Clinical use of HIV integrase inhibitors : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Optimal regimen choice of antiretroviral therapy is essential to achieve long-term clinical success. Integrase inhibitors have swiftly been adopted as part of current antiretroviral regimens. The purpose of this study was to review the evidence for integrase inhibitor use in clinical settings. Methods: MEDLINE and Web-of-Science were screened from April 2006 until November 2012, as were hand-searched scientific meeting proceedings. Multiple reviewers independently screened 1323 citations in duplicate to identify randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials and cohort studies on integrase inhibitor use in clinical practice. Independent, duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted. Results: 48 unique studies were included on the use of integrase inhibitors in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients and treatment-experienced patients with either virological failure or switching to integrase inhibitors while virologically suppressed. On the selected studies with comparable outcome measures and indication (n = 16), a meta-analysis was performed based on modified intention-to-treat (mITT), on-treatment (OT) and as-treated (AT) virological outcome data. In therapy-naive patients, favorable odds ratios (OR) for integrase inhibitor-based regimens were observed, (mITT OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.86). However, integrase inhibitors combined with protease inhibitors only did not result in a significant better virological outcome. Evidence further supported integrase inhibitor use following virological failure (mITT OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.11-0.66), but switching to integrase inhibitors from a high genetic barrier drug during successful treatment was not supported (mITT OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.89-2.31). Integrase inhibitor-based regimens result in similar immunological responses compared to other regimens. A low genetic barrier to drug-resistance development was observed for raltegravir and elvitegravir, but not for dolutegravir. Conclusion: In first-line therapy, integrase inhibitors are superior to other regimens. Integrase inhibitor use after virological failure is supported as well by the meta-analysis. Careful use is however warranted when replacing a high genetic barrier drug in treatment-experienced patients switching successful treatment

Week 96 efficacy and safety results of the phase 3, randomized EMERALD trial to evaluate switching from boosted-protease inhibitors plus emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimens to the once daily, single-tablet regimen of darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) in treatment-experienced, virologically-suppressed adults living with HIV-1

Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg was investigated through 96 weeks in EMERALD (NCT02269917). Virologically-suppressed, HIV-1-positive treatment-experienced adults (previous non-darunavir virologic failure [VF] allowed) were randomized (2:1) to D/C/F/TAF or boosted protease inhibitor (PI) plus emtricitabine/tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate (F/TDF) over 48 weeks. At week 52 participants in the boosted PI arm were offered switch to D/C/F/TAF (late-switch, 44 weeks D/C/F/TAF exposure). All participants were followed on D/C/F/TAF until week 96. Efficacy endpoints were percentage cumulative protocol-defined virologic rebound (PDVR; confirmed viral load [VL] >= 50 copies/mL) and VL = 50 copies/mL (VF) (FDA-snapshot analysis). Of 1141 randomized patients, 1080 continued in the extension phase. Few patients had PDVR (D/C/F/TAF: 3.1%, 24/763 cumulative through week 96; late-switch: 2.3%, 8/352 week 52-96). Week 96 virologic suppression was 90.7% (692/763) (D/C/F/TAF) and 93.8% (330/352) (late-switch). VF was 1.2% and 1.7%, respectively. No darunavir, primary PI, tenofovir or emtricitabine resistance-associated mutations were observed post-baseline. No patients discontinued for efficacy-related reasons. Few discontinued due to adverse events (2% D/C/F/TAF arm). Improved renal and bone parameters were maintained in the D/C/F/TAF arm and observed in the late-switch arm, with small increases in total cholesterol/high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio. A study limitation was the lack of a control arm in the week 96 analysis. Through 96 weeks, D/C/F/TAF resulted in low PDVR rates, high virologic suppression rates, very few VFs, and no resistance development. Late-switch results were consistent with D/C/F/TAF week 48 results. EMERALD week 96 results confirm the efficacy, high genetic barrier to resistance and safety benefits of D/C/F/TAF

Desirable Characteristics of Hepatitis C Treatment Regimens: A Review of What We Have and What We Need.

There have been dramatic advancements in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) infection. This is largely due to the approval of several direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) from a variety of medication classes with novel mechanisms of action. These therapies are a welcomed advancement given their improved efficacy and tolerability compared to pegylated interferon and ribavirin (RBV)-based regimens. These convenient, all-oral regimens treat a variety of genotypes and often offer high cure rates in a variety of HCV-infected populations. While there are several benefits associated with these therapies, there are also notable shortcomings. Shortcomings include diminished response or need for adjunctive RBV in difficult-to-treat populations (decompensated cirrhosis, active substance abuse patients, advanced kidney disease, etc.), activity against select genotypes, substantial drug-drug interaction potential, and high cost. Therefore, while current DAA-based therapies have several favorable attributes, each also has its limitations. The purpose of this review is to (1) identify the characteristics of an ideal HCV treatment regimen, (2) describe desirable features of existing regimens, (3) summarize limitations of existing regimens, and (4) introduce promising emerging therapies. This manuscript will serve as a guide for evaluating the caliber of future HCV treatment regimens

Preferred antiretroviral drugs for the next decade of scale up

Global commitments aim to provide antiretroviral therapy (ART) to 15 million people living with HIV by 2015, and recent studies have demonstrated the potential for widespread ART to prevent HIV transmission. Increasingly, countries are adapting their national guidelines to start ART earlier, for both clinical and preventive benefits. To maximize the benefits of ART in resource-limited settings, six key principles need to guide ART choice: simplicity, tolerability and safety, durability, universal applicability, affordability and heat stability. Currently available drugs, combined with those in late-stage clinical development, hold great promise to simplify treatment in the short term. Over the longer-term, newer technologies, such as long-acting formulations and nanotechnology, could radically alter the treatment paradigm. This commentary reviews recommendations made in an expert consultation on treatment scale up in resource-limited settings

Diagnosis and management of antiretroviral-therapy failure in resource-limited settings in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and perspectives.

Despite the enormous progress made in scaling up antiretroviral therapy (ART) in sub-Saharan Africa, many challenges remain, not least of which are the identification and management of patients who have failed first-line therapy. Less than 3% of patients are receiving second-line treatment at present, whereas 15-25% of patients have detectable viral loads 12 months or more into treatment, of whom a substantial proportion might have virological failure. We discuss the reasons why virological ART failure is likely to be under-diagnosed in the routine health system, and address the current difficulties with standard recommended second-line ART regimens. The development of new diagnostic tools for ART failure, in particular a point-of-care HIV viral-load test, combined with simple and inexpensive second-line therapy, such as boosted protease-inhibitor monotherapy, could revolutionise the management of ART failure in resource-limited settings

Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Pediatric HIV Infection

Although the pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and the general virologic and immunologic principles underlying the use of antiretroviral therapy are similar for all HIV-infected persons, there are unique considerations needed for HIV-infected infants, children, and adolescents, including; A acquisition of infection through perinatal exposure for many infected children, In utero, intrapartum, and/or postpartum neonatal exposure to zidovudine (ZDV) and other antiretroviral medications in most perinatally infected children, Requirement for use of HIV virologic tests to diagnose perinatal HIV infection in infants under age 15 to 18 months old, Age-specific differences in immunologic markers (i.e., CD4+ T cell count), Changes in pharmacokinetic parameters with age caused by the continuing development and maturation of organ systems involved in drug metabolism and clearance, Differences in the clinical and virologic manifestations of perinatal HIV infection secondary to the occurrence of primary infection in growing, immunologically immature persons, and Special considerations associated with adherence to antiretroviral treatment for infants, children and adolescents. This report addresses the pediatric-specific issues associated with antiretroviral treatment and provides guidelines to health care providers caring for infected infants, children, and adolescents. It is recognized that guidelines for antiretroviral use in pediatric patients are rapidly evolving. The Working Group on Antiretroviral Therapy and Medical Management of HIV-Infected Children will review new data on an ongoing basis and provide regular updates to the guidelines

Patient-centred pharmaceutical design to improve acceptability of medicines : similarities and differences in paediatric and geriatric populations

Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.Patient acceptability of a medicinal product is a key aspect in the development and prescribing of medicines. Children and older adults differ in many aspects from the other age subsets of population and require particular considerations in medication acceptability. This review highlights the similarities and differences in these two age groups in relation to factors affecting acceptability of medicines. New and conventional formulations of medicines are considered regarding their appropriateness for use in children and older people. Aspects of a formulation that impact acceptability in these patient groups are discussed, including, for example, taste/smell/viscosity of a liquid and size/shape of a tablet. A better understanding of the acceptability of existing formulations highlights opportunities for the development of new and more acceptable medicines and facilitates safe and effective prescribing for the young and older populationsPeer reviewedFinal Published versio

Personalizing HIV therapy, mission impossible?

Sustained HIV suppression depends on a number of factors including therapy adherence, management of side effects, viral resistance and individual characteristics of patients and therapeutic settings. Treatment response rates range up to 90% in therapy naïve patients but decline to approximately 50% in patients who received several antiretrovirals during treatment history. Furthermore, HIV protease inhibitors (PI) and non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) plasma concentrations display high inter- and intra individual variability and the therapeutic window is comparably narrow. In this therapeutic setting the personalization of dosing regimens has been suggested in many cases to tailor the ARV plasma concentrations with the intention to maximize therapy success and minimize side effects in the individual. However, personalizing therapy by modifying the dosing regimen bears the danger of losing therapeutic efficacy, increasing side effects or causing viral resistance. This topical review identifies pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models of antiretroviral therapy appraising the potential application to HIV therapy and discusses its future in the light of new drug classes and fix-dose combinations

Lower Pill Burden and Once-Daily Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens for HIV Infection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. Contemporary antiretroviral treatment regimens are simpler than in the past, with lower pill burden and once-daily dosing frequency common. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of pill burden and once-daily vs twice-daily dosing on ART adherence and virological outcomes. Methods. A literature search of 4 electronic databases through 31 March 2013 was used. RCTs comparing once-daily vs twice-daily ART regimens that also reported on adherence and virological suppression were included. Study design, study population characteristics, intervention, outcome measures, and study quality were extracted. Study quality was rated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results. Nineteen studies met our inclusion criteria (N = 6312 adult patients). Higher pill burden was associated with both lower adherence rates (P = .004) and worse virological suppression (P < .0001) in both once-daily and twice-daily subgroups, although the association with adherence in the once-daily subgroup was not statistically significant. The average adherence was modestly higher in once-daily regimens than twice-daily regimens (weighted mean difference = 2.55%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 3.87; P = .0002). Patients on once-daily regimens did not achieve virological suppression more frequently than patients on twice-daily regimens (relative risk [RR] = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03; P = .50). Both adherence and viral load suppression decreased over time, but adherence decreased less with once-daily dosing than with twice-daily dosing. Conclusions. Lower pill burden was associated with both better adherence and virological suppression. Adherence, but not virological suppression, was slightly better with once- vs twice-daily regimens