Efficacy and Safety of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir in Patients Coinfected With Hepatitis C Virus and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1: The EXPEDITION-2 Study.

Background: Once-daily glecaprevir coformulated with pibrentasvir (glecaprevir/pibrentasvir) demonstrated high rates of sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1-6 infection. This phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1-6 and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) coinfection, including patients with compensated cirrhosis. Methods: EXPEDITION-2 was a phase 3, multicenter, open-label study evaluating glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (300 mg/120 mg) in HCV genotype 1-6/HIV-1-coinfected adults without and with compensated cirrhosis for 8 and 12 weeks, respectively. Patients were either HCV treatment-naive or experienced with sofosbuvir, ribavirin, or interferon, and antiretroviral therapy (ART) naive or on a stable ART regimen. Treatment-experienced genotype 3-infected patients were excluded. The primary endpoint was the SVR12 rate. Results: In total, 153 patients were enrolled, including 16 (10%) with cirrhosis. The SVR12 rate was 98% (n = 150/153; 95% confidence interval, 95.8-100), with no virologic failures in 137 patients treated for 8 weeks. One genotype 3-infected patient with cirrhosis had on-treatment virologic failure. Most adverse events were mild in severity; 4 patients (2.6%) had serious adverse events, all deemed unrelated to glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. Treatment discontinuation was rare (<1%). All patients treated with ART maintained HIV-1 suppression (<200 copies/mL) during treatment. Conclusions: Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for 8 weeks in noncirrhotic and 12 weeks in cirrhotic patients is a highly efficacious and well-tolerated treatment for HCV/HIV-1 coinfection, regardless of baseline HCV load or prior treatment with interferon or sofosbuvir. Clinical trial registration: NCT02738138.

Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir for 8 or 12 Weeks in HCV Genotype 1 or 3 Infection.

BACKGROUND: Glecaprevir and pibrentasvir are direct-acting antiviral agents with pangenotypic activity and a high barrier to resistance. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of 8-week and 12-week courses of treatment with 300 mg of glecaprevir plus 120 mg of pibrentasvir in patients without cirrhosis who had hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 or 3 infection. METHODS: We conducted two phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter trials. Patients with genotype 1 infection were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive once-daily glecaprevir-pibrentasvir for either 8 or 12 weeks. Patients with genotype 3 infection were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive 12 weeks of treatment with either glecaprevir-pibrentasvir or sofosbuvir-daclatasvir. Additional patients with genotype 3 infection were subsequently enrolled and nonrandomly assigned to receive 8 weeks of treatment with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir. The primary end point was the rate of sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the end of treatment. RESULTS: In total, 1208 patients were treated. The rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks among genotype 1-infected patients was 99.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 98 to 100) in the 8-week group and 99.7% (95% CI, 99 to 100) in the 12-week group. Genotype 3-infected patients who were treated for 12 weeks had a rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks of 95% (95% CI, 93 to 98; 222 of 233 patients) with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir and 97% (95% CI, 93 to 99.9; 111 of 115) with sofosbuvir-daclatasvir; 8 weeks of treatment with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir yielded a rate of 95% (95% CI, 91 to 98; 149 of 157 patients). Adverse events led to discontinuation of treatment in no more than 1% of patients in any treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily treatment with glecaprevir-pibrentasvir for either 8 weeks or 12 weeks achieved high rates of sustained virologic response among patients with HCV genotype 1 or 3 infection who did not have cirrhosis. (Funded by AbbVie; ENDURANCE-1 and ENDURANCE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02604017 and NCT02640157 .).

Safety and Efficacy of Ombitasvir, Paritaprevir With Ritonavir ± Dasabuvir With or Without Ribavirin in Patients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 and Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 or Genotype 4 Coinfection: TURQUOISE-I Part 2.

BACKGROUND: Ombitasvir, paritaprevir with ritonavir, and dasabuvir (OBV/PTV/r ± DSV) ±ribavirin (RBV) are approved to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 and 4 infection. Here, we investigate the safety and efficacy of OBV/PTV/r + DSV ±RBV for HCV genotype 1, and OBV/PTV/r + RBV for HCV genotype 4, in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 coinfected patients with or without compensated cirrhosis. METHODS: TURQUOISE-I, Part 2 is a phase 3 multicenter study. Patients with or without cirrhosis were HCV treatment-naive or -experienced, on an HIV-1 antiretroviral regimen containing atazanavir, raltegravir, dolutegravir, or darunavir (for genotype 4 only), and had plasma HIV-1 ribonucleic acid <40 copies/mL at screening. Patients received OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ±RBV for 12 or 24 weeks. RESULTS: In total, 228 patients were treated according to guidelines. Sustained virologic response at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12) was achieved by 194 of 200 (97%) and 27 of 28 (96%) patients with HCV genotype 1 and genotype 4 infection, respectively. There were 2 virologic failures: 1 breakthrough and 1 relapse in a cirrhotic and a noncirrhotic patient with genotype 1b and 1a infection, respectively. One reinfection occurred at posttreatment week 12 in a genotype 1a-infected patient. Excluding nonvirologic failures, the SVR12 rates were 98% (genotype 1) and 100% (genotype 4). Adverse events were mostly mild in severity and did not lead to discontinuation. Laboratory abnormalities were rare. CONCLUSIONS: The OBV/PTV/r ±DSV was well tolerated and yielded high SVR12 rates in patients with HCV genotype 1 or genotype 4/HIV-1 coinfection. The OBV/PTV/r ± DSV ±RBV is a potent HCV treatment option for patients with HIV-1 coinfection, regardless of treatment experience.

Multiple Simultaneous Gastrointestinal Parasitic Infections in a Patient with Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

Patients with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are at high risk for gastrointestinal infections causing diarrhea, particularly when those infections are parasitic in nature. This propensity is more pronounced in AIDS, where opportunistic parasitic infections may cause severe diarrhea, marked absorptive dysfunction, and significant risk of mortality. There are scant data regarding parasitic infections among HIV patients in the developed world; most studies and research come from povertystricken areas of South Africa, India, Iran, and the South Pacific. Although multiple infections with the same or different parasites have been reported, simultaneous infections are rare. We present the case of a 35-year-old man who developed a co-infection with Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Strongyloides, simultaneously, the diagnosis being made after the judicious evaluation of a stool sample. Given the associated morbidity, prompt diagnosis and treatment are needed to avoid further complications in patients with HIV. To our knowledge this is the first reported case of triple parasitic infection in a patient with HIV.

Lopinavir/ritonavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir/emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive subjects: 96-week results of the PROGRESS study.

Alternative combinations of antiretrovirals (ARVs) are desired to increase treatment options for HIV-infected patients. PROGRESS was a randomized, open-label, 96-week pilot study comparing a regimen of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400/100 mg twice daily in combination with either raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg twice daily or tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) 300/200 mg once daily in ARV-naive adults. A total of 206 subjects were randomized and treated (LPV/r+RAL, N=101; LPV/r+TDF/FTC, N=105). Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar across treatment groups. At 96 weeks, 66.3% of subjects receiving LPV/r+RAL and 68.6% of subjects receiving LPV/r+TDF/FTC were responders (plasma HIV-1 RNA levels<40 copies/ml) by the FDA time to loss of virologic response (FDA-TLOVR) algorithm (p=0.767). Mean CD4(+) T cell increases through 96 weeks were similar between treatment groups (LPV/r+RAL=281 cells/mm(3), LPV/r+TDF/FTC=296 cells/mm(3), p=0.598). Safety and tolerability were generally similar between groups. The LPV/r+RAL regimen resulted in greater increases in peripheral fat, but not trunk fat, compared with LPV/r+TDF/FTC. There was a statistically significantly greater mean reduction in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline to week 96 in the LPV/r+TDF/FTC group compared with the LPV/r+RAL group (-7.33 ml/min vs. -1.43 ml/min; p=0.035). The LPV/r+TDF/FTC group had a statistically significant (p<0.001) mean percent decrease from baseline to week 96 in bone mineral density, which was significantly different from the mean percent change in the LPV/r+RAL group (-2.48% vs. +0.68%, p<0.001). These efficacy and safety observations support further evaluation of the LPV/r+RAL regimen.

Examination of noninferiority, safety, and tolerability of lopinavir/ritonavir and raltegravir compared with lopinavir/ritonavir and tenofovir/ emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naïve subjects: the progress study, 48-week results.

PURPOSE: Current antiretroviral regimens recommended for treatment-naïve patients include 2 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether a new NRTI-sparing regimen may provide an alternative for persons for whom traditional regimens may not be the best option. METHODS: PROGRESS is a 96-week, randomized, open-label, multicenter trial comparing the efficacy and safety of a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) and an integrase inhibitor (lopi-navir/ritonavir [LPV/r] + raltegravir [RAL]) to a boosted PI and 2 NRTIs (LPV/r + tenofovir/ emtricitabine [TDF/FTC]) in antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve HIV-1-infected adults. RESULTS: A total of 206 subjects were randomized to receive LPV/r + RAL (n=101) or LPV/r + TDF/FTC (n=105) and analyzed for ARV efficacy using the US Food and Drug Administration time to loss of virologic response (FDA-TLOVR) algorithm. The percentage of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL at week 48 was 83.2% in the LPV/r + RAL group and 84.8% in the LPV/r + TDF/FTC group (P = .850; difference -1.6%; exact 95% CI, -12.0% to 8.8%). As the lower limit of the exact 95% CI for the difference between regimens was at or above the protocol-defined threshold of -20% (as well as the more stringent threshold of -12%), LPV/r + RAL was noninferior to LPV/r + TDF/FTC. The occurrence of treatment-related, moderate/severe adverse events was similar between treatment groups through 48 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The HIV treatment regimen of LPV/r + RAL resulted in noninferior efficacy and comparable safety and tolerability compared with a traditional NRTI-containing regimen through 48 weeks of treatment. These results support further evaluation of the LPV/r + RAL regimen.

Tetanus is still present in the 21st century: case report and review of literature.

Tetanus is a very serious disease that can be fatal. Its incidence in the developed world has diminished considerably since the introduction of tetanus toxoid. More importantly, tetanus is one of the few infectious diseases that can be prevented. The recommendations for immunization are clear and readily available. In spite of the progress, we still see cases of tetanus in which the prognosis is poor. We present the case of a 67 year-old man that was admitted to our hospital with one of the most common manifestations of tetanus: trismus. Even though his treatment was established immediately, the hospital stay was long and made him susceptible to various medical complications and nosocomial infections. The incidence of tetanus in Puerto Rico is low but the mortality rate continues to be elevated in the high-risk group: patients older than 60 years of age. This is the reason for which we present this case. Our goal is to provide information with regards to epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis and management of tetanus. In addition, it is equally essential to remind our colleagues the significance of adequate prevention of this potentially mortal and disabling disease.