Search

OBJECTIVES This observational study in antiretroviral treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults explored the efficacy of etravirine plus darunavir/ritonavir (DRV group; n = 999) vs. etravirine plus an alternative boosted protease inhibitor (other PI group; n = 116) using pooled European cohort data. METHODS Two international (EuroSIDA; EUResist Network) and five national (France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK) cohorts provided data (collected in 2007-2012). Stratum-adjusted (for confounding factors) Mantel-Haenszel differences in virological responses (viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups except for previous use of antiretrovirals (≥ 10: 63% in the DRV group vs. 49% in the other PI group), including previous use of at least three PIs (64% vs. 53%, respectively) and mean number of PI resistance mutations (2.3 vs. 1.9, respectively). Week 24 responses were 73% vs. 75% (observed) and 49% vs. 43% (missing = failure), respectively. Week 48 responses were 75% vs. 73% and 32% vs. 30%, respectively. All 95% CIs around unadjusted and adjusted differences encompassed 0 (difference in responses) or 1 (ORs). While ORs by cohort indicated heterogeneity in response, for pooled data the difference between unadjusted and adjusted for cohort ORs was small. CONCLUSIONS These data do not indicate a difference in response between the DRV and other PI groups, although caution should be applied given the small size of the other PI group and the lack of randomization. This suggests that the efficacy and virology results from DUET can be extrapolated to a regimen of etravirine with a boosted PI other than darunavir/ritonavir.

Objectives PIANO (Paediatric study of Intelence As an NNRTI Option; TMC125-C213; NCT00665847) assessed the safety/tolerability, antiviral activity and pharmacokinetics of etravirine plus an optimized background regimen (OBR) in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected children (≥ 6 to 95% adherent by questionnaire and 39% by pill count. Forty-one patients experienced virological failure (VF; time-to-loss-of-virological-response non-VF-censored algorithm) (29 nonresponders; 12 rebounders). Of 30 patients with VF with paired baseline/endpoint genotypes, 18 (60%) developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations, most commonly Y181C. Mean etravirine area under the plasma concentration–time curve over 12 h (AUC0–12h; 5216 ng h/mL) and C0h (346 ng/mL) were comparable to adult target values. Conclusions Results with etravirine 5.2 mg/kg bid (with OBR) in this treatment-experienced paediatric population and etravirine 200 mg bid in treatment-experienced adults were comparable. Etravirine is an NNRTI option for treatment-experienced paediatric patients.

The contribution of E138 mutations to etravirine resistance was investigated. Amino acids at position E138 after failure with etravirine in DUET were A (n = 1), G (n = 5), K (n = 3), P (n = 1), Q (n = 5), and V (n = 2). At baseline, only E138A and Q were found at 3.0% and 2.5%, respectively. Virologic response (less than 50 copies/mL) was observed in six of 12 and eight of 10 patients with E138A and E138Q, respectively. Site-directed mutants harboring E138A/G/K/Q/R or S showed etravirine fold change values of 2.9, 2.4, 2.6, 3.0, 3.6, and 2.8, respectively. E138G, K, and Q were added to the existing etravirine-weighted genotypic score including 17 etravirine resistance-associated mutations.

The randomized, placebo-controlled Phase III DUET studies enrolled treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. We examined the genotypic and phenotypic changes at endpoint relative to baseline, including the emergence of individual reverse transcriptase (RT) mutations, in patients who received the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) etravirine and experienced virologic failure by rebound by the time of the Week 96 analysis. Patients received etravirine 200 mg twice-daily in combination with a background regimen containing darunavir/ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and optional enfuvirtide. Virologic failure by rebound occurred in 93 (15.5%) etravirine-treated patients (compared with 170 [28.1%] placebo-treated patients). Patients experiencing virologic failure had more baseline antiretroviral resistance and lower activity of the background regimen relative to those not experiencing failure. Emergence of NNRTI resistance-associated mutations was observed in 55 of 93 patients. The most frequently emerging RT mutations were V179F, V179I, and Y181C, with positions K101 and E138 also showing frequent changes. Mutations usually emerged in a background of multiple other NNRTI mutations and were, in most cases, associated with a decrease in phenotypic sensitivity to etravirine at endpoint. Further analysis is needed to clarify the role of mutations at position 138 as determinants of etravirine resistance.

Etravirine (ETR) has previously shown potent in vitro activity against different primary HIV-1 isolates and demonstrated durable efficacy in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients in the Phase III DUET studies. The antiviral activity and efficacy of ETR against HIV-1 subtypes B and non-B were further investigated. The effect of HIV-1 subtype on ETR fold change in EC(50) value (FC) was analyzed in HIV-1 recombinant clinical isolates from 673 treatment-naive patients enrolled in other Tibotec studies. Subgroup analyses from the DUET studies of the effect of HIV-1 subtype on the proportion of patients with viral load (VL)50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml were also conducted using pooled week 48 data. Genotype/subtype and phenotype determinations were performed using the vircoTYPE HIV-1 and Antivirogram assays, respectively. In vitro results from treatment-naive patients indicated comparable median ETR FC in virus isolates from patients infected with subtype B or non-B (1.1 vs. 1.2, respectively). HIV-1 subtype data were available for 594 and 595 patients in the ETR and placebo groups of the DUET studies, respectively; 94% of patients harbored subtype B. Baseline characteristics were similar across the different subtypes, with the exception of a higher number of sensitive NRTIs used in patients with subtype non-B. At week 48, virological responses in the ETR group were higher in patients with subtype non-B versus B (73% vs. 60%, respectively). ETR was equally effective in suppressing viral replication in patients infected with HIV-1 subtype B or various HIV-1 non-B subtypes.

Etravirine is a recently approved nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The ability of etravirine to limit the emergence of resistance to protease inhibitors, and specifically to darunavir, was investigated in the subset of treatment-experienced patients with virologic rebound in the phase III DUET trials. Of those experiencing rebound, fewer etravirine-treated than placebo-treated patients developed mutations associated with resistance to protease inhibitors in general and to darunavir in particular, and more patients in the etravirine than the placebo-group maintained baseline darunavir susceptibility at endpoint.

Objective: To refine the genotypic and phenotypic correlates of response to the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor etravirine. Design: Initial analyses identified 13 etravirine resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) and clinical cutoffs (CCOs) for etravirine. A multivariate analysis was performed to refine the initial etravirine RAM list and improve the predictive value of genotypic resistance testing with regard to virologic response and relationship to phenotypic data. Methods: Week 24 data were pooled from the phase III studies with TMC125 to Demonstrate Undetectable viral load in patients Experienced with ARV Therapy (DUET). The effect of baseline resistance to etravirine on virologic response (

BackgroundWe assessed etravirine resistance in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected children ( n=41)/adolescents ( n=60) who received twice-daily etravirine 5.2 mg/kg and a background regimen (boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, optional enfuvirtide/raltegravir) in a Phase II, open-label, multicentre trial (PIANO).MethodsIn addition to phenotypes, viral genotypes were assessed by population and deep sequencing (PS and DS) in virological failures (VFs; baseline and end point) and responders (baseline). Minority resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were defined as those with frequencies above 1% and not detected with PS.ResultsBy week 48, 41/101 (40.6%) patients experienced VF; 17/41 (41.5%) VFs and 22/54 (40.8%) responders had ≥1 baseline etravirine RAM by PS, mainly A98G, K101E, V106I and G190A. Baseline minority etravirine RAMs ( n) were detected in 8/40 VFs (V90I [2], A98G [1], L100I [1], V106I [1], E138G [1] and Y181C [2]) and 5/38 responders (V90I [3], A98G [1], V106I [1] and E138G [1]). The most frequent emerging non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs detected by PS (≥3 VFs; n) were the etravirine RAMs Y181C (8), V90I (3), L100I (3) and E138A (3). In 15 of 29 (51.7%) VFs with baseline DS/PS and end point PS data, ≥1 emerging etravirine RAM was detected by PS, which was not detected at baseline by DS in most cases (12/15 [80.0%]). In 10/26 (38.5%) VFs with baseline/end point DS data, ≥1 additional emerging minority etravirine RAM was detected.ConclusionsPatterns of etravirine resistance in adults, adolescents and children experiencing VF are similar. The presence of minority etravirine RAMs at baseline was not consistently associated with treatment failure. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00665847.

Objectives. TEACH (NCT00896051) was a randomized, open-label, two-arm Phase II trial to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine and atazanavir/ritonavir and safety and efficacy in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients.Methods. After a two-week lead-in of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg, 44 patients received etravirine 200 mg bid with one NRTI, plus atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or 400/100 mg qd (n=22each group) over 48 weeks.Results. At steady-state etravirine with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd or 400/100 mg qd decreased atazanavirCmin⁡by 18% and 9%, respectively, with no change inAUC24 horCmax⁡versus atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd alone (Day −1). EtravirineAUC12 hwas 24% higher and 16% lower with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 or 400/100 mg qd, respectively, versus historical controls. At Week 48, no significant differences were seen between the atazanavir/ritonavir groups in discontinuations due to adverse events (9.1% each group) and other safety parameters, the proportion of patients with viral load Conclusions. Etravirine 200 mg bid can be combined with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg qd and an NRTI in HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced patients without dose adjustment.

Introduction : In DUET, etravirine (ETR) 200 mg bid had durable efficacy and a favourable safety profile versus placebo, both arms with an optimised background regimen (BR) including darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r). TMC125IFD3002 (VIOLIN; NCT01422330) investigated ETR plus ARVs other than DRV/r. Materials and Methods : This was a 48 week, Phase IV, open-label, single-arm, multicentre study. HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced adult patients on=8 weeks ARV therapy prior to screening, switching either for virologic failure (VF) (viral load [VL] =500 c/mL) or regimen simplification/AEs (RS/AE) (VL

This study investigated strategies that may increase the yield of drug resistance testing prior to starting antiretroviral therapy (ART), and whether transmitted and polymorphic resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) correlated with virological outcomes.We carried out retrospective testing of baseline samples from patients entering the SENSE trial of first-line ART in Europe, Russia and Israel. Prior to randomization to etravirine or efavirenz plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), plasma samples underwent routine Sanger sequencing of HIV-1 RT and protease ((plasma)SS) in order to exclude patients with transmitted RAMs. Retrospectively, Sanger sequencing was repeated with HIV-1 DNA from baseline peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCSS); baseline plasma samples were retested by allele-specific PCR targeting seven RT RAMs (AS-PCR) and ultra-deep RT sequencing (UDS).By (plasma)SS, 16/193 (8.3%) patients showed ≥ 1 transmitted RAM affecting the NRTIs (10/193, 5.2%), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (4/193, 2.1%) or protease inhibitors (2/193, 1.0%). No additional RAMs were detected by AS-PCR (n = 152) and UDS (n = 24); PBMCSS (n = 91) yielded two additional samples with one RAM each. Over 48 weeks, 4/79 (5.1%) patients on etravirine and 7/78 (9.0%) on efavirenz experienced virological failure; none had baseline RAMs. Conversely, 11/79 (13.9%) patients randomized to etravirine had one polymorphic RAM from the etravirine score in baseline plasma (V90I, V106I or E138A), without any impact on virological outcomes.The detection of resistance increased marginally with PBMC testing but did not increase with sensitive plasma testing. A careful consideration is required of the cost-effectiveness of different strategies for baseline HIV drug resistance testing.

Objective: VIOLIN (TMC125IFD3002; NCT01422330) evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of etravirine with antiretrovirals other than darunavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients. Methods: In a 48-week, phase IV, single-arm, multicenter study, patients on prior antiretroviral therapy (⩾8 weeks) who needed to change regimen for virologic failure (viral load ⩾ 500 copies/mL) or simplification/adverse events (viral load

Background The aims of this study were to compare various genotypic scoring systems commonly used to predict virological outcome to etravirine, and examine their concordance with etravirine phenotypic susceptibility. Methods Six etravirine genotypic scoring systems were assessed: Tibotec 2010 (based on 20 mutations; TBT 20), Monogram, Stanford HIVdb, ANRS, Rega (based on 37, 30, 27 and 49 mutations, respectively) and virco®TYPE HIV-1 (predicted fold change based on genotype). Samples from treatment-experienced patients who participated in the DUET trials and with both genotypic and phenotypic data ( n=403) were assessed using each scoring system. Results were retrospectively correlated with virological response in DUET. κ coefficients were calculated to estimate the degree of correlation between the different scoring systems. Results Correlation between the five scoring systems and the TBT 20 system was approximately 90%. Virological response by etravirine susceptibility was comparable regardless of which scoring system was utilized, with 70-74% of DUET patients determined as susceptible to etravirine by the different scoring systems achieving plasma viral load Conclusions In general, the etravirine genotypic scoring systems produced similar results, and genotype-phenotype concordance was high. As such, phenotypic interpretations, and in their absence all genotypic scoring systems investigated, may be used to reliably predict the activity of etravirine.

The prevalence of susceptibility to etravirine was investigated among clinical samples submitted for routine clinical testing in the United States using two separate weighted genotypic scoring systems. The presence of etravirine mutations and susceptibility to etravirine by phenotype of clinical samples from HIV-1-infected patients, submitted to Monogram Biosciences for routine resistance testing between June 2008 and June 2009, were analyzed. Susceptibility by genotype was determined using the Monogram and Tibotec etravirine-weighted genotypic scoring systems, with scores of ≤3 and ≤2, respectively, indicating full susceptibility. Susceptibility by phenotype was determined using the PhenoSense HIV assay, with lower and higher clinical cut-offs of 2.9 and 10, respectively. The frequency of individual etravirine mutations and the impact of the K103N mutation on susceptibility to etravirine by genotype were also determined. Among the 5482 samples with ≥1 defined nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations associated with resistance, 67% were classed as susceptible to etravirine by genotype by both scoring systems. Susceptibility to etravirine by phenotype was higher (76%). The proportion of first-generation NNRTI-resistant samples with (n=3598) and without (n=1884) K103N with susceptibility to etravirine by genotype was 77% and 49%, respectively. Among samples susceptible to first-generation NNRTIs (n=9458),99% of samples were susceptible to etravirine by phenotype (FC2.9); the remaining samples had FC ≥2.9-10. In summary, among samples submitted for routine clinical testing in the United States, a high proportion of samples with first-generation NNRTI resistance was susceptible to etravirine by genotype and phenotype. A higher proportion of NNRTI-resistant samples with K103N than without was susceptible to etravirine.

Connection domain mutations (CDMs) in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) alter susceptibility to some nucleoside/nonnucleoside RT inhibitors (NRTIs/NNRTIs). Their effects on susceptibility and virologic responses to etravirine were analyzed. Seventeen CDMs were evaluated: L283I, E312Q, G333D, G333E, G335C, G335D, N348I, A360I, A360T, A360V, V365I, T369I, A371V, A376S, I393L, E399D, and E399G. CDM prevalence and effects on virologic responses were analyzed retrospectively using clinical data. The effects on etravirine susceptibility were assessed in clinical samples and confirmed using site-directed mutants. The most prevalent CDMs (>10%) were A371V, E399D, A376S, N348I, A360T, G333E, and L283I. CDM presence was positively correlated with thymidine analogue-associated mutations, but not with NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). The presence or number of CDMs did not significantly reduce etravirine susceptibility, although small reductions were seen in samples with G333D, N348I, A360V, T369I, and A376S. N348I, E399G, and N348I/T369I were associated with reduced etravirine susceptibility when present with K103N, L100I, or Y181C. N348I or T369I was associated with reduced etravirine susceptibility when present with K101P or K103R/V179D. Virologic responses to an etravirine-containing regimen were slightly diminished when G333D, G335D, or A376S was present, but this was not confirmed in subgroups with higher baseline resistance or without etravirine RAMs. CDMs alone do not confer substantial reductions in etravirine susceptibility but can further reduce etravirine susceptibility in combination with certain NNRTI mutations. Since virologic responses to etravirine were not affected by CDMs, the clinical impacts of these mutations on etravirine susceptibility appear to be minimal.

Methods DUET patients were randomized 1:1 to ETR (200 mg BID) or placebo, both with a background regimen of NRTIs, darunavir/ritonavir and optional enfuvirtide. Subgroup analyses of the effect of HIV-1 subtype on the proportion of patients with viral load (VL)

Methods In this analysis, patients with a virologic rebound were defined as those who showed a virologic response at earlier time-points but rebounded to >50 copies/ml in the DUET week 48 dataset. Phenotyping and genotyping at baseline and end-point were performed with the AntivirogramTM and Virco® TYPE HIV-1 assays, respectively, if viral load (VL) was >1000 copies/ml. Emerging mutations were those present at end-point (i.e. the last available resistance test on treatment) but not at baseline. Patients who discontinued the trial for non-virologic reasons were excluded.