Switching to Tenofovir Alafenamide, Coformulated With Elvitegravir, Cobicistat, and Emtricitabine, in HIV-Infected Patients With Renal Impairment: 48-Week Results From a Single-Arm, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Study

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a novel tenofovir prodrug with improved renal and bone safety compared with TDF-containing regimens. We report the 48 week safety and efficacy of a once-daily single tablet regimen of elvitegravir 150 mg (E), cobicistat 150 mg (C), emtricitabine 200 mg (F), and TAF 10 mg (E/C/F/TAF) in HIV-1-infected patients with mild to moderate renal impairment. METHODS: We enrolled virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected subjects with estimated creatinine clearance (CrCl) 30-69 mL/min in a single-arm, open-label study to switch regimens to E/C/F/TAF. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in glomerular filtration rate estimated using various formulae. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01818596. FINDINGS: We enrolled and treated 242 patients with mean age 58 years, 18% Black, 39% hypertension, 14% diabetes. Through week 48, no significant change in estimated CrCl was observed. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued study drug for decreased creatinine clearance, neither had evidence of renal tubulopathy and both had uncontrolled hypertension. Subjects had significant improvements in proteinuria, albuminuria, and tubular proteinuria (P < 0.001 for all). Hip and spine bone mineral density significantly increased from baseline to week 48 (mean percent change +1.47 and +2.29, respectively, P < 0.05). Ninety-two percent (222 patients) maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 48. INTERPRETATION: Switch to E/C/F/TAF was associated with minimal change in GFR. Proteinuria, albuminuria and bone mineral density significantly improved. These data support the efficacy and safety of once daily E/C/F/TAF in HIV+ patients with mild or moderate renal impairment without dose adjustment

Twice-daily amprenavir 1200 mg versus amprenavir 600 mg/ritonavir 100 mg, in combination with at least 2 other antiretroviral drugs, in HIV-1-infected patients

BACKGROUND: Low-dose ritonavir (RTV) boosts plasma amprenavir (APV) exposure. Little has been published on the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of APV 600 mg/RTV 100 mg (APV600/RTV) twice daily (BID) compared to APV 1200 mg BID (APV1200). METHODS: ESS40011 was a 24-week, multicenter, open-label, clinical trial in which antiretroviral therapy-naïve and -experienced HIV-1-infected adults were randomized 3:1 to receive either APV600/RTV BID or APV1200 BID, in combination with ≥ 2 non-protease inhibitor antiretroviral drugs. Non-inferiority of the APV600/RTV regimen to the APV1200 regimen was established if the 95% lower confidence limit for the difference in proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL at week 24 with APV 600/RTV minus APV1200 was ≥-0.12. Late in the conduct of the trial, patients not yet completing 24 weeks of therapy were given the option of continuing treatment for an additional 24-week period. RESULTS: 211 patients were randomized, 158 to APV600/RTV and 53 to APV1200. At week 24, APV600/RTV was similar to or better than APV1200 (HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL in 62% [73/118] vs 53% [20/38] of patients; intent-to-treat: observed analysis). In the APV600/RTV arm, significantly more patients achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (48% [57/118] vs 29% [11/38] with APV1200, P = 0.04), and greater mean reduction from baseline in HIV-1 RNA was observed (-2.21 vs -1.59 log(10 )copies/mL, P = 0.028). The two treatment arms were similar with respect to mean overall change from baseline in CD4+ count, frequency of drug-related grade 1–4 adverse events, and frequency of discontinuing treatment due to adverse events (most commonly nausea, diarrhea, vomiting or fatigue; 7% vs 8%), although a lower proportion of patients in the APV600/RTV arm experienced drug-related oral/perioral paresthesia (2% vs 8%). Eleven (73%) of 15 patients who had HIV-1 RNA <200 copies/mL at week 24 and chose to continue study treatment maintained this level of virologic suppression at follow-up 24 weeks later. CONCLUSIONS: APV600 RTV BID was similar to or better than APV1200 BID in virologic response. Virologic results in a small number of patients who continued treatment for 24 weeks post-study suggest that virologic suppression with APV600 RTV BID is durable

A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir- based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in similar safety and tolerability in antiretroviral-naive subjects through 48 weeks

Background: Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-dosed twice daily has demonstrated durable efficacy in antiretroviral-naive and protease inhibitor (PI) -experienced patients. Study M05-730 compared LPV/r tablets dosed once daily vs. twice daily in antiretroviral-naive subjects. Methods: Six hundred sixty-four subjects were randomized to LPV/r soft gel capsules (SGCs) once daily, SGC twice daily, tablets once daily, and tablets twice daily, all with tenofovir and emtricitabine once daily. At week 8, all SGC-treated subjects were switched to tablets, maintaining randomized dose frequency. The primary efficacy analysis used an intent-to-treat, noncompleter = failure approach to assess noninferiority of the LPV/r once-daily group compared with the twice-daily group. Results: At week 48, 77% of once-daily-dosed subjects vs. 76% of twice-daily-dosed subjects had HIV-1 RNA or = 100,000 copies per milliliter (75% once daily vs. 74.6% twice daily; P > 0.999) or when analyzed by baseline CD4+ T-cell count ( or = 200 cells/mm3). Rates of discontinuation and adverse events, including diarrhea, were similar between arms. Among subjects with protocol-defined virologic rebound through week 48, no new PI resistance mutations were detected. Conclusions: At 48 weeks, the antiviral response in the LPV/r once-daily group was noninferior to the twice-daily group when coadministered with tenofovir and emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive subjects. Efficacy was comparable between the once-daily and twice-daily groups regardless of baseline HIV-1 RNA or CD4+ T-cell count. Safety and tolerability of once-daily and twice-daily dosing was also comparable. No new PI resistance mutations were detected upon virologic rebound.Depto. de MedicinaFac. de MedicinaTRUEpu

Cord Blood Stem Cell Therapy for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

Cord blood stem cell transplantation is routinely used to treat hematopoietic diseases. Individuals who are homozygous for the Δ32 polymorphism of the CCR5 locus, encoding a co-receptor for HIV-1, are normal and are resistant to HIV infection. Here we suggest that public cord blood repositories are likely to contain CCR5 homozygous units that could be used as a therapy for HIV-infected individuals

Fecal Transplantation for —“All Stool May Not Be Created Equal”

Clostridium difficile is a gram-positive bacterium that is recognized as a causative organism of pseudomembranous enterocolitis. This infection has become a major public health challenge and is a source of considerable morbidity and mortality in those infected. We present a 62-year-old African American female with a long history of HIV infection, who presented with abdominal pain and continuous diarrhea due to pseudomembranous colitis. After failing multiple episodes of conventional therapy, it was decided to treat her with fecal microbiota transplantation. Fecal microbiota transplantation was given on 3 separate occasions from a biological-related donor without success. It was only after a fourth transplant was done with a nonrelated donor that the patient resolved her diarrhea within 48 hours. We suggest that fecal samples from different donors have different abilities to cure Clostridium difficile colitis in at least this immunosuppressed patient

Dual Therapy Treatment Strategies for the Management of Patients Infected with HIV: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence in ARV-Naive or ARV-Experienced, Virologically Suppressed Patients.

OBJECTIVE:We reviewed the current literature regarding antiretroviral (ARV)-sparing therapy strategies to determine whether these novel regimens can be considered appropriate alternatives to standard regimens for the initial treatment of ARV-naive patients or as switch therapy for those patients with virologically suppressed HIV infection. METHODS:A search for studies related to HIV dual therapy published from January 2000 through April 2014 was performed using Biosis, Derwent Drug File, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Medline, Pascal, SciSearch, and TOXNET databases; seven major trial registries, and the abstracts of major conferences. Using predetermined criteria for inclusion, an expert review committee critically reviewed and qualitatively evaluated all identified trials for efficacy and safety results and potential limitations. RESULTS:Sixteen studies of dual therapy regimens were critiqued for the ARV-naive population. Studies of a protease inhibitor/ritonavir in combination with the integrase inhibitor raltegravir or the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor lamivudine provided the most definitive evidence supporting a role for dual therapy. In particular, lopinavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir combined with raltegravir and lopinavir/ritonavir combined with lamivudine demonstrated noninferiority to standard of care triple therapy after 48 weeks of treatment. Thirteen trials were critiqued in ARV-experienced, virologically suppressed patients. The virologic efficacy outcomes were mixed. Although overall data regarding toxicity are limited, when compared with standard triple therapy, certain dual therapy regimens may offer advantages in renal function, bone mineral density, and limb fat changes; however, some dual combinations may elevate lipid or bilirubin levels. CONCLUSIONS:The potential benefits of dual therapy regimens include reduced toxicity, improved tolerability and adherence, and reduced cost. Although the data reviewed here provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and tolerability of dual therapy regimens, it remains unclear whether these potential benefits can be maintained long-term. Appropriately powered studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to more definitively assess potential toxicity reduction advantages with dual therapy

Safety and Efficacy of Enfuvirtide in Combination with Darunavir-Ritonavir and an Optimized Background Regimen in Treatment-Experienced Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients: the Below the Level of Quantification Study▿

Enfuvirtide is the first fusion and entry inhibitor approved for use for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 infection and as such represents a novel class of agents. For the population of patients experienced with three antiretroviral classes, enfuvirtide provides an additional option for treatment. This prospective, open-label, 24-week, single-arm trial assessed the efficacy and safety of enfuvirtide (90 mg injected subcutaneously twice daily) in combination with darunavir-ritonavir (600/100 mg administered orally twice daily) in triple-antiretroviral-class-experienced adults failing their current regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV RNA loads of <50 copies/ml. Other virological and immunological measures were also evaluated, as were the effects of the baseline viral coreceptor tropism and darunavir phenotype sensitivity scores on the outcomes. At week 24, 60.3%, 72.5%, and 84.0% of 131 participants achieved viral loads of <50 copies/ml and <400 copies/ml and a change from the baseline load of ≥1 log10 copies/ml, respectively. A baseline viral load of ≤5 log10 copies/ml was a significant predictor of achieving a viral load of <50 copies/ml at 24 weeks; however, neither background genotype sensitivity nor darunavir phenotype sensitivity was a significant predictor of the achievement of viral loads of <50 copies/ml. Although these findings are limited by the relatively small numbers of participants with darunavir susceptibility changes of ≥10-fold, they suggest that combining enfuvirtide and darunavir-ritonavir with an optimized background regimen in triple-class experienced participants naïve to these agents can result in positive virological and immunological responses regardless of most baseline parameters