Search

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors for significant creatine kinase elevation in HIV-1-infected patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy.A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort involving all consecutive patients who were prescribed a raltegravir-containing antiretroviral regimen between June 2005 and December 2010.Significant creatine kinase elevation was defined as an elevation of at least 3-fold from the upper limit of normal (ULN) (grade 2, WHO classification) while receiving raltegravir. Blood analysis at each visit included at least creatine kinase, as well as plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count.There were 475 patients who had been exposed to raltegravir for a median of 11.5 (IQR 8.2-15.2) months. An increase of creatine kinase ≥ 3-fold ULN was detected in 53 (11.2%) patients, representing an incidence of 3.8/100 person-years. Symptoms were reported by seven patients (1.5%), they showed either grade 1 (n = 3) or 2 (n = 4) creatine kinase increases. The median duration of raltegravir therapy before creatine kinase elevation was 5.9 (IQR 3.3-9.3) months. Evidence of creatine kinase elevation prior to raltegravir therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 3.30; 95% CI 1.59 ± 6.86; P = 0.001], abnormal baseline creatine kinase (HR 3.24; 95% CI 1.63 ± 6.45; P = 0.001) and male gender (HR 4.17; 95% CI 1.33 ± 1.27; P = 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for creatine kinase elevation during raltegravir treatment.Although ≈ 1 in 10 patients on raltegravir therapy developed significant creatine kinase elevation as defined in this study, symptoms were uncommon, not severe and occurred in patients with easily identifiable risk factors.

Background To investigate the safety and immunogenicity of a modified vaccinia virus Ankara vector expressing HIV-1 antigens from clade B (MVA-B), a phase-I, doubled-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed. Methods 30 HIV-uninfected volunteers at low risk of HIV-1 infection were randomly allocated to receive 3 intramuscular injections (1 × 108 pfu/dose) of MVA-B (n = 24) or placebo (n = 6) at weeks 0, 4 and 16. All volunteers were followed 48 weeks. Primary end-points were adverse events and immunogenicity. Results A total of 169 adverse events were reported, 164 of grade 1–2, and 5 of grade 3 (none related to vaccination). Overall 75% of the volunteers showed positive ELISPOT responses at any time point. The magnitude (median) of the total responses induced was 288 SFC/106 PBMC at week 18. Antibody responses against Env were observed in 95% and 72% of vaccinees at week 18 and 48, respectively. HIV-1 neutralizing antibodies were detected in 33% of volunteers. Conclusions MVA-B was safe, well tolerated and elicited strong and durable T-cell and antibody responses in 75% and 95% of volunteers, respectively. These data support further exploration of MVA-B as an HIV-1 vaccine candidate. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT00679497.

Objective: To assess the effects of initiating abacavir-containing therapy on plasma lipids and cardiovascular biomarkers. Design: Sub-study of the BICOMBO study in which participants were randomized to switch their nucleoside backbone to either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine. Methods: We assessed 48-week changes in fasting lipids and several biomarkers including serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), osteoprotegerin, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), vascular adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1), selectin E and P, adiponectin, insulin, and D-dimer in otherwise healthy, virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients randomly switched to abacavir/ lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with no history of cardiovascular disease, no prior abacavir or tenofovir use, and no virological failure or AIDS during follow-up. Results: Eighty (46 abacavir/lamivudine and 34 tenofovir/emtricitabine) patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups and between patients in the sub-study vs. those not. There were no significant differences in baseline lipids and markers between groups. Although total (6.5 vs. -6.7%, P < 0.0001) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (8.6 vs. -9.1%, P=0.004) cholesterol increased significantly in the abacavir/lamivudine group relative to the tenofovir/emtricitabine group, we found no significant changes in the biomarkers: CRP (-3.9 vs. 0.0%), MCP-1 (5.9 vs. 4.0%), osteoprotegerin (5.1 vs. -2.8%), IL-6 (0.0 vs. 0.0%), IL-10 (0.0 vs. 0.0%), TNF-alpha (0.0 vs. 0.0%), ICAM-1 (6.6 vs. 5.2%), VCAM-1 (0.02 vs. -0.01 %), selectin E (-0.4 vs. 7.8%), selectin P (4.6 vs. 12.6%), insulin (-2.5 vs. 8.8%), adiponectin (-2.2 vs. 15.4%), and D-dimer (0.0 vs. 0.0%) (P≥0.12 for all comparisons). Conclusion: Abacavir/lamivudine increased total and LDL cholesterol compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine, but it did not cause inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, insulin resistance, or hypercoagulability in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients.

Background The use of HAART combining 2 nucleoside analogues reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus one protease inhibitor (PI) or 2 NRTIs + 1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) has shown comparable efficacy. The study was designed to compare long term (2 years) effectiveness of two antiretroviral (ARV) treatment strategies in patients not previously treated: starting with a nelfinavir based HAART switching to nevirapine in case of failure or side effects or the reverse sequence. Methods This multicenter, randomized, open label clinical trial enrolled ARV-naive HIV patients with CD4 counts below 500 cells/mm3. They were randomly assigned to start ddI + d4T + nelfinavir (switching to ZDV + 3TC + NEV in case of failure or toxicity) (PI-NEV arm) or ddI + d4T + nevirapine, switching to ZDV + 3TC + NFV in case of failure or toxicity (NEV-PI arm). The primary study endpoint was the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the time to failure after switching to second regimen if necessary (considering failure as two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA determinations above 200 copies/mL, death, a new category C event or toxicity leading to treatment discontinuation of the second regimen) after a minimum follow-up of two years. Results A total of 137 patients were evaluable (67 and 70 in the PI-NEV and NEV-PI arms respectively). Baseline characteristics did not differ among groups. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to failure did not show differences between the two arms neither in the on-treatment (OT) analysis (log rank test, p = 0.81) nor in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (p = 0.58). At 24 months, the estimated proportion of patients free of failure were 72% and 66% respectively in the PI-NEV and NEV-PI arms OT analysis (p = 0.54) and 73% and 64% in the PI-NEV and NEV-PI arms in the ITT analysis (p = 0.49). The difference in the median in CD4+ lymphocyte count at 24 months was not significantly different in the two groups: 393 and307 CD4 cells/mm3 in the PI-NEV and NEV-PI arms respectively (p = 0.167). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) in the two arms was very similar: 50 (75%) in the PI-NEV and 54 (70%) in the NEV-PI group, as it was for grade 3-4 AEs leading to drug switching. Conclusion At two years both treatments strategies (PI-NEV vs NEV-PI) had a high and comparable efficacy and were generally well tolerated.

Background & Aims The combination of β-blockers and band ligation is the standard approach to prevent variceal rebleeding, but bleeding recurs and mortality is high. The lipid-lowering drug simvastatin decreases portal pressure, improves hepatocellular function, and might reduce liver fibrosis. We assessed whether adding simvastatin to standard therapy could reduce rebleeding and death after variceal bleeding in patients with cirrhosis. Methods We performed a multicenter, double-blind, parallel trial of 158 patients with cirrhosis receiving standard prophylaxis to prevent rebleeding (a β-blocker and band ligation) in Spain from October 2010 through October 2013. Within 10 days of bleeding, subjects were randomly assigned, but stratified by Child-Pugh class of A or B vs C, to groups given simvastatin (20 mg/d the first 15 days, 40 mg/d thereafter; n = 69) or placebo (n = 78). Patients were followed for as long as 24 months. The primary end point was a composite of rebleeding and death, and main secondary end points were the individual components of the composite (death and rebleeding). Results The primary end point was met by 30 of 78 patients in the placebo group and 22 of 69 in the simvastatin group ( P = .423). Seventeen patients in the placebo group died (22%) vs 6 patients in the simvastatin group (9%) (hazard ratio for adding simvastatin to therapy = 0.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.15–0.99; P = .030). Simvastatin did not increase survival of patients with Child-Pugh class C cirrhosis. Rebleeding occurred in 28% of patients in the placebo group and 25% in the simvastatin group ( P = .583). Serious adverse events occurred in 53% of patients in the placebo group and 49% in the simvastatin group ( P = .752); the percentages of serious adverse events related to therapy were 11% in the placebo group vs 8% in the in the simvastatin group ( P = .599). Two patients in the simvastatin group, each with advanced liver disease, developed rhabdomyolysis. Conclusions In a randomized controlled trial, addition of simvastatin to standard therapy did not reduce rebleeding, but was associated with a survival benefit for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis. Survival was not the primary end point of the study, so these results require validation. The incidence of rhabdomyolysis in patients receiving 40 mg/d simvastatin was higher than expected. European Clinical Trial Database ID: EUDRACT 2009-016500-24; ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01095185.

The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone.We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272.One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study.PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

OBJECTIVES The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. METHODS We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. RESULTS One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n = 237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n = 89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n = 51) versus maraviroc 32% (n = 38), P = 0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 182). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P = 0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P = 0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P = 0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting.

This article has been accepted for publication in Clinical Infectious Diseases ©2014 The Authors .Published by Oxford University Press on Clinical Infectious Disease 60.5. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu898, Background. It is unclear whether metabolic or body composition effects may differ between protease inhibitor-based regimens recommended for initial treatment of HIV infection. Methods. ATADAR is a phase IV, open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial. Stable antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults were randomly assigned to atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg or darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine daily. Pre-defined end-points were treatment or virological failure, drug discontinuation due to adverse effects, and laboratory and body composition changes at 96 weeks. Results. At 96 weeks, 56 (62%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 62 (71%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of treatment failure (estimated difference 8.2%; 95%CI -0.6 to 21.6); and 71 (79%) atazanavir/ritonavir and 75 (85%) darunavir/ritonavir patients remained free of virological failure (estimated difference 6.3%; 95%CI -0.5 to 17.6). Seven vs. five patients discontinued atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir due to adverse effects. Total and HDL cholesterol similarly increased in both arms, but triglycerides increased more in atazanavir/ritonavir arm. At 96 weeks, body fat (estimated difference 2862.2 gr; 95%CI 726.7 to 4997.7; P=0.0090), limb fat (estimated difference 1403.3 gr; 95%CI 388.4 to 2418.2; P=0.0071), and subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue (estimated difference 28.4 cm2; 95%CI 1.9 to 55.0; P=0.0362) increased more in atazanavir/ritonavir than in darunavir/ritonavir arm. Body fat changes in atazanavir/ritonavir arm were associated with higher insulin resistance. Conclusions. We found no major differences between atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir in efficacy, clinically-relevant side effects, or plasma cholesterol fractions. However, atazanavir/ritonavir led to higher triglycerides and total and subcutaneous fat than darunavir/ritonavir and fat gains with atazanavir/ritonavir were associated with insulin resistance, This is an Investigator Sponsored Research study. It was supported in part by research grants from Bristol‐Myers Squibb and Janssen‐Cilag; Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI12/01217) and Red Temática Cooperativa de Investigación en SIDA G03/173 (RIS‐EST11), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain. (Registration number: NCT01274780; registry name: ATADAR; EUDRACT; 2010‐021002‐38).

ObjectivesThe safety, immunogenicity, impact on the latent reservoir and rebound of viral load after therapeutic HIV-1 vaccination with recombinant modified vaccinia Ankara-based (MVA-B) HIV-1 vaccine expressing monomeric gp120 and the fused Gag-Pol-Nef polyprotein of clade B with or without a drug to reactivate latent HIV-1 (disulfiram) were assessed.MethodsHIV-1-infected patients were randomized to receive three injections of MVA-B (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10). Twelve patients (eight who received vaccine and four who were given placebo) received a fourth dose of MVA-B followed by 3 months of disulfiram. Combined ART (cART) was discontinued 8 weeks after the last dose of MVA-B. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01571466.ResultsMVA-B was safe and well tolerated. A minor, but significant, increase in the T cell responses targeting vaccine inserts of Gag was observed [a median of 290, 403 and 435 spot-forming-cells/106 PBMCs at baseline, after two vaccinations and after three vaccinations, respectively; P = 0.02 and P = 0.04]. After interruption of cART, a modest delay in the rebound of the plasma viral load in participants receiving vaccine but not disulfiram was observed compared with placebo recipients (P = 0.01). The dynamics of the viral load rebound did not change in patients receiving MVA-B/disulfiram. No changes in the proviral reservoir were observed after disulfiram treatment.ConclusionsMVA-B vaccination was a safe strategy to increase Gag-specific T cell responses in chronically HIV-1-infected individuals, but it did not have a major impact on the latent reservoir or the rebound of plasma viral load after interruption of cART when given alone or in combination with disulfiram.

Dear Editor, One of the limitations in conducting phase 1 preventive HIV vaccine trials in a resource-rich country is the difficulty in recruiting volunteers. There are currently 34 million people living with HIV and each year 2.7 million people become newly infected and 1.8 million people die of AIDS. Preventive HIV vaccine investigation is a critical path in developing a long-term strategy to control the worldwide HIV epidemic. Research efforts over the last two decades to develop a preventive HIV vaccine have showed that this is a particularly difficult objective. To date, over 200 phase 1–3 HIV vaccine trials have been conducted or are ongoing but only 3 have reached phase 3. Only one HIV vaccine in a phase 3 study demonstrated a modest efficacy when compared with placebo. Therefore, multiple trials are needed to find an effective HIV vaccine and greater efforts for any promising immunogen to reach phase 1 clinical trials has been proposed. It is estimated that over 35,000 volunteers will be required per year for phase 1–3 HIV vaccine trials worldwide to achieve this goal. Several studies have focused on the hypothetical willingness-to-participate or enrollment efficiency and have identified the most frequent reasons cited for declining HIV trial enrollment. Despite the growing literature on this issue, there are few data on barriers to participation in low risk volunteers willing to participate in phase 1 preventive HIV vaccine. The first phase 1 HIV vaccine clinical trial conducted in Spain, RISVAC-02, needed to recruit 30 HIV-uninfected volunteers in Spain. RISVAC-02 was a double-blinded, randomized placebocontrolled phase 1 HIV vaccine trial conducted in two Spanish clinical centers in Madrid and Barcelona. The study was approved by the institutional ethical review board and by the Spanish Regulatory Authorities. Details of the design of the study are published elsewhere. Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 55 years, being at low risk of HIV-1 infection, agreeing to use an effective method of contraception from 14 days prior to the first vaccination until 4 months after the last immunization, and consent to HIV and sexually transmitted disease (STD) testing. The exclusion criteria were pregnancy or lactation, serious clinical problems, receiving a live attenuated vaccine 60 days before or any vaccine 14 days before screening, receiving any blood product or gamma-globulins 4 months before screening, participating in any other clinical trial 30 days before enrollment, history of several local or systemic vaccine reactions, and HIV/hepatitis B virus (HBV)/ hepatitis C virus (HCV)/syphilis infection. We analyzed demographics, recruitment source, sexuality, motivation to participate, or discontinuation of all healthy volunteers from the first contact with us to the baseline RISVAC-02 study. Different strategies and various approaches for recruitment of potential volunteers were used. Advertisements in mass media such as national and local newspapers, medical journals, HIV-related magazines, and TV interviews were conducted. E-mails were sent to different organizations: HIV/ AIDS NGOs, gay community associations, universities, hospitals, and others social networks. Informative posters were distributed in the cities of Madrid and Barcelona. Individuals who responded and provided a telephone number or an e-mail address were contacted and given further information. If they were interested we invited them to participate in a prescreening interview were they answered a survey that was conducted by trained nursing staff in a personal interview. Demographics, clinical history, lifestyle and risk factors, how they found out about the study and reasons for participating were obtained through an open/closed-ended questionnaire. If individuals were eligible and interested in participating, they were booked for a screening appointment. Informed consent was obtained from all the subjects. Those patients who agreed and fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled. SPSS version 17 (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) was used for analysis. Descriptive statistics and cross-tabulations were generated for all the variables of interest. Continuous variables were compared between groups with the Student’s t test or the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared between groups with the v or Fisher’s exact tests. p value of £ 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 356 volunteers who responded to our campaign and sent a telephone number or an e-mail address were contacted and invited to a first interview. Seventy-five subjects

There are few clinical data on the combination abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir. We compared the outcomes of patients from the SPIRAL trial receiving either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine at baseline who had taken at least one dose of either raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. For the purpose of this analysis, treatment failure was defined as virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/ml) or discontinuation of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events, consent withdrawal, or lost to follow-up. There were 143 (72.59%) patients with tenofovir/emtricitabine and 54 (27.41%) with abacavir/lamivudine. In the raltegravir group, there were three (11.11%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and eight (10.96%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference 0.15%; 95% CI -17.90 to 11.6). In the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group, there were four (14.81%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and 12 (17.14%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference -2.33%; 95% CI -16.10 to 16.70). Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased through the study more pronouncedly with abacavir/lamivudine than with tenofovir/emtricitabine and differences in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio between both combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tended to be higher in the raltegravir group, although differences at 48 weeks were not significant. While no patient discontinued abacavir/lamivudine due to adverse events, four (2.80%) patients (all in the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group) discontinued tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events (p=0.2744). The results of this analysis do not suggest that outcomes of abacavir/lamivudine are worse than those of tenofovir/emtricitabine when combined with raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults.