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

Comparison of dynamic monitoring strategies based on CD4 cell counts in virally suppressed, HIV-positive individuals on combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries: a prospective, observational study

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines vary with respect to the optimal monitoring frequency of HIV-positive individuals. We compared dynamic monitoring strategies based on time-varying CD4 cell counts in virologically suppressed HIV-positive individuals. METHODS: In this observational study, we used data from prospective studies of HIV-positive individuals in Europe (France, Greece, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK) and North and South America (Brazil, Canada, and the USA) in The HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration and The Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems. We compared three monitoring strategies that differ in the threshold used to measure CD4 cell count and HIV RNA viral load every 3–6 months (when below the threshold) or every 9–12 months (when above the threshold). The strategies were defined by the threshold CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL, 350 cells per μL, and 500 cells per μL. Using inverse probability weighting to adjust for baseline and time-varying confounders, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) of death and of AIDS-defining illness or death, risk ratios of virological failure, and mean differences in CD4 cell count. FINDINGS: 47 635 individuals initiated an antiretroviral therapy regimen between Jan 1, 2000, and Jan 9, 2015, and met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in our study. During follow-up, CD4 cell count was measured on average every 4·0 months and viral load every 3·8 months. 464 individuals died (107 in threshold 200 strategy, 157 in threshold 350, and 200 in threshold 500) and 1091 had AIDS-defining illnesses or died (267 in threshold 200 strategy, 365 in threshold 350, and 459 in threshold 500). Compared with threshold 500, the mortality HR was 1·05 (95% CI 0·86–1·29) for threshold 200 and 1·02 (0·91·1·14) for threshold 350. Corresponding estimates for death or AIDS-defining illness were 1·08 (0·95–1·22) for threshold 200 and 1·03 (0·96–1·12) for threshold 350. Compared with threshold 500, the 24 month risk ratios of virological failure (viral load more than 200 copies per mL) were 2·01 (1·17–3·43) for threshold 200 and 1·24 (0·89–1·73) for threshold 350, and 24 month mean CD4 cell count differences were 0·4 (−25·5 to 26·3) cells per μL for threshold 200 and −3·5 (−16·0 to 8·9) cells per μL for threshold 350. INTERPRETATION: Decreasing monitoring to annually when CD4 count is higher than 200 cells per μL compared with higher than 500 cells per μL does not worsen the short-term clinical and immunological outcomes of virally suppressed HIV-positive individuals. However, more frequent virological monitoring might be necessary to reduce the risk of virological failure. Further follow-up studies are needed to establish the long-term safety of these strategies. FUNDING National Institutes of Health

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

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

Altres ajuts: This study was sponsored by Janssen.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 (virologic suppression) and ≥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

Week 48 resistance analyses of the once-daily, single-tablet regimen darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) in adults living with HIV-1 from the Phase III Randomized AMBER and EMERALD Trials

Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg is being investigated in two Phase III trials, AMBER (NCT02431247; treatment-naive adults) and EMERALD (NCT02269917; treatment-experienced, virologically suppressed adults). Week 48 AMBER and EMERALD resistance analyses are presented. Postbaseline samples for genotyping/phenotyping were analyzed from protocol-defined virologic failures (PDVFs) with viral load (VL) >= 400 copies/mL at failure/later time points. Post hoc analyses were deep sequencing in AMBER, and HIV-1 proviral DNA from baseline samples (VL = 3 thymidine analog-associated mutations (24% not fully susceptible to tenofovir) detected at screening. All achieved VL <50 copies/mL at week 48 or prior discontinuation. D/C/F/TAF has a high genetic barrier to resistance; no darunavir, primary PI, or tenofovir RAMs were observed through 48 weeks in AMBER and EMERALD. Only one postbaseline M184I/V RAM was observed in HIV-1 of an AMBER participant. In EMERALD, baseline archived RAMs to darunavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir in participants with prior VF did not preclude virologic response

Addition of 7 Days of Zidovudine Plus Lamivudine to Peripartum Single-Dose Nevirapine Effectively Reduces Nevirapine Resistance Postpartum in HIV-Infected Mothers in Malawi

We assessed whether 7 days of zidovudine+lamivudine postpartum with single-dose nevirapine at labor decreases nevirapine resistance in HIV-infected women in Malawi

Using observational data to emulate a randomized trial of dynamic treatment switching strategies

BACKGROUND: When a clinical treatment fails or shows suboptimal results, the question of when to switch to another treatment arises. Treatment switching strategies are often dynamic because the time of switching depends on the evolution of an individual's time-varying covariates. Dynamic strategies can be directly compared in randomized trials. For example, HIV-infected individuals receiving antiretroviral therapy could be randomized to switching therapy within 90 days of HIV-1 RNA crossing above a threshold of either 400 copies/ml (tight-control strategy) or 1000 copies/ml (loose-control strategy).METHODS: We review an approach to emulate a randomized trial of dynamic switching strategies using observational data from the Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration, the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems and the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. We estimated the comparative effect of tight-control vs. loose-control strategies on death and AIDS or death via inverse-probability weighting.RESULTS: Of 43 803 individuals who initiated an eligible antiretroviral therapy regimen in 2002 or later, 2001 met the baseline inclusion criteria for the mortality analysis and 1641 for the AIDS or death analysis. There were 21 deaths and 33 AIDS or death events in the tight-control group, and 28 deaths and 41 AIDS or death events in the loose-control group. Compared with tight control, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for loose control were 1.10 (0.73, 1.66) for death, and 1.04 (0.86, 1.27) for AIDS or death.CONCLUSIONS: Although our effective sample sizes were small and our estimates imprecise, the described methodological approach can serve as an example for future analyses

Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy versus Combination Antiretroviral Maintenance Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs