Search

HIV-1 non-B subtypes/circulating recombinant forms (CRFs) are increasing worldwide. Since subtype identification can be clinically relevant, we assessed the added value in HIV-1 subtyping using updated molecular phylogeny (Mphy) and the performance of routinely used automated tools. Updated Mphy (2015 updated reference sequences), used as a gold standard, was performed to subtype 13,116 HIV-1 protease/reverse transcriptase sequences and then compared with previous Mphy (reference sequences until 2014) and with COMET, REGA, SCUEAL, and Stanford subtyping tools. Updated Mphy classified subtype B as the most prevalent (73.4%), followed by CRF02_AG (7.9%), C (4.6%), F1 (3.4%), A1 (2.2%), G (1.6%), CRF12_BF (1.2%), and other subtypes (5.7%). A 2.3% proportion of sequences were reassigned as different subtypes or CRFs because of misclassification by previous Mphy. Overall, the tool most concordant with updated Mphy was Stanford-v8.1 (95.4%), followed by COMET (93.8%), REGA-v3 (92.5%), Stanford-old (91.1%), and SCUEAL (85.9%). All the tools had a high sensitivity (≥98.0%) and specificity (≥95.7%) for subtype B. Regarding non-B subtypes, Stanford-v8.1 was the best tool for C, D, and F subtypes and for CRFs 01, 02, 06, 11, and 36 (sensitivity, ≥92.6%; specificity, ≥99.1%). A1 and G subtypes were better classified by COMET (92.3%) and REGA-v3 (98.6%), respectively. Our findings confirm Mphy as the gold standard for accurate HIV-1 subtyping, although Stanford-v8.1, occasionally combined with COMET or REGA-v3, represents an effective subtyping approach in clinical settings. Periodic updating of HIV-1 reference sequences is fundamental to improving subtype characterization in the context of an effective epidemiological surveillance of non-B strains.

OBJECTIVES To report the 96 week results on efficacy, safety and bone mineral density (BMD) in subjects with HIV-1 that were virologically suppressed and treated with atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy. METHODS MODAt is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, 96 week trial (NCT01511809) comparing efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy. Treatment success was defined as no occurrence of confirmed viral rebound (two consecutive HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL) or discontinuation for any cause of the ongoing regimen. RESULTS The 96 week treatment success was 64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 63% in the triple-therapy arm (difference 1.3%, 95% CI: -17.5 to 20.1). In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, no PI- or NRTI-associated resistance mutations were observed at virological failure and all patients re-suppressed after re-intensification. In the monotherapy arm, treatment failure was more frequent in patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus [64% versus 28% (difference 35.4%, 95% CI: 3.7-67.2)]. Drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 3 (6%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 11 (21.5%) in the triple-therapy arm (P = 0.041). The 96 week adjusted mean percentage change in total proximal femur (not at lumbar spine) BMD was +1.16% and -1.64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and the triple-therapy arm, respectively (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS The 96 week analyses suggested that long-term efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy was inferior as compared with atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy, particularly when administered in subjects coinfected with hepatitis C virus. In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, reintroduction of nucleosides, as needed, was always effective with no new resistance mutation; monotherapy was also associated with a lower incidence of adverse events and improvement in femur BMD.

Objectives The objective of this study was to assess the 48-week virological efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) monotherapy vs. ATV/r along with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NRTIs) in HIV-1 treated individuals with HIV-RNA less than 50 copies/ml. Methods A multicentre, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial. HIV-1 treated individuals on ATV/r 300/100 mg along with two NRTIs were randomized to receive ATV/r monotherapy or to maintain their antiretroviral regimen. The primary endpoint was the confirmed viral rebound (CVR: two consecutive HIV-RNA >50 copies/ml) or treatment discontinuation for any reason. Individuals who experienced CVR on ATV/r monotherapy reintroduced NRTIs and discontinued the study if HIV-RNA was more than 50 copies/ml after 12 weeks since reintensification. Results One hundred and three patients enrolled. By week 48, 11 patients in ATV/r arm and two in ATV/r along with two NRTIs experienced CVR; four (8%) patients in ATV/r and eight (15%) in ATV/r along with two NRTIs discontinued. At the 48-week primary efficacy analysis (re-intensification = failure), treatment success was 73% in ATV/r arm and 85% in ATV/r along with two NRTIs [difference -12.1%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) -27.8 to 2.1]. According to the analysis considering re-intensification is equal to success, treatment success was 92% in ATV/r arm and 85% in the ATV/r along with two NRTIs arm (difference 7.5%, 95% CI -4.7 to 19.8). At CVR, no mutation was observed in ATV/r arm and reintensification with NRTIs was effective in all individuals. Overall, Grade 3-4 (P = 0.003) and grade 3-4 drug-related (P = 0.027) adverse events were less frequent in ATV/r arm. A significant increase in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol was observed as well as a significant improvement in high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, fasting glucose, liver fibrosis and alkaline phosphatase was observed in ATV/r monotherapy in comparison with ATV/r along with two NRTIs. Conclusion ATV/r monotherapy treatment simplification showed lower virological efficacy in comparison with maintaining triple therapy; NRTIs reintroduction was effective in all the individuals.

Tocilizumab is a monoclonal humanized anti-IL-6-receptor antibody used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The safety of tocilizumab in HCV patients is an open question. We report on safety and efficacy of tocilizumab in a 71-year-old female with rheumatoid arthritis and chronic hepatitis C. Monotherapy with tocilizumab (8 mg/kg every 4 weeks, i.v.) was prescribed after the discontinuation, determined by clinical inefficacy, of anti-TNF-alfa agents (adalimumab and, subsequently, etanercept). We have registered an optimal and rapid clinical response to tocilizumab with early remission (SDAI

Objective: The relationships between adverse events (AEs) and plasma concentrations of nevirapine (NVP) and efavirenz (EFV) were investigated as part of the large, international, randomized 2NN study. Methods: Treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients received NVP (once or twice daily), EFV or their combination, each in combination with lamivudine and stavudine. Blood samples were collected on day 3 and weeks 1, 2, 4, 24 and 48. Concentrations of NVP and EFV were quantitatively assessed by a validated HPLC assay. Individual Bayesian estimates of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 h (AUC(24h)), and minimum and maximum plasma concentrations (C-min and C-max) as measures for drug exposure of NVP and EFV, were generated using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared for patients with and without central nervous system (CNS) and psychiatric AEs, hepatic events, liver enzyme elevations (LEEs) and rash. Furthermore, it was investigated whether a clear cut-off for a pharmacokinetic parameter could be identified above which the incidence of AEs was clearly increased. AEs were also related to demographic parameters and baseline characteristics. Results: In total, from 1077 patients, NVP (3024 samples) and EFV (11694 samples) plasma concentrations and AE data (825 observations) were available. For all patients C-min, C-max and AUC(24h) were determined. When corrected for known covariates of gender, CD4 cell count at baseline, region, hepatitis coinfection and possible interactions between these factors, no significant associations between AEs and any tested exposure parameter of NVP was observed. Also, no target C-min value, above which patients were at increased risk for AEs, could be established. On the other hand, geographical region, hepatitis coinfection, CD4 cell count and gender were found to be significantly related with the incidence of CNS and psychiatric AEs, hepatic events, LEEs and rash during the treatment with NVP. The occurrence of elevated liver enzymes during the first 6 weeks in the EFV-containing arm was significantly (P=0.036) correlated to the exposure of EFV (C-min). Only hepatitis coinfection impacted on LEEs during the first 6 weeks of treatment. With an EFV C-min above 2.18 mg/l during the induction phase, patients were 4.4 (range 1.3-15.5) times more at risk for elevated liver enzymes. No other correlations between AEs and EFV pharmacokinetics or patient characteristics could be identified. Conclusions: Pharmacokinetic parameters of NVP did not have a relationship to AEs in the 2NN trial when corrected for known covariates. The value of periodical drug monitoring of NVP as a way to prevent toxicity is therefore limited. Treating physicians should instead focus on factors that are more predictive of AEs (gender, CD4 count and hepatitis coinfection). High EFV C-min levels resulted in elevated liver enzyme values during the first 6 weeks of treatment. Regular measurement of EFV levels and liver enzymes at the start of therapy may therefore be advised