Increased risk of IRIS-associated tuberculosis in HIV-infected patients receiving Integrase Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is associated with a risk of immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) after ART initiation. METHODS: Data from all patients with newly diagnosed tuberculosis disease and uncontrolled HIV infection from 1997 to 2017 in a French center were retrospectively collected. We evaluated the incidence of tuberculosis-IRIS in patients initiating ART with or without integrase inhibitors (INSTI) RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included: 21 receiving an INSTI regimen and 34 a non-INSTI regimen. Except with regard to ART regimen, the two groups were comparable (median CD4 of 85/mm3). The overall percentage of IRIS was 34% (19/55), with 52% IRIS in INSTI regimen and 23% in non-INSTI regimen respectively (P=0.04). In a multivariate logistic model, we observed an increased risk of IRIS in the INSTI regimen compared to the non-INSTI, with an OR at 3.33 [95% CI, 1.01-11.1] (P=0.05) CONCLUSIONS: ART containing integrase inhibitors could be associated with increased incidence of TB-associated IRIS.

HIV MDR is still a relevant issue despite its dramatic drop over the years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence and therapeutic relevance of drug resistance among isolates from ART-experienced HIV-1-infected patients over the past two decades in Italy. METHODS: Dynamics of resistance to one, two and three or more antiretroviral classes were evaluated from 1999-2018. Virological success (VS) after the latest therapy switch was evaluated according to cumulative class resistance and cumulative genotypic susceptibility score (Stanford HIV_DB algorithm). RESULTS: Among 13 663 isolates (from 6739 patients), resistance to at least one drug class decreased sharply from 1999 to 2010 (≤2001, 84.6%; 2010, 43.6%; P < 0.001), then remained relatively constant at ∼40% during 2010-18, with the proportion of resistance to three or more classes also stable (∼5%). After 2008, integrase inhibitor resistance slightly increased from 5.6% to 9.7% in 2018 and contributed to resistance, particularly in isolates with resistance to three or more classes (one class, 8.4%; two classes, 15.3%; three or more classes, 34.7%, P < 0.001). Among 1827 failing patients with an available follow-up, by 1 year after genotype-guided therapy start the probability of VS was 87.6%. Patients with cumulative resistance to three or more classes and receiving a poorly active regimen showed the lowest probability (62.6%) of VS (P < 0.001) compared with all other patients (≥81.8%). By Cox regression analysis, cumulative MDR and receiving poorly active antiretroviral regimens were associated with a lower hazard of VS compared with those without resistance. CONCLUSIONS: A dramatic drop of HIV-1 drug resistance at failure has been achieved over the last two decades in Italy; resistance to three or more classes is low but present among currently failing patients. Its management still requires a rational and careful diagnostic and therapeutic approach.

Comparison of 48-week efficacies of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide and nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing regimens: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing regimens with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-based combinations in HIV-1-infected adults, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to provide estimates of relative efficacy for these two regimens. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to identify phase 3/4 randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of commonly used combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) including an NRTI backbone or that of commonly used NRTI-sparing regimens. A Bayesian random-effect model was used to compare virological suppression rates at 48 weeks for NRTI-sparing regimens and elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TAF (E/C/F/TAF). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies in treatment-naïve patients identified by the SLR were included in the NMA, including four studies assessing NRTI-sparing regimens. In treatment-naïve patients, the probability of achieving virological suppression at 48 weeks was between 40% and 60% higher with E/C/F/TAF than with NRTI-sparing strategies. The credible interval vs. darunavir/ritonavir (DVR/r) + raltegravir (RAL) and LPV/r monotherapy did not include 1. In the subgroup of naïve patients with viral load < 100 000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, a credible difference was found between NRTI-sparing treatments and E/C/F/TAF. Studies in treatment-experienced patients were too heterogeneous to allow for an NMA. CONCLUSIONS: The NMA results suggest that E/C/F/TAF represents a more effective option than NRTI-sparing regimens in terms of 48-week efficacy in treatment-naïve patients. Furthermore, TAF pharmacological properties, as well as tolerability results in clinical studies, suggest a safety profile similar to that of NRTI-sparing regimens. Thus, the E/C/F/TAF combination might represent a more appropriate option than NRTI-sparing regimens for initiation of antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients.

Prevalence and clinical impact of minority resistant variants in patients failing an integrase inhibitor-based regimen by ultra-deep sequencing.

Background: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in antiretroviral-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Objectives: This study aimed at evaluating the prevalence at failure of INSTI-resistant variants and the impact of baseline minority resistant variants (MiRVs) on the virological response to an INSTI-based regimen. Methods: Samples at failure of 134 patients failing a raltegravir-containing (n = 65), an elvitegravir-containing (n = 20) or a dolutegravir-containing (n = 49) regimen were sequenced by Sanger sequencing and ultra-deep sequencing (UDS). Baseline samples of patients with virological failure (VF) (n = 34) and of those with virological success (VS) (n = 31) under INSTI treatment were sequenced by UDS. Data were analysed using the SmartGene platform, and resistance was interpreted according to the ANRS algorithm version 27. Results: At failure, the prevalence of at least one INSTI-resistant variant was 39.6% by Sanger sequencing and 57.5% by UDS, changing the interpretation of resistance in 17/134 (13%) patients. Among 53 patients harbouring at least one resistance mutation detected by both techniques, the most dominant INSTI resistance mutations were N155H (45%), Q148H/K/R (23%), T97A (19%) and Y143C (11%). There was no difference in prevalence of baseline MiRVs between patients with VF and those with VS. MiRVs found at baseline in patients with VF were not detected at failure either in majority or minority mutations. Conclusions: UDS is more sensitive than Sanger sequencing at detecting INSTI MiRVs at treatment failure. The presence of MiRVs at failure could be important to the decision to switch to other INSTIs. However, there was no association between the presence of baseline MiRVs and the response to INSTI-based therapies in our study.

Emerging resistance mutations in PI-naive patients failing an atazanavir-based regimen (ANRS multicentre observational study).

Background: Atazanavir is a PI widely used as a third agent in combination ART. We aimed to determine the prevalence and the patterns of resistance in PI-naive patients failing on an atazanavir-based regimen. Methods: We analysed patients failing on an atazanavir-containing regimen used as a first line of PI therapy. We compared the sequences of reverse transcriptase and protease before the introduction of atazanavir and at failure [two consecutive viral loads (VLs) >50 copies/mL]. Resistance was defined according to the 2014 Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA et les Hépatites Virales (ANRS) algorithm. Results: Among the 113 patients, atazanavir was used in the first regimen in 71 (62.8%) patients and in the first line of a PI-based regimen in 42 (37.2%). Atazanavir was boosted with ritonavir in 95 (84.1%) patients and combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine or lamivudine (n = 81) and abacavir/lamivudine or emtricitabine (n = 22). At failure, median VL was 3.05 log10 copies/mL and the median CD4+ T cell count was 436 cells/mm3. The median time on atazanavir was 21.2 months. At failure, viruses were considered resistant to atazanavir in four patients (3.5%) with the selection of the following major atazanavir-associated mutations: I50L (n = 1), I84V (n = 2) and N88S (n = 1). Other emergent PI mutations were L10V, G16E, K20I/R, L33F, M36I/L, M46I/L, G48V, F53L, I54L, D60E, I62V, A71T/V, V82I/T, L90M and I93L/M. Emergent NRTI substitutions were detected in 21 patients: M41L (n = 2), D67N (n = 3), K70R (n = 1), L74I/V (n = 3), M184V/I (n = 16), L210W (n = 1), T215Y/F (n = 3) and K219Q/E (n = 2). Conclusions: Resistance to atazanavir is rare in patients failing the first line of an atazanavir-based regimen according to the ANRS. Emergent NRTI resistance-associated mutations were reported in 18% of patients.

Usefulness of an HIV DNA resistance genotypic test in patients who are candidates for a switch to the rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate combination.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of a rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate switch in HIV-1-infected patients with at least 1 year of virological success, we determined whether proviral DNA is an alternative to plasma HIV RNA for resistance genotyping. METHODS: Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in DNA after at least 1 year of virological success [viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL] were compared with those identified in the last plasma RNA genotype available. Rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate RAMs studied were K65R, L100I, K101E/P, E138A/G/K/R/Q, V179L, Y181C/I/V, M184V/I, Y188L, H221Y, F227C and M230I/L in the RT. We studied patients without virological failure (VF) and with at least 1 VF (two consecutive VLs >50 copies/mL). Kappa's coefficient was used to measure agreement between the DNA and RNA genotypes. RESULTS: In patients without VF (n = 130) and with VF (n = 114), RNA and DNA showed resistance to at least one drug of the rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate combination in 8% and 9% and in 60% and 45%, respectively. For rilpivirine RAMs, correlation between RNA and DNA was higher in patients without VF than in patients with VF (kappa = 0.60 versus 0.19, P = 0.026). Overall, the prevalence of RAMs was lower in DNA than in RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete information provided by the DNA genotypic test is more notable in patients with VF, suggesting that all resistance mutations associated with prior VF have not been archived in the proviral DNA or decreased to a level below the threshold of detection. In the case where no historical plasma genotypic test is available, DNA testing might be useful to rule out switching to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Comparative risk of failure of ABC/3TC or TDF/FTC based first-line regimens in patients with a high viral load.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, in current clinical practice, of first regimens containing abacavir with lamivudine (ABC/3TC) or tenofovir with emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in patients with baseline viral load ≥100,000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. METHODS: Using a prospective cohort, we selected all patients starting a first HIV regimen based either on ABC/3TC or on TDF/FTC. The propensity score (PS) method was used to limit the indication bias due to the observational nature of the data. Adjusting and weighting methods via PS were used to compare the effectiveness of a first regimen containing ABC/3TC or TDF/FTC. The primary outcome was treatment failure by month 12 (M12). RESULTS: Overall, 2781 patients started an antiretroviral (ARV) regimen with ABC/3TC or TDF/FTC each in combination with efavirenz, boosted atazanavir or boosted darunavir. Among the 2472 uncensored patients before M12, 962 (39%) had a baseline viral load ≥100,000 copies/mL of whom 294 were in treatment failure at or before M12. Our analyses showed no difference between ABC/3TC and TDF/FTC in the risk of treatment failure at M12 in patients starting an ARV regimen with a high viral load (≥100,000 copies/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Using a large prospectively collected cohort of patients seeking care in France, we found no evidence that ABC/3TC based regimens led to more failures than TDF/FTC based ones in patients with high baseline viral loads.

Efficacy of etravirine combined with darunavir or other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-1-infected patients: an observational study using pooled European cohort data.

OBJECTIVES: This observational study in antiretroviral treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected adults explored the efficacy of etravirine plus darunavir/ritonavir (DRV group; n = 999) vs. etravirine plus an alternative boosted protease inhibitor (other PI group; n = 116) using pooled European cohort data. METHODS: Two international (EuroSIDA; EUResist Network) and five national (France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK) cohorts provided data (collected in 2007-2012). Stratum-adjusted (for confounding factors) Mantel-Haenszel differences in virological responses (viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups except for previous use of antiretrovirals (≥ 10: 63% in the DRV group vs. 49% in the other PI group), including previous use of at least three PIs (64% vs. 53%, respectively) and mean number of PI resistance mutations (2.3 vs. 1.9, respectively). Week 24 responses were 73% vs. 75% (observed) and 49% vs. 43% (missing = failure), respectively. Week 48 responses were 75% vs. 73% and 32% vs. 30%, respectively. All 95% CIs around unadjusted and adjusted differences encompassed 0 (difference in responses) or 1 (ORs). While ORs by cohort indicated heterogeneity in response, for pooled data the difference between unadjusted and adjusted for cohort ORs was small. CONCLUSIONS: These data do not indicate a difference in response between the DRV and other PI groups, although caution should be applied given the small size of the other PI group and the lack of randomization. This suggests that the efficacy and virology results from DUET can be extrapolated to a regimen of etravirine with a boosted PI other than darunavir/ritonavir.

Rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir resistance in HIV-1-infected rilpivirine-naive patients failing antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of simplification strategies, it is essential to know the feasibility of a switch to a rilpivirine-based therapy. The aim of this study was to describe rilpivirine, tenofovir and emtricitabine resistance in HIV-1-infected patients who experienced virological failure during their previous antiretroviral treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The studied population included two groups of patients, all rilpivirine naive, tested for resistance by bulk sequencing from 2008 to 2011: the first group (n = 998) failing a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) plus boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen and the second group (n = 3733) failing an NRTI plus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimen. RESULTS: In the first group, the frequency of rilpivirine mutations and resistance to rilpivirine (5.1%) was similar to that in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients. Among the 1605 patients from the second group with at least one NNRTI mutation in their HIV, the prevalence of viruses 'resistant' or 'possibly resistant' to efavirenz, nevirapine and etravirine was 78%, 79% and 74%, respectively, while 59% were resistant to rilpivirine. Resistance to rilpivirine was significantly more frequent in non-B subtype versus B subtype viruses. Among pretreated patients with viruses with at least one NNRTI mutation (other than for rilpivirine), 22% of sequences were susceptible to the combination rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. CONCLUSIONS: In patients failing an NRTI plus NNRTI-based regimen, to know the feasibility of a switch to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, reliable resistance information should be available at the time of use of concurrent NNRTI therapy.

Prevalence of pre-existing resistance-associated mutations to rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir in antiretroviral-naive patients infected with B and non-B subtype HIV-1 viruses.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs), described in vitro and in vivo, was determined in antiretroviral-naive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2008 to 2011, 1729 treatment-naive patients were tested for resistance by bulk sequencing. We studied the primary rilpivirine RAMs (K101E/P, E138A/G/K/Q/R, V179L, Y181C/I/V, H221Y, F227C and M230I/L) and other potential rilpivirine-associated mutations (V90I, L100I, K101T, E138S, V179D/I, Y188L, V189I, G190A/E/S and M230V). We also studied the M184V/I and K65R mutations for emtricitabine and tenofovir, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1729 sequences, half of patients had B-subtype viruses and the other half non-B (with 26.7% CRF02, n=461). Primary rilpivirine RAMs were infrequent (4.6%, n=79) and the most prevalent were E138A (3%, n=52), E138K, (0.3%, n=5), H221Y (0.3%, n=5), E138G (0.2%, n=4) and Y181C (0.2%, n=4). The frequency of the primary rilpivirine RAMs was similar between B and non-B subtypes. The other potential rilpivirine-associated mutations that were most prevalent were V179I (8.4%, n=145), V90I (3.8%, n=65) and V189I (2.3%, n=40). The common V179I, V189I and V90I polymorphisms have not been associated with virological failure in Phase 3 clinical studies. By the ANRS algorithm, 4.9% (n=84) of samples were resistant to rilpivirine, 3.7% (n=32) of B-subtype viruses versus 6% (n=52) of non-B-subtype viruses (P=0.02, χ(2) test). The prevalence of K65R and M184I/V was 0.06% (1/1729) and 1% (18/1729), respectively. The prevalence of K103N was 2% (35/1729). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir resistance mutations was very low in antiretroviral-naive patients. The prevalence of resistance to rilpivirine (4.9%, n=84) was not statistically different from the prevalence of efavirenz and nevirapine resistance in our population.

Body fat distribution in HIV-infected patients treated for 96 weeks with darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus darunavir/ritonavir plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: the MONOI-ANRS136 substudy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate fat tissue distribution in HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia treated with darunavir/ritonavir (darunavir/r) monotherapy versus darunavir/r triple therapy. METHODS: This study was a substudy of the randomized, multicentre, open-label MONOI-ANRS 136 trial. Body fat distribution and metabolic parameters were measured at baseline, week 48 and week 96. RESULTS: In total, 156 patients of the 225 initially enrolled in the MONOI trial participated in this study, 75 in the darunavir/r monotherapy arm and 81 in the darunavir/r triple-therapy arm. The median limb fat increase from baseline was +0.34 kg [interquartile range (IQR) -0.040 to +1.140 kg; P < 0.001] at week 48 and +0.33 kg (IQR -0.14 to +1.26 kg; P = 0.001) at week 96 in the monotherapy arm, while there was no change (-0.02 kg; IQR -0.53 to +0.52 kg) at week 48 and then an increase of +0.23 kg (IQR -0.45 to +0.87 kg; P = 0.046) at week 96 in the triple-therapy arm. The two arms differed significantly at week 48 (P = 0.001) but not at week 96. The median increase in trunk fat was +0.73 kg (IQR -0.24 to +1.60 kg; P < 0.001) and 0.60 kg (IQR -0.41 to +1.49 kg; P = 0.03) at week 48 and +1.16 kg (IQR -0.17 to +2.75 kg; P < 0.001) and +0.90 kg (IQR -0.51 to +2.34 kg; P = 0.001) at week 96 in the monotherapy and triple-therapy arms, respectively, with no difference between arms. At week 96, the only biological change was a glucose level elevation in the monotherapy arm (median +4.0 mg/dL; IQR -4.0 to +7.0 mg/dL) compared with the triple-therapy arm (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, body fat tissue increased in patients on darunavir/r monotherapy and triple therapy, with no difference between the arms over 96 weeks. The only difference found was a delayed increase in limb fat tissue in the triple-therapy arm compared with the monotherapy arm in the first year.

Long-term efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: week 96 results from the MONOI ANRS 136 study.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term results at week 96 are needed to evaluate the capacity of the darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy strategy to maintain a sustained control of the HIV-1 viral load. METHODS: MONOI is a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, 96 week trial comparing darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus a darunavir/ritonavir triple-therapy strategy to maintain HIV-1 viral load suppression in HIV-1-infected patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00412551. RESULTS: From 225 randomized patients, 219 patients reached the 48 week follow-up and 211 reached the 96 week follow-up (106 patients in the darunavir monotherapy arm and 105 in the darunavir triple-therapy arm). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups. At week 96, in intent-to-treat analysis, 91/103 patients (88%, 95% CI 81-94) allocated to the darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 87/104 patients (84%, 95% CI 75-90) allocated to the darunavir triple-therapy arm achieved an HIV-1 viral load <50 copies/mL, with no statistical difference between the two groups. Throughout the 96 week follow-up, 66/112 patients (59%, 95% CI 49-68) and 79/113 patients (70%, 95% CI 61-78) consistently had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL with darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy and darunavir/ritonavir triple therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The MONOI study establishes darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy as durable and efficacious for maintaining virological suppression in HIV-1 patients. Darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy should be considered as a (tailored) treatment option for standard triple-therapy patients who have had a substantial period of viral suppression.

Prospective one-year bone loss in treatment-naïve HIV+ men and women on single or multiple drug HIV therapies.

Antiretroviral therapy has decreased the rate of HIV-related mortality and extended the life span of HIV patients. Current guidelines recommend the use of a 3-drug regimen, such as two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a protease inhibitor, boosted by ritonavir. Osteoporosis can be associated with the HIV disease itself or with antiretroviral therapy. Many trials have been conducted employing a single drug regimen to simplify antiretroviral therapy but few studies assessed the effect of the single drug regimen on bone mineral density (BMD). The objectives of the study were to assess and compare the relative (%) changes in lumbar spine and hip BMD over 48 weeks in HIV patients treated with mono or triple antiretroviral regimens The study was conducted using data from a randomized trial (MONARK) conducted in 136 antiretroviral-naïve HIV patients (89 men and 47 women) comparing the antiviral efficacy of a single-drug protease inhibitor regimen of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) versus LPV/r in combination with zidovudine (ZDV) and lamivudine (3TC). Lumbar spine and total hip BMD were assessed in 100 patients by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline and 48 weeks. 48 week-BMD data were available for 43 patients (mean age 37years) with a mean baseline lumbar spine Z-score of -0.1 in the LPV/r monotherapy group and for 25 patients (mean age 35.8years) with a mean baseline lumbar spine Z-score of -0.2 in the LPV/r+ZDV+3TC group. After 48weeks, lumbar spine BMD significantly decreased by 4.4% (-5.1% to -2.1%, P≤0.001) in the LPV/r group and by 4.0% (-5.0% to -1.7%, P≤0.0001) in the LPV/r+ZDV+3TC group. There was no significant difference in BMD changes between the two groups. These results suggest that bone loss is observed 48 weeks after the initiation of antiretroviral therapy, whether the patients receive a single- or triple-drug antiretroviral regimen.

Long-term (96-week) follow-up of antiretroviral-naïve HIV-infected patients treated with first-line lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in the MONARK trial.

BACKGROUND: The toxicities, cost and complexity of triple combinations warrant the search for other treatment options, such as boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy. MONotherapy AntiRetroviral Kaletra (MONARK) is the first randomized trial comparing lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy to triple combination therapy with zidovudine/lamivudine and lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naïve patients. METHODS: A total of 136 antiretroviral-naïve patients, with a CD4 cell count above 100 cells/microL and a plasma HIV RNA below 100,000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, were randomized and dosed with either lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy (n = 83) or lopinavir/ritonavir + zidovudine/lamivudine (n = 53). We focus here on patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm followed to week 96. The intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis initially involved all patients randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy (n = 83), and then focused on patients who had an HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 48 (n = 56). RESULTS: At week 96, 39 of 83 patients (47%) had HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL, five of 83 had HIV RNA between 50 and 400 copies/mL, and three of 83 had HIV RNA > 400 copies/mL. Focusing on the 56 patients with an HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 48, 38 of 56 patients (68%) had a sustained HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL to week 96. To week 96, a total of 28 patients (34%) had discontinued the study treatment. In addition, the allocated treatment was changed for seven patients. PI-associated resistance mutations were evident in five of 83 patients in the monotherapy arm from baseline to week 96. CONCLUSION: By ITT analysis, 39 of the 83 patients initially randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy had HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 96. The occurrence in some patients of low-level viraemia (50-500 copies/mL) may increase the risk of drug resistance. First-line lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy cannot be systematically recommended.

[Pattern and evolution of the prescription of olanzapine during one year: Results of the cohort study ECOL]. / Modalités et évolution de la prescription d'olanzapine : résultats de l'étude de cohorte ECOL.

INTRODUCTION: The necessary evidence of new therapies of clinical interest extends beyond clinical trials in a less controlled population and closer to clinical practice justified since several years the need of conducting observational, noninterventional studies. Observational studies must include epidemiological (quantitative observational) data to define prevalence and natural history of the target conditions. Moreover, pharmacological interventions in "naturalistic" patients populations, selected by clinicians as per clinical judgment within the scope of the target disease will allow to generate data to complement clinical trials. Clinical trials designed to show robust data on efficacy and tolerability particularly during registration trials must be complemented by robust observational research to confirm and better describe clinical effectiveness in the target population. A noninterventional, observational trial is a study where the medicinal product(s) is (are) prescribed in the usual manner in accordance with the terms of the marketing authorization. The assignment of the patient to a particular therapeutic strategy is not decided in advance by a trial protocol but falls within current practice and the prescription of the medicine is clearly separated from the decision to include the patient in the study. No additional diagnosis or monitoring procedures shall be applied to the patients and epidemiological methods shall be used for the analysis of collected data. Olanzapine is a new antipsychotic therapy registered in Europe for the treatment of schizophrenia since 1996. AIMS OF THE STUDY: The primary objective of this observational research was to study the evolution of the olanzapine dosage under naturalistic settings. Secondary objectives included patients characteristics, severity of disease, therapeutic evolution and coprescriptions, in a patient's cohort, suffering from schizophrenia, adult patients, diagnosis based on ICD-10; patients were followed during a total of 12 months. DESIGN OF THE STUDY: The cohort study was conducted in France. Between the period of June 2000 and February 2001, 407 psychiatrics randomized to participate in the study had consolidated the patient's cohort. RESULTS: A total of 1810 patients were included, 1093 (60, 4%) male, 717 (39, 6%) females. Age was recorded for a total of 1802 (99, 6%) patients, mean age was 37.8 years as per inclusion criteria and patients consent according to current regulations. Patients entered in the cohort as per clinicians decision underwent a treatment with olanzapine during an outpatient's consultation or at hospitalization. More than two thirds of the patients were followed up during 12 months after onset of this treatment. Clinical outcome was assessed at three, six, nine and 12 months following cohort inclusion using the following tools: CGI, PANSS, Calgary and GAF; as per CGI 78% of the patients cohort were severely ill, the mean PANSS score was 94.1. At second month of treatment clinicians were requested to very well document any changes in olanzapine dosage as well as reasons for the dosage modifications and potential coprescriptions. DISCUSSION: The daily mean dosage of olanzapine was 9.5mg at initiation of treatment, 10.5mg after one month and 11.2mg after 12 months of follow-up. The increase of the dosage after one month was associated with factors such as younger age, schizophrenia diagnosis and severity of the symptoms as measured by CGI and PANSS scores evolution, low initial dosage and hospitalization at treatment initiation. Within the 1810 participants included in the cohort, 1383 (76.5%) received a coprescrition of a psychotropic, for example, 811 (44.8%) a benzodiazepine, 506 (28.0%) an antidepressant. Among the patients cohort that were followed during 12 months, all the clinical and patient-functioning indicators progressed in the direction of a significant improvement.

Atazanavir in patients with persistent viral replication despite HAART: results from the French prospective NADIS cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To assess virological efficacy of a ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r)-containing regimen in patients with persistent viral replication despite HAART. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Prospective cohort of French HIV-infected patients. Patients were included if pretreated and viral load (VL) >400 copies/mL at the time of ATV/r first prescription (baseline). Demographic and epidemiologic data, therapeutic history, and clinical and biological values at baseline and during follow-up were analyzed. Primary endpoint was failure of the regimen defined as either VL>400 copies/mL at Week 24 or treatment interruption before Week 24. Multivariate analysis was performed of baseline characteristics related with treatment failure. RESULTS: There were 424 patients with available data. Primary endpoint was met by 36%: 24% VL>400 copies/mL and 12% treatment interruption. Treatment interruption due to drug-related toxicity was significantly more frequent in women (20.5% vs. 8.8%, p= .001). Female gender (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=1.91), previous use of lopinavir (LPV; OR=2.76), number of new drugs and of active drugs in the regimen (OR=0.48 and 0.3, respectively), and baseline VL (OR=1.75) were independently related with treatment failure. CONCLUSION: ATV/r-containing regimens, because of low pill burden and good tolerance, can be a useful strategy as long as the patients did not suffer previous LPV failures. The issue of gender deserves further studies in larger populations.

National survey of the prevalence and conditions of selection of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase K70E mutation.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) has become an important component of HIV combination therapy because of its potency and once-daily dosing. Key mutation associated with resistance to TDF is a K65R in the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene. According to occurrence of K70E mutation after failure to TDF regimen, this mutation was recently reported as a mutation associated with TDF resistance in most resistance genotypic algorithms. The aim of this study was to analyze, retrospectively, the prevalence and conditions of selection of HIV-1 RT K70E mutation from a national clinical survey. Absence of selection of K70E in 850 HIV-1-infected naive patients suggests its role in NRTI drug resistance. Prevalence of K70E RT was low (99/41601, 0.24%) in patients treated between 1999 and 2005. Conversely with K65R mutation, thymidine analog mutations (TAMs) can be concomitantly observed with K70E mutation but its frequency decreased as the number of TAM increases. Concomitant association of K65R and K70E was possible but infrequent (11%). At the time of K70E selection, 60% of patients had received or received TDF-containing regimen and one-third received exclusive NRTI regimen. In conclusion, the K70E mutation could be an alternative pathway of TDF resistance, but as the K65R mutation, other NRTI as ABC, ddI, and 3TC could be also associated with the K70E selection.

Early virologic failure and rescue therapy of tenofovir, abacavir, and lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: TONUS study.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy and safety of the triple NRTI combination of abacavir (ABC), lamivudine (3TC), and tenofovir (TDF) in a once-daily regimen. METHOD: 38 HIV-naive patients (pts) were treated in a prospective open-arm study over 48 weeks (W48). Virological failure was defined as never achieving plasma HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL or rebound of > or = 0.7 log10. RESULTS: 12/36 (33%) pts had virologic failure at W24 and 10 additional pts had HIV RNA > 50 copies/mL at W12 or W24. There was a significant association between baseline viral load (VL) and virologic failure in 0%, 29%, and 64% pts with baseline VL levels < 4, 4-5, and > 5 log10 copies/mL, respectively (p = .014). 76% of pts developed K65R and M184V/I mutations by W24, and 19% developed M184V/I alone. At W4, 86% of pts had adequate plasma Cmin for the 3 drugs. 14 pts with K65R and M184V/I were given a rescue therapy with a successful outcome (< 50 copies/mL; median follow-up 48 weeks). CONCLUSION: Convergent genetic pathway to resistance, in conjunction with lower antiretroviral potency, may explain the high rate of selection K65R and M184V mutations. These mutations did not appear to have a negative effect on rescue therapy with a variety of regimens.

Salivary cytomegalovirus (CMV) shedding, glycoprotein B genotype distribution, and CMV disease in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive patients.

To assess the frequency of shedding of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in saliva, the distribution of CMV glycoprotein B (gB) genotypes, and the occurrence of CMV diseases, we screened 98 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seropositive patients without CMV disease. CMV was detected by culture more frequently in saliva (45 [46%] of 98 patients) than in blood (7 [7.5%] of 93) and was associated with CD4 cell counts <100 cells/mm3 (P=.013). CMV in the saliva of 37 patients was successfully genotyped. Three patients (8%) were infected by a gB1 strain, 26 (70%) by a gB2 strain, 2 (5.5%) by a gB3 strain, 1 (3%) by a gB4 strain, and 5 (13.5%) by mixed gB strains. Thirteen patients developed CMV disease after a mean period of 143+/-112 days; at inclusion, 9 (69%) had salivary CMV shedding and 2 had CMV viremia. CMV salivary shedding (P=.043), low CD4+ cell count (P=.041), and CMV viremia (P=.011) were associated with occurrence of CMV disease.

Mechanisms of virologic failure in previously untreated HIV-infected patients from a trial of induction-maintenance therapy. Trilège (Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA 072) Study Team).

CONTEXT: In the Trilège trial, following induction with a zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir regimen, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) replication was less suppressed by 2-drug maintenance therapy than by triple-drug therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify mechanisms of virologic failure in the 3 arms of the Trilège trial. DESIGN: Case-control study conducted from February to October 1998. SETTING: Three urban hospitals in Paris, France. PATIENTS: Fifty-eight case patients with virologic failure (HIV RNA rebound to >500 copies/mL in 2 consecutive samples) randomized to 3 therapy groups: triple drug (zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir), 8; zidovudine-lamivudine, 29; and zidovudine-indinavir, 21; the case patients were randomly matched with 58 control patients with sustained viral suppression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At virologic failure (S1 sample) and 6 weeks later (S2 sample), assessment of protease and reverse transcriptase gene mutations, plasma indinavir level, and degree of viral load rebound; pill count during induction and maintenance periods. RESULTS: Only 1 primary resistance mutation, M184V, was detected in S1 plasma samples from 4 of 6 patients in the triple-drug and in all 22 in the zidovudine-lamivudine therapy groups and in S2 plasma samples from 3 of 6 in the triple-drug and 20 of 21 in the zidovudine-lamivudine groups. Of controls, M184V was detected in 11 of 13 S1 plasma samples and in 10 of 11 S2 plasma samples. Indinavir levels were undetectable in all S1 samples but 2 in 7 triple-drug cases tested and in the expected range in 11 of 18 S1 and 5 of 12 S2 zidovudine-indinavir case plasma samples tested. Maintenance adherence rates were lower for cases vs controls for zidovudine (P = .05) and indinavir (P = .05). Low indinavir levels, lower adherence rates for zidovudine (P = .04) and lamivudine (P = .03), and rebound to near-baseline values suggested adherence as cause of early failure for 4 of 8 triple-drug cases. In the zidovudine-lamivudine arm, for which case and control adherence rates did not differ significantly (P = .96), most failures occurred late with low rebound, suggesting suboptimal drug potency. In the zidovudine-indinavir arm, virologic failures may be related to both mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: During the maintenance phase early and late virologic failures appeared to be related more to problems of adherence and antiretroviral treatment potency, respectively, than to selection of resistant mutant viruses.