Search

The most effective means of preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is preventing exposure. The provision of antiretroviral drugs to prevent HIV infection after unanticipated sexual or injection-drug--use exposure might be beneficial. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Working Group on Nonoccupational Postexposure Prophylaxis (nPEP) made the following recommendations for the United States. For persons seeking care 72 hours after exposure, DHHS does not recommend the use of nPEP. Clinicians might consider prescribing nPEP for exposures conferring a serious risk for transmission, even if the person seeks care >72 hours after exposure if, in their judgment, the diminished potential benefit of nPEP outweighs the risks for transmission and adverse events. For all exposures, other health risks resulting from the exposure should be considered and prophylaxis administered when indicated. Risk-reduction counseling and indicated intervention services should be provided to reduce the risk for recurrent exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report updates and consolidates all previous U.S. Public Health Service recommendations for the management of health-care personnel (HCP) who have occupational exposure to blood and other body fluids that might contain hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).Recommendations for HBV postexposure management include initiation of the hepatitis B vaccine series to any susceptible, unvaccinated person who sustains an occupational blood or body fluid exposure. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) with hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) and/or hepatitis B vaccine series should be considered for occupational exposures after evaluation of the hepatitis B surface antigen status of the source and the vaccination and vaccine-response status of the exposed person. Guidance is provided to clinicians and exposed HCP for selecting the appropriate HBV PEP.Immune globulin and antiviral agents (e.g., interferon with or without ribavirin) are not recommended for PEP of hepatitis C. For HCV postexposure management, the HCV status of the source and the exposed person should be determined, and for HCP exposed to an HCV positive source, follow-up HCV testing should be performed to determine if infection develops.Recommendations for HIV PEP include a basic 4-week regimen of two drugs (zidovudine [ZDV] and lamivudine [3TC]; 3TC and stavudine [d4T]; or didanosine [ddI] and d4T) for most HIV exposures and an expanded regimen that includes the addition of a third drug for HIV exposures that pose an increased risk for transmission. When the source person's virus is known or suspected to be resistant to one or more of the drugs considered for the PEP regimen, the selection of drugs to which the source person's virus is unlikely to be resistant is recommended.In addition, this report outlines several special circumstances (e.g., delayed exposure report, unknown source person, pregnancy in the exposed person, resistance of the source virus to antiretroviral agents, or toxicity of the PEP regimen) when consultation with local experts and/or the National Clinicians' Post-Exposure Prophylaxis Hotline ([PEPline] 1-888-448-4911) is advised.Occupational exposures should be considered urgent medical concerns to ensure timely postexposure management and administration of HBIG, hepatitis B vaccine, and/or HIV PEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The landscape for the development of therapeutics for prevention and treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infection has pivoted towards long-acting antiretrovirals (LA-ARVs). LA-ARVs have the potential to transform global implementation of HIV-1 prevention and treatment strategies. The ability to identify potential knowledge gaps early in development, proactively address missing information or data gaps, and strategically leverage all the available information is the key to streamline the development of safe and effective LA-ARV therapeutics. The purpose of this article is to discuss some potential considerations for development of LA-ARVs. Three possible drug development scenarios are briefly discussed and include developing (1) a novel LA-ARV, (2) a novel LA formulation of an approved oral ARV, and (3) an LA pro-drug of an approved oral ARV. For each of these scenarios, we briefly describe what type(s) of information may be helpful and discuss potential opportunities to leverage available information. Additionally, we discuss some unique LA-ARV drug development considerations, including the use of an oral lead-in, and assessing the impact of residual ARV exposures on subsequent regimens and evaluation of LA-ARVs in specific populations. We strongly believe that efficient integration of multidisciplinary knowledge can advance the development, availability, and accessibility of therapeutics not only for HIV-1 prevention and treatment but also for other chronic viral infections., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. The authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America 2022.)

Purpose of Review: Outline some regulatory considerations and scientific challenges related to the development of long-acting antiretrovirals (ARVs) for the treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection., Recent Findings: Poor adherence to oral ARV regimens continues to pose challenges for effective treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection. The development of long-acting ARV modalities for treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection is emerging as a promising alternative to the current treatment and prevention paradigm and has gained considerable interest., Summary: The development of long-acting ARVs can present some unique drug development challenges. Advance planning and prioritization of studies early in development can facilitate the development of long-acting ARVs for the prevention and treatment of HIV-1 infection for all populations, including pediatric patients and pregnant women.

: Product labels for cobicistat with atazanavir or darunavir, and for elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir (alafenamide or disoproxil fumarate) were recently updated to state that these products are not recommended for initiation during pregnancy, and an alternative regimen is recommended for those who become pregnant during therapy with these products. Herein, we present the rationale for these recommendations, which are based on studies in pregnant women evaluating the pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of darunavir/cobicistat or elvitegravir/cobicistat-containing antiretroviral regimens. In these studies, mean steady-state minimum concentrations in the second and third trimester versus postpartum of cobicistat, darunavir, and elvitegravir were reduced by 61-83%, 89-92%, and 82-86%, respectively. In the absence of data with atazanavir/cobicistat, we leveraged the available data with darunavir/cobicistat and elvitegravir/cobicistat to make recommendations for atazanavir/cobicistat. Darunavir/ritonavir and atazanavir/ritonavir remain viable treatment options for pregnant women.

Objectives: Literature reports regarding the efficacy of efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg with rifampin (RIF) are not consistent. Evaluation of a drug-drug interaction (DDI) study and supportive semi-mechanistic population pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses were undertaken to help delineate this issue., Design/methods: DDI study and supportive semi-mechanistic population PK analyses were provided by BMS. Population PK analysis was based on six studies with intensive EFV PK sampling. An ACTG study with sparse PK sampling was used for model evaluation. Simulations compared EFV exposure at various doses in combination with RIF to EFV exposures at 600 mg once daily (QD). Effects of CYP2B6 genotypes on the magnitude of EFV-RIF interaction were also explored., Results: In DDI study, co-administering EFV 600 mg QD and RIF reduced mean EFV exposure by ~ 30%. Population PK model provided acceptable predictive performance of central tendency and variability for EFV C0, Cmax, and AUC. Simulations predicted that increasing EFV to 800 mg QD with RIF would result in EFV AUC and Cmax similar to EFV 600 mg QD alone. EFV AUC and Cmax were ~ 2 times higher in subjects with reduced function CYP2B6 genotypes. However, the RIF effect was consistent across all genotypes. EFV dose adjustment to 800 mg QD did not increase the risk of overexposure compared to 600 mg EFV QD within each genotype., Conclusion: Dose adjustment based on matching systemic exposure was recommended to mitigate the potential for sub-therapeutic EFV exposures. Our review did not reveal any safety concerns in subjects receiving EFV 800 mg QD with RIF.

This report updates US Public Health Service recommendations for the management of healthcare personnel (HCP) who experience occupational exposure to blood and/or other body fluids that might contain human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Although the principles of exposure management remain unchanged, recommended HIV postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) regimens and the duration of HIV follow-up testing for exposed personnel have been updated. This report emphasizes the importance of primary prevention strategies, the prompt reporting and management of occupational exposures, adherence to recommended HIV PEP regimens when indicated for an exposure, expert consultation in management of exposures, follow-up of exposed HCP to improve adherence to PEP, and careful monitoring for adverse events related to treatment, as well as for virologic, immunologic, and serologic signs of infection. To ensure timely postexposure management and administration of HIV PEP, clinicians should consider occupational exposures as urgent medical concerns, and institutions should take steps to ensure that staff are aware of both the importance of and the institutional mechanisms available for reporting and seeking care for such exposures. The following is a summary of recommendations: (1) PEP is recommended when occupational exposures to HIV occur; (2) the HIV status of the exposure source patient should be determined, if possible, to guide need for HIV PEP; (3) PEP medication regimens should be started as soon as possible after occupational exposure to HIV, and they should be continued for a 4-week duration; (4) new recommendation-PEP medication regimens should contain 3 (or more) antiretroviral drugs (listed in Appendix A ) for all occupational exposures to HIV; (5) expert consultation is recommended for any occupational exposures to HIV and at a minimum for situations described in Box 1 ; (6) close follow-up for exposed personnel ( Box 2 ) should be provided that includes counseling, baseline and follow-up HIV testing, and monitoring for drug toxicity; follow-up appointments should begin within 72 hours of an HIV exposure; and (7) new recommendation-if a newer fourth-generation combination HIV p24 antigen-HIV antibody test is utilized for follow-up HIV testing of exposed HCP, HIV testing may be concluded 4 months after exposure ( Box 2 ); if a newer testing platform is not available, follow-up HIV testing is typically concluded 6 months after an HIV exposure.

Women are often underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT) of HIV-1 drugs. As a result, determining whether women have different virologic outcomes compared to men is not always possible because the gender-related analyses usually lack statistical power. To address this important public health concern, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Division of Antiviral Products (DAVP) created a database including 20,328 HIV-positive subjects from 40 RCTs in 18 New Drug Applications (NDAs) submitted to the FDA between 2000 and 2008. These RCTs were conducted for at least 48 weeks in duration and were used to support approval of new molecular entity, new formulation, or major label change. To delineate potential gender differences in antiretroviral treatment (ART), we evaluated the percentage of subjects with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per milliliter at 48 weeks. Analyses of the database represent the most systematic review of gender-related ART efficacy data to date. Overall, the meta-analyses did not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant gender differences in virologic outcome at week 48. However, the corresponding subgroup analyses appear to show several statistically significant gender differences favoring males.

Since the approval of Retrovir, (zidovudine, AZT) in 1987 by the Food and Drug Administration, a number of regulatory initiatives were codified into regulation which contributed to the rapid development of new treatments for HIV-1 infection. These initiatives are a testament to the efforts of AIDS activists and regulators to improve access to drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases. Currently, 28 antiretroviral drugs and combinations of antiretrovirals are available to treat HIV-1 infection. The broadening armamentarium of approved antiretroviral drugs provides new options and more choices for physicians and HIV patients. Importantly, the introduction of these newly approved HIV drugs has shown that the majority of HIV-1-infected treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients can achieve maximal virologic suppression (less than 50 copies/mL HIV-1 RNA). This article describes the past and current regulatory challenges in the development of new HIV treatments and provides an overview of the drug regulations that were required for the approval of HIV drugs. This article forms part of a special issue of Antiviral Research marking the 25th anniversary of antiretroviral drug discovery and development, Vol 85, issue 1, 2010., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Purpose of Review: To provide a regulatory perspective on developing new HIV protease inhibitors. The present review highlights the risks and benefits of certain design aspects for studies in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients, including timing of studies, study design options, choice of control arms, and duration of treatment., Recent Findings: The present review highlights published studies to illustrate the need for new therapies and highlights potential historical data to help design future HIV clinical trials better., Summary: New antiretroviral agents for patients with multidrug resistance, including safer, more convenient therapies without significant drug-drug interactions, are still needed for all patients. The goals of therapy have evolved and the expectation for treatment regimens is that the majority of patients, including treatment-experienced patients, will achieve undetectable HIV RNA. New study designs, particularly for treatment-experienced patients, are needed to help identify potential risks and benefits of new treatments.

Tipranavir (TPV), a protease inhibitor, has box warnings for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) and hepatotoxicity (including hepatic failure and death). A box warning is a labeling statement about serious adverse events leading to significant injury and/or death. A box warning is the most serious warning placed in the labeling of a prescription medication. As a result of the respective morbidity and mortality associated with ICH and hepatic failure, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) was searched for reports of these adverse events in HIV-infected patients receiving a tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r)-based regimen. This search comprised part of the FDA's safety analysis for traditional approval. From July 2006 to March 2007, 10 cases of ICH were identified in AERS. From June 2005 to March 2007, 12 cases of liver-associated deaths were identified. One patient experienced liver failure and fatal ICH. Most patients with these events had additional risk factors. Among patients with liver-associated deaths, 3 had HIV-RNA less than 400 copies per milliliter at the time of hepatic failure. Among 10 patients who discontinued TPV/r when hepatic failure developed, median number of days post-TPV/r to death was 23 (range, 2-69 days). Review of AERS did not identify new safety concerns regarding ICH. Among most patients with liver-associated deaths, death appears to occur soon after hepatic failure develops. If considering TPV/r, careful assessment of risk/benefit is suggested for patients at risk for ICH and hepatic failure.

Purpose of Review: To provide a regulatory perspective on the role of drug interaction information in the development of antiretroviral drugs. Additionally, this review highlights novel studies that provided important information for the safe and effective use of antiretroviral medications. The management of drug interactions in HIV therapy becomes more complex with the introduction of each new drug because many antiretroviral drugs are involved in multiple metabolic and transporter-based interactions. Therefore, a comprehensive preclinical evaluation to characterize a new drug's metabolic pathway(s) followed by in-vivo studies is critical for the safe use of combination antiretroviral therapy., Recent Findings: This review highlights published studies to illustrate several clinical and regulatory issues for in-vivo drug interaction studies such as general design issues, study-population selection, study-design options, use of historical controls and interpretation of results., Summary: Early identification of potential drug interactions can help identify and prioritize clinically important interaction studies essential to the overall development process. Understanding the clinical implications and management of drug interactions can lead to more effective long-term therapy, reduce toxicity, and delay the development of resistance.

One of the numerous regulatory functions of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the evaluation of drug-drug interactions and the determination of appropriate dose adjustments, if necessary, to ensure the safe and effective use of medications. The FDA considers several data sources when determining the significance of drug-drug interactions. The majority of dose adjustment recommendations are based on specific drug-drug interactions studies. The FDA reviews individual patient pharmacokinetic and safety data from drug interaction studies, determines appropriate dose adjustments, and provides recommendations to update the respective product labeling. Sometimes literature references are submitted to the FDA to support dosing recommendations. Determining an appropriate dose adjustment recommendation based on literature reports is a challenge for the FDA due to the lack of individual patient pharmacokinetic or safety data from these studies. Recently, the FDA encountered a challenging regulatory situation when evaluating literature reports to determine the appropriate dose of efavirenz and rifampin. Although numerous studies were found in the literature about this combination, a dosing recommendation cannot be concluded from the reported data. This article reviews the process the FDA used to evaluate literature to support potential dose adjustments for efavirenz when coadministered with rifampin and the challenges encountered during the process.

The risk of nephrolithiasis associated with atazanavir is not well characterized. The US Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System was searched for reports of nephrolithiasis in HIV-infected patients taking an atazanavir-based regimen. Thirty cases were identified. Many patients required hospitalization for management, including lithotripsy, ureteral stent insertion, or endoscopic stone removal. Some cases of nephrolithiasis resulted in atazanavir discontinuation. Healthcare professionals and patients should be informed that nephrolithiasis is a possible adverse event with atazanavir.

Objective: To assess the resistance profile of tipranavir., Methods: Resistance analyses were performed on Boëhringer Ingelheim-sponsored studies examining the safety and efficacy of tipranavir in highly treatment-experienced individuals at 24 weeks. Virologic response rates based on the presence of baseline primary protease inhibitor mutations and based on baseline tipranavir susceptibility were evaluated, and the development of protease mutations during treatment with tipranavir was analyzed., Results: Virologic response rates in tipranavir-treated individuals were reduced when isolates with substitutions at amino acid positions I13, V32, M36, I47, Q58, D60 V82 or I84 were present at baseline. In addition, virologic response rates to tipranavir decreased when the number of baseline protease inhibitor (PI) mutations was five or more. Individuals who received tipranavir without concomitant enfurvitide and had five or more baseline PI mutations group began to lose antiviral response between weeks 4 and 8. However, individuals taking enfuvirtide with tipranavir were able to achieve greater than 1.5 log10 reductions in viral load from baseline out to 24 weeks even if they had five or more baseline PI mutations. Virologic response rates to tipranavir decreased when the baseline phenotype for tipranavir had a greater than three-fold shift in the 50% effective concentration (EC50) from reference. The most common protease mutations that developed in tipranavir-treated individuals who experienced virologic failure were L10I/V/S, I13V, L33V/I/F, M36V/I/L V82T, V82L, and I84V. The resistance profile in treatment-naive individuals was not characterized., Conclusions: Baseline genotypic and phenotypic data provide valuable information on the likelihood of a virologic response to tipranavir.

Objectives: To assess the virologic response rates of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir based on baseline genotype and phenotype., Methods: Resistance analyses were performed on a Bristol-Myers Squibb-sponsored study comparing the safety and efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir to lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced subjects at 48 weeks. Analyses evaluated virologic response based on the presence of baseline primary protease inhibitor mutations and baseline susceptibility., Results: Less than 30% of atazanavir/ritonavir-treated patients were responders if substitutions at positions M46, G73, I84 or L90 were present in their HIV at baseline. In comparison, lopinavir/ritonavir response rates were less than 30% when protease substitutions at M46, I54, or I84 were present at baseline. The response rates were similar between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects with zero to four baseline protease inhibitor mutations, but response rates were reduced if five or more baseline mutations were present: 0% for atazanavir/ritonavir compared with 28% for lopinavir/ritonavir. Baseline phenotype results showed that response rates were similar between atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir if shifts in susceptibility were zero to five, but response rates were lower if shifts were greater than five; 11% for atazanavir/ritonavir compared with 27% for lopinavir/ritonavir., Conclusions: Both type and number of baseline protease inhibitor mutations affected virologic response to atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced subjects. In addition, baseline phenotypic susceptibility could differentiate virologic response rates to the two drugs. These resistance analyses provide information on the likelihood of a virologic response to antiretroviral drugs based on baseline genotypic and phenotypic data, which is valuable to physicians and patients when choosing antiretroviral regimens.

Objectives: To evaluate the utility of HIV RNA as an endpoint in antiretroviral efficacy studies., Design: Data collected from antiretroviral efficacy trials were analyzed to explore relationships between clinical progression and the magnitude, nadir and duration of HIV RNA reductions. The proportion of patients suppressing HIV RNA below assay quantification, time to maximal virologic response, and loss of virologic response in relation to pretreatment characteristics were also analyzed., Methods: Analyses were conducted using data from individual antiretoviral efficacy trials or groups of trials that studied similar types of drug regimens and used similar HIV RNA assays. Treatment regimens were pooled for most analyses. Clinical progression was defined as the occurrence of an AIDS-defining event (essentially Centers of Disease Control criteria) or death., Results: Treatment-induced reductions in HIV RNA approximating total assay variability of about 0.5 log10 copies/ml were associated with decreases in the risk of clinical progression. Larger and more sustained reductions in HIV RNA were directly associated with lower risks for disease progression. Lower initial HIV RNA reductions were associated with more durable HIV RNA suppression., Conclusions: For antiretoviral efficacy studies, plasma HIV RNA is a suitable study endpoint that is likely to predict a decreased risk for AIDS progression and death. Because greater and more sustained reductions in HIV RNA appear to confer greater reductions in clinical risk, maintaining maximal suppression of plasma HIV RNA, particularly below the limits of assay quantification, appears to be a rigorous benchmark for assessing the efficacy of antiretroviral regimens.

The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, adverse effects, drug interactions, and dosage and administration of protease inhibitors are reviewed. Protease inhibitors are a novel class of drugs used for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Saquinavir, ritonavir, indinavir, and nelfinavir have been approved in the United States; several other agents are under development. Protease inhibitors selectively block HIV protease, an enzyme involved in the later stages of HIV replication. Various pharmacokinetic differences exist among these agents, including differences in bioavailability, protein binding, and drug interactions. The drugs undergo extensive hepatic metabolism; dosage adjustments should be considered for patients with hepatic dysfunction. Clinical trials have shown protease inhibitors to be effective in reducing HIV RNA levels and increasing CD4+ lymphocyte counts. When protease inhibitors are used in combination with other antiretroviral agents, an additional beneficial effect on these markers occurs. Adverse effects of saquinavir and nelfinavir include mild gastrointestinal disturbances such as diarrhea. Ritonavir is less well tolerated because of gastrointestinal disturbances and circumoral and peripheral paresthesia. Indinavir has been associated with nephrolithiasis and asymptomatic hyperbilirubinemia. The development of resistance to protease inhibitors may be related to suboptimal dosages, noncompliance, or partial compliance. Protease inhibitors are potent and highly selective agents that block a critical step in HIV replication. They are effective and relatively well tolerated, but they are expensive, have extensive drug interaction profiles, and require careful compliance with the prescribed regimen.