Search

BACKGROUND The optimal sequencing ofantiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure ofthe second three-drug regimen. RESULTS A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2. 3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure ofthe second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure ofthe second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure ofthe first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the firstvirologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the firstvirologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure ofthe first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy ofantiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study.

The 24-week extension of AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 359, a study of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐infected, indinavir-experienced patients, was designed to study the durability of “salvage” treatment regimens. Patients received saquinavir in combination with either ritonavir or nelfinavir and, in addition, delavirdine, adefovir, or both. Patients who demonstrated a virologic response at weeks 12‐16 were eligible to continue therapy in the extension through week 48. Of the 105 eligible subjects who were enrolled in the extension, 86 (82%) completed 48 weeks, and 49 (57%) of those 86 had HIV RNA levels 500 copies/ mL at week 48. For these 86 subjects who completed 48 weeks, the median change in CD4 cell count from baseline was +72 cells/mm 3 . Greater body weight, higher CD4 cell count, and greater degree of phenotypic susceptibility to indinavir and saquinavir at baseline were significantly associated with durable virologic suppression. These results show that some patients who experience treatment failure can demonstrate durable virologic and immunologic responses with salvage antiretroviral regimens. Current treatment guidelines recommend starting therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection with 2 nucleoside analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors in combination with 1 or 2 protease inhibitors or a nonnucleoside analogue reversetranscriptase inhibitor [1, 2]. However, 20%‐63% of patients from clinical cohorts experience virologic treatment failure while receiving combination antiretroviral therapy [3‐7]. Recent prospective studies have attempted to identify strategies for treatment of the treatment-experienced patient [8‐13], but these studies have focused primarily on 8‐24-week virologic responses to treatment. The durability of virologic and immunologic re

This study compared antiretroviral activity among 6 salvage therapy regimens. The study was a prospective, randomized, 2 × 3 factorial, multicenter study of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. The study enrolled 277 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naive to nonnucleoside analogues who had taken indinavir >6 months. The patients had 2000-200,000 HIV RNA copies/mL. Patients received saquinavir with ritonavir or nelfinavir together with delavirdine andlor adefovir and were followed for safety and antiretroviral response between baseline and week 16. At week 16, 30% (77/254) of patients had ≤500 HIV RNA copies/mL. Virologic response did not differ significantly between pooled ritonavir and nelfinavir groups (28% vs. 33%; P =.50) or between pooled delavirdine and delavirdine/adefovir groups (40% vs. 33%; P =.42). Pooled delavirdine groups had a greater virologic response rate than did adefovir groups (40% vs. 18%; P =.002). Overall, one-third of patients who experienced virologic failure on an indinavir-containing regimen suppressed virus load levels while they were taking a new salvage regimen.

OBJECTIVE To compare the virologic activity of continued lamivudine (3TC) versus a switch to delavirdine (DLV) when initiating protease inhibitor therapy in nucleoside-experienced patients. DESIGN Randomized, open-label, multi-center study. SETTING Adult AIDS clinical trials units. PATIENTS Protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive patients who had received 3TC plus zidovudine (ZDV), stavudine (d4T), or didanosine (ddl) for at least 24 weeks. INTERVENTIONS Patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels > 500 copies/ml who previously received d4T + 3TC or ddI + 3TC were randomized to ZDV + 3TC + indinavir (IDV) or ZDV + DLV + IDV. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels < or = 200 copies/ml at 24 weeks, and occurrence of serious adverse events. The proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels < or = 200 copies/ml at week 48 was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS At week 24, 58% of subjects in the ZDV + 3TC + IDV arm and 73% in the ZDV + DLV + IDV arm had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels < or = 200 copies/ml (P = 0.29). At week 48, plasma HIV-1 RNA levels were < or = 200 copies/ml in 48% and 83%, respectively (P = 0.007). Rash and hyperbilirubinemia occurred more frequently in the DLV arm than in the 3TC arm. Steady-state plasma IDV levels were higher among patients in the DLV arm as compared with the 3TC arm. CONCLUSIONS Substituting DLV for 3TC when adding IDV improved virologic outcome in nucleoside-experienced patients. This result might be explained, in part, by the positive effect of DLV on IDV pharmacokinetics.

Interleukin-2 (IL-2) can increase numbers of absolute CD4 cells in persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus who are receiving antiretroviral therapy. Twenty-five subjects with400/mm3 absolute CD4 cells received zidovudine and low-dose intravenous or subcutaneous IL-2 (or = 10(6) U/m2). Absolute CD4 cells increased significantly during IL-2 treatment, and 56% of the subjects achieved a maximal increase ofor = 500 cells/mm3. A dose-response relationship favored increasing IL-2 doses, and subcutaneous delivery offered greater increases than intravenous administration. Fifteen subjects had persistent increases ofor = 100 cells/mm3 6 weeks after IL-2 was discontinued. No changes occurred in delayed-type hypersensitivity or helper T cell responses to recall antigens. Cell-mediated cytotoxicities increased against Daudi cells. IL-2 was well tolerated and only 1 subject required dose reduction. Relatively low-dose IL-2 delivered by subcutaneous or intravenous routes may provide an important complement to antiretroviral therapy to increase absolute CD4 cells with the potential for less toxicity than with higher IL-2 doses.

Antiretroviral therapy in early HIV infection may enhance outcome and viral control may be better in acute versus recent infection 24 weeks after treatment interruption.A prospective trial of treatment stratified by acute versus recent HIV-1 infection. If HIV viral load50 copies/ml after at least 52 weeks, treatment was interrupted. If viremia rebounded, treatment and interruption were repeated. The primary endpoint was maintaining viral load less than 5000 copies/ml for 24 weeks following treatment interruption.Of the 121 patients enrolled at 15 sites, ninety-five percent were men, median age was 34 years; 69% were white. Median viral load was higher in acute HIV-1 infection (210 000 copies/ml) than recent HIV-1 infection (43 000 copies/ml). The 73 primary endpoint patients (28 acute HIV-1 infection, 45 recent HIV-1 infection) had significantly higher baseline CD4 T-cell counts (P = 0.044) and lower viral load (P = 0.016). The primary endpoint was achieved in 29 (40%) of the 73 and in 24% of the 121 enrolled overall. There was no significant outcome difference (P = 0.81) between the acute HIV-1 infection [43%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24-63%] and recent HIV-1 infection (38%, 95% CI 24-53%) groups. Differences after longer follow-up can not be ascertained by this trial. Baseline viral load less than 100 000/ml 22/46 (48%) compared with more than 100 000/ml, 7/27 (26%) and higher baseline CD4 immune activation predicted success.Forty percent of patients treated during acute HIV-1 infection or recent HIV-1 infection sustained a viral load less than 5000 copies/ml after 24 weeks of treatment interruption.

Background: Pharmacokinetic enhancement of protease inhibitors (PIs) with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) for salvage therapy is increasingly common. The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of indinavir (IDV)/RTV at 800/200 mg (arm A) and 400/400 mg (arm B) administered twice daily in HIV-infected subjects failing their first PI-based regimen. Methods: A phase I/II, randomized, open-label, 24-week study was conducted. Formal 12-hour pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed, and study visits occurred at baseline; at weeks 1, 2, and 4; and every 4 week thereafter for 24 weeks. Clinical symptoms and laboratory assessments were collected. Subjects were allowed to switch arms because of toxicity. Results: Forty-four subjects were enrolled (22 per arm). IDV pre-dose concentration, maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve were significantly higher in arm A. Fifty-five percent and 45% of subjects in arms A and B responded (