HIV-Associated Lipodystrophy: Impact of Antiretroviral Therapy

In the late 1990s, reports of unusual changes in body fat distribution named ‘lipodystrophy’ (LD) began to appear in HIV patients mitigating the enormous enthusiasm about improvement of survival and quality of life provided by the combinations of antiretroviral (ARV) drug classes, the so-called highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which had just become available at that time. The objective of this paper is to critically review the literature on LD and to discuss the impact of newer ARV agents, namely atazanavir, darunavir and raltegravir, as well as strategies of the late HAART era, including single-tablet regimens and nucleoside-sparing regimens. Studies in which LD was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry or by abdominal computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan only, were included. We were unable to identify studies depicting a negative impact of drugs or ARV regimens on limb fat loss. On the contrary, a few studies identified a negative impact of atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir on trunk fat increase. It should be noted that this anthropometric measure is a poor instrument since it cannot distinguish between subcutaneous and visceral fat. We conclude that presumably the body fat changes currently observed in HIV-infected patients is the net result of competing phenomena: on one side the natural history of lipohypertrophy as a result of HIV and HAART impact, and on the other side the physiological body fat changes observed in the aging population

Subgroup analyses of maraviroc in previously treated R5 HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We conducted subanalyses of the combined results of the Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients (MOTIVATE) 1 and MOTIVATE 2 studies to better characterize the efficacy and safety of maraviroc in key subgroups of patients. METHODS: We analyzed pooled data from week 48 from the two studies according to sex, race or ethnic group, clade, CC chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) delta32 genotype, viral load at the time of screening, the use or nonuse of enfuvirtide in optimized background therapy (OBT), the baseline CD4 cell count, the number of active antiretroviral drugs coadministered, the first use of selected background agents, and tropism at baseline. Changes in viral tropism and the CD4 count at treatment failure were evaluated. Data on aminotransferase levels in patients coinfected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) were also analyzed. RESULTS: A treatment benefit of maraviroc plus OBT over placebo plus OBT was shown in all subgroups, including patients with a low CD4 cell count at baseline, those with a high viral load at screening, and those who had not received active agents in OBT. Analyses of the virologic response according to the first use of selected background drugs showed the additional benefit of adding a potent new drug to maraviroc at the initiation of maraviroc therapy. More patients in whom maraviroc failed had a virus binding to the CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) at failure, but there was no evidence of a decrease in the CD4 cell count at failure in such patients as compared with those in whom placebo failed. Subanalyses involving patients coinfected with HBV or HCV revealed no evidence of excess hepatotoxic effects as compared with baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Subanalyses of pooled data from week 48 indicate that maraviroc provides a valuable treatment option for a wide spectrum of patients with R5 HIV-1 infection who have been treated previously. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00098306 and NCT00098722.