Metabolic, mitochondrial, renal and hepatic safety of enfuvirtide and raltegravir antiretroviral administration: Randomized crossover clinical trial in healthy volunteers.

CONTEXT: Classical antiretroviral agents may acutely impact on metabolic, mitochondrial, renal and hepatic function in HIV-infected and uninfected persons. Fusion and integrase inhibitors are supposed to be safer, but have been scarcely investigated. To avoid any interference with HIV or other antiretrovirals, we assessed markers of these toxicities in healthy adult volunteers treated with Enfuvirtide (T20) or Raltegravir (RAL). METHODS: Twenty-six healthy participants were randomized to T20/90mg vs. placebo (n = 12) or RAL/400mg vs. placebo (n = 14) every 12h in two 7-day periods separated by a 4-week washout period. Major end-points were changes in lipid profile (total cholesterol, high-density-lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, low-density-lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, triglycerides), insulin resistance (glucose) and mitochondrial toxicity (mitochondrial DNA content-mtDNA-in peripheral blood mononuclear cells). Renal and hepatic toxicity (creatinine, alanine transaminase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), bilirubin and total plasma proteins) and overall safety were also analysed. Effect of period, treatment, and basal measures were evaluated for each end-point. RESULTS: Neither T20-administration nor RAL-administration yielded to any statistic significant change in the markers of metabolic, mitochondrial, renal or hepatic toxicity assessed. No symptoms indicative of drug toxicity were neither found in any subject. CONCLUSIONS: In absence of HIV infection, or concomitant treatment, short-term exposure to T20 or RAL in healthy adult volunteers did not lead to any indicative changes in toxicity markers thus presuming the safe profile of both drugs.

Pharmacogenetic study focused on fluoxetine pharmacodynamics in children and adolescent patients: impact of the serotonin pathway.

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacogenetic studies of fluoxetine in children and adolescents are scarce. After reporting the effect of genetic variants in genes related to the fluoxetine pharmacokinetics on clinical response in a pediatric population, we now evaluate the impact of genetic markers involved in its pharmacodynamics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The assessment was performed in 83 patients after 12 weeks of fluoxetine treatment. The genetic association analysis included a total of 316 validated single nucleotide polymorphisms in 45 candidate genes involved in six different pathways. RESULTS: Clinical improvement after treatment with fluoxetine in our pediatric population was associated significantly with two polymorphisms located in genes related to the serotonergic system: the 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 1B (HTR1B) and the tryptophan 5-hydroxylase 2 (TPH2). CONCLUSION: Although a wide range of candidate genes related to different pathways were assessed, the results show that genetic markers directly related to serotonin have an important effect on fluoxetine response.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus raltegravir each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing two regimens. METHODS: A prospective, open, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV were randomized to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or raltegravir (400 mg). 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: NCT01576731. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-twenty-one individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 122 to raltegravir (n = 243). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 43% with no significant difference between arms. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 191). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm than in the raltegravir arm (34.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.04), as was the number of patients lost to follow-up at day 28 (32.6% versus 21.6%, P = 0.08) and the proportion of patients with low adherence (49.2% versus 30.8%, P = 0.03). Adverse events were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (73.4% versus 60.2%, P = 0.007). There was an HIV seroconversion at day 90 in the raltegravir arm in a patient who had multiple potential sexual risk exposures before and after receiving PEP. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found no differences between arms regarding PEP non-completion, poor adherence and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data support the use of raltegravir as the preferred third drug in current PEP recommendations.

A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

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.

A simplification trial switching from nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors to once-daily fixed-dose abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in HIV-1-infected patients with virological suppression.

BACKGROUND: Data comparing abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive patients are controversial. We compared 48-week efficacy and safety of these combinations as substitutes of nucleosides in patients with virological suppression. METHODS: We randomly assigned 333 HIV-1-infected patients on lamivudine-containing triple regimens with <200 copies per milliliter for at least 6 months to switch their nucleosides to either abacavir/lamivudine (n = 167) or tenofovir/emtricitabine (n = 166). The primary outcome was treatment failure ["switching = failure" intention to treat (ITT) analysis, noninferiority margin 12.5%]. Secondary outcomes were time to treatment failure, virological failure, adverse events, and changes in CD4 count, fasting plasma lipids, lipodystrophy, body fat, bone mineral density, and renal function. RESULTS: Treatment failure occurred in 32 patients (19%) on abacavir/lamivudine and 22 patients (13%) on tenofovir/emtricitabine [difference 5.9%; (95% confidence interval -2.1% to 14.0%), P = 0.06]. Four patients in the abacavir/lamivudine group versus none in the tenofovir/emtricitabine group developed virological failure [difference 2.4; (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 6.0), P = 0.04]. Twenty-three patients (14%) assigned to abacavir/lamivudine and 10 (6%) to tenofovir/lamivudine experienced grade 3 or 4 adverse effects (P = 0.03). CD4 counts and plasma lipids showed higher increments in the abacavir/lamivudine group than in the tenofovir/emtricitabine group. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-1-infected patients with virological suppression, abacavir/lamivudine did not meet the noninferiority outcome for treatment efficacy compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine.

The impact of reducing stavudine dose versus switching to tenofovir on plasma lipids, body composition and mitochondrial function in HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: Stavudine (d4T)-containing regimens are associated with a potential for lipoatrophy and dyslipidaemia. We assessed the safety and efficacy of reducing the dose of stavudine compared with switching to tenofovir or maintaining the standard dose of d4T. METHODS: Clinically stable HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy containing stavudine 40 mg twice daily with a plasma HIV RNA < 200 copies/ml for at least 6 months were randomized to maintain stavudine 40 mg twice daily (d4T40 arm), to reduce to 30 mg twice daily (d4T30 arm), or to switch from d4T to tenofovir (TDF arm). RESULTS: Fifty-eight (93% male) patients were included: 22 in the d4T40 arm, 19 in the d4T30 arm and 17 in TDF arm. At baseline, median time on d4T was 6 years (interquartile range [IQR] 2.6-7.1), median age 43 years (IQR 36-51) and median CD4+ T-cell count was 587/mm3 (IQR 329-892). At week 24, median limb fat changes (g) were as follows: d4T40 = -182 (95% CI: -469- -5); d4T30 = 527 (95% CI: -343-694); and TDF = 402 (95% CI: 130-835; d4T40 versus TDF, P = 0.0003). Significant differences between median values of laboratory parameters were detected: triglycerides (mg/dl): d4T40 = 19; d4T30 = -23 and TDF = -79 (d4T40 versus TDF, P = 0.03); and total cholesterol (mg/dl): d4t40 = 22, d4T30 = -4, and TDF = -28 (d4T40 versus TDF, P = 0.04). No significant difference was observed in mitochondrial function assessed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. CONCLUSIONS: Although both strategies were associated with a trend toward a decrease in plasma lipids and an increase in body fat, the only significant changes were observed among those who switched to tenofovir.

Health-related quality of life in HIV patients switching to twice-daily indinavir/ritonavir regimen or continuing with three-times-daily indinavir-based therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) changes in patients treated with indinavir three-times daily after switching to a twice-daily indinavir/ritonavir regimen or continuing with the same regimen. METHODS: Patients on HAART including indinavir three-times-daily with undetectable viral load were randomly assigned to continue with this therapy or to change to a twice-daily indinavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) regimen. The Medical Outcomes Study HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV) questionnaire was used as the HRQoL measure. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients participated in the study, of which 59 (50%) were randomly assigned to continue with the three-times-daily regimen. Patients had a mean age of 39 years and 80% of them were male. At baseline, subjects included in the three-times-daily group presented a significantly greater number of symptoms than subjects in the twice-daily group, but no statistically significant differences were observed in MOS-HIV scores between the groups. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, a reduction in HRQoL scores was observed in both groups, which was greater in the twice-daily group. In the per protocol analysis, reduction of HRQoL was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: A HRQoL deterioration, greater in the twice-daily group, was observed in this study in the ITT analysis, while HRQoL remained stable in both groups in patients who continued with and tolerated the allocated regimen.