies suggest higher risks of CNS adverse events for dolutegravir, versus other ARVs. There have been two case reports of myocarditis on dolutegravir. Integrase inhibitors have been associated with IRIS in two cohort studies. Meta-analysis of randomized trials can be used to cross-check potential safety signals. This systematic review of drug safety used an EMBASE and MEDLINE search combined with serious adverse event (SAE) reports on the website www.clinicaltrials.gov. Cardiovascular, CNS or IRIS-associated adverse events were analysed for dolutegravir versus other ARVs. Relative risks for the comparison between dolutegravir and other antiretrovirals were calculated for each adverse event. Meta-analyses applied Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models. RECENT FINDINGS: There was a higher risk of Grade 1-4 insomnia adverse events for DTG (6.1%) versus other ARVs (4.5%; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between DTG and other ARVs in the risk of cardiovascular serious adverse events. In the SINGLE and SPRING-1 trials comparing DTG with efavirenz, there were 5/465 patients with reported suicidality SAEs on DTG (1.1%) versus 6/469 (1.3%) on EFV. In other studies, serious adverse events of suicidality were reported for 15/2250 patients on DTG (0.7%) versus 9/2257 patients on other ARVs (0.4%). Risks of IRIS were low, but event rates were low and the main trials excluded CDC stage C disease. SUMMARY: In this meta-analysis, there was no significant effect of dolutegravir on the risk of cardiac, IRIS or suicide-related serious adverse events. There was a higher risk of insomnia for DTG. Other completed randomized trials should be included in new evaluations of DTG safety. Continued pharmacovigilance, with regular meta-analyses, should be used to monitor safety.

Switching from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor to a dolutegravir-based regimen for maintenance of HIV viral suppression in patients with high cardiovascular risk.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and impact on lipid fractions of switching from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) to a dolutegravir (DTG) regimen. METHODS: HIV type 1-infected adults more than 50 years or with a Framingham score more than 10% were eligible if plasma HIV RNA less than 50 copies per ml for at least 24 weeks while on a PI/r regimen. Patients were randomized to switch to DTG or to remain on PI/r. Primary endpoints were: proportion maintaining HIV RNA less than 50 copies per ml and percentage change from baseline of total cholesterol at week 48. RESULTS: In total, 415 patients (32 sites in six European countries) were randomized: 205 to DTG and 210 to continue PI/r. About 89% were men, 87% more than 50 years, 74% had a Framingham score more than 10%, with a median CD4 cell count of 617 cells per µl and suppressed viremia for a median of 5 years. At week 48, in the intent-to-treat analysis, treatment success rate was 93.1% in DTG group and 95.2% in PI/r group (difference -2.1%, 95% confidence interval -6.6 to 2.4, noninferiority demonstrated). There were four virological failures with DTG and one with PI/r with no emergent resistance mutations. There was no significant difference in severe adverse events or grade 3 or 4 adverse events or treatment modifying adverse events. Total cholesterol and other lipid fractions (except high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) improved significantly (P < 0.001) in the DTG group regardless of PI/r at baseline. CONCLUSION: Switching to a DTG regimen in virologically suppressed HIV type 1 patients with high cardiovascular disease risk was noninferior, and significantly improved lipid profiles.

When could new antiretrovirals be recommended for national treatment programmes in low-income and middle-income countries: results of a WHO Think Tank.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss barriers and opportunities for the introduction of new antiretrovirals into national treatment programmes in low-income and middle-income countries to support further treatment scale-up. Invitees to a WHO Think Tank in February 2017 evaluated recently published results. RECENT FINDINGS: There is not sufficient clinical experience of dolutegravir (DTG), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or efavirenz 400 mg (EFV400) to recommend their use in pregnancy. Outcomes from births and assessment of congenital anomalies need to be evaluated from several hundred pregnant women. Clinical experience of these treatments during rifampicin-based treatment for tuberculosis is also required. This could be difficult for TAF, which is currently contraindicated with TAF. Changes in second-line treatment from two nucleoside analogues + protease inhibitor plus ritonavir will require new randomized trials of alternative combinations. CONCLUSION: Additional safety and efficacy data on DTG, TAF and EFV400 in some subpopulations are needed before a large introduction in national treatment programmes. There is currently limited support for the introduction of TAF as part of first-line antiretroviral treatment in low-income and middle-income settings. There was an overall agreement for 6-monthly reviews of safety and efficacy data, in parallel with a phased introduction of the new antiretrovirals.

Candidates for inclusion in a universal antiretroviral regimen: tenofovir alafenamide.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is a standard first-line therapy for HIV. Recently, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a different prodrug for the same active moiety, has been approved. In this review, we have conducted a meta-analysis comparing efficacy and safety data for TDF and TAF, to inform a discussion of which drug would be best for a proposed 'universal antiretroviral (ARV) regimen'. RECENT FINDINGS: We identified 10 randomized controlled trials comparing TDF with TAF (6969 patients, 8043 patient-years of follow-up). Meta-analysis found no difference in treatment efficacy, resistance, or adverse events. There were significant differences favouring TAF in bone mineral density measures and renal function measures, but no significant difference in bone fracture events or discontinuations because of bone toxicity or renal toxicity. TAF arms showed higher lipid levels, and were associated with a slightly greater risk of being started on lipid-lowering therapy. SUMMARY: TAF has lesser detrimental effects on renal and bone markers, but no difference in adverse events. Data are unavailable for TAF safety in pregnancy, tuberculosis coinfection, and low CD4 count. Data for these groups, and an affordable price, will be required before it can be recommended as part of a 'universal ARV regimen'.

Latent tuberculosis infection screening and treatment in HIV: insights from evaluation of UK practice.

Latent TB infection (LTBI) screening and treatment in HIV-positive individuals in the UK is advocated by the British HIV Association (BHIVA) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), although each recommends differing strategies. We undertook an evaluation of UK practice, relating the responses to the local HIV/TB disease burden. 162 of 188 (86%) UK geographical areas responded; only 93/162 (57.4%) offer LTBI testing with considerable heterogeneity in practice, and no difference in HIV/TB burden between areas offering testing and those who do not. Only 33/93 (35.5%) and 6/93 (6.5%) reported full compliance with BHIVA and NICE guidance respectively. A uniform national guideline is required.

HIV-1 drug resistance mutations emerging on darunavir therapy in PI-naive and -experienced patients in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Darunavir is considered to have a high genetic barrier to resistance. Most darunavir-associated drug resistance mutations (DRMs) have been identified through correlation of baseline genotype with virological response in clinical trials. However, there is little information on DRMs that are directly selected by darunavir in clinical settings. OBJECTIVES: We examined darunavir DRMs emerging in clinical practice in the UK. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Baseline and post-exposure protease genotypes were compared for individuals in the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort Study who had received darunavir; analyses were stratified for PI history. A selection analysis was used to compare the evolution of subtype B proteases in darunavir recipients and matched PI-naive controls. RESULTS: Of 6918 people who had received darunavir, 386 had resistance tests pre- and post-exposure. Overall, 2.8% (11/386) of these participants developed emergent darunavir DRMs. The prevalence of baseline DRMs was 1.0% (2/198) among PI-naive participants and 13.8% (26/188) among PI-experienced participants. Emergent DRMs developed in 2.0% of the PI-naive group (4 mutations) and 3.7% of the PI-experienced group (12 mutations). Codon 77 was positively selected in the PI-naive darunavir cases, but not in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that although emergent darunavir resistance is rare, it may be more common among PI-experienced patients than those who are PI-naive. Further investigation is required to explore whether codon 77 is a novel site involved in darunavir susceptibility.