Baseline In CD4 Cell Count Research Articles

Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Lenacapavir Plus Optimized Background Regimen Versus Other Treatments for Multidrug-Resistant Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Background/AimsHeavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH) may not achieve virologic suppression (VS) with combination antiretroviral therapy due to multidrug resistance (MDR), intolerance, and safety concerns. These PWH often receive highly individualized treatment regimens, but these regimens may not enable PWH to achieve VS, thereby halting disease progression. Novel medications are required for treating individuals with MDR HIV. Lenacapavir (LEN), a first-in-class HIV capsid inhibitor, is under investigation for the treatment of HTE individuals with MDR HIV in the phase 2/3 CAPELLA study. This study aimed to compare LEN plus optimized background regimen (OBR) with fostemsavir (FTR) + OBR, ibalizumab (IBA) + OBR, and OBR alone in terms of VS, CD4 cell count change from baseline, immunologic recovery, and discontinuation due to adverse events, using indirect treatment comparisons. MethodsA systematic review identified clinical evidence on HIV-1 treatments in HTE PWH. A feasibility assessment evaluated the identified studies for indirect treatment comparison analyses based on population characteristics, interventions, comparators, and outcomes of interest. Unanchored simulated treatment comparisons of LEN + OBR versus comparators were conducted. ResultsLEN + OBR had 6.57 times higher odds of VS at weeks 24 to 28 than FTR + OBR (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-32.28), 8.93 times higher odds of VS than IBA + OBR (95% CI 2.07-38.46), and 12.74 times higher odds of VS than OBR alone (95% CI 1.70-95.37). Change from baseline in CD4 cell count was similar across LEN + OBR, FTR + OBR, and IBA + OBR. ConclusionLEN + OBR has statistically significantly greater odds of VS at weeks 24 to 28 than its comparators and represents a novel treatment for people with MDR HIV.

Safety and efficacy of the HIV-1 attachment inhibitor prodrug fostemsavir in heavily treatment-experienced individuals: week 96 results of the phase 3 BRIGHTE study

Fostemsavir, a prodrug of the first-in-class attachment inhibitor, temsavir, is indicated for heavily treatment-experienced individuals with multidrug-resistant HIV-1. We previously reported superior efficacy of fostemsavir versus placebo in the randomised cohort of the BRIGHTE study after 8-day functional monotherapy (primary endpoint); here we report planned interim analyses through week 96. BRIGHTE (NCT02362503) is an ongoing multicentre, two-cohort, phase 3 trial, done at 108 centres in 22 countries. We enrolled heavily treatment-experienced adults (≥18 years) failing antiretroviral therapy (HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies per mL) into two cohorts: the randomised cohort, in which patients with one or two fully active antiretrovirals remaining received oral fostemsavir (600 mg twice a day) or placebo in combination with their failing regimen for 8 days, followed by fostemsavir plus optimised background therapy; or the non-randomised cohort, in which patients with no remaining antiretroviral options received oral fostemsavir (600 mg twice a day) plus optimised background therapy from day 1. Endpoints for the week 96 interim analyses included the proportions of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 40 copies per mL, changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, and the frequency of adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and deaths. The intention-to-treat exposed population and the safety population both included all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. The response rates (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per mL) in the intention-to-treat exposed population were calculated via snapshot analysis at weeks 24, 48, and 96. Between Feb 23, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, 371 participants were enrolled and treated, of which 272 participants were in the randomised cohort and 99 in the non-randomised cohort. 320 (86%) of 371 reported a history of AIDS. In the randomised cohort, rates of virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per mL) increased from 53% (144 of 272) at week 24 to 60% (163 of 272) at week 96. Response rates in the non-randomised cohort were 37% (37 of 99) at week 24 and week 96. Mean increases in CD4 counts from baseline at week 96 were 205 cells per μL (SD 191) in the randomised cohort and 119 cells per μL (202) in the non-randomised cohort. Mean CD4/CD8 ratio increased from 0·20 at baseline to 0·44 at week 96 in the randomised cohort. Few adverse events led to discontinuation (26 [7%] of 371). 12 (4%) of 272 people in the randomised cohort and 17 (17%) of 99 in the non-randomised cohort died; the median baseline CD4 count for participants who died was 11 cells per μL. In heavily treatment-experienced individuals with advanced HIV-1 disease and limited treatment options, fostemsavir-based antiretroviral regimens were generally well tolerated and showed a distinctive trend of increasing virological and immunological response rates through 96 weeks; these findings support fostemsavir as a treatment option for this vulnerable population. ViiV Healthcare.

Switch to Rilpivirine/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Single-Tablet Regimen of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 RNA-Suppressed Patients, Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA et les Hépatites Virales CO3 Aquitaine Cohort, 2012–2014

Background. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 virologically suppressed patients who switched to rilpivirine (RPV)/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) as a single-tablet regimen (STR). Methods. A retrospective multicenter cohort study was performed between September 2012 and February 2014 in Bordeaux University Hospital-affiliated clinics. Patients with a plasma HIV viral load (VL) lower than 50 copies/mL and switching to STR were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months from switch time (M3, M6, M9, M12) for VL and other biological parameters. Change from baseline in CD4 cell counts was evaluated at M6 and M12. Virological failure (VF) was defined as 2 consecutive VL >50 copies/mL. Results. Three hundred four patients were included in the analysis. Single-tablet regimen switch was proposed to 116 patients with adverse events, mostly efavirenz (EFV)-based (n = 59), and to 224 patients for cART simplification. Thirty of 196 patients with available genotype resistance test results displayed virus with ≥1 drug resistance mutation on reverse-transcriptase gene. After 12 months of follow-up, 93.4% (95.5% confidence interval, 89.9-96.2) of patients remained virologically suppressed. There was no significant change in CD4 cell count. During the study period, 5 patients experienced VF, one of them harboring RPV resistance mutation. Clinical cART tolerability improved in 79 patients overall (29.9%) at M6, especially neurological symptoms related to EFV. Fasting serum lipid profiles improved, but a significant estimated glomerular function rate decrease (-11 mL/min/1.73 m(2); P < 10(-4)) was observed. Conclusions. Overall, virologic suppression was maintained in patients after switching to RPV/TDF/ FTC. This STR strategy was associated with improved tolerability.

A Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of Single-Tablet Regimen Elvitegravir/Cobicistat/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir DF vs Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir Plus Emtricitabine/Tenofovir DF for Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection

A Randomized, Double-blind Comparison of Single-Tablet Regimen Elvitegravir/Cobicistat/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir DF vs Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir Plus Emtricitabine/Tenofovir DF for Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection

Maraviroc Once-Daily Nucleoside Analog-Sparing Regimen in Treatment-Naive Patients

This study was performed to evaluate a once-daily dual-therapy regimen, maraviroc (MVC) + atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), in treatment-naive patients. A phase 2b, randomized, open-label pilot study. In Study A4001078 (NCT00827112), treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/mL; CD4 cell count ≥100 cells/mm) were randomized to receive either MVC 150 mg once daily (n = 60) or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) 300/200 mg once daily (n = 61) + ATV/r 300/100 mg once daily. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 48. At week 48, 44 (74.6%) and 51 (83.6%) patients in the MVC and TDF/FTC treatment groups, respectively, had plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per milliliter. Median change from baseline in CD4 cell count at week 48 was +173 and +187 cells per cubic millimeter with MVC and TDF/FTC, respectively. Seven patients discontinued from each arm; there were no deaths. The incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) was similar in each group; however, there were more grade 3/4 AEs in the MVC group (18 vs 11), mostly due to hyperbilirubinemia. Three patients in each arm were evaluable for virological analysis at discontinuation or failure (HIV-1 RNA >500 copies/mL); no genotypic resistance, change in tropism, or loss of susceptibility relevant to treatment was observed. The virological activity and immunological benefit of once-daily MVC + ATV/r were confirmed. Indirect hyperbilirubinemia and associated signs were the most commonly reported AEs in both study treatment groups and were not associated with significant transaminase increases. No drug resistance occurred.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study

Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. ViiV Healthcare.

Long-Term Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Rilpivirine (RPV, TMC278) in HIV Type 1-Infected Antiretroviral-Naive Patients: Week 192 Results from a Phase IIb Randomized Trial

TMC278-C204 (NCT00110305), a 96-week trial of the nonnucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV, TMC278) in 368 HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive patients, was extended to investigate long-term safety and efficacy. Week 192 analysis results are presented. This was a long-term follow-up of a Phase IIb, randomized trial. No significant RPV dose-response relationships with respect to the primary endpoint (composite ITT-TLOVR algorithm) were observed at week 48 or 96. All RPV-treated patients were switched to open-label 75 mg qd at week 96 and then to 25 mg qd, the Phase III dose, at approximately week 144 as it gave the best benefit-risk balance. All control patients continued receiving open-label efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg qd. At week 192, 59% of RPV- and 61% of EFV-treated patients maintained confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml (ITT-TLOVR algorithm). The mean changes from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar in both groups (RPV: 210 cells/mm(3) vs. EFV: 225 cells/mm(3)). No new safety concerns were noted between week 48 and 192. In the week 192 analysis, RPV compared with EFV was associated with a lower overall incidence of grade 2-4 adverse events (AEs) at least possibly related to treatment, including rash (p<0.001) and neurologic AEs (p<0.05 Fisher's exact test, post hoc analyses) Incidences of serious AEs, grade 3 or 4 AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups. Increases in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides were significantly lower with RPV than with EFV. RPV continued to show sustained efficacy similar to EFV at week 192 with a generally more favorable safety profile.

Efficacy and safety of TMC278 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 patients: week 96 results of a phase IIb randomized trial

TMC278 is a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor highly active against wild-type and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 in vitro. The week 96 analysis of TMC278-C204, a large dose-ranging study of TMC278 in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients, is presented. Phase IIb randomized trial. Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized and treated with three blinded once-daily TMC278 doses 25, 75 or 150 mg, or an open-label, active control, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, all with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The primary analysis was at week 48. No TMC278 dose-response relationship for efficacy and safety was observed. TMC278 demonstrated potent antiviral efficacy comparable with efavirenz over 48 weeks that was sustained to week 96 (76.9-80.0% and 71.4-76.3% of TMC278-treated patients with confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml, respectively; time-to-loss of virological-response algorithm). Median increases from baseline in CD4 cell count with TMC278 at week 96 (138.0-149.0 cells/microl) were higher than at week 48 (108.0-123.0 cells/microl). All TMC278 doses were well tolerated. The incidences of the most commonly reported grade 2-4 adverse events at least possibly related to study medication, including nausea, dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmare, dyspepsia, asthenia, rash, somnolence and vertigo, were low and lower with TMC278 than with efavirenz. Incidences of serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar among groups. All TMC278 doses demonstrated potent and sustained efficacy comparable with efavirenz in treatment-naive patients over 96 weeks. TMC278 was well tolerated with lower incidences of neurological and psychiatric adverse events, rash and lower lipid elevations than those with efavirenz. TMC278 25 mg once daily was selected for further clinical development.

Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study

Atazanavir/ritonavir is as effective as lopinavir/ritonavir, with a more favourable lipid profile and less gastrointestinal toxicity, in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We compared these two combinations directly in treatment-naive patients. In this open-label, international non-inferiority study, 883 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily (n=440) or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily (n=443), in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated centralised randomisation schedule and was stratified by baseline levels of HIV RNA (viral load) and geographic region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral load less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The main efficacy analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00272779. At week 48, 343 (78%) of 440 patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir and 338 (76%) of 443 patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had achieved a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL (difference 1.7%, 95% CI -3.8 to 7.1). Mean increases from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar (203 cells per muL in the atazanavir/ritonavir group vs 219 cells per muL in the lopinavir/ritonavir group). 25 (6%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and 26 (6%) in the lopinavir/ritonavir group were virological failures by week 48. Only two patients, both in the atazanavir/ritonavir group, had non-polymorphic protease inhibitor resistance mutations emerge on treatment, which conferred phenotypic resistance to atazanavir in one patient. Serious adverse events were noted in 51 (12%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and in 42 (10%) of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group. Fewer patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group than in the lopinavir/ritonavir group experienced grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhoea (10 [2%] vs 50 [11%]) and nausea (17 [4%] vs 33 [8%]). Grade 2-4 jaundice was seen in 16 (4%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group versus none of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; grade 3-4 increases in total bilirubin were seen in 146 (34%) of 435 patients on atazanavir/ritonavir and in one (<1%) of 431 patients on lopinavir/ritonavir. In treatment-naive patients, atazanavir/ritonavir once-daily demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to lopinavir/ritonavir twice-daily, with less gastrointestinal toxicity but with a higher rate of hyperbilirubinaemia.

Avanti 3: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lamivudine plus Zidovudine versus Lamivudine plus Zidovudine plus Nelfinavir in HIV-1-Infected Antiretroviral-Naive Patients

The objective of our randomized, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to investigate the safety, tolerability, and antiretroviral and immunological effect of double and triple combination therapy regimens. A total of 105 antiretroviral therapy-naive patients were randomized to receive either zidovudine (300 mg twice per day) plus lamivudine (150 mg twice per day) plus nelfinavir placebo (three times per day) (n=52), or zidovudine/lamivudine (dose as before) plus nelfinavir (750 mg three times per day) (n=53) for 28 weeks. After this time, patients were allowed to switch to open-label zidovudine/lamivudine/nelfinavir. The overall log10 reduction from baseline in plasma HIV-1 RNA was significantly greater in the zidovudine/lamivudine/nelfinavir group than the zidovudine/lamivudine group (P=0.001; median treatment difference, -1.01 log10 copies/ml; 95% confidence interval -1.23 to -0.79), as measured by the average area under the curve minus baseline over 28 weeks. Increases from baseline in CD4 cell counts were statistically significantly greater in the zidovudine/ lamivudine/nelfinavir group (101.5 cells/ml) than the zidovudine/lamivudine group (47.0 cells/ml; P=0.027) at week 28. Of note, the addition of nelfinavir from weeks 28-52 led to an increase in the proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml from 17% (9/52 patients on zidovudine/lamivudine) to 50% (13/26 patients who switched to zidovudine/lamivudine/nelfinavir). Incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar in the two groups, except for nausea (more common in zidovudine/lamivudine group; 40 versus 17%) and diarrhoea (more common in zidovudine/lamivudine/nelfinavir group; 45 versus 14%). In conclusion, our study confirms the efficacy of triple combination therapy with two nucleoside analogues and a protease inhibitor compared with double-nucleoside therapy. Interestingly, the addition of nelfinavir to zidovudine/lamivudine, even after 6 months of double nucleoside therapy, led to a substantial virological benefit that was sustained over 24weeks in a subset of patients.

Didanosine Dosed Once Daily Is Equivalent to Twice Daily Dosing for Patients on Double or Triple Combination Antiretroviral Therapy

Objective: To compare the antiviral activity, effect on CD4 cell count, and tolerability of didanosine (ddI) administered once daily and twice daily in HIV-1-infected patients receiving ddI with stavudine or zidovudine, with or without a protease inhibitor. The study was designed to demonstrate that once-daily dosing of ddl was not inferior to twice-daily dosing. Design: Randomized, open-label, multicenter, two-arm study. Patients and Methods: 121 HIV-1-infected adults on a stable regimen including ddl (twice daily) during the previous 3 months with a stable viral load <10,000 copies/ml started therapy. Of these, 62 were randomized to switch to a combination that included ddI once daily and 59 to continue with ddl twice daily. The ddl dose was 400 mg/day (250 mg/day if body weight was <60 kg). The primary efficacy analysis compared the time-averaged difference (TAD) between the two treatment regimens in change from baseline log10 plasma HIV-1 RNA levels over 24 weeks of therapy, with an equivalence margin between the two treatment groups of <0.5 log10 copies/ml. Results: At week 24, the mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level had increased by 0.31 and 0.17 log10 copies/ml in the ddl once-daily and ddI twice-daily groups, respectively. The time-averaged difference between the two groups in change from baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA levels over 24 weeks was (0.05 log10 copies/ml (95% confidence interval, -0.21 to +0.12 log10 copies/ml), indicating that the antiviral activity of ddI once daily is similar to that of ddl twice daily. After 24 weeks of treatment, changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts were similar in the two groups. Both regimens were generally well-tolerated. Conclusions: Once-daily and twice-daily ddI are equally effective at reducing plasma HIV-1 RNA levels when used in a combination regimen with stavudine or zidovudine, with or without a protease inhibitor.

Didanosine Dosed Once Daily Is Equivalent to Twice Daily Dosing for Patients on Double or Triple Combination Antiretroviral Therapy

To compare the antiviral activity, effect on CD4 cell count, and tolerability of didanosine (ddI) administered once daily and twice daily in HIV-1-infected patients receiving ddI with stavudine or zidovudine, with or without a protease inhibitor. The study was designed to demonstrate that once-daily dosing of ddI was not inferior to twice-daily dosing. Randomized, open-label, multicenter, two-arm study. 121 HIV-1-infected adults on a stable regimen including ddI (twice daily) during the previous 3 months with a stable viral load <10,000 copies/ml started therapy. Of these, 62 were randomized to switch to a combination that included ddI once daily and 59 to continue with ddI twice daily. The ddI dose was 400 mg/day (250 mg/day if body weight was <60 kg). The primary efficacy analysis compared the time-averaged difference (TAD) between the two treatment regimens in change from baseline log10 plasma HIV-1 RNA levels over 24 weeks of therapy, with an equivalence margin between the two treatment groups of <0.5 log10 copies/ml. At week 24, the mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level had increased by 0.31 and 0.17 log10 copies/ml in the ddI once-daily and ddI twice-daily groups, respectively. The time-averaged difference between the two groups in change from baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA levels over 24 weeks was (0.05 log10 copies/ml (95% confidence interval, -0.21 to +0.12 log10 copies/ml), indicating that the antiviral activity of ddI once daily is similar to that of ddI twice daily. After 24 weeks of treatment, changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts were similar in the two groups. Both regimens were generally well-tolerated. Once-daily and twice-daily ddI are equally effective at reducing plasma HIV-1 RNA levels when used in a combination regimen with stavudine or zidovudine, with or without a protease inhibitor.

Highly active antiretroviral therapy including protease inhibitors does not confer a unique CD4 cell benefit

Objective To determine if triple combination therapy, particularly including HIV protease inhibitors (PI), confers an unique immunological benefit that is independent of reductions of plasma viral load (pVL). Design The correlation between changes from baseline in CD4 cell count and pVL was examined at all time points up to 52 weeks in three randomized clinical trials (AVANTI-2, AVANTI-3 and INCAS) that compared dual nucleoside therapy with triple combination therapy. Methods Individual pVL and CD4 cell counts changes from baseline were entered into multivariate linear regression models for patients receiving double therapy and for those receiving triple therapy including a PI and/or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), and the null hypothesis was tested. Results After 52 weeks of therapy, the relationship between changes from baseline CD4 cell count and pVL was independent of whether patients were assigned double or triple therapy (P = 0.23 and 0.69 for intercept and slope, respectively), or whether patients were assigned triple therapy including a PI or triple therapy including an NNRTI (P = 0.92 and 0.95, respectively). Less than 5% of patients ever had `discordant' increases in both CD4 cell count and pVL compared with baseline, and this proportion was unrelated to the class of therapy used. `Discordant' decreases from baseline in both parameters were observed in up to 35% of individuals. The correlation between pVL and CD4 cell count changes from baseline improved over time on therapy, regardless of the therapeutic regimen involved. Conclusions The data provide no evidence for a CD4 cell count benefit of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) unique to triple therapy or PI-containing regimens.

Meta-Analysis of Antiretroviral Effects on HIV-1 RNA, CD4 Cell Count and Progression to AIDS or Death

There is uncertainty as to how the effects of antiretroviral treatments on human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA levels and CD4 cell counts can predict reductions in clinical progression to AIDS or death. A meta-analysis was conducted for 27 pairwise comparisons of antiretroviral treatments in 15 randomized trials of antiretroviral treatments. For each trial, three measures of treatment effect were used: (i) 16 week change from baseline in HIV-1 RNA; (ii) 16 week change from baseline in CD4 cell count; and (iii) rate of clinical progression. Treatments which caused greater increases in CD4 cell count and greater reductions in HIV-1 RNA were more effective at reducing the rate of clinical progression (P < 0.05 for each comparison). However, there was variability in the consistency of this correlation between different trials and treatments. The results support the use of both CD4 count and HIV-1 RNA levels as the primary markers of the efficacy of antiretroviral treatment.