Explore the vast range of titles available.

In an open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial, dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy was compared with standard care in children and adolescents starting first- or second-line therapy for HIV type 1 infection. Dolutegravir-based ART was superior to standard-care ART.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is crucial for controlling HIV-1 infection through wide-scale treatment as prevention and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). Potent tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens are increasingly used to treat and prevent HIV, although few data exist for frequency and risk factors of acquired drug resistance in regions hardest hit by the HIV pandemic. We aimed to do a global assessment of drug resistance after virological failure with first-line tenofovir-containing ART. The TenoRes collaboration comprises adult HIV treatment cohorts and clinical trials of HIV drug resistance testing in Europe, Latin and North America, sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia. We extracted and harmonised data for patients undergoing genotypic resistance testing after virological failure with a first-line regimen containing tenofovir plus a cytosine analogue (lamivudine or emtricitabine) plus a non-nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI; efavirenz or nevirapine). We used an individual participant-level meta-analysis and multiple logistic regression to identify covariates associated with drug resistance. Our primary outcome was tenofovir resistance, defined as presence of K65R/N or K70E/G/Q mutations in the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. We included 1926 patients from 36 countries with treatment failure between 1998 and 2015. Prevalence of tenofovir resistance was highest in sub-Saharan Africa (370/654 [57%]). Pre-ART CD4 cell count was the covariate most strongly associated with the development of tenofovir resistance (odds ratio [OR] 1·50, 95% CI 1·27–1·77 for CD4 cell count <100 cells per μL). Use of lamivudine versus emtricitabine increased the risk of tenofovir resistance across regions (OR 1·48, 95% CI 1·20–1·82). Of 700 individuals with tenofovir resistance, 578 (83%) had cytosine analogue resistance (M184V/I mutation), 543 (78%) had major NNRTI resistance, and 457 (65%) had both. The mean plasma viral load at virological failure was similar in individuals with and without tenofovir resistance (145 700 copies per mL [SE 12 480] versus 133 900 copies per mL [SE 16 650; p=0·626]). We recorded drug resistance in a high proportion of patients after virological failure on a tenofovir-containing first-line regimen across low-income and middle-income regions. Effective surveillance for transmission of drug resistance is crucial. The Wellcome Trust.

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3·5% [95% CI −1·7 to 8·8]; p non-inferiority<0·0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2–4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0·0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0·0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0·0001). Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Tibotec.

Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was −0·4 (95% CI −5·9 to 5·2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11% vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2–4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0·0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. Tibotec.

Background. Concomitant use of rifamycins to treat or prevent tuberculosis can result in subtherapeutic concentrations of antiretroviral drugs. We studied the interaction of efavirenz with daily rifapentine and isoniazid in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals receiving a 4-week regimen to prevent tuberculosis. Methods. Participants receiving daily rifapentine and isoniazid with efavirenz had pharmacokinetic evaluations at baseline and weeks 2 and 4 of concomitant therapy. Efavirenz apparent oral clearance was estimated and the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of values before and during rifapentine and isoniazid was calculated. HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA was measured at baseline and week 8. Results. Eighty-seven participants were evaluable: 54% were female, and the median age was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 29–44 years). Numbers of participants with efavirenz concentrations ≥1 mg/L were 85 (98%) at week 0; 81 (93%) at week 2; 78 (90%) at week 4; and 75 (86%) at weeks 2 and 4. Median efavirenz apparent oral clearance was 9.3 L/hour (IQR, 6.42–13.22 L/hour) at baseline and 9.8 L/hour (IQR, 7.04–15.59 L/hour) during rifapentine/isoniazid treatment (GMR, 1.04 [90% confidence interval, .97–1.13]). Seventy-nine of 85 (93%) participants had undetectable HIV-1 RNA (<40 copies/mL) at entry; 71 of 75 (95%) participants had undetectable HIV-1 RNA at week 8. Two participants with undetectable HIV-1 RNA at study entry were detectable (43 and 47 copies/mL) at week 8. Conclusions. The proportion of participants with midinterval efavirenz concentrations ≥1 mg/L did not cross below the prespecified threshold of >80%, and virologic suppression was maintained. Four weeks of daily rifapentine plus isoniazid can be coadministered with efavirenz without clinically meaningful reductions in efavirenz mid-dosing concentrations or virologic suppression. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT 01404312.

Dyslipidemia is increasingly common in people living with HIV (PLHIV), thereby increasing the risk of cardiovascular events and diminishing the quality of life for these individuals. The study of blood lipid metabolism of PLHIV has great clinical significance in predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Therefore, this study aims to examine the blood lipid metabolism status of HIV-infected patients in Huzhou before and after receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and to explore the impact of different HAART regimens on dyslipidemia. PLHIV confirmed in Huzhou from June 2010 to June 2022 was included. The baseline characteristics and clinical data during the follow-up period were collected, including some blood lipid indicators (total cholesterol and triglycerides) and HAART regimens. A multivariate logistic regression model and the generalized estimating equation model were used to analyze the independent effects of treatment regimens on the risk of dyslipidemia. The overall prevalence of dyslipidemia among PLHIV after HAART was 70.11%. PLHIV receiving lamivudine (3TC) + efavirenz (EFV) + zidovudine (AZT) had a higher prevalence of dyslipidemia compared to those receiving 3TC+EFV+tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). In a logistic analysis adjusted for important covariates such as BMI, age, diabetes status, etc., we found that the risks of dyslipidemia were higher with 3TC+EFV+AZT (dyslipidemia: odds ratio [OR] = 2.09, 95% confidence interval [Cl]: 1.28-3.41; TG ≥1.7: OR = 2.40, 95%Cl:1.50-3.84) than with 3TC+EFV+TDF. Furthermore, on PLHIV that was matched 1:1 by the HAART regimens, the results of the generalized estimation equation again showed that 3TC+EFV+AZT (TG ≥1.7: OR = 1.84, 95%Cl: 1.10-3.07) is higher for the risk of marginal elevations of TG than 3TC+EFV+TDF. The prevalence of dyslipidemia varies according to different antiretroviral regimens. Using both horizontal and longitudinal data, we have repeatedly demonstrated that AZT has a more adverse effect on blood lipids than TDF from two perspectives. Therefore, we recommend caution in using the 3TC+EFV+AZT regimen for people at clinical risk of co-occurring cardiovascular disease.

Background ENCORE1 demonstrated non-inferiority of daily efavirenz 400 mg (EFV400) versus 600 mg (EFV600) to 96 weeks in treatment-naïve, HIV-infected adults but concerns regarding lower EFV400 concentrations remained. Therefore, relationships between EFV pharmacokinetics (PK) and key genetic polymorphisms with 96-week efficacy and safety were investigated. Methods Relationships between EFV PK parameters and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP; CYP2B6, CYP2A6 , CYP3A4 , NR1I3 , NR1I2 , ABCB1 ) with plasma HIV-RNA (pVL) <200 copies/mL and EFV discontinuation and adverse events at 96 weeks were explored. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis evaluated the predictability of mid-dose interval (C 12 ) cutoffs and 96-week pVL. Results A total of 606 patients (32 % female; 37 % African, 33 % Asian; n   =  311 EFV400, n   =  295 EFV600) were included. EFV PK parameters, including C 12 , were not associated with pVL <200 copies/mL at 96 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 5.25, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.41–67.90, p   =  0.204). Lower risk of CNS-related adverse events was associated with CYP2B6 983TC/CC (OR 0.35, 95 % CI 0.15–0.81, p   =  0.015) and higher risk was associated with CYP2B6 15582CT/TT and ABCB1 3435TT (OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.02–2.09, p   =  0.040; OR 2.31, 95 % CI 1.33–4.02, p   =  0.003, respectively). Discontinuation due to adverse events (clinician decision) was independently associated with dose (OR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.19–5.43, p   =  0.016). C 12 between 0.47 and 0.76 mg/L provided sensitivity/specificity >90 % (100 %/92.3 to 98.9 %/92.3 %) for achieving pVL <200 copies/mL at 96 weeks. Conclusions A higher rate of EFV-related adverse events and discontinuations due to these events for EFV600 were not driven by polymorphisms assessed. Although a single threshold concentration associated with HIV suppression may be clinically useful, it was not viable for ENCORE1. Implementation of EFV400 would improve toxicity management whilst still maintaining good efficacy.

HIV-1 drug resistance to older thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor drugs has been identified in sub-Saharan Africa in patients with virological failure of first-line combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing the modern nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and correlates of thymidine analogue mutations (TAM) in patients with virological failure of first-line tenofovir-containing ART. We retrospectively analysed patients from 20 studies within the TenoRes collaboration who had locally defined viral failure on first-line therapy with tenofovir plus a cytosine analogue (lamivudine or emtricitabine) plus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI; nevirapine or efavirenz) in sub-Saharan Africa. Baseline visits in these studies occurred between 2005 and 2013. To assess between-study and within-study associations, we used meta-regression and meta-analyses to compare patients with and without TAMs for the presence of resistance to tenofovir, cytosine analogue, or NNRTIs. Of 712 individuals with failure of first-line tenofovir-containing regimens, 115 (16%) had at least one TAM. In crude comparisons, patients with TAMs had lower CD4 counts at treatment initiation than did patients without TAMs (60·5 cells per μL [IQR 21·0–128·0] in patients with TAMS vs 95·0 cells per μL [37·0–177·0] in patients without TAMs; p=0·007) and were more likely to have tenofovir resistance (93 [81%] of 115 patients with TAMs vs 352 [59%] of 597 patients without TAMs; p<0·0001), NNRTI resistance (107 [93%] vs 462 [77%]; p<0·0001), and cytosine analogue resistance (100 [87%] vs 378 [63%]; p=0·0002). We detected associations between TAMs and drug resistance mutations both between and within studies; the correlation between the study-level proportion of patients with tenofovir resistance and TAMs was 0·64 (p<0·0001), and the odds ratio for tenofovir resistance comparing patients with and without TAMs was 1·29 (1·13–1·47; p<0·0001) TAMs are common in patients who have failure of first-line tenofovir-containing regimens in sub-Saharan Africa, and are associated with multidrug resistant HIV-1. Effective viral load monitoring and point-of-care resistance tests could help to mitigate the emergence and spread of such strains. The Wellcome Trust.

Background. The MERIT (Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive Patients) study compared maraviroc and efavirenz, both with zidovudine-lamivudine, in antiretroviral-naive patients with R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. Methods. Patients screened for R5 HIV-1 were randomized to receive efavirenz (600 mg once daily) or maraviroc (300 mg once or twice daily) with zidovudine-lamivudine. Coprimary end points were proportions of patients with a viral load <400 and <50 copies/mL at week 48; the noninferiority of maraviroc was assessed. Results. The once-daily maraviroc arm was discontinued for not meeting prespecified noninferiority criteria. In the primary 48-week analysis (n=721), maraviroc was noninferior for <400 copies/mL (70.6% for maraviroc vs 73.1% for efavirenz) but not for <50 copies/mL (65.3% vs 69.3%) at a threshold of −10%. More maraviroc patients discontinued for lack of efficacy (11.9% vs 4.2%), but fewer discontinued for adverse events (4.2% vs 13.6%). In a post hoc reanalysis excluding 107 patients (15%) with non-R5 screening virus by the current, more sensitive tropism assay, the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups was above −10% for each end point. Conclusions. Twice-daily maraviroc was not noninferior to efavirenz at <50 copies/mL in the primary analysis. However, 15% of patients would have been ineligible for inclusion by a more sensitive screening assay. Their retrospective exclusion resulted in similar response rates in both arms Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: (NCT00098293).

Background. Antiretroviral drugs with a lower potential to induce hepatic steatosis in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection need to be identified. We compared the effect of switching efavirenz (EFV) to raltegravir (RAL) on hepatic steatosis among HIV-infected patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) receiving EFV plus 2 nucleoside analogues. Methods. HIV-infected patients on EFV plus tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine with NAFLD were randomized 1:1 to switch from EFV to RAL (400 mg twice daily), maintaining nucleoside analogues unchanged, or to continue with EFV plus 2 nucleoside analogues. At baseline, eligible patients should show controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) values ≥238 dB/m. Changes in hepatic steatosis at 48 weeks of follow-up over baseline levels were measured by CAP. Results. Overall, 39 patients were included, and 19 of them were randomized to switch to RAL. At week 48, median CAP for the RAL group was 250 (Q1–Q3, 221–277) dB/m and 286 (Q1–Q3, 269–314) dB/m for the EFV group (P = .035). The median decrease in CAP values was −20 (Q1–Q3, −67 to 15) dB/m for the RAL arm and 30 (Q1–Q3, −17 to 49) dB/m for the EFV group (P = .011). CAP values <238 dB/m at week 48 were observed in 9 (47%) patients on RAL and 3 (15%) individuals on EFV (P = .029). Conclusions. After 48 weeks, HIV-infected individuals switching EFV to RAL showed decreases in the degree of hepatic steatosis, as measured by CAP, compared with those continuing with EFV. In addition, the proportion of patients without significant hepatic steatosis after 48 weeks was greater for those who switched to RAL. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01900015.