Phase I/II trial of the anti-HIV activity of mifepristone in HIV-infected subjects ACTG 5200.

BACKGROUND: Mifepristone is a glucocorticoid receptor inhibitor shown in vitro to have anti-HIV activity and anti-simian immunodeficiency virus activity in a macaque model. A phase I/II trial was performed to assess the drug's safety and anti-HIV activity. METHODS: A 28-day double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of mifepristone at doses of 75 mg, 150 mg, and 225 mg given daily was conducted in HIV+ persons with CD4+ lymphocyte counts >or=350 cells per cubic millimeter who had no recent antiretroviral therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-six male and 1 female subjects with a median entry CD4+ lymphocyte count of 555 cells per cubic millimeter and plasma HIV-1 RNA of 15,623 copies per milliliter were accrued. Forty-five subjects (78.9%) were available for endpoint analysis. In each arm, changes from baseline to day 28 in plasma HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ lymphocyte count were not significantly different from zero (no change). There was no relationship between mifepristone trough concentrations and plasma HIV-1 RNA. Day 28 morning plasma cortisol levels were significantly higher in the 150 mg and 225 mg arms compared with placebo, confirming biologic activity, and returned to baseline by day 56. Serum lipids did not change during the trial. Fasting blood sugar was 2.5 mg/dL higher on day 28 in the mifepristone arms, but the Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) did not change. Three subjects (7.3%) receiving mifepristone developed a grade 2 rash. CONCLUSIONS: Mifepristone at doses of 75-225 mg daily was safe and well-tolerated, but did not show significant anti-HIV activity.

Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs. METHODS: In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy: efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir-ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir group), and lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group). We randomly assigned 757 patients with a median CD4 count of 191 cells per cubic millimeter and a median HIV-1 RNA level of 4.8 log10 copies per milliliter to the three groups. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 112 weeks, the time to virologic failure was longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not significantly different in the NRTI-sparing group from the time in either of the other two groups. At week 96, the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA per milliliter was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing group (P=0.003 for the comparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir-ritonavir group). The groups did not differ significantly in the time to discontinuation because of toxic effects. At virologic failure, antiretroviral resistance mutations were more frequent in the NRTI-sparing group than in the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Virologic failure was less likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group. The virologic efficacy of the NRTI-sparing regimen was similar to that of the efavirenz regimen but was more likely to be associated with drug resistance. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy on viral burden in the lungs of HIV-infected subjects.

BACKGROUND: Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is readily detectable in the lungs of infected subjects and leads to an accumulation of CD8(+) lymphocytes in the alveolar space. Although highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is effective in reducing viremia, less is known about its effect on tissue compartments. The AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 723 Team evaluated the effect of HAART on lung viral load and cellular constituents. METHODS: Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid and blood were collected before initiation of HAART and again at 4 and 24 weeks after initiation of therapy. The BAL cell differential was determined, lymphocyte phenotyping was performed, and acellular BAL fluid, plasma HIV RNA load, and BAL cell and peripheral blood mononuclear cell HIV RNA and DNA loads were measured. RESULTS: HAART induced a rapid decrease in HIV that was detectable in acellular BAL fluid and a slower decrease in the HIV RNA and DNA loads in BAL cells. HAART was associated with a significant decrease in the absolute number and percentage of CD8(+) alveolar lymphocytes. There was a significant correlation between residual BAL cell DNA at 24 weeks and the absolute number of CD4(+) lymphocytes in the alveolar space. CONCLUSION: HAART is associated with a significant decrease in the pulmonary HIV burden and a return of alveolar cellular constituents to normal.

Switching to a protease inhibitor-containing, nucleoside-sparing regimen (lopinavir/ritonavir plus efavirenz) increases limb fat but raises serum lipid levels: results of a prospective randomized trial (AIDS clinical trial group 5125s).

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous limb fat loss continues to be one the most troubling side effects of long-term antiretroviral regimens. Nucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors (PIs) have been linked to the development of this complication. METHODS: We evaluated the effects of nucleoside-sparing and PI-sparing regimens on fat distribution, bone mineral density, and metabolic parameters in 62 subjects, who were not selected for lipoatrophy, with advanced HIV (nadir CD4 count or=80,000 copies/mL) and an undetectable HIV viral load. Participants were randomized to switch their initial successful antiretroviral regimen to open-label lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) at a dose of 533/133 mg twice a day and efavirenz (EFV) at a dose of 600 mg/d (the nucleoside-sparing arm) versus EFV and 2 nucleoside analogues (the PI-sparing arm). FINDINGS: At week 48, the median change in limb fat in the nucleoside-sparing arm was 562 g (6%, interquartile range [IQR]: -218-1186 g) versus a loss of -242 g (-4%, IQR: -539-452 g) in the nucleoside-containing PI-sparing arm (P = 0.086). At the time of last observation (median = 102 weeks, IQR: 73-152 weeks), a median gain of 782 g (10%, IQR: -380-1168 g) of limb fat was noted in the nonnucleoside arm (n = 22) versus a loss of 850 g (-15%, IQR: -1270 to -526 g) in the nucleoside-containing arm (n = 25; P = 0.002). INTERPRETATION: The switch to a nucleoside-sparing combination antiretroviral regimen (LPV/r + EFV) was associated with significant improvement in limb fat. These results provide additional evidence that nucleoside analogues are important in the progressive limb fat loss that characterizes antiretroviral treatment and that switching medications can significantly improve this complication. This option has to be carefully balanced with the potential to increase serum lipid levels and the trend to increase virologic failure.

Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen.

OBJECTIVES: Complex antiretroviral regimens can be associated with increased toxicity and poor adherence. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to two simplified, class-sparing antiretroviral regimens. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label study in 236 patients with virologic suppression who were taking a three- or four-drug protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimen for > or = 18 months. Patients received lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 533 mg/133 mg twice daily + efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily or EFV + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI). Primary study endpoint was time to first virologic failure (VF, confirmed HIV-1 RNA > 200 copies/ml) or discontinuation because of study drug-related toxicity. RESULTS: After 2.1 years of follow up, patients receiving LPV/r + EFV discontinued treatment at a greater rate than patients receiving EFV + NRTI (P < 0.001). Twenty-one patients developed VF (14 receiving LPV/r + EFV and seven receiving EFV + NRTI) and 26 discontinued because of a study drug-related toxicity (20 receiving LPV/r + EFV and six receiving EFV + NRTI). Time to VF or study drug related-toxicity discontinuation was significantly shorter for LPV/r + EFV than EFV + NRTIs (P = 0.0015). A significantly higher risk of drug-related toxicity occurred with LPV/r + EFV, mainly for increased triglycerides (P = 0021). A trend toward a higher VF rate occurred with LPV/r + EFV in an intent-to-treat and as-treated analyses (P = 0.088 and P = 0.063 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to EFV + NRTI resulted in better outcomes, fewer drug-related toxicity discontinuations and a trend to fewer virologic failures compared to switching to LPV/r + EFV.

Amprenavir and efavirenz pharmacokinetics before and after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir in seronegative individuals.

Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5043 examined pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between amprenavir (APV) and efavirenz (EFV) both by themselves and when nelfinavir (NFV), indinavir (IDV), ritonavir (RTV), or saquinavir (SQV) is added. A PK study was conducted after the administration of single doses of APV (day 0). Subjects (n = 56) received 600 mg of EFV every 24 h (q24h) for 10 days and restarted APV with EFV for days 11 to 13 with a PK study on day 14. A second protease inhibitor (PI) (NFV, 1,250 mg, q12h; IDV, 1,200 mg, q12h; RTV, 100 mg, q12h; or SQV, 1,600 mg, q12h) was added to APV and EFV on day 15, and a PK study was conducted on day 21. Controls continued APV and EFV without a second PI. Among subjects, the APV areas under the curve (AUCs) on days 0, 14, and 21 were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the geometric mean ratios (GMR) were calculated. APV AUCs were 46% to 61% lower (median percentage of AUC) with EFV (day 14 versus day 0; P values of <0.05). In the NFV, IDV, and RTV groups, day 21 APV AUCs with EFV were higher than AUCs for EFV alone. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the GMR were 3.5 to 5.3 for NFV (P < 0.001), 2.8 to 4.5 for IDV (P < 0.001), and 7.8 to 11.5 for RTV (P = 0.004). Saquinavir modestly increased the APV AUCs (GMR, 1.0 to 1.4; P = 0.106). Control group AUCs were lower on day 21 compared to those on day 14 (GMR, 0.7 to 1.0; P = 0.042). African-American non-Hispanics had higher day 14 efavirenz AUCs than white non-Hispanics. We conclude that EFV lowered APV AUCs, but nelfinavir, indinavir, or ritonavir compensated for EFV induction.