Use of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-infected patients enrolled in the D:A:D study: a multi-cohort collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Whether nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors increase the risk of myocardial infarction in HIV-infected individuals is unclear. Our aim was to explore whether exposure to such drugs was associated with an excess risk of myocardial infarction in a large, prospective observational cohort of HIV-infected patients. METHODS: We used Poisson regression models to quantify the relation between cumulative, recent (currently or within the preceding 6 months), and past use of zidovudine, didanosine, stavudine, lamivudine, and abacavir and development of myocardial infarction in 33 347 patients enrolled in the D:A:D study. We adjusted for cardiovascular risk factors that are unlikely to be affected by antiretroviral therapy, cohort, calendar year, and use of other antiretrovirals. FINDINGS: Over 157,912 person-years, 517 patients had a myocardial infarction. We found no associations between the rate of myocardial infarction and cumulative or recent use of zidovudine, stavudine, or lamivudine. By contrast, recent-but not cumulative-use of abacavir or didanosine was associated with an increased rate of myocardial infarction (compared with those with no recent use of the drugs, relative rate 1.90, 95% CI 1.47-2.45 [p=0.0001] with abacavir and 1.49, 1.14-1.95 [p=0.003] with didanosine); rates were not significantly increased in those who stopped these drugs more than 6 months previously compared with those who had never received these drugs. After adjustment for predicted 10-year risk of coronary heart disease, recent use of both didanosine and abacavir remained associated with increased rates of myocardial infarction (1.49, 1.14-1.95 [p=0.004] with didanosine; 1.89, 1.47-2.45 [p=0.0001] with abacavir). INTERPRETATION: There exists an increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients exposed to abacavir and didanosine within the preceding 6 months. The excess risk does not seem to be explained by underlying established cardiovascular risk factors and was not present beyond 6 months after drug cessation.

Does short-term virologic failure translate to clinical events in antiretroviral-naïve patients initiating antiretroviral therapy in clinical practice?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in short-term virologic failure among commonly used antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens translate to differences in clinical events in antiretroviral-naïve patients initiating ART. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of patients initiating ART between January 2000 and December 2005. SETTING: The Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC) is a collaboration of 15 HIV cohort studies from Canada, Europe, and the United States. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: A total of 13 546 antiretroviral-naïve HIV-positive patients initiating ART with efavirenz, nevirapine, lopinavir/ritonavir, nelfinavir, or abacavir as third drugs in combination with a zidovudine and lamivudine nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-term (24-week) virologic failure (>500 copies/ml) and clinical events within 2 years of ART initiation (incident AIDS-defining event, death, and a composite measure of these two outcomes). RESULTS: Compared with efavirenz as initial third drug, short-term virologic failure was more common with all other third drugs evaluated; nevirapine (adjusted odds ratio = 1.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.58-2.22), lopinavir/ritonavir (1.32, 95% CI = 1.12-1.57), nelfinavir (3.20, 95% CI = 2.74-3.74), and abacavir (2.13, 95% CI = 1.82-2.50). However, the rate of clinical events within 2 years of ART initiation appeared higher only with nevirapine (adjusted hazard ratio for composite outcome measure 1.27, 95% CI = 1.04-1.56) and abacavir (1.22, 95% CI = 1.00-1.48). CONCLUSION: Among antiretroviral-naïve patients initiating therapy, between-ART regimen, differences in short-term virologic failure do not necessarily translate to differences in clinical outcomes. Our results should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility of residual confounding by indication.

Treatment modification in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals starting combination antiretroviral therapy between 2005 and 2008.

BACKGROUND: Adverse effects of combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) commonly result in treatment modification and poor adherence. METHODS: We investigated predictors of toxicity-related treatment modification during the first year of CART in 1318 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study who began treatment between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008. RESULTS: The total rate of treatment modification was 41.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.6-45.8) per 100 person-years. Of these, switches or discontinuations because of drug toxicity occurred at a rate of 22.4 (95% CI, 19.5-25.6) per 100 person-years. The most frequent toxic effects were gastrointestinal tract intolerance (28.9%), hypersensitivity (18.3%), central nervous system adverse events (17.3%), and hepatic events (11.5%). In the multivariate analysis, combined zidovudine and lamivudine (hazard ratio [HR], 2.71 [95% CI, 1.95-3.83]; P < .001), nevirapine (1.95 [1.01-3.81]; P = .050), comedication for an opportunistic infection (2.24 [1.19-4.21]; P = .01), advanced age (1.21 [1.03-1.40] per 10-year increase; P = .02), female sex (1.68 [1.14-2.48]; P = .009), nonwhite ethnicity (1.71 [1.18-2.47]; P = .005), higher baseline CD4 cell count (1.19 [1.10-1.28] per 100/microL increase; P < .001), and HIV-RNA of more than 5.0 log(10) copies/mL (1.47 [1.10-1.97]; P = .009) were associated with higher rates of treatment modification. Almost 90% of individuals with treatment-limiting toxic effects were switched to a new regimen, and 85% achieved virologic suppression to less than 50 copies/mL at 12 months compared with 87% of those continuing CART (P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: Drug toxicity remains a frequent reason for treatment modification; however, it does not affect treatment success. Close monitoring and management of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions are crucial for the durability of CART.

HBV genotypes and response to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV/HBV-coinfected persons.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes can influence treatment outcome in HBV-monoinfected and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HBV-coinfected patients. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plays a pivotal role in antiretroviral therapy (ART) of HIV/HBV-coinfected patients. The influence of HBV genotypes on the response to antiviral drugs, particularly TDF, is poorly understood. METHODS: HIV/HBV-co-infected participants with detectable HBV DNA prior to TDF therapy were selected from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. HBV genotypes were identified and resistance testing was performed prior to antiviral therapy, and in patients with delayed treatment response (>6 months). The efficacy of TDF to suppress HBV (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) and the influence of HBV genotypes were determined. RESULTS: 143 HIV/HBV-coinfected participants with detectable HBV DNA were identified. The predominant HBV genotypes were A (82 patients, 57 %); and D (35 patients, 24 %); 20 patients (14 %) were infected with multiple genotypes (3 % A + D and 11 % A + G); and genotypes B, C and E were each present in two patients (1 %). TDF completely suppressed HBV DNA in 131 patients (92 %) within 6 months; and in 12 patients (8 %), HBV DNA suppression was delayed. No HBV resistance mutations to TDF were found in patients with delayed response, but all were infected with HBV genotype A (among these, 5 patients with genotype A + G), and all had previously been exposed to lamivudine. CONCLUSION: In HIV/HBV-coinfected patients, infection with multiple HBV genotypes was more frequent than previously reported. The large majority of patients had an undetectable HBV viral load at six months of TDF-containing ART. In patients without viral suppression, no TDF-related resistance mutations were found. The role of specific genotypes and prior lamivudine treatment in the delayed response to TDF warrant further investigation.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks. METHODS: FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 [82%] vs 32/61 [52%], homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 [13%] vs 34/242 [14%]), and headache (17/242 [7%] vs 12/242 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.

Assessing efficacy of different nucleos(t)ide backbones in NNRTI-containing regimens in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The most recommended NRTI combinations as first-line antiretroviral treatment for HIV-1 infection in resource-rich settings are tenofovir/emtricitabine, abacavir/lamivudine, tenofovir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine. Efficacy studies of these combinations also considering pill numbers, dosing frequencies and ethnicities are rare. METHODS: We included patients starting first-line combination ART (cART) with or switching from first-line cART without treatment failure to tenofovir/emtricitabine, abacavir/lamivudine, tenofovir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine plus efavirenz or nevirapine. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to investigate the effect of the different NRTI combinations on two primary outcomes: virological failure (VF) and emergence of NRTI resistance. Additionally, we performed a pill burden analysis and adjusted the model for pill number and dosing frequency. RESULTS: Failure events per treated patient for the four NRTI combinations were as follows: 19/1858 (tenofovir/emtricitabine), 9/387 (abacavir/lamivudine), 11/344 (tenofovir/lamivudine) and 45/1244 (zidovudine/lamivudine). Compared with tenofovir/emtricitabine, abacavir/lamivudine had an adjusted HR for having VF of 2.01 (95% CI 0.86-4.55), tenofovir/lamivudine 2.89 (1.22-6.88) and zidovudine/lamivudine 2.28 (1.01-5.14), whereas for the emergence of NRTI resistance abacavir/lamivudine had an HR of 1.17 (0.11-12.2), tenofovir/lamivudine 11.3 (2.34-55.3) and zidovudine/lamivudine 4.02 (0.78-20.7). Differences among regimens disappeared when models were additionally adjusted for pill burden. However, non-white patients compared with white patients and higher pill number per day were associated with increased risks of VF and emergence of NRTI resistance: HR of non-white ethnicity for VF was 2.85 (1.64-4.96) and for NRTI resistance 3.54 (1.20-10.4); HR of pill burden for VF was 1.41 (1.01-1.96) and for NRTI resistance 1.72 (0.97-3.02). CONCLUSIONS: Although VF and emergence of resistance was very low in the population studied, tenofovir/emtricitabine appears to be superior to abacavir/lamivudine, tenofovir/lamivudine and zidovudine/lamivudine. However, it is unclear whether these differences are due to the substances as such or to an association of tenofovir/emtricitabine regimens with lower pill burden.