Search

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of maraviroc along with darunavir/ritonavir, all once daily, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected individuals., Design: MODERN was a multicentre, double-blind, noninferiority, phase III study in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral-naive adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA at least 1000 copies/ml and no evidence of reduced susceptibility to study drugs., Methods: At screening, participants were randomized 1 : 1 to undergo either genotypic or phenotypic tropism testing. Participants with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 were randomized 1 : 1 to receive maraviroc 150 mg once daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine once daily each with darunavir/ritonavir once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) at Week 48. A substudy evaluated bone mineral density, body fat distribution and serum bone turnover markers., Results: Seven hundred and ninety-seven participants were dosed (maraviroc, n = 396; tenofovir/emtricitabine, n = 401). The Data Monitoring Committee recommended early study termination due to inferior efficacy in the maraviroc group. At Week 48, the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml was 77.3% for maraviroc and 86.8% for tenofovir/emtricitabine [difference of -9.54% (95% confidence interval: -14.83 to -4.24)]. More maraviroc participants discontinued for lack of efficacy, which was not associated with non-R5 tropism or resistance. Discontinuations for adverse events, Category C events, Grade 3/4 adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were similar between groups., Conclusion: A once-daily nucleos(t)ide-sparing two-drug regimen of maraviroc and darunavir/ritonavir was inferior to a three-drug regimen of tenofovir/emtricitabine and darunavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive adults.

Assays to identify infectious organisms are critical for diagnosis and enabling the development of therapeutic agents. The demonstration that individuals with a 32-bp deletion within the CCR5 locus were resistant to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, while those heterozygous for the mutation progressed more slowly, led to the discovery of maraviroc (MVC), a CCR5 antagonist. As MVC is only active against CCR5-tropic strains of HIV, it was critical to develop a diagnostic assay to identify appropriate patients. Trofile™, a novel phenotypic tropism assay, was used to identify patients with CCR5-tropic virus for the MVC development program. Results of these clinical studies demonstrated that the assay correctly identified patients likely to respond to MVC. Over time, the performance characteristics of the phenotypic assay were enhanced, necessitating retesting of study samples. Genotypic tropism tests that have the potential to allow for local use and more rapid turnaround times are also being developed., (© 2015 New York Academy of Sciences.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of lersivirine versus etravirine in patients with HIV-1 and prior non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) use and evidence of NNRTI resistance., Methods: In this 96-week, phase 2b study, 97 patients were randomized and treated with lersivirine 750 mg qd (n = 31), lersivirine 1,000 mg qd (n = 32), and etravirine 200 mg bid (n = 34), plus one optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24., Results: At week 24, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL was achieved by fewer patients receiving lersivirine 750 mg (48.4%) and 1,000 mg (43.8%) qd compared with etravirine 200 mg qd (67.7%) (intention to treat [ITT], missing/switch/discontinuation equals failure [MSDF]). At week 48, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and <400 copies/mL were also achieved by fewer patients receiving lersivirine 750 mg (41.9% and 41.9%, respectively) and 1,000 mg (31.3% and 34.4%, respectively) qd compared with etravirine 200 mg bid (61.8% and 70.6%, respectively) (ITT, MSDF). Least squares means (SE) change from baseline in log transformed HIV-1 RNA at week 48 was -1.42 (0.27) and -0.95 (0.28) copies/mL for lersivirine 750 mg and 1,000 mg qd, respectively, versus -2.02 (0.26) copies/mL for etravirine 200 mg bid (ITT). Lersivirine and etravirine were generally safe and well-tolerated., Conclusions: Lersivirine 750 mg and 1,000 mg qd was associated with lower rates of viral suppression at week 24 and week 48 versus etravirine in patients with prior NNRTI use and evidence of NNRTI resistance. No new safety signals were detected.

Objective: Maraviroc, a chemokine co-receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonist, has demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to efavirenz, each in combination with zidovudine/lamivudine, over 96 weeks in the Maraviroc vs. Efavirenz Regimens as Initial Therapy (MERIT) study. Here we report 5-year findings., Design: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase IIb/III study with an open-label extension phase., Methods: Treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 infection (Trofile) received maraviroc 300 mg twice daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, and zidovudine/lamivudine 300 mg/150 mg twice daily. After the last patient's week 96 visit, the study was unblinded and patients could enter a nominal 3-year open-label phase. Endpoints at the 5-year nominal visit (week 240) included proportion of patients (CCR5 tropism re-confirmed by enhanced sensitivity Trofile) with viral load (plasma HIV-1 RNA) below 50 and 400 copies/ml, and change from baseline in CD4(+) cell count, as well as safety., Results: The proportion of patients maintaining viral load below 50 copies/ml was similar between treatment arms throughout the study and at week 240 (maraviroc 50.8% vs. efavirenz 45.9%). Maraviroc-treated patients had a greater increase from baseline in mean CD4(+) cell count than efavirenz-treated patients at week 240 (293 vs. 271 cells/μl, respectively). Fewer patients on maraviroc vs. efavirenz experienced treatment-related adverse events (68.9 vs. 81.7%) and discontinued as a result of any adverse event (10.6 vs. 21.3%)., Conclusion: Maraviroc maintained similar long-term antiviral efficacy to efavirenz over 5 years in treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1. Maraviroc was generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings or evidence of long-term safety concerns.

This open-label, fixed-sequence, phase 1 study evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction between maraviroc (MVC) and ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir (FPV/r) in healthy subjects. In period 1, subjects received 300 mg of MVC twice daily (BID; cohort 1) or once daily (QD; cohort 2) for 5 days. In period 2, cohort 1 subjects received 700/100 mg of FPV/r BID alone on days 1 to 10 and then FPV/r at 700/100 mg BID plus MVC at 300 mg BID on days 11 to 20; cohort 2 subjects received FPV/r at 1,400/100 mg QD alone on days 1 to 10 and then FPV/r at 1,400/100 mg QD plus MVC at 300 mg QD on days 11 to 20. Pharmacokinetic parameters, assessed on day 5 of period 1 and on days 10 and 20 of period 2, included the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the concentration at end of dosing interval (Cτ), and the area under the curve over dosing interval (AUCτ). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. MVC geometric mean AUCτ, Cmax, and Cτ were increased by 149, 52, and 374%, respectively, after BID dosing with FPV/r, and by 126, 45, and 80%, respectively, after QD dosing. Amprenavir (the active form of the prodrug fosamprenavir) and ritonavir exposures were decreased in the presence of MVC with amprenavir AUCτ, Cmax, and Cτ decreased by 34 to 36% in the presence of FPV/r plus maraviroc BID and by 15 to 30% with FPV/r plus MVC QD both compared to FPV/r alone. The overall all-causality adverse-event (AE) incidence rate was 96.4%; all AEs were of mild or moderate severity. Commonly reported treatment-related AEs (>20% of patients overall) included diarrhea, fatigue, abdominal discomfort, headache, and nausea. No serious AEs or deaths occurred. In summary, maraviroc exposure increased in the presence of FPV/r, whereas MVC coadministration decreased amprenavir and ritonavir exposures. MVC dosed at 300 mg BID with FPV/r is not recommended due to concerns of lower amprenavir exposures; however, no dose adjustment is warranted with MVC at 150 mg BID in combination with FPV/r based on the available clinical data. MVC plus FPV/r was generally well tolerated; no new safety signals were detected.

Purpose: This open-label, nonrandomized, parallel-group study was conducted to explore the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of maraviroc in renally impaired subjects., Methods: Subjects with normal renal function; mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment; or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (n = 6 per group) were enrolled. Subjects with normal function (period 1), severe impairment, and ESRD received a single 300 mg dose of maraviroc. Subjects with normal function (period 2), mild impairment, and moderate impairment received 150 mg for 7 days at adjusted intervals of twice daily, once daily, and every 48 hours, respectively, with saquinavir/ritonavir (SQV/r). Maraviroc was quantified in plasma, urine, and dialysate by tandem high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry., Results: With SQV/r, geometric mean steady-state maraviroc area under the plasma concentration-time curve for the dosing interval (AUCtau) was 5,341 (coefficient of variation [CV], 27%), 8,119 (35%), and 6,193 (27%) h•ng/mL, in normal function, mild, and moderate impairment groups, respectively. Without SQV/r, 2% to 3% of the maraviroc dose was recovered in urine versus 15% to 25% of steady-state dose when given with SQV/r. Moderate to high intersubject variability in exposure was noted. AUC from zero to infinity (AUCinf) was similar to historical single-dose data in subjects with ESRD: low in those with normal function, and high in those with severe impairment. Dialysis did not influence maraviroc exposure. Maraviroc was well tolerated., Conclusions: The data suggest that no dosing interval adjustments are required in subjects with renal impairment when maraviroc is administered alone. However, maraviroc dosing interval adjustment is warranted in renally impaired patients receiving potent CYP3A4 inhibitors. Reference to local prescribing information is recommended, because dose recommendations in renally impaired patients may differ between regions.

Background: Deep sequencing is a highly sensitive technique that can detect and quantify the proportion of non-R5 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) variants, including small minorities, that may emerge and cause virologic failure in patients who receive maraviroc-containing regimens. We retrospectively tested the ability of deep sequencing to predict response to a maraviroc-containing regimen in the Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive Patients (MERIT) trial. Results were compared with those obtained using the Enhanced Sensitivity Trofile Assay (ESTA), which is widely used in clinical practice., Methods: Screening plasma samples from treatment-naive patients who received maraviroc and efavirenz in the MERIT trial were assessed. Samples were extracted, and the V3 region of HIV type 1 glycoprotein 120 was amplified in triplicate and combined in equal quantities before sequencing on a Roche/454 Genome Sequencer-FLX (n = 859). Tropism was inferred from third variable (V3) sequences, with samples classified as non-R5 if ≥2% of the viral population scored ≤3.5 using geno2pheno., Results: Deep sequencing distinguished between responders and nonresponders to maraviroc. Among patients identified as having R5-HIV by deep sequencing, 67% of maraviroc recipients and 69% of efavirenz recipients had a plasma viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, similar to the ESTA results: 68% and 68%, respectively., Conclusions: Reanalysis of the MERIT trial using deep V3 loop sequencing indicates that, had patients originally been screened using this method, the maraviroc arm would have likely been found to be noninferior to the efavirenz arm.

Background: The Maraviroc versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients (MOTIVATE) studies compared maraviroc versus placebo in treatment-experienced patients with CCR5-using (R5) human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1), screened using the original Trofile assay. A subset with non-R5 HIV infection entered the A4001029 trial. We retrospectively examined the performance of a genotypic tropism assay based on deep sequencing of the HIV env V3 loop in predicting virologic response to maraviroc in these trials., Methods: V3 amplicons were prepared from 1827 screening plasma samples and sequenced on a Roche/454 GS-FLX to a depth of >3000 sequences/sample. Samples were considered non-R5 if ≥2% of their viral population scored greater than or equal to -4.75 or ≤3.5 using the PSSM(x4/R5) or geno2pheno algorithms, respectively., Results: Deep sequencing identified more than twice as many maraviroc recipients as having non-R5 HIV, compared with the original Trofile. With use of genotyping, we determined that 49% of maraviroc recipients with R5 HIV at screening had a week 48 viral load <50 copies/mL versus 26% of recipients with non-R5. Corresponding percentages were 46% and 23% with screening by Trofile. In cases in which screening assays differed, median week 8 log₁₀ copies/mL viral load decrease favored 454. Other parameters predicted by genotyping included likelihood of changing to non-R5 tropism., Conclusions: This large study establishes deep V3 sequencing as a promising tool for identifying treatment-experienced individuals who could benefit from CCR5-antagonist-containing regimens.

Purpose: We investigated the effects of maraviroc, the first approved CC-chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist, on blood lipids in a post hoc analysis of the phase 3 MERIT study in treatment-naïve patients., Methods: Patients received maraviroc 300 mg twice daily (n = 360) or efavirenz 600 mg once daily (n = 361), both in combination with zidovudine/lamivudine, for up to 96 weeks. Baseline and on- treatment lipid profiles were analyzed according to National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) thresholds., Results: Baseline characteristics and lipid profiles were comparable between groups. Among patients with total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) below NCEP treatment thresholds at baseline, significantly more efavirenz- than maraviroc-treated patients exceeded those thresholds at 96 weeks (TC: 35% [74/209] vs 11% [20/188], P < .0001; LDL-c: 23% [47/197] vs 8% [15/183], P < .0001). Among patients exceeding NCEP thresholds at baseline, significantly more efavirenz- than maraviroc-treated patients exceeded the thresholds at 96 weeks (TC: 83% [24/29] vs 50% [17/34], P = .0084; LDL-c: 86% [19/22] vs 55% [16/29], P = .0314). Of those with baseline high- density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) < 40 mg/dL, 43% (56/130) of maravirocand 62% (86/139) of efavirenz-treated patients achieved HDL-c≥40 mg/dL at 96 weeks (P = .0020)., Conclusions: Maraviroc was not associated with elevations in TC, LDL-c, or triglycerides and showed beneficial effects on lipid profiles of dyslipidemic patients.

Background: The MERIT study evaluated maraviroc versus efavirenz, both with zidovudine/lamivudine, in treatment-naïve patients with CCR5-tropic (R5) HIV-1. Post hoc analyses previously assessed week 48 outcomes in patients rescreened with R5 virus by a more sensitive tropism assay., Methods: Week 96 efficacy (post hoc, n = 614) and safety (n = 721) were assessed., Results: Proportions of subjects <50 copies/mL (58.8% maraviroc, 62.7% efavirenz) and time to loss of virologic response (TLOVR) responders (<50 copies/mL: 60.5% vs 60.7%) were similar. Maraviroc recipients had greater CD4 increases (+ 212 vs + 171 cells/mm(3)) and fewer adverse event discontinuations (6.1% vs 15.5%), malignancies, and category C events., Conclusion: Week 96 data confirm week 48 observations in MERIT.

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) .