Search

Background: Due to the low number of individuals with HIV-2, no randomised trials of HIV-2 treatment have ever been done. We hypothesised that a non-comparative study describing the outcomes of several antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens in parallel groups would improve understanding of how differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2 might lead to different therapeutic approaches., Methods: This pilot, phase 2, non-comparative, open-label, randomised controlled trial was done in Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, and Togo. Adults with HIV-2 who were ART naive with CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or greater were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to one of three treatment groups. A computer-generated sequentially numbered block randomisation list stratified by country was used for online allocation to the next available treatment group. In all groups, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (henceforth tenofovir) was dosed at 245 mg once daily with either emtricitabine at 200 mg once daily or lamivudine at 300 mg once daily. The triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) group received zidovudine at 250 mg twice daily. The ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group received lopinavir at 400 mg twice daily boosted with ritonavir at 100 mg twice daily. The raltegravir group received raltegravir at 400 mg twice daily. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment success at week 96, defined as an absence of serious morbidity event during follow-up, plasma HIV-2 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 96, and a substantial increase in CD4 cells between baseline and week 96. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02150993, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2016, and June 29, 2017, 210 participants were randomly assigned to treatment groups. Five participants died during the 96 weeks of follow-up (triple NRTI group, n=2; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=2; and raltegravir group, n=1), eight had a serious morbidity event (triple NRTI group, n=4; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=3; and raltegravir group, n=1), 17 had plasma HIV-2 RNA of 50 copies per mL or greater at least once (triple NRTI group, n=11; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=4; and raltegravir group, n=2), 32 (all in the triple NRTI group) switched to another ART regimen, and 18 permanently discontinued ART (triple NRTI group, n=5; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group, n=7; and raltegravir group, n=6). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended premature termination of the triple NRTI regimen for safety reasons. The overall treatment success rate was 57% (95% CI 47-66) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and 59% (49-68) in the raltegravir group., Interpretation: The raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir regimens were efficient and safe in adults with HIV-2. Both regimens could be compared in future phase 3 trials. The results of this pilot study suggest a trend towards better virological and immunological efficacy in the raltegravir-based regimen., Funding: ANRS MIE., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ritonavir-boosted dual protease inhibitor as a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing regimen in a prospective open-label randomized pilot trial in antiretroviral-naive patients., Methods: Thirty patients received fosamprenavir/atazanavir/ritonavir (Group 1) and 31 patients received saquinavir/atazanavir/ritonavir (Group 2). The primary endpoint for efficacy was the rate of early virological success, defined as plasma viral load <50 copies/mL at week 16. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00122603)., Results: At baseline, median (range) viral load was 4.8 log(10) copies/mL (4.0-5.7) and the median CD4 cell count was 271/mm(3) (197-740). Viral load was <50 copies/mL in 12/30 patients [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23%-58%] and 13/31 patients (42%, 95% CI 25%-59%) at week 16 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Patients with failing regimens (viral load >or=400 copies/mL at week 16 or >or=50 copies/mL at week 24) were switched to a standard antiretroviral regimen. At week 48, by an intention-to-treat analysis, 23/30 patients (77%) and 26/31 patients (84%) had plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Four patients discontinued treatment for adverse events, all before week 4. No major changes in the protease gene were detected at treatment failure relative to baseline. Baseline viral load <50 000 copies/mL was the only predictor of virological success at week 16., Conclusions: Ritonavir-boosted dual protease inhibitor regimens targeting only one step of viral replication were insufficient to rapidly suppress plasma HIV RNA to <50 copies/mL in antiretroviral-naive patients with high viral load at baseline.

Objective: To determine the evolution of renal function in highly treatment-experienced patients with normal renal function at baseline receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) as part of a fixed combined antiretroviral regimen and to identify prognostic factors of change in renal function, including tenofovir concentrations., Methods: A prospective 48-week open-label trial was carried out, evaluating the safety of TDF, associated with atazanavir/ritonavir, and optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in patients with documented failure in previous treatments. Statistical analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis., Results: Fifty-three patients were included, with a median CD4+ T-cell count of 206 x 10(6)/l and a median HIV RNA level of 5 log10 copies/ml. All patients had normal serum creatinine levels and creatinine clearances (CL(Cr)) at baseline, which were stable within the 2 months preceding inclusion. Two patients discontinued TDF as a result of severe renal impairment. Two patients never started TDF. A total of 49 patients without clinical nephrotoxicity were analysed. The median creatinine level increased significantly from baseline to week 48 (+0.04 mg/dl [+5.8%]; P = 0.008), and the median CL(Cr) decreased significantly (-7.8 ml/min [-7.6%]; P = 0.005). Trough tenofovir concentration was not associated with change in CL(Cr), (P = 0.79). No risk factors, including tenofovir plasma trough levels, were significantly associated with change in CL(Cr) at week 24., Conclusions: This study confirms that TDF-related severe nephrotoxicity is an uncommon event. In patients without clinical nephrotoxicity, the use of TDF during a 1-year period was associated with a slight but significant alteration of renal function, which was not associated with increased trough concentration.

Background: Ritonavir (RTV)-boosted atazanavir (ATV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF-DF) are promising in highly experienced patients because of their pharmacokinetic profile, activity, safety and resistance properties., Methods: A 26-week study of the safety and efficacy of RTV-boosted ATV plus TDF-DF was conducted in 53 HIV-infected patients who were failing their current highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen. Patients with history of failure to at least two protease inhibitors (PIs) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) were randomized to either continue their current regimen (group 1) or replace the PI by ATV (300 mg once daily) boosted by RTV (100 mg; group 2) for 2 weeks. Then, all patients received the same combination of ATV, RTV and TDF-DF (300 mg) plus optimized NRTIs regimen., Results: At baseline, median CD4+ T-cell count was 206/mm3, median viral load (VL) 5.0 log10/ml and median numbers of NRTI, NNRTI and PI resistance mutations were 7, 1 and 8, respectively. At week 2, median VL remained unchanged from baseline in group 2 as compared with group 1 (-0.1 vs -0.1 log10/ml). At week 26, a mild decrease in median VL from baseline of 0.2 log10/ml was observed, with 16 (31%) and 9 (17%) patients exhibiting a decrease in viral load of at least 0.5 and 1.0 log10/ml, respectively. Baseline phenotypic and genotypic resistance to ATV were the most predictive independent factors of virological response. The regimen was well tolerated., Conclusion: In these very advanced patients failing highly HAART, the combination of boosted ATV plus TDF-DF yielded low antiretroviral activity.

The aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic behavior of atazanavir-ritonavir when it is coadministered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. Eleven patients enrolled in Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA (National Agency for AIDS Research, Paris, France) trial 107 were included in this pharmacokinetic study. They received atazanavir at 300 mg and ritonavir at 100 mg once a day (QD) from day 1 to the end of study. For the first 2 weeks, their nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) treatments remained unchanged. Tenofovir DF was administered QD from day 15 to the end of the study. Ongoing NRTIs were selected according to the reverse transcriptase genotype of the HIV isolates from each patient. The values of the pharmacokinetic parameters for atazanavir and ritonavir were measured before (day 14 [week 2]) and after (day 42 [week 6]) initiation of tenofovir DF and are reported for the 10 patients who completed the study. There was a significant decrease in the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)) for atazanavir with the addition of tenofovir DF (AUC(0-24) ratio, 0.75; 90% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.05). There was a trend for a decrease in the minimum concentrations of atazanavir and ritonavir in plasma when they were combined with tenofovir, but none of the differences reached statistical significance. The median decreases in the HIV RNA loads at week 2 and week 6 were 0.1 and 0.2 log copies/ml, respectively. In summary, our data are consistent with the existence of a significant interaction between atazanavir and tenofovir DF.