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.

Cost-effectiveness of Tenofovir / Emtricitabine / Efavirenz versus Zidovudine / Lamivudine / Efavirenz as fist-line regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients in low-income settings

The Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) is the combination of at least three antiretroviral compounds. The combination purpose is to reduce the likelihood of drug resistance. However in the long-term the resistance to the first-line combination occurs and leads to treatment failure. Thus, a second-line and even a third-line regimen are recommended in the long run. [...] [P. 5] The two treatment alternatives under comparison: Tenofovir (300 mg) CO-formulated with Emtricitabine (200 mg) and Efavirenz (600 mg) currently known under the brand name Atripla (R) was introduced in July 2006 in the United States market. The excellent safety profile and ease of use make this combination a perfect first-line regimen in low-income settings. Therefore, this treatment option was recommended in WHO 2006 reviewed guidelines. Unfortunately, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine compounds are still costly and not yet widely available. For a matter of simplification this regimen is referred in this report as "the recent" therapy. Initially, we had in mind to consider the most frequently used first-line regimen in low-income countries (Stavudine / Larnivudme / Nevirapine) as a comparator for this economic evaluation. Unfortunately, according to the literature review results (see Annex 3); there was no data available comparing head to head the effectiveness of this regimen with the recent one. Instead, we selected a less frequently but commonly used first-line regimen in low-income countries as a comparator: Zidovudine, Lamivudine, Efavirenz. This combination has extensive experience in durability, safety and toxicity and seems to be an optimal choice for a first-line regimen according to the clinical trial group 384 team. Furthermore, Zidovudine, one of the compounds of this combination is now recommended as one of the preferred NNRTI [Non Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors] options to be considered by countries instead of Stavudine (the most used NNRTI in limited-income countries). As this combination has been included in the WHO guidelines as a first-line therapy since 2003 when WHO launched the "3 by 5" scaling-up initiative, this combination of drugs is referred in this report as the "old" therapy. Objectives: The primary objective of this economic evaluation is to compare the two first-line HAARTs introduced above, in a low-income setting context. Both of these combinations are recommended by the 2006 WHO guidelines as potential first-line regimens. The secondary objective is to provide a simplified and comprehensible cost-effectiveness modeling tool in order to help policy makers, in resource-limited settings, make decisions about which first-line HAART to fund using the scarce resources available. [P. 6-7]

Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2012 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA panel.

CONTEXT: New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last 2 years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults in resource-rich settings. OBJECTIVE: To provide current recommendations for the treatment of adult HIV infection with ART and use of laboratory-monitoring tools. Guidelines include when to start therapy and with what drugs, monitoring for response and toxic effects, special considerations in therapy, and managing antiretroviral failure. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA EXTRACTION: Data that had been published or presented in abstract form at scientific conferences in the past 2 years were systematically searched and reviewed by an International Antiviral Society-USA panel. The panel reviewed available evidence and formed recommendations by full panel consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Treatment is recommended for all adults with HIV infection; the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence increase with decreasing CD4 cell count and the presence of certain concurrent conditions. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir), or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (raltegravir). Alternatives in each class are recommended for patients with or at risk of certain concurrent conditions. CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA level should be monitored, as should engagement in care, ART adherence, HIV drug resistance, and quality-of-care indicators. Reasons for regimen switching include virologic, immunologic, or clinical failure and drug toxicity or intolerance. Confirmed treatment failure should be addressed promptly and multiple factors considered. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for HIV patient care include offering ART to all patients regardless of CD4 cell count, changes in therapeutic options, and modifications in the timing and choice of ART in the setting of opportunistic illnesses such as cryptococcal disease and tuberculosis.

Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2014 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel.

IMPORTANCE: New data and antiretroviral regimens expand treatment choices in resource-rich settings and warrant an update of recommendations to treat adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). OBJECTIVE: To provide updated treatment recommendations for adults with HIV, emphasizing when to start treatment; what treatment to start; the use of laboratory monitoring tools; and managing treatment failure, switches, and simplification. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, AND DATA SYNTHESIS: An International Antiviral Society-USA panel of experts in HIV research and patient care considered previous data and reviewed new data since the 2012 update with literature searches in PubMed and EMBASE through June 2014. Recommendations and ratings were based on the quality of evidence and consensus. RESULTS: Antiretroviral therapy is recommended for all adults with HIV infection. Evidence for benefits of treatment and quality of available data increase at lower CD4 cell counts. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs; abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine) and a third single or boosted drug, which should be an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (dolutegravir, elvitegravir, or raltegravir), a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz or rilpivirine) or a boosted protease inhibitor (darunavir or atazanavir). Alternative regimens are available. Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy is generally not recommended, but NRTI-sparing approaches may be considered. New guidance for optimal timing of monitoring of laboratory parameters is provided. Suspected treatment failure warrants rapid confirmation, performance of resistance testing while the patient is receiving the failing regimen, and evaluation of reasons for failure before consideration of switching therapy. Regimen switches for adverse effects, convenience, or to reduce costs should not jeopardize antiretroviral potency. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: After confirmed diagnosis of HIV infection, antiretroviral therapy should be initiated in all individuals who are willing and ready to start treatment. Regimens should be selected or changed based on resistance test results with consideration of dosing frequency, pill burden, adverse toxic effect profiles, comorbidities, and drug interactions.

Minority quasispecies of drug-resistant HIV-1 that lead to early therapy failure in treatment-naive and -adherent patients.

BACKGROUND: Early virological failure of antiretroviral therapy associated with the selection of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in treatment-naive patients is very critical, because virological failure significantly increases the risk of subsequent failures. Therefore, we evaluated the possible role of minority quasispecies of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1, which are undetectable at baseline by population sequencing, with regard to early virological failure. METHODS: We studied 4 patients who experienced early virological failure of a first-line regimen of lamivudine, tenofovir, and either efavirenz or nevirapine and 18 control patients undergoing similar treatment without virological failure. The key mutations K65R, K103N, Y181C, M184V, and M184I in the reverse transcriptase were quantified by allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction performed on plasma samples before and during early virological treatment failure. RESULTS: Before treatment, none of the viruses showed any evidence of drug resistance in the standard genotype analysis. Minority quasispecies with either the M184V mutation or the M184I mutation were detected in 3 of 18 control patients. In contrast, all 4 patients whose treatment was failing had harbored drug-resistant viruses at low frequencies before treatment, with a frequency range of 0.07%-2.0%. A range of 1-4 mutations was detected in viruses from each patient. Most of the minority quasispecies were rapidly selected and represented the major virus population within weeks after the patients started antiretroviral therapy. All 4 patients showed good adherence to treatment. Nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor plasma concentrations were in normal ranges for all 4 patients at 2 separate assessment times. CONCLUSIONS: Minority quasispecies of drug-resistant viruses, detected at baseline, can rapidly outgrow and become the major virus population and subsequently lead to early therapy failure in treatment-naive patients who receive antiretroviral therapy regimens with a low genetic resistance barrier.

Virologic and immunologic responses in treatment-naive patients to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or efavirenz with a common backbone.

Background: Atazanavir boosted with ritonavir (ATV/r) and efavirenz (EFV) are both recommended as first-line therapies for HIV-infected patients. We compared the 2 therapies for virologic efficacy and immune recovery. Methods: We included all treatment-naïve patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study starting therapy after May 2003 with either ATV/r or EFV and a backbone of tenofovir and either emtricitabine or lamivudine. We used Cox models to assess time to virologic failure and repeated measures models to assess the change in CD4 cell counts over time. All models were fit as marginal structural models using both point of treatment and censoring weights. Intent-to-treat and various as-treated analyses were carried out: In the latter, patients were censored at their last recorded measurement if they changed therapy or if they were no longer adherent to therapy. Results: Patients starting EFV (n = 1,097) and ATV/r (n = 384) were followed for a median of 35 and 37 months, respectively. During follow-up, 51% patients on EFV and 33% patients on ATV/r remained adherent and made no change to their first-line therapy. Although intent-to-treat analyses suggest virologic failure was more likely with ATV/r, there was no evidence for this disadvantage in patients who adhered to first-line therapy. Patients starting ATV/r had a greater increase in CD4 cell count during the first year of therapy, but this advantage disappeared after one year. Conclusions: In this observational study, there was no good evidence of any intrinsic advantage for one therapy over the other, consistent with earlier clinical trials. Differences between therapies may arise in a clinical setting because of differences in adherence to therapy.

Incidence of HIV-1 drug resistance among antiretroviral treatment-naive individuals starting modern therapy combinations.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of drug resistance incidence to modern first-line combination antiretroviral therapies against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 are complicated by limited availability of genotypic drug resistance tests (GRTs) and uncertain timing of resistance emergence. METHODS: Five first-line combinations were studied (all paired with lamivudine or emtricitabine): efavirenz (EFV) plus zidovudine (AZT) (n = 524); EFV plus tenofovir (TDF) (n = 615); lopinavir (LPV) plus AZT (n = 573); LPV plus TDF (n = 301); and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATZ/r) plus TDF (n = 250). Virological treatment outcomes were classified into 3 risk strata for emergence of resistance, based on whether undetectable HIV RNA levels were maintained during therapy and, if not, whether viral loads were >500 copies/mL during treatment. Probabilities for presence of resistance mutations were estimated from GRTs (n = 2876) according to risk stratum and therapy received at time of testing. On the basis of these data, events of resistance emergence were imputed for each individual and were assessed using survival analysis. Imputation was repeated 100 times, and results were summarized by median values (2.5th-97.5th percentile range). RESULTS: Six years after treatment initiation, EFV plus AZT showed the highest cumulative resistance incidence (16%) of all regimens (<11%). Confounder-adjusted Cox regression confirmed that first-line EFV plus AZT (reference) was associated with a higher median hazard for resistance emergence, compared with other treatments: EFV plus TDF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; range, 0.42-0.76), LPV plus AZT (HR, 0.63; range, 0.45-0.89), LPV plus TDF (HR, 0.55; range, 0.33-0.83), ATZ/r plus TDF (HR, 0.43; range, 0.17-0.83). Two-thirds of resistance events were associated with detectable HIV RNA level ≤500 copies/mL during treatment, and only one-third with virological failure (HIV RNA level, >500 copies/mL). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of TDF instead of AZT and ATZ/r was correlated with lower rates of resistance emergence, most likely because of improved tolerability and pharmacokinetics resulting from a once-daily dosage.

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.

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.

Conjunctival MALT lymphoma: utility of FDG PET/CT for diagnosis, staging, and evaluation of treatment response.

A 67-year-old woman was referred for staging of a mucosa-associated lymphoid tumor lymphoma involving the left conjunctiva. CT scan had shown paravertebral and pelvic masses, and a breast nodule. FDG PET/CT demonstrated moderately increased uptake in the left ocular conjunctiva and confirmed the paravertebral and pelvic masses and the breast nodule. Moreover, abnormal FDG uptake was shown in 2 breast nodules, the flank, the gluteus maximus, and the gastric cardia. The patient received 6 cycles of rituximab-bendamustine chemotherapy with a complete clinical and metabolic response at the 6-month follow-up PET/CT and remained relapse-free without visual acuity problem after a 36-month follow-up.

IFN stimulated gene expression in the liver is a better predictor of treatment response in chronic hepatitis c than the IL28b (IFN lambda 3) genotype

Background: Therapy of chronic hepatitis C (CHC) with pegIFNa/ribavirin achieves sustained virologic response (SVR) in ~55%. Pre-activation of the endogenous interferon system in the liver is associated non-response (NR). Recently, genome-wide association studies described associations of allelic variants near the IL28B (IFNλ3) gene with treatment response and with spontaneous clearance of the virus. We investigated if the IL28B genotype determines the constitutive expression of IFN stimulated genes (ISGs) in the liver of patients with CHC. Methods: We genotyped 93 patients with CHC for 3 IL28B single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, rs12979860, rs8099917, rs12980275), extracted RNA from their liver biopsies and quantified the expression of IL28B and of 8 previously identified classifier genes which discriminate between SVR and NR (IFI44L, RSAD2, ISG15, IFI22, LAMP3, OAS3, LGALS3BP and HTATIP2). Decision tree ensembles in the form of a random forest classifier were used to calculate the relative predictive power of these different variables in a multivariate analysis. Results: The minor IL28B allele (bad risk for treatment response) was significantly associated with increased expression of ISGs, and, unexpectedly, with decreased expression of IL28B. Stratification of the patients into SVR and NR revealed that ISG expression was conditionally independent from the IL28B genotype, i.e. there was an increased expression of ISGs in NR compared to SVR irrespective of the IL28B genotype. The random forest feature score (RFFS) identified IFI27 (RFFS = 2.93), RSAD2 (1.88) and HTATIP2 (1.50) expression and the HCV genotype (1.62) as the strongest predictors of treatment response. ROC curves of the IL28B SNPs showed an AUC of 0.66 with an error rate (ERR) of 0.38. A classifier with the 3 best classifying genes showed an excellent test performance with an AUC of 0.94 and ERR of 0.15. The addition of IL28B genotype information did not improve the predictive power of the 3-gene classifier. Conclusions: IL28B genotype and hepatic ISG expression are conditionally independent predictors of treatment response in CHC. There is no direct link between altered IFNλ3 expression and pre-activation of the endogenous system in the liver. Hepatic ISG expression is by far the better predictor for treatment response than IL28B genotype.

Long-Term Trends of HIV Type 1 Drug Resistance Prevalence among Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients in Switzerland.

Background. Accurate quantification of the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) drug resistance in patients who are receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) is difficult, and results from previous studies vary. We attempted to assess the prevalence and dynamics of resistance in a highly representative patient cohort from Switzerland. Methods. On the basis of genotypic resistance test results and clinical data, we grouped patients according to their risk of harboring resistant viruses. Estimates of resistance prevalence were calculated on the basis of either the proportion of individuals with a virologic failure or confirmed drug resistance (lower estimate) or the frequency-weighted average of risk group-specific probabilities for the presence of drug resistance mutations (upper estimate). Results. Lower and upper estimates of drug resistance prevalence in 8064 ART-exposed patients were 50% and 57% in 1999 and 37% and 45% in 2007, respectively. This decrease was driven by 2 mechanisms: loss to follow-up or death of high-risk patients exposed to mono- or dual-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor therapy (lower estimates range from 72% to 75%) and continued enrollment of low-risk patients who were taking combination ART containing boosted protease inhibitors or nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors as first-line therapy (lower estimates range from 7% to 12%). A subset of 4184 participants (52%) had 1 study visit per year during 2002-2007. In this subset, lower and upper estimates increased from 45% to 49% and from 52% to 55%, respectively. Yearly increases in prevalence were becoming smaller in later years. Conclusions. Contrary to earlier predictions, in situations of free access to drugs, close monitoring, and rapid introduction of new potent therapies, the emergence of drug-resistant viruses can be minimized at the population level. Moreover, this study demonstrates the necessity of interpreting time trends in the context of evolving cohort populations.

Influence of seasons and sampling strategy on assessment of bioaerosols in sewage treatment plants in Switzerland

An assessment of sewage workers' exposure to airborne cultivable bacteria, fungi and inhaled endotoxins was performed at 11 sewage treatment plants. We sampled the enclosed and unenclosed treatment areas in each plant and evaluated the influence of seasons (summer and winter) on bioaerosol levels. We also measured personal exposure to endotoxins of workers during special operation where a higher risk of bioaerosol inhalation was assumed. Results show that only fungi are present in significantly higher concentrations in summer than in winter (2331 +/- 858 versus 329 +/- 95 CFU m(-3)). We also found that there are significantly more bacteria in the enclosed area, near the particle grids for incoming water, than in the unenclosed area near the aeration basins (9455 +/- 2661 versus 2435 +/- 985 CFU m(-3) in summer and 11 081 +/- 2299 versus 2002 +/- 839 CFU m(-3) in winter). All bioaerosols were frequently above the recommended values of occupational exposure. Workers carrying out special tasks such as cleaning tanks were exposed to very high levels of endotoxins (up to 500 EU m(-3)) compared to routine work. The species composition and concentration of airborne Gram-negative bacteria were also studied. A broad spectrum of different species within the Pseudomonadaceae and the Enterobacteriaceae families were predominant in nearly all plants investigated. [Authors]