Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection needs lifelong access and strict adherence to regimens that are both expensive and associated with toxic effects. A curative intervention will be needed to ...fully stop the epidemic. The failure to eradicate HIV infection during long-term antiretroviral therapy shows the intrinsic stability of the viral genome in latently infected CD4T cells and other cells, and possibly a sustained low-level viral replication. Heterogeneity in latently infected cell populations and homoeostatic proliferation of infected cells might affect the dynamics of virus production and persistence. Despite potent antiretroviral therapy, chronic immune activation, inflammation, and immune dysfunction persist, and are likely to have important effects on the size and distribution of the viral reservoir. The inability of the immune system to recognise cells harbouring latent virus and to eliminate cells actively producing virus is the biggest challenge to finding a cure. We look at new approaches to unravelling the complex virus–host interactions that lead to persistent infection and latency, and discuss the rationale for combination of novel treatment strategies with available antiretroviral treatment options to cure HIV.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV-1. The C-EDGE CO-INFECTION study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of grazoprevir ...(MK-5172) plus elbasvir (MK-8742) in patients with HCV and HIV co-infection.
In this uncontrolled, non-randomised, phase 3, open-label, single-arm study, treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection and HIV co-infection, with or without cirrhosis, were enrolled from 37 centres in nine countries across Europe, the USA, and Australia. Patients were either naive to treatment with any antiretroviral therapy (ART) or stable on ART for at least 8 weeks. All patients received grazoprevir 100 mg plus elbasvir 50 mg in a fixed-dose combination tablet once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <15 IU/mL) 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). The primary population for efficacy analyses was all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105662.
Between June 11, 2014, and Aug 29, 2014, 218 patients were enrolled and received grazoprevir plus elbasvir for 12 weeks, all of whom completed follow-up at week 12. SVR12 was achieved by 210 (96%) of 218 patients (95% CI 92·9-98·4). One patient did not achieve SVR12 because of a non-virological reason, and seven patients without cirrhosis relapsed (two subsequently confirmed as reinfections). All 35 patients with cirrhosis achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were fatigue (29; 13%), headache (27; 12%), and nausea (20; 9%). No patient discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Two patients receiving ART had transient HIV viraemia.
This HCV treatment regimen seems to be effective and well tolerated for patients co-infected with HIV with or without cirrhosis. These data are consistent with previous trials of this regimen in the monoinfected population. This regimen continues to be studied in phase 3 trials.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Summary Background Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with potent in-vitro activity against HIV-1 strains including those resistant to currently available antiretroviral drugs. The ...aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of raltegravir when added to optimised background regimens in HIV-infected patients. Methods HIV-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA viral load over 5000 copies per mL, CD4 cell counts over 50 cells per μL, and documented genotypic and phenotypic resistance to at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and one protease inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive raltegravir (200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo orally twice daily in this multicentre, triple-blind, dose-ranging, randomised study. The primary endpoints were change in viral load from baseline at week 24 and safety. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , with the number NCT00105157. Findings 179 patients were eligible for randomisation. 44 patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg raltegravir, 45 to receive 400 mg raltegravir, and 45 to receive 600 mg raltegravir; 45 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. One patient in the 200 mg group did not receive treatment and was therefore excluded from the analyses. For all groups, the median duration of previous antiretroviral therapy was 9·9 years (range 0·4–17·3 years) and the mean baseline viral load was 4·7 (SD 0·5) log10 copies per mL. Four patients discontinued due to adverse experiences, three (2%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and one (2%) of the 45 patients on placebo. 41 patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy: 14 (11%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and 27 (60%) of the 45 patients on placebo. At week 24, mean change in viral load from baseline was −1·80 (95% CI −2·10 to −1·50) log10 copies per mL in the 200 mg group, −1·87 (−2·16 to −1·58) log10 copies per mL in the 400 mg group, −1·84 (−2·10 to −1·58) log10 copies per mL in the 600 mg group, and −0·35 (−0·61 to −0·09) log10 copies per mL for the placebo group. Raltegravir at all doses showed a safety profile much the same as placebo; there were no dose-related toxicities. Interpretation In patients with few remaining treatment options, raltegravir at all doses studied provided better viral suppression than placebo when added to an optimised background regimen. The safety profile of raltegravir is comparable with that of placebo at all doses studied.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Early combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) initiation at the time of primary HIV-1 infection could restrict the establishment of HIV reservoirs. We aimed to assess the effect ...of a cART regimen intensified with raltegravir and maraviroc, compared with standard triple-drug cART, on HIV-DNA load. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from hospitals across France. Inclusion criteria were primary HIV-1 infection (an incomplete HIV-1 western blot and detectable plasma HIV-RNA), with either symptoms or a CD4+ cell count below 500 cells per μL. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to an intensive, five-drug cART regimen (raltegravir 400 mg and maraviroc 150 mg twice daily, and a fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 g plus emtricitabine 200 g, darunavir 800 g, and ritonavir 100 g once daily) or a standard triple-drug cART regimen (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 g plus emtricitabine 200 g, darunavir 800 g, and ritonavir 100 g once daily) using a predefined randomised list generated by randomly selected variable block sizes. The primary endpoint was the median number of HIV-DNA copies per 106 peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) at month 24, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who started their assigned treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01033760. Findings Between April 26, 2010, and July 13, 2011, 110 patients were enrolled, of whom 92 were randomly assigned and 90 started treatment (45 in each treatment group). Six (13%) patients in the intensive cART group and two (4%) in the standard cART group discontinued before month 24. At month 24, HIV-DNA loads were similar between groups (2·35 IQR 2·05–2·50 log10 per 106 PBMC in the intensive cART group vs 2·25 1·71–2·55 in the standard cART group; p=0·21). Eight grade 3–4 clinical adverse events were reported in seven patients in the intensive cART group and seven grade 3–4 clinical adverse events were reported in seven patients in the standard cART group. Three serious clinical adverse events occurred: two (pancreatitis and lipodystrophy) in the standard cART group, which were regarded as treatment related, and one event (suicide attempt) in the intensive cART group that was unrelated to treatment. Interpretation After 24 months, cART intensified with raltegravir and maraviroc did not have a greater effect on HIV blood reservoirs than did standard cART. These results should help to design future trials of treatments aiming to decrease the HIV reservoir in patients with primary HIV-1 infection. Funding Inserm–ANRS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, and ViiV Laboratories.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The continuing, randomised, multinational, phase IIB POWER 1 and 2 studies aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of darunavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir in ...treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We did a pooled subgroup analysis to update results at week 48 for patients receiving the recommended dose of darunavir-ritonavir compared with those receiving other protease inhibitors (PIs). Methods After 24-week dose-finding phases and primary efficacy analyses, patients randomised to receive darunavir-ritonavir were given 600/100 mg twice daily, and patients receiving control PIs continued on assigned treatment into the longer-term, open-label phase; all patients continued on optimised background regimen. We assessed patients who had reached week 48 or discontinued earlier at the time of analysis; for the darunavir-ritonavir group, only patients who received 600/100 mg twice daily from baseline were included. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The POWER 2 study (TMC114-C202) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00071097 ). Findings At week 48, 67 of 110 (61%) darunavir-ritonavir patients compared with 18 of 120 (15%) of control PI patients had viral load reductions of 1 log10 copies per mL or greater from baseline (primary endpoint; difference in response rates 46%, 95% CI 35%–57%, p<0·0001). Based on a logistic regression model including stratification factors (baseline number of primary PI mutations, use of enfuvirtide, baseline viral load) and study as covariates, the difference in response was 50% (odds ratio 11·72, 95% CI 5·75–23·89). In the darunavir-ritonavir group, rates of adverse events were mostly lower than or similar to those in the control group when corrected for treatment exposure. No unexpected safety concerns were identified. Interpretation Efficacy responses with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily plus optimised background regimen were greater than those with control PI and were sustained to at least week 48, with favourable safety and tolerability in treatment-experienced patients. This regimen could expand the treatment options available for such patients.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background TMC125 (etravirine) is a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with activity against NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 in phase IIb trials. The aim of DUET-2 is to examine the ...efficacy, tolerability, and safety of TMC125 in treatment-experienced patients. Methods In this continuing randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, HIV-1-infected patients on failing antiretroviral therapy with evidence of resistance to currently available NNRTIs and at least three primary protease inhibitor mutations were eligible for enrolment if on stable (8 weeks unchanged) antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA greater than 5000 copies per mL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TMC125 (200 mg) or placebo, each given twice daily with darunavir-ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and optional enfuvirtide. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (FDA time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00255099. Findings 591 patients were randomised and treated (295 patients in the TMC125 group and 296 in the placebo group). By week 24, 51 (17%) patients in the TMC125 group and 73 (25%) in the placebo group had discontinued, mainly because of virological failure. 183 (62%) patients in the TMC125 group and 129 (44%) in the placebo group achieved confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (difference 18%, 95% CI 11–26; p=0·0003). The type and frequency of adverse events were much the same in the two groups. Interpretation In treatment-experienced patients, treatment with TMC125 led to better virological suppression at week 24 than did placebo. The safety and tolerability profile of TMC125 was generally comparable with placebo.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Achievement of a cure for HIV infection might need reactivation of latent virus and improvement of HIV-specific immunity. As an initial step, in this trial we assessed the effect of antiretroviral ...therapy intensification and immune modulation with a DNA prime and recombinant adenovirus 5 (rAd5) boost vaccine.
In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 clinical trial, we enrolled eligible adults 18-70 years of age with chronic HIV-1 infection on suppressive antiretroviral therapy with current CD4 count of at least 350 cells per μL and HIV DNA between 10 and 1000 copies per 10(6) peripheral blood mononuclear cells. After an 8 week lead-in of antiretroviral intensification therapy (standard dose raltegravir and dose-adjusted maraviroc based on baseline antiretroviral therapy), patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive antiretroviral therapy intensification alone or intensification plus injections of HIV DNA prime vaccine (4 mg VRC-HIVDNA016-00-VP) at weeks 8, 12, and 16, followed by HIV rAd5 boost vaccine (10(10) particle units of VRC-HIVADV014-00-VP) at week 32. Randomisation was computer generated in permuted blocks of six and was stratified by study site. The primary endpoint was a 0·5 log10 or greater decrease in HIV DNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells at week 56. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00976404.
Between Nov 29, 2010, and Oct 28, 2011, we enrolled 28 eligible patients from three academic HIV clinics in the USA. After the 8 week lead-in of antiretroviral intensification therapy, 14 patients were randomly assigned to continue antiretroviral therapy intensification alone and 14 to intensification plus vaccine. Enrolled participants had median CD4 count of 636 cells per μL, median HIV DNA 170 copies per 10(6) peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and duration of antiretroviral therapy of 13 years. The median amount of HIV DNA did not change significantly between baseline and week 56 in the antiretroviral therapy intensification plus vaccine group. One participant in the antiretroviral therapy intensification alone group reached the primary endpoint, with 0·55 log10 decrease in HIV DNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Both treatments were well tolerated. No severe or systemic reactions to vaccination occurred, and five serious adverse events were recorded during the study, most of which resolved spontaneously or were judged unrelated to study treatments.
Antiretroviral therapy intensification followed by DNA prime and rAd5 boost vaccine did not significantly increase HIV expression or reduce the latent HIV reservoir. A multifaceted approach that includes stronger activators of HIV expression and novel immune modulators will probably be needed to reduce the latent HIV reservoir and allow for long-term control in patients off antiretroviral therapy.
Objectif Recherche Vaccin SIDA (ORVACS).
Osteopenia, osteoporosis, and low bone mineral density are frequent in patients with HIV. We assessed the 96 week loss of bone mineral density associated with a nucleoside or nucleotide reverse ...transcriptase inhibitor (NtRTI)-sparing regimen.
Antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV were enrolled in 78 clinical sites in 15 European countries into a randomised (1:1), open-label, non-inferiority trial (NEAT001/ANRS143) assessing the efficacy and safety of darunavir (800 mg once per day) and ritonavir (100 mg once per day) plus either raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; NtRTI-sparing regimen) or tenofovir (245 mg once per day) and emtricitabine (200 mg once per day; standard regimen). For this bone-health substudy, 20 of the original sites in six countries participated, and any patient enrolled at one of these sites who met the following criteria was eligible: plasma viral loads greater than 1000 HIV RNA copies per mL and CD4 cell counts of fewer than 500 cells per μL, except in those with symptomatic HIV infection. Exclusion criteria included treatment for malignant disease, testing positive for hepatitis B virus surface antigen, pregnancy, creatinine clearance less than 60 mL per min, treatment for osteoporosis, systemic steroids, or oestrogen-replacement therapy. The two primary endpoints were the mean percentage changes in lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density at week 48, assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. We did the analysis with an intention-to-treat-exposed approach with antiretroviral modifications ignored. The parent trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01066962, and is closed to new participants.
Between Aug 2, 2010, and April 18, 2011, we recruited 146 patients to the substudy, 70 assigned to the NtRTI-sparing regimen and 76 to the standard regimen. DXA data were available for 129, 121 and 107 patients at baseline, 48 and 96 weeks respectively. At week 48, the mean percentage loss in bone mineral density in the lumbar spine was greater in the standard group than in the NtRTI-sparing group (mean percentage change -2.49% vs -1.00%, mean percentage difference -1.49, 95% CI -2.94 to -0.04; p=0.046). Total hip bone mineral density loss was similarly greater at week 48 in the standard group than in the NtRTI-sparing group (mean percentage change -3.30% vs -0.73%; mean percentage difference -2.57, 95% CI -3.75 to -1.35; p<0.0001). Seven new fractures occurred during the trial (two in the NtRTI-sparing group and five in the standard group).
A raltegravir-based regimen was associated with significantly less loss of bone mineral density than a standard regimen containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and might be a treatment option for patients at high risk of osteopenia or osteoporosis who are not suitable for NtRTIs such as abacavir or tenofovir alafenamide.
The European Union Sixth Framework Programme, Inserm-ANRS, Ministerio de Sanidad y Asuntos Sociales de España, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Laboratories.
Summary Background Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data ...suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. Methods In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of −10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00745823. Findings From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100 000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per μL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference −5·7%, 95% CI −10·7 to −0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. Interpretation Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. Funding Merck.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Revaccination with double-dose hepatitis B vaccine has been recommended in HIV-infected patients who do not respond to standard vaccination, but has not yet been assessed. We aimed ...to compare the safety and immunogenicity of a reinforced hepatitis B revaccination protocol with the standard revaccination schedule in HIV-infected patients not responding to primary vaccination. Methods We did this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, at 53 centres in France. HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years), with CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or more and no response to a previous hepatitis B vaccination or a 20 μg booster dose, were randomly assigned (1:1), according to a computer-generated randomisation list with permuted blocks (block sizes of two to six), to receive either standard-dose (20 μg) or double-dose (40 μg) recombinant hepatitis B vaccine at weeks 0, 4, and 24. Randomisation was stratified by baseline CD4 count (200–349 vs ≥350 cells per μL). Patients and treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but the randomisation list was concealed from the investigators who assigned participants to the vaccination groups. The primary endpoint was the proportion of responders, defined as patients with hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) titres of 10 mIU/mL or more, at week 28. We did analysis by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00670839. Findings Between May 19, 2008, and May 8, 2011, 178 participants were randomly assigned to the standard-dose group (n=90) or the double-dose group (n=88), of whom 176 (98%) participants were included in the primary efficacy analysis. At week 28, we recorded a response in 60 patients (67%, 95% CI 57–77) in the standard-dose group versus 64 patients (74%, 63–82) in the double-dose group (p=0·334). Except for more frequent local reactions in the double-dose group than the standard-dose group (13 15% vs four 4% patients; p=0·020), there was no difference in safety between groups. Interpretation In adults with HIV-1 who have not responded to previous hepatitis B vaccination, double-dose revaccination did not achieve a higher response rate than did revaccination with standard single-dose regimen. However, the safety profile was similar between treatment groups. Our results should be assessed in future studies before double-dose vaccine can be considered for the standard of care of vaccine non-responders. Funding French National Institute for Medical Research–French National Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral Hepatitis.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
PDF
