Detection of drug resistance is critical for determining antiretroviral treatment options. Ultradeep pyrosequencing (UDPS; 454 Life Sciences) is capable of detecting virus variant subpopulations with much greater sensitivity than population sequencing, which typically has a detection limit around 20%. UDPS of the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) (amino acids 56-120) was performed to detect the key mutations K65R and L74V associated with tenofovir and abacavir use. Plasma specimens from subjects with persistent rebound viremia following suppression on tenofovir (n = 8) or abacavir (n = 9)-based therapy were studied. Samples from a subject treated with zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz with a similar loss of virologic response served as a control. HIV-1 plasma RNA was ≥3.68 log(10) copies/ml at all time points sequenced. The median number of UDPS sequences analyzed/time point was 33,246. Among the eight tenofovir-treated subjects, three showed high-frequency (>20%) RT K65R at the time of failure, whereas one showed low-frequency (<20%) L74V; no low-frequency K65R was detected in these subjects. Among the nine abacavir-treated subjects, three showed low-frequency K65R; no L74V was detected in these patients. No K65R or L74V was detected in the samples from the control subject. At failure, other RT mutations were detected, including low-frequency NNRTI-resistant species detected at ≥1 time point in nine subjects; the key NNRTI mutation K103N, however, was always observed at >20% frequency. Although UDPS is useful in the detection of low-frequency subpopulations with transmitted resistance in antiviral-naive patients, it may have less utility in treatment-experienced patients with persistent viremia on therapy.

Prison inmates with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection can be difficult to treat because of the complexity and intrusiveness of many combination antiretroviral therapy regimens. NZTA4007, a 24-week open-label, single-arm clinical trial involving 108 antiretroviral therapy-naive, incarcerated, HIV-infected persons, was conducted to evaluate a compact regimen (4 tablets per day) consisting of 1 lamivudine-zidovudine (150 mg/300 mg) combination tablet (COM) and one 300-mg abacavir tablet administered twice daily under directly observed treatment conditions. In the intent-to-treat observed analysis, the plasma HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level remained at < or =400 copies/mL in 85% of the patients and at < 50 copies/mL in 75% of the patients. Median change from baseline was -2.41 log(10) copies/mL for the HIV-1 RNA level and +111 cells/mm(3) for the CD4 cell count. The overall adherence to prescribed doses was 94% for patients who remained enrolled in the study. COM-abacavir given twice daily was generally well tolerated, and adverse events prompted only 4 patients to withdraw from the study.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) in treatment-naïve Japanese patients with HIV-1 infection.

METHODS:

A 96-week multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel group pilot study was conducted. The endpoints were times to virologic failure, safety event and regimen modification.

RESULTS:

109 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated (54 patients received ABC/3TC and 55 patients received TDF/FTC). All randomized subjects were analyzed. The time to virologic failure was not significantly different between the two arms by 96 weeks (HR, 2.09; 95% CI, 0.72-6.13; p=0.178). Both regimens showed favorable viral efficacy, as in the intention-to-treat population, 72.2% (ABC/3TC) and 78.2% (TDF/FTC) of the patients had an HIV-1 viral load <50 copies/mL at 96 weeks. The time to the first grade 3 or 4 adverse event and the time to the first regimen modification were not significantly different between the two arms (adverse event: HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.25-1.75, p=0.407) (regimen modification: HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.33-3.19, p=0.964). Both regimens were also well-tolerated, as only 11.1% (ABC/3TC) and 10.9% (TDF/FTC) of the patients discontinued the allocated regimen by 96 weeks. Clinically suspected abacavir-associated hypersensitivity reactions occurred in only one (1.9%) patient in the ABC/3TC arm.

CONCLUSION:

Although insufficiently powered to show non-inferiority of viral efficacy of ABC/3TC relative to TDF/FTC, this pilot trial suggested that ABC/3TC with ATV/r is a safe and efficacious initial regimen for HLA-B*5701-negative patients, such as the Japanese population.

Maintenance with a triple nucleoside reverse transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTI) regimen after successful induction with a dual NRTI/protease inhibitor (PI) combination may be advantageous, because of low pill burden, favorable lipids, and less drug interactions. This strategy to become free of PI-related problems without losing viral efficacy has not been formally tested. We performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter, 96-week comparative study in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients with CD4 ≤350 cells/mm³ and HIV-1 RNA concentrations (viral load [VL]) greater than 30,000 copies per milliliter. Patients were randomized after reaching VL less than 50 copies per milliliter on two consecutive occasions between 12 and 24 weeks after start of zidovudine/lamuvidine and lopinavir/ritonavir combination. Eligible subjects switched to abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine (TZV) or continued the PI-containing regimen. Here we present the 48-week data with virologic success rate (failure: VL>50 copies per milliliter). Two hundred seven patients had similar baseline (BL) characteristics: median CD4 180 cells/mm³, median VL 5.19 log<inf>10</inf> copies per milliliter. One hundred twenty subjects (58%) met randomization criteria. Baseline VL differed significantly between dropouts and randomized subjects (median 5.41 versus 5.06 log<inf>10</inf> copies per milliliter, p=0.017), as did CD4 cells (median 160 and 200 cells/mm³, p=0.044). Sixty-one subjects received TZV and 59 subjects continued NRTIs/PI. At week 48, 2 patients in the TZV group and 5 in the PI group did not have a sustained virologic suppression (log rank test; p=0.379). CD4 counts increased significantly in both arms. In ART-naïve patients, TZV maintenance had similar antiviral efficacy compared to continued standard ART at 48 weeks after baseline. Patients on successful standard ART can be safely switched to a NRTI-only regimen, at least for the tested time period. © 2010, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

BACKGROUND:

We compare the effect of 4 different antiretroviral regimens on limb and visceral fat.

METHODS:

A5224s was a substudy of A5202, a trial of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected, treatment-naive subjects randomized to blinded abacavir-lamivudine (ABC-3TC) or tenofovir DF-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC) with open-label efavirenz (EFV) or atazanavir-ritonavir (ATV-r). The primary endpoint was the presence of lipoatrophy (≥ 10% loss of limb fat) at week 96 by intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Secondary endpoints included changes in limb and visceral fat. Statistical tests included linear regression, binomial, two-sample t test, and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS:

A5224s enrolled 269 subjects; 85% were male, and 47% were white non-Hispanic. The subjects had a median baseline HIV-1 RNA level of 4.6 log(10) copies/mL, a median age of 38 years, a median CD4+ cell count of 233 cells/μL, median limb fat of 7.4 kg, median visceral adipose tissue (VAT) of 84.1 cm(2), and

VAT:

total adipose tissue (TAT) ratio of 0.31. At week 96, estimated prevalence of lipoatrophy (upper 95% confidence interval [CI]) was 18% (25%) for ABC-3TC and 15% (22%) for TDF-FTC (P = .70); this was not significantly less than the hypothesized 15% for both (P ≥ .55 for both). The secondary as-treated (AT) analysis showed similar results. At week 96, the estimated mean percentage change from baseline in VAT was higher for the ATV-r group than for the EFV group (26.6% vs 12.4%; P = .090 in ITT analysis and 30.0% vs 14.5%; P = .10 in AT analysis); however, the percentage change in

VAT:

TAT was similar by ITT and AT analysis (P ≥ .60 for both). Results were similar for absolute changes in VAT and

VAT:

TAT.

CONCLUSIONS:

ABC-3TC- and TDF-FTC-based regimens increased limb and visceral fat at week 96, with a similar prevalence of lipoatrophy. Compared to the EFV group, subjects assigned to ATV-r had a trend towards higher mean percentage increase in VAT.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION:

NCT00118898.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the antiviral efficacy, safety, and adherence in subjects who switched to Trizivir following long-term HIV-1 RNA suppression.

STUDY DESIGN:

A randomized, open-label, multicentre, 48-week comparative study in subjects who have received two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus a protease inhibitor or an nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or three nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for at least 6 months, with a history of undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA since initiation of therapy and plasma viral load of < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at screening.

METHODS:

Subjects were randomized 1:1 to continue their current treatment or to switch to a simplified treatment with Trizivir administered twice daily. Assessments included plasma HIV-1 RNA, lymphocyte counts, clinical laboratory evaluations, adverse events, and adherence to treatment (obtained via subject self-report). Treatment failure was defined as a plasma viral load of >/= 400 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL on two consecutive occasions or premature discontinuation of randomized treatment.

RESULTS:

At week 48, the proportion of treatment failures in Trizivir arm (23/106, 22%) was noninferior to that observed in continued arm (23/103, 22%) with a treatment difference stratified by prior ART of 1.2%[-10.1; 12.5]. Incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups. The incidence of possible hypersensitivity reaction in the Trizivir trade mark arm was 10%. Significant reductions in cholesterol and triglyceride plasma levels were observed in the Trizivir arm (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Switching to Trizivir offers a potent and simplified regimen with equivalent efficacy and significant improvement in lipid abnormalities compared to continued triple therapy.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the efficacy and safety of a triple nucleoside combination to a protease inhibitor-containing triple regimen as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV-1-infected patients.

DESIGN:

Open-label study in HIV-1-infected ART-naive adults, randomized to receive either Combivir (lamivudine 150 mg/zidovudine 300 mg twice daily) + abacavir (300 mg twice daily), or Combivir + nelfinavir (750 mg every 8 h) for 48 weeks. Plasma HIV-1 RNA, CD4 cell count and adverse events were assessed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48.

RESULTS:

195 subjects (131 men, 64 women), median age 34 years, were randomized: 98 received combivir/abacavir and 97 combivir/nelfinavir. Baseline median plasma HIV-1 RNA was 4.2 log10 copies/ml [Interquartile range (IQR): 3.7-4.5.2] and 4.1 log10 copies/ml (

IQR:

3.8-4.6), respectively. Baseline median CD4 cell count was 387 cells/mm3 (

IQR:

194-501) and 449 cells/mm3 (

IQR:

334-605), respectively. Nine patients (3 vs 6, respectively) did not start treatment or did not have any available efficacy data. At week 48, using the intent to treat analysis (switch/missing equals failure), plasma HIV-1 RNA was <50 copies/ml in 54/95 (57%) and 53/91 (58%) of subjects, respectively. Median CD4 increase was +110 and +120 cells/mm3, respectively. Possible hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir were reported in four subjects (4%).

CONCLUSION:

The triple nucleoside combination combivir/abacavir is well tolerated as a first-line ART regimen in HIV-1-infected adults, with comparable antiviral activity to a nelfinavir-containing regimen at week 48.

Vertigo can cause significant morbidity and make a person unable to perform activities of daily life. A human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patient experienced vertigo while taking abacavir that resolved immediately on cessation of therapy. The mechanism by which abacavir appeared to be associated with vertigo in this patient is unknown.

Recently, the fixed-dose combinations (FDC) KIVEXA™ (abacavir/lamivudine) and TRUVADA (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) have facilitated the usage of once-daily regimens. However data from head-to-head randomized trials comparing these two FDCs as part of an initial regimen are not available at present. The long-term toxicity profiles of these regimens are of particular importance, as treatment of HIV is currently life-long and therefore, minimizing long-term toxicity and maximizing adherence and duration of regimen maintenance are critical therapy objectives.

The primary endpoint is estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), as measured by the modified diet in renal disease (MDRD) equation, a validated estimate of renal function.

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the safety/tolerability of abacavir and nevirapine in HIV-infected adults starting antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in Uganda.

METHODS:

Twenty-four-week randomized double-blind trial conducted with 600 symptomatic ARV-naive adults with CD4 <200 cells/mm(3) allocated to zidovudine/lamivudine plus 300 mg abacavir (A) and nevirapine placebo (n = 300) or 200 mg nevirapine (N) and abacavir placebo (n = 300) twice daily. The primary endpoint was any serious adverse event (SAE) definitely/probably or uncertain whether related to blinded nevirapine/abacavir. Secondary endpoints were adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of blinded nevirapine/abacavir, and grade 4 events.

RESULTS:

Seventy-two per cent participants were women; 19% had WHO stage 4 disease; the median age was 37 years (range 18-66); the median baseline CD4 count was 99 cells/mm(3) (1-199). Ninety-five per cent completed 24 weeks: 4% died and 1% were lost to follow-up. Thirty-seven SAEs occurred on blinded drug in 36 participants. Twenty events [6 (2.0%) abacavir, 14 (4.7%) nevirapine participants] were considered serious adverse reactions definitely/probably/uncertain whether related to blinded abacavir/nevirapine [HR = 0.42 (95% CI 0.16-1.09) P = 0.06]. Only 2.0% of abacavir participants [six patients (0.7-4.3%)] experienced a suspected hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). In total 14 (4.7%) abacavir and 30 (10.0%) nevirapine participants discontinued blinded abacavir/nevirapine (P = 0.02): because of toxicity (6A, 15N; P = 0.07, all rash/possible HSR and/or hepatotoxicity), anti-tuberculosis therapy (6A, 13N), or for other reasons (2A, 2N).

CONCLUSIONS:

There was a trend towards a lower rate of serious adverse reactions in Ugandan adults with low CD4 starting ARV regimens with abacavir than with nevirapine. This suggests that abacavir could be used more widely in resource-limited settings without major safety concerns.