Search

BackgroundThe central nervous system (CNS) is a likely reservoir of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), vulnerable to viral rebound, inflammation, and clinical changes upon stopping antiretroviral therapy (ART). It is critical to evaluate the CNS safety of studies using analytic treatment interruption (ATI) to assess HIV remission.MethodsThirty participants who started ART during acute HIV infection underwent CNS assessments across 4 ATI remission trials. ART resumption occurred with plasma viral load >1000 copies/mL. CNS measures included paired pre- vs post-ATI measures of mood, cognitive performance, and neurologic examination, with elective cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) sampling, brain diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS).ResultsMedian participant age was 30 years old and 29/30 were male. Participants’ median time on ART before ATI was 3 years, and ATI lasted a median of 35 days. Post-ATI, there were no differences in median mood scores or neurologic findings and cognitive performance improved modestly. During ATI, a low level of CSF HIV-1 RNA was detectable in 6 of 20 participants with plasma viremia, with no group changes in CSF immune activation markers or brain DTI measures. Mild worsening was identified in post-ATI basal ganglia total choline MRS, suggesting an alteration in neuronal membranes.ConclusionNo adverse CNS effects were observed with brief, closely monitored ATI in participants with acutely treated HIV, except an MRS alteration in basal ganglia choline. Further studies are needed to assess CNS ATI safety in HIV remission trials, particularly for studies using higher thresholds to restart ART and longer ATI durations.

We administered Ad26, modified vaccinia Ankara vectors containing mosaic HIV-1 antigens or placebo in 26 individuals who initiated antiretroviral therapy during acute human immunodeficiency virus infection as an exploratory study to determine the safety and duration of viremic control after treatment interruption. The vaccine was safe and generated robust immune responses, but delayed time to viral rebound compared to that in placebo recipients by only several days and did not lead to viremic control after treatment interruption (clinical trial NCT02919306).

BACKGROUND: Mosaic immunogens are bioinformatically engineered human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) sequences designed to elicit clade-independent coverage against globally circulating HIV-1 strains. METHODS: This phase 1, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial enrolled healthy HIV-uninfected adults who received 2 doses of a modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA)–vectored HIV-1 bivalent mosaic immunogen vaccine or placebo on days 0 and 84. Two groups were enrolled: those who were HIV-1 vaccine naive (n = 15) and those who had received an HIV-1 vaccine (Ad26.ENVA.01) 4–6 years earlier (n = 10). We performed prespecified blinded cellular and humoral immunogenicity analyses at days 0, 14, 28, 84, 98, 112, 168, 270, and 365. RESULTS: All 50 planned vaccinations were administered. Vaccination was safe and generally well tolerated. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Both cellular and humoral cross-clade immune responses were elicited after 1 or 2 vaccinations in all participants in the HIV-1 vaccine–naive group. Env-specific responses were induced after a single immunization in nearly all subjects who had previously received the prototype Ad26.ENVA.01 vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified, and multiclade HIV-1–specific immune responses were elicited. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02218125.

Summary Background More than 1·8 million new cases of HIV-1 infection were diagnosed worldwide in 2016. No licensed prophylactic HIV-1 vaccine exists. A major limitation to date has been the lack of direct comparability between clinical trials and preclinical studies. We aimed to evaluate mosaic adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26)-based HIV-1 vaccine candidates in parallel studies in humans and rhesus monkeys to define the optimal vaccine regimen to advance into clinical efficacy trials. Methods We conducted a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1/2a trial (APPROACH). Participants were recruited from 12 clinics in east Africa, South Africa, Thailand, and the USA. We included healthy, HIV-1-uninfected participants (aged 18–50 years) who were considered at low risk for HIV-1 infection. We randomly assigned participants to one of eight study groups, stratified by region. Participants and investigators were blinded to the treatment allocation throughout the study. We primed participants at weeks 0 and 12 with Ad26.Mos.HIV (5 × 10 10 viral particles per 0·5 mL) expressing mosaic HIV-1 envelope (Env)/Gag/Pol antigens and gave boosters at weeks 24 and 48 with Ad26.Mos.HIV or modified vaccinia Ankara (MVA; 10 8 plaque-forming units per 0·5 mL) vectors with or without high-dose (250 μg) or low-dose (50 μg) aluminium adjuvanted clade C Env gp140 protein. Those in the control group received 0·9% saline. All study interventions were administered intramuscularly. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability of the vaccine regimens and Env-specific binding antibody responses at week 28. Safety and immunogenicity were also assessed at week 52. All participants who received at least one vaccine dose or placebo were included in the safety analysis; immunogenicity was analysed using the per-protocol population. We also did a parallel study in rhesus monkeys (NHP 13-19) to assess the immunogenicity and protective efficacy of these vaccine regimens against a series of six repetitive, heterologous, intrarectal challenges with a rhesus peripheral blood mononuclear cell-derived challenge stock of simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV-SF162P3). The APPROACH trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02315703. Findings Between Feb 24, 2015, and Oct 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 393 participants to receive at least one dose of study vaccine or placebo in the APPROACH trial. All vaccine regimens demonstrated favourable safety and tolerability. The most commonly reported solicited local adverse event was mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site (varying from 69% to 88% between the different active groups vs 49% in the placebo group). Five (1%) of 393 participants reported at least one grade 3 adverse event considered related to the vaccines: abdominal pain and diarrhoea (in the same participant), increased aspartate aminotransferase, postural dizziness, back pain, and malaise. The mosaic Ad26/Ad26 plus high-dose gp140 boost vaccine was the most immunogenic in humans; it elicited Env-specific binding antibody responses (100%) and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis responses (80%) at week 52, and T-cell responses at week 50 (83%). We also randomly assigned 72 rhesus monkeys to receive one of five different vaccine regimens or placebo in the NHP 13-19 study. Ad26/Ad26 plus gp140 boost induced similar magnitude, durability, and phenotype of immune responses in rhesus monkeys as compared with humans and afforded 67% protection against acquisition of SHIV-SF162P3 infection (two-sided Fisher's exact test p=0·007). Env-specific ELISA and enzyme-linked immunospot assay responses were the principal immune correlates of protection against SHIV challenge in monkeys. Interpretation The mosaic Ad26/Ad26 plus gp140 HIV-1 vaccine induced comparable and robust immune responses in humans and rhesus monkeys, and it provided significant protection against repetitive heterologous SHIV challenges in rhesus monkeys. This vaccine concept is currently being evaluated in a phase 2b clinical efficacy study in sub-Saharan Africa (NCT03060629). Funding Janssen Vaccines & Prevention BV, National Institutes of Health, Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT and Harvard, Henry M Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, US Department of Defense, and International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.

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.

BACKGROUND: The protease inhibitor darunavir has been shown to be efficacious in highly treatment-experienced patients with HIV infection, but needs to be assessed in patients with a broader range of treatment experience. We did a randomised, controlled, phase III trial (TITAN) to compare 48-week efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir with that of lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive patients. METHODS: Patients received optimised background regimen plus non-blinded treatment with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority (95% CI lower limit for the difference in treatment response -12% or greater) for HIV RNA of less than 400 copies per mL in plasma at week 48 (per-protocol analysis). TITAN (TMC114-C214) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00110877. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients randomised and treated, 187 (31%) were protease inhibitor naive; 476 of 582 (82%) were susceptible to four or more protease inhibitors. At week 48, significantly more darunavir-ritonavir than lopinavir-ritonavir patients had HIV RNA of less than 400 copies per mL (77% [220 of 286] vs 68% [199 of 293]; estimated difference 9%, 95% CI 2-16). Fewer virological failures treated with darunavir-ritonavir than with lopinavir-ritonavir developed primary protease inhibitor mutations (21% [n=6] vs 36% [n=20]) and nucleoside analogue-associated mutations (14% [n=4] vs 27% [n=15]). Safety data were generally similar between the groups; grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 80 (27%) darunavir-ritonavir and 89 (30%) lopinavir-ritonavir patients. INTERPRETATION: In lopinavir-naive, treatment-experienced patients, darunavir-ritonavir was non-inferior to lopinavir-ritonavir treatment in terms of our virological endpoint, and should therefore be considered as a treatment option for this population. Udgivelsesdato: 2007

ODIN was a Phase IIIb, randomised, open-label trial showing non-inferiority of DRV/r 800/100mg qd vs 600/100mg bid (+ ≥2 NRTIs) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected adults with no DRV resistance-associated mutations at screening. We evaluated the effect of demographic and baseline (BL) disease parameters on virological response (VR) of qd vs bid DRV/r at Week 48. Supplement: Abstracts of the Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1758-2652-13-S4-info.pdf Conference: Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection 7-11 November 2010 Glasgow, UK (Published: 8 November 2010) doi:10.1186/1758-2652-13-S4-P25 Cite this article as: Sension et al.: Influence of demographic and disease parameters on virological response to once- vs twice-daily darunavir/ ritonavir (DRV/r) at week 48 in ODIN. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2010 13(Suppl 4):P25. Full text: PubMed Central: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113026/

Background: Cobicistat is an alternative pharmacoenhancer to ritonavir. In healthy volunteers, darunavir exposure was comparable when darunavir 800 mg once daily was co-administered with cobicistat 150 mg once daily (as single agents or a fixed-dose combination) vs. with ritonavir 100 mg once daily. Methods: This 48-week, Phase IIIb, single-arm, US multicenter study (NCT01440569) evaluated safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of darunavir/cobicistat 800/150 mg once daily (as single agents) plus two investigator-selected nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs) in HIV-1-infected adults. Patients had no darunavir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs), plasma viral load (VL) ≥1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml, eGFR ≥80 ml/min and genotypic sensitivity to the two N[t]RTIs. The primary endpoint was any treatment-emergent grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) through Week 24. Results: The majority of the 313 intent-to-treat patients were treatment-naive (295/313; 94%), male (89%), White (60%) and received a tenofovir-based regimen (99%). Median baseline VL and CD4 + count overall were 4.8 log10 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml and 361 cells/mm 3 , respectively. Overall, 86% of patients (268/313) completed the study. The majority of discontinuations were for AEs (15/313; 5%). The incidence of treatment-emergent grade 3 or 4 AEs regardless of causality was 6% through Week 24 and 8% through Week 48. Most common AEs through Week 48 were diarrhea (27%) and nausea (23%), which were grade 1 or 2 in severity. Week 48 virologic response rates (% with VL