PEPDar: A randomized prospective noninferiority study of ritonavir-boosted darunavir for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES: PEPDar compared the tolerability and safety of ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r)-based post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) with the tolerability and safety of standard of care (SOC). The primary endpoint was the early discontinuation rate among the per-protocol population. METHODS: PEPDar was an open-label, randomized, multicentre, prospective, noninferiority safety study. Subjects were stratified by type of event (occupational vs. nonoccupational, i.e. sexual) and were randomized to receive DRV/r plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) or SOC PEP. Twenty-two private or university HIV clinics in Germany participated. Subjects were ≥ 18 years old and had documented or potential HIV exposure and indication for HIV PEP. They initiated PEP not later than 72 h after the event and were HIV negative. RESULTS: A total of 324 subjects were screened, the per-protocol population was 305, and 273 subjects completed the study. One hundred and fifty-five subjects received DRV/r-based PEP and 150 subjects received ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r)-based PEP for 28-30 days; 298 subjects also received tenofovir/emtricitabine. The early discontinuation rate in the DRV/r arm was 6.5% compared with 10.0% in the SOC arm (P = 0.243). Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were reported in 68% of DRV/r subjects and 75% of SOC subjects (P = 0.169). Fewer DRV/r subjects (16.1%) had at least one grade 2 or 3 ADR compared with SOC subjects (29.3%) (P = 0.006). All grades of diarrhoea, nausea, and sleep disorders were significantly less frequent with DRV/r, while headache was significantly more frequent. No HIV seroconversion was reported during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Noninferiority of DRV/r to SOC was demonstrated. DRV/r should be included as a standard component of recommended regimens in PEP guidelines.

Treatment during primary HIV infection does not lower viral set point but improves CD4 lymphocytes in an observational cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate if early treatment of primary HIV-1 infection (PHI) reduces viral set point and/or increases CD4 lymphocytes. METHODS: Analysis of two prospective multi-centre PHI cohorts. HIV-1 RNA and CD4 lymphocytes in patients with transient treatment were compared to those in untreated patients. Time to CD4 lymphocyte decrease below 350/ microl after treatment stop or seroconversion was calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox-PH-regression analyses. RESULTS: 156 cases of PHI were included, of which 100 had received transient HAART (median treatment time 9.5 months) and 56 remained untreated. Median viral load (563000 cop/ml vs 240000 cop/ml; p<0.001) and median CD4 lymphocyte (449/ microl vs. 613/ microl; p<0.01) differed significantly between treated and untreated patients. Median viral load was 38056 copies/ml in treated patients (12 months after treatment stop) and 52880 copies/ml in untreated patients (12 months after seroconversion; ns). Median CD4 lymphocyte change was +60/ microl vs. -86/ microl (p = 0.01). Median time until CD4 lymphocytes decreased to <350/ microl (including all patients with CD4 lymphocytes <500/ microl during seroconversion) was 20.7 months in treated patients after treatment stop and 8.3 months in untreated patents after seroconversion (p<0.01). Cox-PH analyses adjusting for baseline VL, CD4 lymphocytes, stage of early infection and symptoms confirmed these differences. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment during PHI did not lower viral set point. However, patients treated during seroconversion had an increase in CD4 lymphocytes, whereas untreated patients experienced a decrease in CD4 lymphocytes. Time until reaching CD4 lymphocytes <350/ microl was significantly shorter in untreated than in treated patients including patients with CD4 lymphocytes <500/ microl during seroconversion.

Safety of long-term lopinavir plasma-levels in patients with liver disease.

Chronic liver disease is often found in HIV infected patients. LPV as first choice drug is often used over long time periods. TDM as a tool in patients care is important but the knowledge of LPV-plasma-levels in patients with chronic liver disease remain uncertain. With this retrosepective analysis we want to show if there are differences in LPV-plasma-levels between patients with and without chronic liver diseases over a long-time period. LPV-plasma-levels were analysed with an HPLC-based methode. The LPV-plasma-levels over the time course in patients with chronic liver disease (n = 30) and patients without liver disease (n = 38) was evaluated. Liver function tests, CD4-cell count and HI-viral load was also correlated with liver disease. The LPV plasma-levels of n = 450 samples from 30 patients with liver disease (Hepatitis B: n = 17, Hepatitis C: n = 16, Alcoholic liver disease: n = 7) were determined over 18.7 +/- 16,3 months (1 - 48.5 months). A median of 10 samples per patient was eligible (2 - 50 samples). There are no significant differences according to liver disease in LPV-plasma levels (mean Ctrough without: 5917 +/- 4811 ng/ml, mean Ctrough with liver-disease: 6564 +/- 4517 ng/ml, p > 0.05). The intraindividual and interindividual variation of LPV-plasma levels, CD-4 increase, HI-virus suppression and liver tests in patients with and without liver disease is comparable. In this clinical setting no differences in LPV-plasma levels between patients with and without chronic liver disease could be demonstrated. LPV-therapy in patients with chronic liver disease is therefore safe. In patients with impaired liver function TDM is a helpful tool for dose adjustment.