Explore the vast range of titles available.

At the individual level, higher HIV viral load predicts sexual transmission risk. We evaluated San Francisco's community viral load (CVL) as a population level marker of HIV transmission risk. We hypothesized that the decrease in CVL in San Francisco from 2004-2008, corresponding with increased rates of HIV testing, antiretroviral therapy (ART) coverage and effectiveness, and population-level virologic suppression, would be associated with a reduction in new HIV infections. We used San Francisco's HIV/AIDS surveillance system to examine the trends in CVL. Mean CVL was calculated as the mean of the most recent viral load of all reported HIV-positive individuals in a particular community. Total CVL was defined as the sum of the most recent viral loads of all HIV-positive individuals in a particular community. We used Poisson models with robust standard errors to assess the relationships between the mean and total CVL and the primary outcome: annual numbers of newly diagnosed HIV cases. Both mean and total CVL decreased from 2004-2008 and were accompanied by decreases in new HIV diagnoses from 798 (2004) to 434 (2008). The mean (p = 0.003) and total CVL (p = 0.002) were significantly associated with new HIV cases from 2004-2008. Reductions in CVL are associated with decreased HIV infections. Results suggest that wide-scale ART could reduce HIV transmission at the population level. Because CVL is temporally upstream of new HIV infections, jurisdictions should consider adding CVL to routine HIV surveillance to track the epidemic, allocate resources, and to evaluate the effectiveness of HIV prevention and treatment efforts.

An increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in people living with HIV has been associated with initiation of antiretroviral therapy with integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). An off-target inhibition of the endogenous ligand binding to the human melanocortin 4 receptor (MC4R) has been suggested as a potential mechanism for clinical body weight gain following initiation of dolutegravir, an INSTI. In this study, we interrogated several INSTIs for their capacity for antagonism or agonism of MC4R in an in vitro cell-based assays including at concentrations far exceeding plasma concentrations reached at the recommended dosages. Our results indicate that while INSTIs do exhibit the capacity to antagonize MC4R, this occurs at concentrations well above predicted clinical exposure and is thus an implausible explanation for INSTI-associated weight gain.

Black and Hispanic/Latinx cisgender men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women, transgender men, and gender nonbinary (TGNB) individuals have been historically underrepresented in HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) clinical trials. There is an urgent need for ongoing engagement with communities that have been the most impacted by HIV and diverse representation in clinical trials. Here we describe strategic approaches undertaken in the PURPOSE 2 trial to optimize engagement of underrepresented individuals. PURPOSE 2 is an ongoing Phase 3 trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of lenacapavir as PrEP in cisgender MSM and TGNB individuals. In PURPOSE 2, we used a multipronged approach aimed at enriching participation of underrepresented individuals. We conducted a review to identify evidence-informed recommendations from literature, engaged with stakeholders, and established the Global Community Advisory and Accountability Group (GCAG) to represent the needs of the community. Insights from stakeholders and GCAG members resulted in an expansion of the study population to include transgender men, gender nonbinary persons, and adolescents, and evaluation of population-specific outcomes. Feedback from stakeholders and GCAG members also informed investigator and site selection; these were selected based on prior experience working with persons from diverse racial, ethnic and gender identities, and estimates of local HIV incidence. Site selection was also expanded to include community-based clinics with services tailored towards Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and TGNB populations. We established a study-wide recruitment goal of 50% Black MSM and 20% Hispanic/Latinx MSM in US sites and 20% transgender women globally. Site-specific recruitment goals were also developed based on local demographics and HIV incidence. Mandatory trainings included Good Participatory Practice guidelines, gender inclusivity, and antiracism. While further work is needed to achieve equitable representation, the strategies we describe may serve as a framework for future clinical trials. Clinical Trial Number: NCT04925752.

Because tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) leads to significantly lower plasma tenofovir concentrations than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and is a stronger substrate for P-glycoprotein (P-gp) than TDF, TAF could lead to decreased central nervous system (CNS) tenofovir exposure than TDF. We aimed to determine if switching from TDF to TAF increases the risk of neuronal injury, by quantifying plasma levels of neurofilament light protein (NfL), a sensitive marker of neuronal injury in HIV CNS infection. Plasma NfL concentration was measured at baseline, week 24, and week 84 in stored plasma samples from 416 participants (272 switching to elvitegravir (E)/cobicistat (C)/emtricitabine (F)/TAF and 144 continuing E/C/F/TDF) enrolled in the randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority Gilead GS-US-292-0109 trial. While plasma NfL levels in both groups were within the normal range, we found a small but significant decrease in the E/C/F/TAF arm after 84 weeks from a geometric mean of 9.3 to 8.8 pg/mL (5.4% decline, 95% CI 2.0-8.4, p = 0.002). This change was significantly different (p = 0.001) from that of the E/C/F/TDF arm, in which plasma NfL concentration changed from 9.7 pg/mL at baseline to 10.2 pg/mL at week 84 (5.8% increase, 95% CI -0.8-12.9, p = 0.085). This increase is in line with what could be expected in normal ageing. Plasma NfL concentrations significantly correlated with age. No correlation was found between plasma NfL and serum creatinine. We found no biomarker evidence of CNS injury when switching from TDF to TAF. It is unclear whether the small decrease in plasma NfL found after switch to TAF is of any clinical relevance, particularly with plasma NfL levels in both arms remaining within the limits found in HIV-negative controls. These results indicate that switching from TDF to TAF appears safe with regard to neuronal injury.

BackgroundIn human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is associated with greater increases in all fasting cholesterol subgroups compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Because lipid abnormalities may contribute to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular risk assessment is integral to routine HIV care. This post hoc study evaluates the impact of lipid changes on predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and statin eligibility in treatment-naive adults living with HIV treated with TAF or TDF.MethodsParticipants (N = 1744) were randomized (1:1) to initiate TAF or TDF, each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (studies GS-US-292-0104 and GS-US-292-0111). Eligibility for statin therapy and estimated 10-year ASCVD risk among adults aged 40–79 years treated with TAF or TDF for 96 weeks (W96) were analyzed based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations. Categorical shifts in 10-year ASCVD risk from <7.5% to ≥7.5% by W96 on TAF versus TDF were calculated.ResultsParticipants initiating TAF versus TDF in the overall study population showed small but significant increases in median fasting lipid parameters at W96, including total cholesterol (191 vs 177 mg/dL; P < .001), low-density lipoprotein ([LDL] 119 vs 112 mg/dL; P < .001), and high-density lipoprotein ([HDL] 51 vs 48 mg/dL; P < .001), respectively. At baseline, 18% and 23% on TAF versus TDF had a 10-year ASCVD risk score ≥7.5%, with mean risk scores low overall for TAF versus TDF at baseline (4.9% vs 5.4%; P = .35) and W96 (6.1% vs 6.2%; P = .04). Increases in ASCVD risk from baseline to W96 were driven by both increasing age and changes in total cholesterol (TC) and HDL cholesterol. At W96, TC/HDL ratios (median) were 3.7 for both groups (P = .69). There was no difference between shifts in categorical risk for TAF versus TDF (9% vs 5%; P = .19). Eligibility for high-intensity statin therapy were similar for TAF versus TDF groups (19% vs 21%; P = .47).ConclusionsLipid changes with TAF as part of coformulated regimens do not substantively affect CVD risk profiles compared with TDF.

Guidelines advocate the treatment of HCV in all HIV/HCV co-infected individuals. The aim of this randomized, open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02707601; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02707601) was to evaluate the safety/efficacy of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) co-administered with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) or rilpivirine/F/TAF (R/F/TAF) in HIV-1/HCV co-infected participants. Participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and chronic HCV-genotype (GT) 1 (HCV treatment-naïve ± compensated cirrhosis or HCV treatment-experienced non-cirrhotic) were randomized 1:1 to switch to E/C/F/TAF or R/F/TAF. If HIV suppression was maintained at Week 8, participants received 12 weeks of LDV/SOF. The primary endpoint was sustained HCV virologic response 12 weeks after LDV/SOF completion (SVR12). Of 150 participants, 148 received ≥1 dose of HIV study drug and 144 received LDV/SOF (72 in each F/TAF group; 83% GT1a, 94% HCV treatment-naïve, 12% cirrhotic). Overall, SVR12 was 97% (95% confidence interval: 93-99%). Black race did not affect SVR12. Of four participants not achieving SVR12, one had HCV relapse, one had HCV virologic non-response due to non-adherence, and two missed the post-HCV Week 12 visit. Of 148 participants, 96% receiving E/C/F/TAF and 95% receiving R/F/TAF maintained HIV suppression at Week 24; no HIV resistance was detected. No participant discontinued LDV/SOF or E/C/F/TAF due to adverse events; one participant discontinued R/F/TAF due to worsening of pre-existing hypercholesterolemia. Renal toxicity was not observed in either F/TAF regimen during LDV/SOF co-administration. In conclusion, high rates of HCV SVR12 and maintenance of HIV suppression were achieved with LDV/SOF and F/TAF-based regimens. This study supports LDV/SOF co-administered with an F/TAF-based regimen in HIV-1/HCV-GT1 co-infected patients.

While the relationship between average adherence to HIV potent antiretroviral therapy is well defined, the relationship between patterns of adherence within adherence strata has not been investigated. We examined medication event monitoring system (MEMS) defined adherence patterns and their relation to subsequent virologic rebound. We selected subjects with at least 3-months of previous virologic suppression on a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimen from two prospective cohorts in France and North America. We assessed the risk of virologic rebound, defined as HIV RNA of >400 copies/mL according to several MEMS adherence measurements. Seventy two subjects were studied, five of them experienced virologic rebound. Subjects with and without virologic rebound had similar baseline characteristics including treatment durations, regimen (efavirenz vs nevirapine), and dosing schedule. Each 10% increase in average adherence decreased the risk of virologic rebound (OR = 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.37, 0.81], P<0.002). Each additional consecutive day off therapy for the longest treatment interruption (OR = 1.34; 95%CI [1.15, 1.68], P<0.0001) and each additional treatment interruption for more than 2 days (OR = 1.38; 95%CI [1.13, 1.77], P<0.002) increased the risk of virologic rebound. In those with low-to-moderate adherence (i.e. <80%), treatment interruption duration (16.2 days versus 6.1 days in the control group, P<0.02), but not average adherence (53.1% vs 55.9%, respectively, P = 0.65) was significantly associated with virologic rebound. Sustained treatment interruption may pose a greater risk of virologic rebound on NNRTI therapy than the same number of interspersed missed doses at low-to-moderate adherence.

The National Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Strategy, released in July 2010, is visionary in its recognition of the instrumental role of public health data in maximizing the US epidemic response to HIV/AIDS. The ability to measure outcomes along the continuum of HIV care is even more significant now that national guidelines recommend antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all HIV-infected individuals. This shift demands greater efforts to ensure that all HIV-infected individuals are diagnosed, linked, and engaged in care; begin ART; and achieve durable viral suppression. Increasing the number of people with durable viral suppression is vitally important for individual health with the collateral benefit of reducing HIV transmission. Here, Das discusses how to improve Public Health Quality and Accountability in the US HIV Epidemic Response.

Tenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention. This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is no longer recruiting. Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19–1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06–0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19–0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints. Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Gilead Sciences.