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

Efficacy and safety of raltegravir for treatment of HIV for 5 years in the BENCHMRK studies: Final results of two randomised, placebo-controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Two randomised, placebo-controlled trials-BENCHMRK-1 and BENCHMRK-2-investigated the efficacy and safety of raltegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor. We report final results of BENCHMRK-1 and BENCHMRK-2 combined at 3 years (the end of the double-blind phase) and 5 years (the end of the study). METHODS: Integrase-inhibitor-naive patients with HIV resistant to three classes of drug and who were failing antiretroviral therapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to raltegravir 400 mg twice daily or placebo, both with optimised background treatment. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until week 156, after which all patients were offered open-label raltegravir until week 240. The primary endpoint was previously assessed at 16 weeks. We assessed long-term efficacy with endpoints of the proportion of patients with an HIV viral load of less than 50 copies per mL and less than 400 copies per mL, and mean change in CD4 cell count, at weeks 156 and 240. FINDINGS: 1012 patients were screened for inclusion. 462 were treated with raltegravir and 237 with placebo. At week 156, 51% in the raltegravir group versus 22% in the placebo group (non-completer classed as failure) had viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL, and 54% versus 23% had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL. Mean CD4 cell count increase (analysed by an observed failure approach) was 164 cells per μL versus 63 cells per μL. After week 156, 251 patients (54%) from the raltegravir group and 47 (20%) from the placebo group entered the open-label raltergravir phase; 221 (47%) versus 44 (19%) completed the entire study. At week 240, viral load was less than 50 copies per mL in 193 (42%) of all patients initially assigned to raltegravir and less than 400 copies per mL in 210 (45%); mean CD4 cell count increased by 183 cells per μL. Virological failure occurred in 166 raltegravir recipients (36%) during the double-blind phase and in 17 of all patients (6%) during the open-label phase. The most common drug-related adverse events at 5 years in both groups were nausea, headache, and diarrhoea, and occurred in similar proportions in each group. Laboratory test results were similar in both treatment groups and showed little change after year 2. INTERPRETATION: Raltegravir has a favourable long-term efficacy and safety profile in integrase-inhibitor-naive patients with triple-class resistant HIV in whom antiretroviral therapy is failing. Raltegravir is an alternative for treatment-experienced patients, particularly those with few treatment options

Transmitted Drug Resistance in Persons with Acute/Early HIV-1 in San Francisco, 2002-2009

Transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance (TDR) is an ongoing public health problem, representing 10-20% of new HIV infections in many geographic areas. TDR usually arises from two main sources: individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) who are failing to achieve virologic suppression, and individuals who acquired TDR and transmit it while still ART-naïve. TDR rates can be impacted when novel antiretroviral medications are introduced that allow for greater virologic suppression of source patients. Although several new HIV medications were introduced starting in late 2007, including raltegravir, maraviroc, and etravirine, it is not known whether the prevalence of TDR was subsequently affected in 2008-2009.We performed population sequence genotyping on individuals who were diagnosed with acute or early HIV (<6 months duration) and who enrolled in the Options Project, a prospective cohort, between 2002 and 2009. We used logistic regression to compare the odds of acquiring drug-resistant HIV before versus after the arrival of new ART (2005-2007 vs. 2008-2009). From 2003-2007, TDR rose from 7% to 24%. Prevalence of TDR was then 15% in 2008 and in 2009. While the odds of acquiring TDR were lower in 2008-2009 compared to 2005-2007, this was not statistically significant (odds ratio 0.65, 95% CI 0.31-1.38; p = 0.27).Our study suggests that transmitted drug resistance rose from 2003-2007, but this upward trend did not continue in 2008 and 2009. Nevertheless, the TDR prevalence in 2008-2009 remained substantial, emphasizing that improved management strategies for drug-resistant HIV are needed if TDR is to be further reduced. Continued surveillance for TDR will be important in understanding the full impact of new antiretroviral medications

Drug-Class Specific Impact of Antivirals on the Reproductive Capacity of HIV

Predictive markers linking drug efficacy to clinical outcome are a key component in the drug discovery and development process. In HIV infection, two different measures, viral load decay and phenotypic assays, are used to assess drug efficacy in vivo and in vitro. For the newly introduced class of integrase inhibitors, a huge discrepancy between these two measures of efficacy was observed. Hence, a thorough understanding of the relation between these two measures of drug efficacy is imperative for guiding future drug discovery and development activities in HIV. In this article, we developed a novel viral dynamics model, which allows for a mechanistic integration of the mode of action of all approved drugs and drugs in late clinical trials. Subsequently, we established a link between in vivo and in vitro measures of drug efficacy, and extract important determinants of drug efficacy in vivo. The analysis is based on a new quantity—the reproductive capacity—that represents in mathematical terms the in vivo analog of the read-out of a phenotypic assay. Our results suggest a drug-class specific impact of antivirals on the total amount of viral replication. Moreover, we showed that the (drug-)target half life, dominated by immune-system related clearance processes, is a key characteristic that affects both the emergence of resistance as well as the in vitro–in vivo correlation of efficacy measures in HIV treatment. We found that protease- and maturation inhibitors, due to their target half-life, decrease the total amount of viral replication and the emergence of resistance most efficiently

Assessing the Performance of a Computer-Based Policy Model of HIV and AIDS

BACKGROUND. Model-based analyses, conducted within a decision analytic framework, provide a systematic way to combine information about the natural history of disease and effectiveness of clinical management strategies with demographic and epidemiological characteristics of the population. Among the challenges with disease-specific modeling include the need to identify influential assumptions and to assess the face validity and internal consistency of the model. METHODS AND FINDINGS. We describe a series of exercises involved in adapting a computer-based simulation model of HIV disease to the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) cohort and assess model performance as we re-parameterized the model to address policy questions in the U.S. relevant to HIV-infected women using data from the WIHS. Empiric calibration targets included 24-month survival curves stratified by treatment status and CD4 cell count. The most influential assumptions in untreated women included chronic HIV-associated mortality following an opportunistic infection, and in treated women, the 'clinical effectiveness' of HAART and the ability of HAART to prevent HIV complications independent of virologic suppression. Good-fitting parameter sets required reductions in the clinical effectiveness of 1st and 2nd line HAART and improvements in 3rd and 4th line regimens. Projected rates of treatment regimen switching using the calibrated cohort-specific model closely approximated independent analyses published using data from the WIHS. CONCLUSIONS. The model demonstrated good internal consistency and face validity, and supported cohort heterogeneities that have been reported in the literature. Iterative assessment of model performance can provide information about the relative influence of uncertain assumptions and provide insight into heterogeneities within and between cohorts. Description of calibration exercises can enhance the transparency of disease-specific models.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R37 AI042006, K24 AI062476

Raltegravir with Optimized Background Therapy for Resistant HIV-1 Infection

Background: Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs. Methods: We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. Results: In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups. Conclusions: In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.

Subgroup and Resistance Analyses of Raltegravir for Resistant HIV-1 Infection

Background: We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Methods: We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. Results: Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. Conclusions: When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.

Novel therapeutic strategies targeting HIV integrase

Integration of the viral genome into host cell chromatin is a pivotal and unique step in the replication cycle of retroviruses, including HIV. Inhibiting HIV replication by specifically blocking the viral integrase enzyme that mediates this step is an obvious and attractive therapeutic strategy. After concerted efforts, the first viable integrase inhibitors were developed in the early 2000s, ultimately leading to the clinical licensure of the first integrase strand transfer inhibitor, raltegravir. Similarly structured compounds and derivative second generation integrase strand transfer inhibitors, such as elvitegravir and dolutegravir, are now in various stages of clinical development. Furthermore, other mechanisms aimed at the inhibition of viral integration are being explored in numerous preclinical studies, which include inhibition of 3' processing and chromatin targeting. The development of new clinically useful compounds will be aided by the characterization of the retroviral intasome crystal structure. This review considers the history of the clinical development of HIV integrase inhibitors, the development of antiviral drug resistance and the need for new antiviral compounds