Search

A retrospective analysis of the randomized controlled DART (Development of AntiRetroviral Therapy in Africa; ISRCTN13968779) trial in HIV-1-positive adults initiating antiretroviral therapy with co-formulated zidovudine/lamivudine plus either tenofovir, abacavir, or nevirapine was conducted to evaluate the safety of initiating standard lamivudine dosing in patients with impaired creatinine clearance (CLcr). Safety data collected through 96 weeks were analyzed after stratification by baseline CLcr (estimated using Cockcroft-Gault) of 30-49 mL/min (n = 168) versus ≥50 mL/min (n = 3,132) and treatment regimen. The Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (for hematological, hepatic and gastrointestinal events), maximal toxicities for liver enzymes, serum creatinine and bilirubin and maximum treatment-emergent hematology toxicities were comparable for groups with baseline CLcr 30-49 versus CLcr≥50 mL/min. No new risks or trends were identified from this dataset. Substantial and similar increases in the mean creatinine clearance (>25 mL/min) were observed from baseline though Week 96 among participants who entered the trial with CLcr 30-49 mL/min, while no increase or smaller median changes in creatinine clearance (<7 mL/min) were observed for participants who entered the trial with CLcr ≥50 mL/min. Substantial increases (> 150 cells/ mm3) in mean CD4+ cells counts from baseline to Week 96 were also observed for participants who entered the trial with CLcr 30-49 mL/min and those with baseline CLcr ≥50 mL/min. Though these results are descriptive, they suggest that HIV-positive patients with CLcr of 30-49 mL/min would have similar AE risks in comparison to patients with CLcr ≥50 mL/min when initiating antiretroviral therapy delivering doses of 300 mg of lamivudine daily through 96 weeks of treatment. Overall improvements in CLcr were observed for patients with baseline CLcr 30-49 mL/min., Competing Interests: We have the following interests: LLR, ART, CCM, AC, TP, and MSS are employees of ViiV Healthcare and own stock in GlaxoSmithKline. ASW discloses receiving grant funding for the DART trial from the UK Medical Research Council, the UK Department for International Development, and the Rockefeller Foundation; receiving nonfinancial support from ViiV Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, and Boehringer Ingelheim, all of which donated drugs for the DART trial; receiving funding from Gilead Sciences for teaching courses on Critical Appraisal; and receiving funding from Janssen for sitting on a Data Safety Monitoring Board. YL was an employee of PAREXEL International and owns stock in GlaxoSmithKline. DMG discloses nonfinancial support from GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, and Boehringer Ingelheim, all of which provided drugs for the DART trial, and nonfinancial support from Gilead, ViiV Healthcare, CIPLA, and Mylan, all of which donated drugs for HIV trials outside of the submitted work. JD is an employee of and owns stock in GlaxoSmithKline. CG, PM, GM, and CMK have nothing to disclose. HG discloses receiving funds in the form of a grant from MRC/UVRI Uganda Research Unit on AIDS, during which time HG was the Unit Director and drew a salary from MRC (UK) during the conduct of the study. JH and PNM have nothing to disclose. This retrospective analysis of data through 96 weeks from the DART trial was supported by ViiV Healthcare using data provided by the DART trial sponsors, the Medical Research Council of the United Kingdom. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated neurocognitive disorders can persist in many patients despite achieving viral suppression while on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Neurocognitive function over 48 weeks was evaluated using a Cogstate test battery assessing psychomotor function, attention, learning, and working memory in 293 HIV-1-infected, ART-experienced, and virologically suppressed adults. The ASSURE study randomized participants 1:2 to remain on tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) or simplify to abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir (ABC/3TC + ATV). Neurocognitive z-scores were computed using demographically adjusted normative data and were classified as "impaired" (defined as either a z-score ≤ - 2 or having 2 or more standardized individual test z-scores ≤ - 1); while higher scores (equaling better performance) were classified as "normal". By z-scores, 54.7% of participants had impaired neurocognition at baseline and 50.2% at week 48. There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) in the baseline-adjusted performance between treatment groups for any individual test or by z-score. Specific demographic and medical risk factors were evaluated by univariate analysis for impact on neurocognitive performance. Factors with p < 0.10 were evaluated by backwards regression analysis to identify neurocognition-correlated factors after accounting for treatment, assessment, and baseline. Four risk factors at baseline for impaired neurocognition were initially identified: lower CD4 nadir lymphocyte counts, higher Framingham risk scores, and interleukin-6 levels, and a history of psychiatric disorder not otherwise specified, however none were found to moderate the effect of treatment on neurocognition. In this aviremic, treatment-experienced population, baseline-adjusted neurocognitive function remained stable and equivalent over 48 weeks with both TDF/FTC + ATV/r-treated and in the ART-simplified ABC/3TC + ATV treatment groups.

Objective: Simplification of antiretroviral therapy in patients with suppressed viremia may minimize long-term adverse effects. The study's primary objective was to determine whether abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir (ABC/3TC+ATV) was virologically non-inferior to tenofovir/emtricitabine + atazanavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC+ATV/r) over 24 weeks in a population of virologically suppressed, HIV-1 infected patients., Design: This open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority study enrolled antiretroviral experienced, HIV-infected adults currently receiving a regimen of TDF/FTC+ATV/r for ≥ 6 months with no history of virologic failure and whose HIV-1 RNA had been ≤ 75 copies/mL on 2 consecutive measurements including screening. Patients were randomized 1 ∶ 2 to continue current treatment or simplify to ABC/3TC+ATV., Methods: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-RNA<50 copies/mL at Week 24 by the Time to Loss of Virologic Response (TLOVR) algorithm. Secondary endpoints included alternative measures of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and fasting lipids. Exploratory endpoints included inflammatory, coagulation, bone, and renal biomarkers., Results: After 24 weeks, ABC/3TC+ATV (n = 199) was non-inferior to TDF/FTC+ATV/r (n = 97) by both the primary analysis (87% in both groups) and all secondary efficacy analyses. Rates of grade 2-4 AEs were similar between the two groups (40% vs 37%, respectively), but an excess of hyperbilirubinemia made the rate of grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities higher in the TDF/FTC+ATV/r group (30%) compared with the ABC/3TC+ATV group (13%). Lipid levels were stable except for HDL cholesterol, which increased significantly in the ABC/3TC+ATV group. Bone and renal biomarkers improved significantly between baseline and Week 24 in patients taking ABC/3TC+ATV, and the difference between groups was significant at Week 24. No significant changes occurred in any inflammatory or coagulation biomarker within or between treatment groups., Conclusions: After 24 weeks, simplification to ABC/3TC+ATV from TDF/FTC+ATV/r maintained viral suppression was well-tolerated, and led to improvements in bone and renal biomarkers and HDL cholesterol., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01102972 GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Study Register #113734.

Propensity for developing coronary heart disease (CHD) is linked with Framingham-defined cardiovascular risk factors and elevated inflammatory biomarkers. Cardiovascular risk and inflammatory biomarkers were evaluated in ARIES, a Phase IIIb/IV clinical trial in which 515 antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected subjects initially received abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir/ritonavir for 36 weeks. Subjects who were virologically suppressed by week 30 were randomized 1:1 at week 36 to either maintain or discontinue ritonavir for an additional 108 weeks. Framingham 10-year CHD risk scores (FRS) and risk category of <6% or ≥6%, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were assessed at baseline, week 84, and week 144. Biomarkers were stratified by FRS category. When ritonavir-boosted/nonboosted treatment groups were combined, median hsCRP did not change significantly between baseline (1.6 mg/liter) and week 144 (1.4 mg/liter) in subjects with FRS <6% (p=0.535) or with FRS ≥6% (1.9 mg/liter vs. 2.0 mg/liter, respectively; p=0.102). Median IL-6 was similar for subjects with FRS <6% (p=0.267) at baseline (1.6 pg/ml) and week 144 (1.4 pg/ml) and for FRS ≥6% (2.0 pg/ml vs. 2.2 pg/ml, respectively; p=0.099). Median Lp-PLA(2) decreased significantly (p<0.001) between baseline (197 nmol/min/ml) and week 144 (168 nmol/min/ml) in subjects with FRS <6% and with FRS ≥6% (238 nmol/min/ml vs. 175 nmol/min/ml, respectively; p<0.001). In conclusion, in antiretroviral-naive subjects treated with abacavir-based therapy for 144 weeks, median inflammatory biomarker levels for hsCRP and IL-6 generally remained stable with no significant difference between baseline and week 144 for subjects with either FRS <6% or FRS ≥6%. Lp-PLA(2) median values declined significantly over 144 weeks for subjects in either FRS stratum.

Background: The open-label study ARIES (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00440947) utilized a ritonavir (/r)-boosted protease inhibitor treatment simplification strategy. Antiretroviral-naïve subjects received abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) + atazanavir/ ritonavir (ATV/r) from baseline through randomization at week 36, then maintained or discontinued ritonavir for an additional 108 weeks. Non-inferiority of the unboosted regimen was demonstrated at week 84. In this optional extension phase, virologic suppression and adverse events were assessed through week 144., Methods: Patients were randomized at week 36 if they had confirmed HIV RNA <50 copies/mL by week 30 and no previous virologic failure (VF; defined as failure to achieve HIV RNA <400 copies/mL or confirmed rebound after achieving HIV RNA ≥400 copies/mL). Three hundred sixty-nine subjects who completed 84 weeks in ARIES participated in the extension phase and maintained their randomized regimen for an additional 60 weeks post randomization., Results: At week 144, 146/189 (77%) versus 132/180 (73%) subjects in the unboosted ATV and ATV/r groups, respectively, maintained HIV RNA <50 copies/mL. Post randomization (weeks 36-144), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events were more common in the ATV/r-treated (23%) compared to the ATV-treated (13%) group; the most frequently reported was increased serum bilirubin (6% of ATV-treated subjects vs 14 % of ATV/r-treated subjects). During the extension phase, 3% (11/369) of subjects met protocol-defined VF (5 ATV-treated and 6 ATV/ r-treated subjects); one ATV/r-treated subject had treatment-emergent major viral resistance-associated mutations. The median change in fasting triglycerides from baseline to week 144 was significantly different (P=.001) in the ATV-treated (-8.5 mg/dL) compared to the ATV/r-treated (28.5 mg/dL) groups., Conclusions: These long-term study results demonstrate that ATV in combination with ABC/3TC is a potent, well-tolerated regimen in patients who have achieved initial suppression on a ritonavir-boosted regimen.

Purpose: The ARIES study assessed safety and efficacy of an induction regimen with atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/RTV) + abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) followed by simplification to ATV + ABC/3TC in antiretroviral-naïve patients., Methods: This report includes a noncomparative analysis of all patients in the induction phase of the ARIES study through 36 weeks (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00440947). This open-label study included 515 antiretroviral-naïve,HLA-B*5701-negative patients receiving a regimen of ATV 300 mg, RTV 100 mg, and ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg once daily for 36 weeks; eligible patients were then randomized to continue the induction regimen or simplify to ATV 400 mg plus ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg once daily., Results: Eighty-six percent (442/515) of patients completed 36 weeks on study; 80% (410/515) achieved HIV RNA <50 copies/mL (84% and 76% of patients with baseline HIV RNA of < and >or=100,000 copies/mL achieved this endpoint). Virologic failure (VF) was uncommon (3%); treatment-emergent major protease inhibitor and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutations were detected in 0/15 and 4/15 patients, respectively. Median CD4+ cell increase was 171 (range, -176 to 718) cells/mm(3). Hyperbilirubinemia (13%), diarrhea (4%), nausea (2%), and rash (2%) were the most frequent drug-related Grade 2-4 adverse events. Few adverse events (3%) led to study discontinuation., Conclusions: Induction with ATV/RTV + ABC/3TC once daily provides an efficacious and well-tolerated regimen for the initial treatment of HIV.

Study Objective: To evaluate the short-term (12 wks) safety and tolerability of a once-daily, fixed-dose abacavir-lamivudine combination versus twice-daily dosing of the separate components, both with background antiretroviral therapy., Design: Phase IIIB, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study., Setting: One hundred forty-six human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics., Patients: Six hundred eighty antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients with HIV type 1 RNA greater than 1000 copies/ml at baseline., Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to receive either abacavir 600 mg-lamivudine 300 mg once/day or abacavir 300 mg twice/day and lamivudine 150 mg twice/day. Subjects were stratified based on choice of third or fourth antiretroviral drug (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI], NNRTI, or protease inhibitor), assigned before randomization., Measurements and Main Results: The primary end point was occurrence of grades 2-4 adverse events and serious adverse events; abacavir hypersensitivity reactions were considered serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics were similar between the once-daily (455 patients) and twice-daily (225 patients) groups. The rates of all grades 2-4 adverse events were similar: once-daily 33% (150 patients), twice-daily 31% (69). A slightly larger proportion of patients in the twice-daily group experienced drug-related grades 2-4 adverse events: once-daily 10% (47), twice-daily 16% (36). Rates of all serious adverse events (once-daily 11% [49], twice-daily 10% [22]) and drug-related serious adverse events (once-daily 5% [21], twice-daily 8% [17]) were similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was 5.3% (once-daily 4.4% [20], twice-daily 7.1% [16]), with a higher rate for the NNRTI stratum of the twice-daily group (8.6% [10]) than in any other stratum (once-daily, NNRTI 4.3% [10]; twice-daily, protease inhibitor 5.6% [6]; once-daily, protease inhibitor 4.6% [10])., Conclusion: In the short-term, the rates of adverse events in the once-daily and twice-daily groups appeared to be similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction in the once-daily group was lower than the rate in the twice-daily group.

Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the efficacy and safety of the abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine fixed-dose combination tablet administered as two tablets once daily (qd) versus one tablet twice daily (bid) in combination with efavirenz (EFV)., Method: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter study with a 24-week treatment period in 7 outpatient HIV clinics in the United States. Patients currently receiving an initial regimen of abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV qd for at least 6 months with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for at least 3 months and a screening CD4+ cell count > or = 200 cells/mm3 were eligible. Thirty-six patients enrolled, and 35 (97%) completed the study. Participants were randomized to switch to 2 tablets of abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine qd plus EFV qd (QD arm) or continue current treatment (BID arm) for 24 weeks., Results: Efficacy, safety, and adherence were evaluated. Median baseline CD4+ cell count was 521 cells/mm3. At week 24, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL was achieved for 94% of participants in the QD arm and 89% in the BID arm by intent-to-treat, missing = failure analysis (95% confidence interval for difference: > or = 0.29 to +0.18, p = 1.000). At week 24, median CD4+ cell count change from baseline was +26 cells/mm3 for the QD arm and -39 cells/mm3 for BID arm. One patient randomized to the QD arm met virologic failure criteria (confirmed HIV-1 RNA >120 copies/mL) at week 20 and viral genotype showed M184V. After failure, this patient revealed he never took EFV throughout the entire study after randomization, effectively receiving only abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine qd alone. Median adherence was slightly higher in the QD arm, although both arms had broad variability and overlapping interquartile ranges. Adverse events were infrequent and occurred with similar frequency between arms; treatment-related adverse events were abdominal pain, flatulence, nausea, headache, and abnormal dreams (1 patient [3%] for each adverse event). No patients withdrew due to adverse events, and no abacavir hypersensitivity reactions were reported., Conclusion: In this pilot study of patients suppressed on abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV, 94% of participants switching to abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine qd plus EFV maintained virologic suppression, compared to 89% of participants continuing abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine bid plus EFV.

Background: Antiretroviral combinations that reduce the number of pills and dosing frequency have the potential to simplify therapy. We compared 2 regimens dosed as 2 pills once daily., Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, both administered once daily with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination in treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected subjects. After reports of early nonresponse, an unplanned interim analysis was performed. Virologic nonresponse was defined as (1) a <2.0-log(10) copies/mL decrease in HIV-1 RNA level by week 8, (2) an HIV-1 RNA rebound of > or =1.0 log(10) copies/mL above the nadir, or (3) for subjects with 2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA measurements <50 copies/mL, a subsequent increase to >400 copies/mL on 2 consecutive occasions., Results: We randomized 340 subjects. Median baseline HIV-1 RNA level and CD4+ cell count were 4.7 log(10) copies/mL and 251 cells/mm3, respectively; 194 subjects with HIV-1 RNA data from > or =8 weeks were included in the interim analysis. Virologic nonresponse occurred in 50 (49%) of 102 subjects in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm, compared with 5 (5%) of 92 of subjects in the efavirenz arm (P<.001). Within 12 weeks, viral genotypes for nonresponders in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm showed M184V or I/M/V mixtures in 40 (98%) of 41 subjects and K65R and M184V or mixtures in 22 (54%) of 41 subjects. The protocol was immediately amended to modify the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate arm. The efavirenz arm continued unchanged; after 48 weeks, 120 (71%) of 169 subjects achieved HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL., Conclusion: The tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/abacavir/lamivudine regimen resulted in an unexpected and unacceptably high rate of nonresponse and incidence of K65R and M184V/I. This 3-drug regimen should not be used.

Study Objective: To establish the clinical equivalence (noninferiority) of one tablet containing abacavir 300 mg-lamivudine 150 mg-zidovudine 300 mg (Trizivir) versus a tablet containing lamivudine 150 mg-zidovudine 300 mg (Combivir) given with one abacavir (ABC) 300-mg tablet, administered twice/day, in antiretroviral-experienced, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1-infected patients., Design: Randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter, formulation-switch study., Setting: Twenty seven outpatient treatment sites., Patients: Adults with HIV-1 RNA levels of 400 copies/ml or less and CD4+ cell counts above 200 cells/mm3 who had been treated for 16 weeks or more with highly active antiretroviral therapy containing Combivir-ABC., Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to Trizivir (97 patients) or Combivir-ABC (98) for 24 weeks., Measurements and Main Results: The primary study end point was the proportion of patients who maintained less than a 0.5-log10 increase from baseline in HIV-1 RNA (virologic success) through week 24. Clinical equivalence of the treatments was established if the 95.1% lower confidence limit (LCL) for the difference in proportion of virologic success with Trizivir minus Combivir-ABC was -0.12 or greater. Trizivir was clinically equivalent to Combivir-ABC. The intent-to-treat observed analysis at week 24 with Trizivir and Combivir-ABC showed a similar rate of virologic success (83% [80/97] and 77% [75/98], respectively, 95.1% LCL -0.026), of patients with HIV-1 RNA levels of 400 or fewer copies/ml (99% [82/83] and 93% [77/83], respectively, 95.1% LCL 0.021), and of patients with HIV-1 RNA levels of fewer than 50 copies/ml (89% [74/83] and 77% [64/83], respectively, 95.1% LCL 0.038). The intent-to-treat missing = failure analysis showed comparable results. Changes in CD4+ cell count from baseline, overall mean self-reported adherence (Trizivir 97%, Combivir-ABC 92%), and adverse events did not differ significantly between treatments. No ABC-related hypersensitivity reactions occurred., Conclusion: Trizivir was clinically equivalent to Combivir-ABC and may be substituted for the latter to simplify treatment and reduce pill burden.

Background: The presence of the HLA-B*57:01 allele in HIV-infected subjects is associated with a higher risk of abacavir-associated hypersensitivity reaction (ABC HSR). HLA-B*57:01 allele prevalence varies in different populations, but HLA-B*57:01 testing with immunological confirmation has had a negative predictive value for ABC HSR between 97 and 100%.Methods: In the ASSURE study (EPZ113734), the HLA-B*57:01 prevalence in virologically suppressed, antiretroviral treatment-experienced, HIV-infected subjects from the United States, including Puerto Rico, was assessed.Results: Three hundred eighty-five subjects were screened; 13 were HLA-B*57:01 positive and 372 were negative. Only HLA-B*57:01-negative, abacavir-naive subjects were eligible to enroll into the ASSURE trial. Eleven of the 13 subjects who possessed the HLA-B*57:01 allele were white, the other 2 were African-American. There was no geographic clustering of HLA-B*57:01-positive subjects, and the incidence correlated roughly with those states with the greatest numbers of subjects screened. Similarly, there was no statistically significant correlation between subjects who possessed or lacked the allele and age, gender, ethnicity or CD4+ T-cell numbers. The incidence of ABC HSR following abacavir initiation was also evaluated. Only 1 of 199 HLA-B*57:01-negative subjects (an African-American male) randomized to receive abacavir-containing treatment developed symptoms consistent with suspected ABC HSR; ABC HSR was not immunologically confirmed.Conclusions: These findings confirm the utility of HLA-B*57:01 allele testing to reduce the frequency of ABC HSR. The prevalence of HLA-B*57:01 positivity was higher in white than in African-American subjects. In HLA-B*57:01-negative subjects, suspected ABC HSR is very rare, but should lead to discontinuation of abacavir when ABC HSR cannot be definitively excluded from the differential diagnosis.Trial Registration: The ASSURE (EPZ113734) study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov registration on April 8th 2010 and the registration number is NCT01102972. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]