Development of HIV with drug resistance after CD4 cell count-guided structured treatment interruptions in patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy after dual-nucleoside analogue treatment.

For patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, structured treatment interruption (STI) is an attractive alternative strategy to continuous treatment, particularly in resource-restrained settings, because it reduces both side effects and costs. One major concern, however, is the development of resistance to antiretroviral drugs that can occur during multiple cycles of starting and stopping therapy. HIV genotypic drug resistance was investigated in 20 HIV-infected Thai patients treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and CD4 cell count-guided STI after dual nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) treatment. Resistance was tested at the time of the switch from dual-NRTI treatment to HAART and when HAART was stopped during the last interruption. After STI, one major drug-resistance mutation occurred (T215Y), and, in the 4 samples with preexisting major mutations (D67N [n=2], K70R [n=2], T215Y [n=2], and T215I [n=1]), the mutations disappeared. All mutations in the HIV protease gene were minor mutations already present, in most cases, before STI was started, and their frequency was not increased through STI, whereas the frequency of reverse-transcriptase gene mutations significantly decreased after the interruptions. After the 48-week study period, no patients had virological failure. Long-term follow-up (108 weeks) showed 1 case of virological failure in the STI arm and 1 in the continuous arm. No virological failure was seen in patients with major mutations. Major HIV drug-resistance mutations were not induced through CD4 cell count-guided treatment interruptions in HIV-infected patients successfully treated with HAART after dual-NRTI therap

Efficacy and safety of efavirenz 400 mg daily versus 600 mg daily: 96-week data from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority ENCORE1 study

Background The week 48 primary analysis of the ENCORE1 trial established the virological non-inferiority and safety of efavirenz 400 mg compared with the standard 600 mg dose, combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine, as first-line HIV therapy. This 96-week follow-up of the trial assesses the durability of efficacy and safety of this treatment over 96 weeks. Methods ENCORE1 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial done at 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. HIV-infected adult patients (≥16 years of age) with no previous antiretroviral therapy, a CD4 cell count of 50–500 cells per μL, and plasma HIV-1 viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic case report form to receive fixed-dose daily tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg plus efavirenz either 400 mg daily or 600 mg daily. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 viral load at baseline (≤ or >100 000 copies per mL). The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportions of patients in the two treatment groups with a plasma HIV-1 viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 96. Treatment groups were deemed to be non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was above −10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and non-completer=failure (NC=F) populations. Adverse events and serious adverse events were summarised by treatment group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413. Findings Between Aug 24, 2011, and March 19, 2012, 636 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (324 to efavirenz 400 mg and 312 to efavirenz 600 mg). The intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study drug comprised 630 patients: 321 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group. 585 patients (93%; 299 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 286 in the 600 mg group) completed 96 weeks of follow-up. At 96 weeks, 289 (90·0%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 280 (90·6%) of 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group had a plasma HIV-1 viral load less than 200 copies per mL (difference −0·6, 95% CI −5·2 to 4·0; p=0·72), which suggests continued non-inferiority of the lower efavirenz dose. Non-inferiority was recorded for thresholds of less than 50 and less than 400 copies per mL, irrespective of baseline plasma viral load. Adverse events were reported by 291 (91%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and by 285 (92%) of 309 in the 600 mg group (p=0·48). The proportions of patients reporting an adverse event that was definitely or probably related to efavirenz were 126 (39%) for efavirenz 400 mg and 148 (48%) for efavirenz 600 mg (p=0·03). The number of patients who reported serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (p=0·20). Interpretation Our findings confirm that efavirenz 400 mg is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as initial HIV therapy over 96 weeks. Fewer efavirenz-related adverse events were reported with the 400 mg efavirenz dose than with the 600 mg dose. These findings support the routine use of efavirenz 400 mg. The coadministration of rifampicin and efavirenz 400 mg needs further investigation. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNSW Australi

Failures of 1 week on, 1 week off antiretroviral therapies in a randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Scheduled treatment interruptions are being evaluated in an effort to decrease costs and side effects of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). A schedule of 1 week on and 1 week off therapy offers the promise of 50% less drug exposure with continuously undetectable HIV RNA concentration. METHODS: In the Staccato study 600 patients on successful HAART were to be randomized to either continued therapy, CD4-guided therapy, or one week on, one week off therapy. A scheduled preliminary analysis evaluated effectiveness in the 1-week-on-1-week-off arm. RESULTS: Of 36 evaluable patients, 19 (53%) had two successive HIV RNA concentrations > 500 copies/ml at the end of the week off therapy, and were classified as virological failure. Most of those who failed took didanosine, stavudine, saquinavir, and ritonavir (11 patients). In these patients, there was no evidence of mutations suggestive of drug resistance, and plasma saquinavir levels were within the expected range. Two of three patients failing on triple nucleotides had drug resistance mutations, but nonetheless responded to reintroduction of triple nucleotide therapy. One of two patients taking nevirapine, and one of eight taking efavirenz, also failed. Both had resistance mutations at the time of failure, but not at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The 1-week-on-1-week-off schedule, as tested in the Staccato study, showed an unacceptably high failure rate and was therefore terminated

Efficacy and safety of efavirenz 400 mg daily versus 600 mg daily: 96-week data from the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority ENCORE1 study

Background: The week 48 primary analysis of the ENCORE1 trial established the virological non-inferiority and safety of efavirenz 400 mg compared with the standard 600 mg dose, combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine, as first-line HIV therapy. This 96-week follow-up of the trial assesses the durability of efficacy and safety of this treatment over 96 weeks. Methods: ENCORE1 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial done at 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. HIV-infected adult patients (≥16 years of age) with no previous antiretroviral therapy, a CD4 cell count of 50-500 cells per μL, and plasma HIV-1 viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic case report form to receive fixed-dose daily tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg plus efavirenz either 400 mg daily or 600 mg daily. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 viral load at baseline (≤ or >100 000 copies per mL). The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportions of patients in the two treatment groups with a plasma HIV-1 viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 96. Treatment groups were deemed to be non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was above -10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and non-completer=failure (NC=F) populations. Adverse events and serious adverse events were summarised by treatment group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413. Findings: Between Aug 24, 2011, and March 19, 2012, 636 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (324 to efavirenz 400 mg and 312 to efavirenz 600 mg). The intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study drug comprised 630 patients: 321 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group. 585 patients (93%; 299 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 286 in the 600 mg group) completed 96 weeks of follow-up. At 96 weeks, 289 (90·0%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 280 (90·6%) of 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group had a plasma HIV-1 viral load less than 200 copies per mL (difference -0·6, 95% CI -5·2 to 4·0; p=0·72), which suggests continued non-inferiority of the lower efavirenz dose. Non-inferiority was recorded for thresholds of less than 50 and less than 400 copies per mL, irrespective of baseline plasma viral load. Adverse events were reported by 291 (91%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and by 285 (92%) of 309 in the 600 mg group (p=0·48). The proportions of patients reporting an adverse event that was definitely or probably related to efavirenz were 126 (39%) for efavirenz 400 mg and 148 (48%) for efavirenz 600 mg (p=0·03). The number of patients who reported serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (p=0·20). Interpretation: Our findings confirm that efavirenz 400 mg is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as initial HIV therapy over 96 weeks. Fewer efavirenz-related adverse events were reported with the 400 mg efavirenz dose than with the 600 mg dose. These findings support the routine use of efavirenz 400 mg. The coadministration of rifampicin and efavirenz 400 mg needs further investigation. Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNSW Australia

Efficacy of 400 mg efavirenz versus standard 600 mg dose in HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive adults (ENCORE1): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial

Background: The optimum dose of key antiretroviral drugs is often overlooked during product development. The ENCORE1 study compared the efficacy and safety of reduced dose efavirenz with standard dose efavirenz in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as first-line treatment for HIV infection. An effective and safe reduced dose could yield meaningful cost savings. Methods: ENCORE1 is a continuing non-inferiority trial in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-naive adults in 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. Participants (plasma HIV-RNA >1000 log10 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell count 50-500 cells per μL) were randomly assigned by a computer-generated sequence with a blocking factor of four (stratified by clinical site and by screening viral load) to receive tenofovir plus emtricitabine with either a reduced daily dose (400 mg) or a standard dose (600 mg) of efavirenz. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staffwere masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the difference in proportions of participants with plasma HIV-RNA of less than 200 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Treatment groups were regarded as non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was less than-10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Adverse events were summarised by treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413. Findings: The modified intention-to-treat analysis consisted of 630 patients (efavirenz 400=321; efavirenz 600=309). 32% were women; 37% were African, 33% were Asian, and 30% were white. The mean baseline CD4 cell count was 273 cells per μL (SD 99) and median plasma HIV-RNA was 4.75 log 10 copies per mL (IQR 0.88). The proportion of participants with a viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 48 was 94.1% for efavirenz 400 mg and 92.2% for 600 mg (difference 1.85%, 95% CI-2.1 to 5.79). CD4 T-cell counts at week 48 were significantly higher for the 400 mg group than for the 600 mg group (mean difference 25 cells per μL, 95% CI 6-44; p=0.01). We recorded no difference in grade or number of patients reporting adverse events (efavirenz 400=89.1%, efavirenz 600=88.4%; difference 0.75%, 95% CI-4.19 to 5.69; p=0.77). Study drug-related adverse events were significantly more frequent in the 600 mg group than in the 400 mg group (146% [47] vs 118 [37]), difference-10.5%, 95% CI-18.2 to-2.8; p=0.01) and significantly fewer patients with these events stopped treatment (400 mg=6 [2%], 600 mg=18 [6%], difference-3.96%, 95% CI-6.96 to -0.95; p=0.01). Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a reduced dose of 400 mg efavirenz is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg, when combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine during 48 weeks in ART-naive adults with HIV-1 infection. Adverse events related to the study drug were more frequent with 600 mg efavirenz than with 400 mg. Lower dose efavirenz should be recommended as part of routine care