For second-line antiretroviral therapy, WHO recommends a boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, concerns about toxicity and ...cross-resistance motivated a search for regimens that do not contain NRTIs. We aimed to assess whether boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir would be non-inferior to boosted lopinavir plus NRTIs for virological suppression in resource-limited settings.
A5273 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) research sites in nine resource-limited countries (three sites each in India and South Africa, two each in Malawi and Peru, and one each in Brazil, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, and Zimbabwe). Adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL after at least 24 weeks on a regimen based on a non-NRTI inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400 mg raltegravir twice a day (raltegravir group) or to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NRTIs selected from an algorithm (eg, zidovudine after failure with tenofovir and vice versa; NRTI group). Randomised group assignment was done with a computer algorithm concealed to site personnel, and stratified by HIV-1 RNA viral load, CD4 cell count, and intention to use zidovudine, with the groups balanced by each site. The primary endpoint was time to confirmed virological failure (two measurements of HIV-1 RNA viral load >400 copies per mL) at or after week 24 in the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing the cumulative probability of virological failure by 48 weeks. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01352715.
Between March 13, 2012, and Oct 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 515 participants: 260 to the raltegravir group and 255 to the NRTI group; two participants in the raltegravir group and one in the NRTI group were excluded from analyses because of ineligibility. By the end of follow-up (October, 2014), 96 participants had virological failure (46 in the raltegravir group and 50 in the NRTI group). By 48 weeks, the cumulative probability of virological failure was 10·3% (95% CI 6·5-14·0) in the raltegravir group and 12·4% (8·3-16·5) in the NRTI group, with a weighted difference of -3·4% (-8·4 to 1·5), indicating that raltegravir was non-inferior, but not superior, to NRTIs. 62 (24%) participants in the raltegravir group and 81 (32%) in the NRTI group had grade 3 or higher adverse events; 19 (7%) and 29 (11%), respectively, had serious adverse events. Three participants in each group died, all from HIV-related causes.
In settings with extensive NRTI resistance but no available resistance testing, our data support WHO's recommendation for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus NRTI for second-line antiretroviral therapy. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir is an appropriate alternative, especially if NRTI use is limited by toxicity.
National Institutes of Health.
The discovery of potent and broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has made passive immunization a potential strategy for the prevention and treatment of ...HIV infection. We sought to determine whether passive administration of VRC01, a bNAb targeting the HIV CD4-binding site, can safely prevent or delay plasma viral rebound after the discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy (ART).
We conducted two open-label trials (AIDS Clinical Trials Group ACTG A5340 and National Institutes of Health NIH 15-I-0140) of the safety, side-effect profile, pharmacokinetic properties, and antiviral activity of VRC01 in persons with HIV infection who were undergoing interruption of ART.
A total of 24 participants were enrolled, and one serious alcohol-related adverse event occurred. Viral rebound occurred despite plasma VRC01 concentrations greater than 50 μg per milliliter. The median time to rebound was 4 weeks in the A5340 trial and 5.6 weeks in the NIH trial. Study participants were more likely than historical controls to have viral suppression at week 4 (38% vs. 13%, P=0.04 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the A5340 trial; and 80% vs. 13%, P<0.001 by a two-sided Fisher's exact test in the NIH trial) but the difference was not significant at week 8. Analyses of virus populations before ART as well as before and after ART interruption showed that VRC01 exerted pressure on rebounding virus, resulting in restriction of recrudescent viruses and selection for preexisting and emerging antibody neutralization-resistant virus.
VRC01 slightly delayed plasma viral rebound in the trial participants, as compared with historical controls, but it did not maintain viral suppression by week 8. In the small number of participants enrolled in these trials, no safety concerns were identified with passive immunization with a single bNAb (VRC01). (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTG A5340 and NIH 15-I-0140 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02463227 and NCT02471326 .).
The AIDS Clinical Trials Group study A5353 demonstrated the efficacy and safety of dolutegravir and lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection at week 24 in individuals with HIV-1 RNA ...1000-500 000 copies/mL. Optimal ART for treatment-naive individuals must be durable.
The aim of this study was to estimate the efficacy and safety of dolutegravir plus lamivudine at week 48 and compare the efficacy in participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤100 000 copies/mL versus >100 000 copies/mL.
Virological success was defined as HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL by FDA Snapshot criteria. Definition of virological failure included confirmed HIV-1 RNA >200 copies/mL at week 24 or later. The proportion of participants with virological success was estimated using two-sided exact Clopper-Pearson 95% CI. Comparison between screening HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 versus >100 000 copies/mL) strata was carried out by Fisher's exact test. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02582684.
A total of 120 enrolled eligible participants were included in the analysis. At week 48, 102 of the 120 participants (85%; 95% CI 77%-91%) had virological success. Virological success was similar between screening HIV-1 RNA groups. Six (5%) participants had virological non-success and one additional participant experienced virological failure while on study but off study treatment. No new drug resistance mutations were observed. Six (5%) participants had study-related grade 3 or higher adverse events and none discontinued study treatment.
These results add to the evidence that dolutegravir plus lamivudine is a safe and effective option for initial ART in individuals with HIV-1 RNA <500 000 copies/mL.
Abstract
Background
T cells in people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) demonstrate an exhausted phenotype, and HIV-specific CD4+ T cells expressing programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) are enriched ...for latent HIV, making antibody to PD-1 a potential strategy to target the latent reservoir.
Methods
This was a phase 1/2, randomized (4:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adults with suppressed HIV on antiretroviral therapy with CD4+ counts ≥350 cells/μL who received 2 infusions of cemiplimab versus placebo. The primary outcome was safety, defined as any grade 3 or higher adverse event (AE) or any immune-related AE (irAE). Changes in HIV-1–specific polyfunctional CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses were evaluated.
Results
Five men were enrolled (median CD4+ count, 911 cells/μL; median age, 51 years); 2 received 1 dose of cemiplimab, 2 received 2 doses, and 1 received placebo. One participant had a probable irAE (thyroiditis, grade 2); another had a possible irAE (hepatitis, grade 3), both after a single low-dose (0.3 mg/kg) infusion. The Safety Monitoring Committee recommended no further enrollment or infusions. All 4 cemiplimab recipients were followed for 48 weeks. No other cemiplimab-related serious AEs, irAEs, or grade 3 or higher AEs occurred. One 2-dose recipient of cemiplimab had a 6.2-fold increase in polyfunctional, Gag-specific CD8+ T-cell frequency with supportive increases in plasma HIV RNA and decreases in total HIV DNA.
Conclusions
One of 4 participants exhibited increased HIV-1-specific T-cell responses and transiently increased HIV-1 expression following 2 cemiplimab infusions. The occurrence of irAEs after a single, low dose may limit translating the promising therapeutic results of cemiplimab for cancer to immunotherapeutic and latency reversal strategies for HIV.
Clinical Trials Registration.
NCT03787095.
One of 4 participants administered anti-PD-1 antibody exhibited increased HIV-1–specific T-cell responses and transiently increased HIV-1 expression. Significant immune-related adverse events after a single, low dose of anti-PD-1 antibody may limit translating the benefits of anti-PD-1 therapies from cancer to HIV.
Amdoxovir (2,6-diaminopurine dioxolane; DAPD) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) with activity against wild-type and NRTI-resistant ...viruses.
ACTG A5118 assessed the antiretroviral activity and safety of DAPD (300 mg orally, twice daily) versus placebo in combination with enfuvirtide (ENF) plus an optimized background (OB) regimen in subjects with failure of two or more antiretroviral (ARV) regimens. The primary endpoints for comparison were time-averaged area under the curve minus baseline (AAUCMB) of plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration at 24 weeks and time to first serious (DAIDS toxicity table Grade > or = 3) adverse event (AE). An unplanned interim review recommended closing enrollment because the study was unlikely to demonstrate a difference between arms. The 18 subjects on study, nine in each arm, were unblinded and allowed to continue study treatment through 48 weeks.
Intention-to-treat analysis showed the median AAUCMB was -0.9 log10 copies/mL (95% CI = -2.2, -.0.1) in the DAPD arm and -0.9 log10 copies/ml (95% CI = -1.1, -0.1) in the placebo arm (P = 0.69). Median CD4+ T-cell increase was 79 cells/mm3 (95% CI =1, 115) in the DAPD arm and 60 (95% CI =1, 101) in the placebo arm (P = 0.45). Time to first serious AE did not differ between arms (P = 0.91). Mild decreases of creatinine clearance were observed with similar frequency between arms; no subject developed lens opacities.
Addition of DAPD to ENF plus OB in advanced subjects with highly resistant virus appeared safe, but did not add statistically significant antiretroviral activity at 24 weeks in this small study.
To compare activity and safety of a regimen containing lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + fosamprenavir (FPV) to regimens with LPV/r or FPV + r and to test the hypothesis that a ritonavir-enhanced dual ...protease inhibitor (PI) regimen has better antiviral activity.
This study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized study. HIV-infected adults with prior PI failure were selectively randomized based on prior PI experience to either LPV/r, FPV + r, or LPV/r + FPV. All patients received tenofovir DF and 1 to 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.
Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Study enrollment and follow-up were stopped early (N = 56) because pharmacokinetic analyses showed significantly lower LPV and FPV exposures in the dual-PI arm. At Week 24, proportions achieving >1 log10 decline in HIV RNA or <50 copies/mL in the dual-PI versus single-PI arms combined were 75% vs. 61% in intent-to-treat (ITT, p = .17) and 100% vs. 64% in as-treated (AT) analyses (p = .02), respectively. Median CD4+ T cell/mm3 increases were 81 vs. 41 (ITT, p = .4) and 114 vs. 43 (AT, p = .08), respectively. Clinical events and toxicity rates were not different between arms.
The trial was unable to show a difference between dual versus single PIs in ITT analyses but favored dual PIs in AT analyses.
PDF
