Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Research Articles

Long-term efficacy and safety of a treatment strategy for HIV infection using protease inhibitor monotherapy: 8-year routine clinical care follow-up from a randomised, controlled, open-label pragmatic trial (PIVOT)

Treatment-simplification strategies are important tools for patient-centred management. We evaluated long-term outcomes from a PI monotherapy switch strategy. Eligible participants attending 43 UK treatment centres had a viral load (VL) below 50 copies/ml for at least 24 weeks on combination ART. Participants were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected PI monotherapy (PI-mono) with prompt return to combination therapy if VL rebounded. The primary outcome, previously reported, was loss of future drug options after 3 years, defined as new intermediate/high level resistance to at least one drug to which the participant's virus was considered sensitive at trial entry. Here we report resistance and disease outcomes after further extended follow-up in routine care. The study was registered as ISRCTN04857074. We randomised 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296) between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010 and followed them for a median of more than 8 years (100 months) until 2018. At the end of this follow-up time, one or more future drug options had been lost in 7 participants in the OT group and 6 in the PI-mono group; estimated cumulative risk by 8 years of 2.7% and 2.1% respectively (difference-0.6%, 95% CI-3.2% to 2.0%). Only one PI-mono participant developed resistance to the protease inhibitor they were taking (atazanavir). Serious clinical events (death, serious AIDS, and serious non-AIDS) were infrequent; reported in a total of 12 (4.1%) participants in the OT group and 23 (7.8%) in the PI-mono group (P=0.08) over the entire follow-up period. A strategy of PI monotherapy, with regular VL monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment following rebound, preserved future treatment options. Findings confirm the high genetic barrier to resistance of the PI drug class that makes them well suited for creative, patient-centred, treatment-simplification approaches. The possibility of a small excess risk of serious clinical events with the PI monotherapy strategy cannot be excluded. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Peripheral Neuropathy in Virologically Suppressed People Living with HIV: Evidence from the PIVOT Trial.

The aim of this study is to identify the factors associated with peripheral neuropathy and to explore neurofilament light chain (NfL) as a biomarker for peripheral neuropathy (PN) in effectively virologically suppressed adults living with HIV. All protease inhibitor monotherapy versus ongoing triple therapy in the long-term management of HIV infection (PIVOT) trial participants with data on PN at baseline were included in the study. NfL plasma levels (pNfL) were measured in a sub-set of participants. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the associations of PN with potential risk factors (including age, sex, nadir CD4 cell count, history of dideoxynucleoside (d-drugs) exposure, and blood glucose levels) and NfL levels. Of the 585 participants included, 131 (22.4%) reported PN during the study period (median of 44 months). The participants were predominantly male (76.6%), White (68.2%), and virologically suppressed for a median period of 37 months (range of 20-63) before recruitment. The age at baseline was 44.3 years (standard deviation (SD) of 9.2). PN was independently associated with age (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.35, 95% CI of 1.20-1.52; additional 5 years), history of d-drugs (aOR 1.88, 95% CI of 1.12-3.16), height (aOR 1.19, 95% CI of 1.05-1.35; additional 5 cm), nadir CD4 cell count (aOR 1.10 CI of 1.00-1.20; 50 cells fewer), and metabolic syndrome (aOR 2.31, 95% CI of 1.27 4.20), but not pNfL. The excess risk for PN associated with d-drug use remains after the exposure has stopped for years, suggesting non-reversible toxicity. In people with HIV, metabolic syndrome is independently associated with PN. There was no additional value for pNfL as a screening test for peripheral neuropathy in effectively virologically suppressed adults living with HIV.

Long-term follow-up of HIV-1 multi-drug-resistant treatment-experienced participants treated with etravirine, raltegravir and boosted darunavir: towards drug-reduced regimen? ANRS CO3 Aquitaine Cohort 2007–2018

To assess the efficacy of raltegravir, etravirine and darunavir/ritonavir (TRIO regimen) in treatment-experienced patients with human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection by describing the proportion of patients who experienced virological failure (VF) at Week 24. The secondary objectives were to assess the HIV-1 plasma viral load (pVL) after Week 24, the proportion of patients who were receiving dual therapy or monotherapy at the last visit, and the number of deaths. Patients from the ANRS CO3 Aquitaine Cohort who were prescribed the TRIO regimen between February 2007 and September 2018 were classified into two groups based on their pVL at study inclusion: the virological failure group (VFG; pVL >50 copies/mL) and the virologically suppressed group (VSG; pVL <50 copies/mL). The impact of baseline pVL and genotypic susceptibility score (GSS) on VF was analysed. In total, 184 patients were enrolled in this study, with 123 (66.8%) in the VFG and 61 (33.2%) in the VSG. The median length of follow-up was 7.5 (interquartile range 4.1-9.6) years, and 29 (15.8%) patients died. Thirty-seven (25.5%) patients experienced VF at Week 24, including 32/145 (32.7%) in the VFG and 5/47 (10.6%) in the VSG (P<0.01). Resistance-associated mutations were detected in integrase, reverse transcriptase and protease for 7/37 (18.9%), 3/37 (8.1%) and 1/37 (2.7%) patients, respectively. High pVL and GSS at baseline were independently associated with VF. At the last visit, 76/184 (41.3%) patients were still receiving the TRIO regimen, while 55/184 (29.9%) were receiving dual therapy and 1/184 (0.5%) was receiving protease inhibitor monotherapy. Among the 56 patients receiving dual therapy or monotherapy, 51 (96.2%) had pVL <50 copies/mL. Despite a high level of mutation resistance at baseline, long-term virological follow-up was favourable and one-third of patients were eligible for drug-reducing strategies.

Antiretrovirals and Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalization in HIV-Positive Persons.

Antiretrovirals and Risk of COVID-19 Diagnosis and Hospitalization in HIV-Positive Persons.

Genital secretion HIV RNA shedding in HIV-positive patients on ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy or standard combination ART: a cross-sectional sub-study from the PIVOT Trial.

Protease inhibitors (PI) have relatively low penetration into the genital tract, raising concerns about the potential for genital HIV RNA shedding in patients taking PI-based regimens, particularly PI monotherapy (PI-mono). We measured HIV RNA and PI drug concentrations in samples of semen, cervico-vaginal and rectal mucosa secretions, and plasma in patients after 48-96 weeks on PI-mono or standard triple therapy. A total of 85 participants were recruited. Of the 43 participants on PI-mono (70% on darunavir [DRV]/ritonavir [r]), 3 had detectable virus in semen or vaginal secretions (all below quantification limit), and none in rectal mucosa or plasma. Among those taking triple therapy, five had detectable virus in semen or vaginal secretions (HIV RNA >50 copies/ml in one), none in rectal mucosa and one in plasma. The median (IQR) concentration of DRV and atazanavir in semen (659.7 [339-1,089] and 128.8 [63-368] ng/ml, respectively) and cervico-vaginal samples (2,768 [312-7,879] and 1,836 [359-3,314] ng/ml, respectively) exceeded their protein adjusted median inhibition concentration (MIC50). DRV concentration in rectal secretions showed higher variability compared with concentration in the other sites, with particularly high rectal secretion/blood ratios (median 8.4, IQR 2.6-68.7:1). We found no substantive evidence of HIV shedding in patients taking PI-mono, suggesting that PIs provide adequate control of virus in the genital compartment and are unlikely to lead to ongoing sexual transmission.

Drug resistance and optimizing dolutegravir regimens for adolescents and young adults failing antiretroviral therapy

The integrase strand inhibitor dolutegravir (DTG) combined with tenofovir and lamivudine (TLD) is a single tablet regimen recommended for 1st, 2nd and 3rd-line public health antiretroviral therapy (ART). We determined drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and evaluated the predictive efficacy of a TLD containing regimen for viremic adolescents and young adults in Harare, Zimbabwe. We sequenced plasma viral RNA from HIV-1-infected adolescents and young adults on 1st and 2nd-line ART with confirmed virologic failure (viral load >1000 copies/ml) and calculated total genotypic susceptibility scores to current 2nd, 3rd line and DTG regimens. A total of 160 participants were genotyped; 112 (70%) on 1st line and 48 (30%) on 2nd line, median (interquartile range) age 18 (15-19) and duration of ART (interquartile range) was 6 (4-8) years. Major DRMs were present in 94 and 67% of 1st and 2nd-line failures, respectively (P < 0.001). Dual class resistance to nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and nonnucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors was detected in 96 (60%) of 1st-line failures; protease inhibitor DRMs were detected in a minority (10%) of 2nd-line failures. A total genotypic susceptibility score of 2 or less may risk protease inhibitor or DTG monotherapy in 11 and 42% of 1st-line failures switching to 2nd-line protease inhibitor and TLD respectively. Among adolescents and young adults, current protease inhibitor-based 2nd-line therapies are poorly tolerated, more expensive and adherence is poor. In 1st-line failure, implementation of TLD for many adolescents and young adults on long-term ART may require additional active drug(s). Drug resistance surveillance and susceptibility scores may inform strategies for the implementation of TLD.

554. Does Protease Inhibitor (PI) Monotherapy Select Primary PI Resistance?

BackgroundCombination drug therapy is the standard of care for HIV treatment. PI monotherapy is considered experimental in the United States. However, some patients end up receiving PI monotherapy secondary to resistance and/or drug intolerance to other antiretroviral (cART) classes. This study will discuss real-life clinical results in patients on PI monotherapy and examine the potential for the development of primary PI mutations.MethodsAn observational retrospective study conducted in an inner-city HIV clinic identified 10 patients on PI monotherapy who each had two GenoSure Archive® (Labcorp) resistance profiles performed. Gender, race, prior cART, and baseline VL and CD4+ count were captured. VL and CD4+ count were trended in the time period between resistance tests. These profiles were then compared checking for the emergence of new primary PI mutations.ResultsSeven out of 10 patients were African American, two were Hispanic, one was Caucasian, and half were male. The mean time interval between archived resistance tests was 6.87 months. During the time between resistance profiles, nine were on darunavir and one switched from lopinavir to darunavir for less pill burden. Eight had an undetectable VL (defined by <50 copies/mL) at the first resistance test, seven had undetectable VL at the second resistance test, and six remained undetectable over the entire period between profiles. There were three that demonstrated blips in VL and one that experienced virological failure between the two sets of resistance tests. One patient had an initial resistance profile showing primary resistance to lopinavir. No patients gained any primary PI mutations to darunavir.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that mainly darunavir-based PI monotherapy has good genetic barrier, even in the setting of virological failure. Larger studies examining similar data over longer durations are needed to confirm this finding.Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Brain Perfusion, Regional Volumes, and Cognitive Function in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–positive Patients Treated With Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy

Protease inhibitor monotherapy (PIM) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) may exert suboptimal viral control in the central nervous system. We determined whether cerebral blood flow (CBF) and regional brain volumes were associated with PIM, and whether specific cognitive domains were associated with imaging biomarkers. Cognitive assessments and brain magnetic resonance imaging were performed after the final visit of a randomized HIV-treatment strategy trial. Participants were virologically suppressed on triple therapy at trial entry and followed for 3-5 years. We studied 37 patients randomized to ongoing triple therapy and 39 randomized to PIM. Resting CBF and normalized volumes were calculated for brain regions of interest, and correlated with treatment strategy and neuropsychological performance. Mean age was 48.1 years (standard deviation 8.6 years), 63 male (83%), and 64 white (84%). Participants had median 8.1 years (interquartile range 6.4, 10.8) of antiretroviral therapy experience and CD4+ counts of median 640 cells/mm3 (interquartile range 490, 780). We found no difference between treatment arms in CBF or regional volumes. Regardless of treatment arm, poorer fine motor performance correlated with lower CBF in the caudate nucleus (P = .01), thalamus (P = .04), frontal cortex (P = .01), occipital cortex (P = .004), and cingulate cortex (P = .02), and was associated with smaller supratentorial white matter volume (decrease of 0.16 in Z-score per -1% of intracranial volume, 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.29; P = .023). PIM does not confer an additional risk of neurological injury compared with triple therapy. There were correlations between fine motor impairment, grey matter hypoperfusion, and white matter volume loss. ISRCTN-04857074.

Evolution of Protease Inhibitor Resistance in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infected Patients Failing Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy as Second-line Therapy in Low-income Countries: An Observational Analysis Within the EARNEST Randomized Trial.

Limited viral load (VL) testing in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment programs in low-income countries often delays detection of treatment failure. The impact of remaining on failing protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimens is unclear. We retrospectively tested VL in 2164 stored plasma samples from 386 patients randomized to receive lopinavir monotherapy (after initial raltegravir induction) in the Europe-Africa Research Network for Evaluation of Second-line Therapy (EARNEST) trial. Protease genotypic resistance testing was performed when VL >1000 copies/mL. We assessed evolution of PI resistance mutations from virological failure (confirmed VL >1000 copies/mL) until PI monotherapy discontinuation and examined associations using mixed-effects models. Median post-failure follow-up (in 118 patients) was 68 (interquartile range, 48-88) weeks. At failure, 20% had intermediate/high-level resistance to lopinavir. At 40-48 weeks post-failure, 68% and 51% had intermediate/high-level resistance to lopinavir and atazanavir; 17% had intermediate-level resistance (none high) to darunavir. Common PI mutations were M46I, I54V, and V82A. On average, 1.7 (95% confidence interval 1.5-2.0) PI mutations developed per year; increasing after the first mutation; decreasing with subsequent mutations (P < .0001). VL changes were modest, mainly driven by nonadherence (P = .006) and PI mutation development (P = .0002); I47A was associated with a larger increase in VL than other mutations (P = .05). Most patients develop intermediate/high-level lopinavir resistance within 1 year of ongoing viral replication on monotherapy but retain susceptibility to darunavir. Viral load increased slowly after failure, driven by non-adherence and PI mutation development. NCT00988039.

Ultrasensitive Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Viral Load as a Marker of Treatment Choice for Simplification Strategies.

Using 3 randomized Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy studies: Kalesolo, Dream and Monoi, we performed a pooled-analysis. Our objective was to determine in PI monotherapy and standard tritherapy: 1) distribution of ultrasensitive viral load (USVL) at week 96 (W96); 2) factors associated with virological failure (VF) at W96 and 3) factors associated with USVL<1 copy at W96. VF was defined as 2 consecutive measurements of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 RNA viral load>50 copies/mL and analysed in Intention-To-Treat. A logistic model was used to investigate which variables were predictive of a VF and Fisher test to investigate differences in USVL at W96. Among 609 patients, 73% were male with median age of 44.4 years (IQR 39.8-52.1), baseline CD4/CD8 ratio was 0.8 (IQR 0.6-1.10), baseline CD4 was 564.5/mm3 (IQR 422-707) and 59% presented a baseline USVL<1 copy/mL. At W96, the proportion of USVL<1 copy/mL was significantly different between PI monotherapy and standard tritherapy in pooled-analysis (65% versus 74%; p=0.04). Overall, baseline USVL<1copy/mL, tritherapy and to be a female were associated with USVL<1 copy/mL at W96 (p<0.0001, p=0.049 and p=0.006). In PI monotherapy receiving DRV/r was associated with USVL<1 copy/mL at W96 (p=0.003). Factors associated to virological succes at W96 were higher baseline CD4 (p=0.034) and baseline USVL<1 copy/mL (p=0.0005). Pooled-analysis of 3 PI monotherapy trials showed better efficacy of tritherapy in terms of USVL at W96. Furthermore regarding USVL at W96, to receive LPV/r seems to be more deleterious than DRV/r. Baseline USVL impacts VF at W96 more specifically in tritherapy arm. NCT00421551, NCT00946595, and NCT00140751.

Next generation sequencing of HIV-1 protease in the PIVOT trial of protease inhibitor monotherapy

BackgroundThe PIVOT trial examined whether patients with suppressed viral load on combination antiretroviral therapy could be safely switched long-term to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy. The main trial publication reported that only one of 296 patients allocated to PI monotherapy experienced a loss of drug options due to protease mutations (identified by local Sanger sequencing resistance tests) likely selected by study drug. ObjectivesTo assess if we had missed low frequency mutations, using a more sensitive methodology. Study designWe performed next generation sequencing (NGS) on all available frozen plasma samples with VL >1000 copies/ml from patients who were randomised to PI monotherapy. Assays were performed at Public Health England laboratories using a previously described method.Median coverage depth was 76,000 and the threshold for detection of minority variants was 2%. Drug susceptibility was predicted using the Stanford HIVdb algorithm. Results17 of 26 potential samples, all from different patients, were identified and successfully tested. The median viral load was 6780 copies/ml and the median time since randomisation was 43 weeks. NGS revealed previously unidentified minority variant protease mutations (G73D, I54T, L89V) in three samples, at frequencies ranging between 2% and 10%. None of these mutations predicted intermediate or high level resistance, the trial primary outcome. DiscussionThis report adds to the body of evidence that ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy, when used as a switch strategy with prompt detection of viral load rebound and early re-introduction of combination therapy, rarely leads to the development of clinically important protease resistance mutations.

Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial

SummaryBackgroundMillions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings.MethodsWe analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787.FindingsBetween April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification.InterpretationProtease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings.FundingEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO.

Boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy for treating HIV/AIDS

Reason for withdrawal from publication Authors have made no progress with this protocol in 8 years. The protocol is out of date and does not meet the current methodological standards of Cochrane.

Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine dual therapy as second-line maintenance treatment for HIV-1-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa (ANRS12 286/MOBIDIP): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority trial

Despite satisfactory efficacy of WHO-recommended second-line antiretroviral treatment for patients with HIV in low-income countries, the need for simplified, low-cost, and less-toxic maintenance strategies remains high. We compared boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy with dual therapy with boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine in patients on second-line antiretrovial therapy (ART). We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority, trial in the HIV services of five hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon; Dakar, Senegal; and Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso). We recruited patients from the long-term, post-trial cohort of the ANRS 12169/2LADY study that compared the efficacy of three second-line combinations based on boosted protease inhibitors. Participants for our study were HIV-1 infected with multiple mutations including M184V, at first-line failure, aged 18 years and older, on boosted protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) for at least 48 weeks with at least 48 weeks follow-up in the 2LADY trial, with two viral load measurements of less than 200 copies per mL in the previous 6 months, CD4 counts of more than 100 cells per μL, adherence of at least 90%, and no change to ART in the past 3 months. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive either monotherapy with their boosted protease inhibitor (once-daily darunavir 800 mg [two 400 mg tablets] boosted with ritonavir 100 mg [one tablet] or coformulation of lopinavir 200 mg with ritonavir 50 mg [two tablets taken twice per day]) or to boosted protease inhibitor plus once-daily lamivudine 300 mg (one 300 mg tablet or two 150 mg tablets). Computer-generated randomisation was stratified by study site and viral load at screening (< 50 copies per mL, and 50-200 copies per mL), and concealed from study personnel throughout the inclusion period. After randomisation, treatment allocation was not masked from clinicians or patients]. Patients had follow-up visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 3 months until 96 weeks; if viral load exceeded 500 copies per mL at any visit, NRTI (tenofovir and lamivudine) were reintroduced into treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who had treatment failure at 96 weeks in the intention-to-treat analysis, where treatment failure was defined as one of the following: a confirmed viral load of more than 500 copies per mL, reintroduction of NRTI, or interruption of boosted protease inhibitor. We designed the study to detect a difference of 12% between groups in the primary outcome, with an expected 20% of patients having treatment failure in the monotherapy group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01905059. Between March 5, 2014, and Jan 26, 2015, 265 participants were assigned to receive monotherapy (133) or boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine (132). At week 48, an independent data safety monitoring board reviewed data, and advised discontinuation of the monotherapy group because the number of failures had exceeded the expected 20%; therefore results here are for week 48. At this point, treatment failure occurred in four (3·0%; 95% CI 0·8-7·6) of 132 participants on dual therapy and 33 (24·8%; 17·7-33·0) of 133 participants on monotherapy (relative risk 8·2, 95% CI 3·0-22·5; odds ratio 10·6, 95% CI 3·6-42·1). The difference between groups (21·8%, 95% CI 13·9-29·7; p<0·0001) showed superiority of dual therapy compared with monotherapy. We recorded 46 severe adverse events of grade 3 or 4 (29 in the monotherapy group, 17 in the boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine group); one event in the montherapy group (intoxication resulting from co-administration of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with an ergotamine derivate) was deemed related to study drug. Two participants in the monotherapy group and one in the dual therapy group died, all from causes not related to study drugs or procedures (one from complications from gastric cancer surgery, one in a work accident, and one from a lung disease of unknown cause). After viral suppression with boosted protease inhibitor plus NRTI in second-line ART, maintenance therapy with boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine was associated with a high rate of success, despite the presence of M184V mutations at first-line treatment failure. Results indicated that boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy cannot be recommended for these patients. Agence National de Recherche sur le Sida et les hépatites and Janssen Pharmaceutica.

Nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor cross-resistance and outcomes from second-line antiretroviral therapy in the public health approach: an observational analysis within the randomised, open-label, EARNEST trial

SummaryBackgroundCross-resistance after first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure is expected to impair activity of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in second-line therapy for patients with HIV, but evidence for the effect of cross-resistance on virological outcomes is limited. We aimed to assess the association between the activity, predicted by resistance testing, of the NRTIs used in second-line therapy and treatment outcomes for patients infected with HIV.MethodsWe did an observational analysis of additional data from a published open-label, randomised trial of second-line ART (EARNEST) in sub-Saharan Africa. 1277 adults or adolescents infected with HIV in whom first-line ART had failed (assessed by WHO criteria with virological confirmation) were randomly assigned to a boosted protease inhibitor (standardised to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) with two to three NRTIs (clinician-selected, without resistance testing); or with raltegravir; or alone as protease inhibitor monotherapy (discontinued after week 96). We tested genotypic resistance on stored baseline samples in patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group and calculated the predicted activity of prescribed second-line NRTIs. We measured viral load in stored samples for all patients obtained every 12–16 weeks. This trial is registered with Controlled-Trials.com (number ISRCTN 37737787) and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00988039).FindingsBaseline genotypes were available in 391 (92%) of 426 patients in the protease inhibitor and NRTI group. 176 (89%) of 198 patients prescribed a protease inhibitor with no predicted-active NRTIs had viral suppression (viral load <400 copies per mL) at week 144, compared with 312 (81%) of 383 patients in the protease inhibitor and raltegravir group at week 144 (p=0·02) and 233 (61%) of 280 patients in the protease inhibitor monotherapy group at week 96 (p<0·0001). Compared with results with no active NRTIs, 95 (85%) of 112 patients with one predicted-active NRTI had viral suppression (p=0·3) and 20 (77%) of 26 patients with two or three active NRTIs had viral suppression (p=0·08). Over all follow-up, greater predicted NRTI activity was associated with worse viral load suppression (global p=0·0004).InterpretationGenotypic resistance testing might not accurately predict NRTI activity in protease inhibitor-based second-line ART. Our results do not support the introduction of routine resistance testing in ART programmes in low-income settings for the purpose of selecting second-line NRTIs.FundingEuropean and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, UK Medical Research Council, Institito de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, WHO, Merck.

HIV-1 p24 and CD4+ T cell count during boosted protease-inhibitor monotherapy in HIV-infected patients

BackgroundPlasma HIV p24 is considered a significant predictor of CD4+ T cell decline and progression to AIDS in HIV-infected patients. We evaluated the p24 levels in patients on triple therapy and after switching to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (mtPI/rtv), as well as the relationships with virological and immunological evolution. Materials and methodsPlasma samples from patients participating in two studies of simplification to mtPI/rtv were analysed for presence of p24, using a boosted enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay specific for mature p24. Only patients with available samples at baseline (on triple therapy) and during a follow-up of at least 12 months after switching to mtPI/rtv were included. ResultsA total of 233 samples from 51 patients were analysed. After switching to mtPI/rtv and a median follow-up of 24 months, 14 patients maintained continuous undetectable viraemia, and 37 patients experienced a total of 49 transient viraemic episodes. Unexpectedly, the evolutionary p24 patterns were uniform for most patients, both before and after switching to mtPI/rtv, independently of the virological behaviour, fitting into one of three categories: persistent undetectable p24 levels, positive p24, matching only with the viraemic episodes, and persistent detectable p24 levels. The last group showed lower CD4+ T cell counts and percentages, as well as lower CD4+/CD8+ T cell ratios after 12 and 24 months of follow up. ConclusionTreatment simplification to mtPI/rtv does not influence the behaviour of p24 in plasma. Patients with continuous positive p24, despite undetectable viraemia, showed worse immunological evolution.

Tracking HCV protease population diversity during transmission and susceptibility of founder populations to antiviral therapy

Due to the highly restricted species-tropism of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) a limited number of animal models exist for pre-clinical evaluation of vaccines and antiviral compounds. The human-liver chimeric mouse model allows heterologous challenge with clinically relevant strains derived from patients. However, to date, the transmission and longitudinal evolution of founder viral populations in this model have not been characterized in-depth using state-of-the-art sequencing technologies. Focusing on NS3 protease encoding region of the viral genome, mutant spectra in a donor inoculum and individual recipient mice were determined via Illumina sequencing and compared, to determine the effects of transmission on founder viral population complexity. In all transmissions, a genetic bottleneck was observed, although diverse viral populations were transmitted in each case. A low frequency cloud of mutations (<1%) was detectable in the donor inoculum and recipient mice, with single nucleotide variants (SNVs) > 1% restricted to a subset of nucleotides. The population of SNVs >1% was reduced upon transmission while the low frequency SNV cloud remained stable. Fixation of multiple identical synonymous substitutions was apparent in independent transmissions, and no evidence for reversion of T-cell epitopes was observed. In addition, susceptibility of founder populations to antiviral therapy was assessed. Animals were treated with protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy to track resistance associated substitution (RAS) emergence. Longitudinal analyses revealed a decline in population diversity under therapy, with no detectable RAS >1% prior to therapy commencement. Despite inoculation from a common source and identical therapeutic regimens, unique RAS emergence profiles were identified in different hosts prior to and during therapeutic failure, with complex mutational signatures at protease residues 155, 156 and 168 detected. Together these analyses track viral population complexity at high-resolution in the human-liver chimeric mouse model post-transmission and under therapeutic intervention, revealing novel insights into the evolutionary processes which shape viral protease population composition at various critical stages of the viral life-cycle.

One Year Follow-Up of Darunavir/Cobicistat Monotherapy in Pretreated HIV Patients

Introduction: Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (PI/r ) : Darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy is only provided in the major treatment guidelines in pre-treated HIV patients to prevent toxicity associated with nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTIs), reduce costs and simplify antiretroviral treatment. To start PI/r monotherapy, according to GESIDA g uidelines 2016, patients need to meet the following criteria: absence of chronic hepatitis B, plasma viral load <50 copies/ mL for at least 6 months and absence protease inhibitors mutations or previous virologic failures to PI/r. Currently, there are no studies that evaluate the efficacy and safety of DRV/COBI monotherapy. Methods: This prospective study analyzed pretreated HIV patients with DRV/r monotherapy that were switched to DRV/COBI monotherapy. The aim of the study is to describe the effectiveness and safety of the DRV/COBI monotherapy. Results: A total of 78 patients were evaluated. In total 11.53% (9/78) patients developed blips (Plasma viral load: 50-200 copies/ml) in our study and four patients had a viral load ≥ 200 copies/mL. Twelve patients (15.38%) switched to another antiretroviral treatment, so at week 48 only 66 of the 78 patients continued with DRV/COBI monotherapy. Three patients continued with blips at week 48. Despite blips, virological rebounds and switch in treatments, 95.45% (63/66) of the patients with DRV/COBI monotherapy were maintained with a viral load <37 copies/mL at week 48 of the follow-up. In addition, there had been a slight increase in the CD4+ T cell count at week 48 of follow up. As for safety, there were no significant differences in lipid profile, liver function (transaminases) and renal function between DRV/r and DRV/COBI monotherapy. Conclusions: DRV/COBI monotherapy seems to be effective and safe (lipid profile, liver and kidney function). However, it will be necessary to design specific studies comparing DRV/r vs DRV/COBI monotherapy to confirm these results.

Viral Suppression in the Setting of Multidrug Resistance to Nelfinavir, Tenofovir and Abacavir: A Case Report

One major barrier to achieving the primary goals of antiretroviral therapy is the development of drug resistance mutations to antiretroviral agents which render them less effective. For patients who are treatment experienced with many drug resistance mutations, selection of an effective antiretroviral regimen becomes challenging. We report a case of a 55 year old male on tenofovir, abacavir and nelfinavir with multiple resistance mutations to each of these agents, yet able to maintain viral suppression and high CD4 T cell counts. This patient was subsequently switched to protease inhibitor monotherapy for the management of HIV in the setting of multidrug resistance.

Factors associated with virological rebound in HIV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitor monotherapy.

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial found that protease inhibitor monotherapy as a simplification strategy is well tolerated in terms of drug resistance but less effective than combination therapy in suppressing HIV viral load. We sought to identify factors associated with the risk of viral load rebound in this trial. PIVOT was a randomized controlled trial in HIV-positive adults with suppressed viral load for at least 24 weeks on combination therapy comparing a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus ongoing triple therapy. In participants receiving monotherapy, we analysed time to confirmed viral load rebound and its predictors using flexible parametric survival models. Of 290 participants initiating protease inhibitor monotherapy (80% darunavir, 14% lopinavir, and 6% other), 93 developed viral load rebound on monotherapy. The risk of viral load rebound peaked at 9 months after starting monotherapy and then declined to approximately 5 per 100 person-years from 18 months onwards. Independent predictors of viral load rebound were duration of viral load suppression before starting monotherapy (hazard ratio 0.81 per additional year <50 copies/ml; P < 0.001), CD4 cell count (hazard ratio 0.73 per additional 100 cells/μl for CD4 nadir; P = 0.008); ethnicity (hazard ratio 1.87 for nonwhite versus white, P = 0.025) but not the protease inhibitor agent used (P = 0.27). Patients whose viral load was analysed with the Roche TaqMan-2 assay had a 1.87-fold risk for viral load rebound compared with Abbott RealTime assay (P = 0.012). A number of factors can identify patients at low risk of rebound with protease inhibitor monotherapy, and this may help to better target those who may benefit from this management strategy.