Added Value of Deep Sequencing Relative to Population Sequencing in Heavily Pre-Treated HIV-1-Infected Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential of deep HIV-1 sequencing for adding clinically relevant information relative to viral population sequencing in heavily pre-treated HIV-1-infected subjects. METHODS: In a proof-of-concept study, deep sequencing was compared to population sequencing in HIV-1-infected individuals with previous triple-class virological failure who also developed virologic failure to deep salvage therapy including, at least, darunavir, tipranavir, etravirine or raltegravir. Viral susceptibility was inferred before salvage therapy initiation and at virological failure using deep and population sequencing genotypes interpreted with the HIVdb, Rega and ANRS algorithms. The threshold level for mutant detection with deep sequencing was 1%. RESULTS: 7 subjects with previous exposure to a median of 15 antiretrovirals during a median of 13 years were included. Deep salvage therapy included darunavir, tipranavir, etravirine or raltegravir in 4, 2, 2 and 5 subjects, respectively. Self-reported treatment adherence was adequate in 4 and partial in 2; one individual underwent treatment interruption during follow-up. Deep sequencing detected all mutations found by population sequencing and identified additional resistance mutations in all but one individual, predominantly after virological failure to deep salvage therapy. Additional genotypic information led to consistent decreases in predicted susceptibility to etravirine, efavirenz, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and indinavir in 2, 1, 2 and 1 subject, respectively. Deep sequencing data did not consistently modify the susceptibility predictions achieved with population sequencing for darunavir, tipranavir or raltegravir. CONCLUSIONS: In this subset of heavily pre-treated individuals, deep sequencing improved the assessment of genotypic resistance to etravirine, but did not consistently provide additional information on darunavir, tipranavir or raltegravir susceptibility. These data may inform the design of future studies addressing the clinical value of minority drug-resistant variants in treatment-experienced subjects.

Monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir is effective and safe in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION Monotherapy against HIV has undoubted theoretical advantages and has good scientific fundaments. However, it is still controversial and here we will analyze the efficacy and safety of MT with darunavir with ritonavir (DRV/r) on patients who have received this treatment in our hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational retrospective study that includes patients from 10 Andalusian hospitals that have received DRV/r in MT and that have been followed over a minimum of 12 months. We carried out a statistical descriptive analysis based on the profile of patients who had been prescribed MT and the efficacy and safety that were observed, paying special attention to treatment failure and virological evolution. RESULTS DRV/r was prescribed to 604 patients, of which 41.1% had a CD4 nadir <200/mmc. 33.1% had chronic hepatitis caused by HCV, had received an average of five lines of previous treatment and had a history of treatment failure to analogues in 33%, to non-analogues 22 and protease inhibitors (PI) in 19.5%. 76.6% proceeded from a previous treatment with PI. The simplification was the main criteria for the instauration of MT in the 81.5% and the adverse effects in the 18.5%. We managed to maintain MT in 84% of cases, with only 4.8% of virological failure (VF) with viral load (VL) >200 c/mL and 3.6% additional losses due to VF with VL between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Thirty three genotypes were performed after failure without findings of resistance mutations to DRV/r or other IPs. Only 23.7% of patients presented some blips during the period of exposition to MT. Eighty seven percent of all determinations of VL had <50 copies/mL, and only 4.99% had >200 copies/mL. Although up to 14.9% registered at some point an AE, only 2.6% abandoned MT because of AE and 1.2% because of voluntary decision. Although the average of total and LDL cholesterol increases 10 mg/dL after 2 years of follow-up, so did HDL cholesterol in 3mg/dL and the values of triglycerides (-14 mg/dL) and GPT (-6 UI/mL) decreased. The average count of CD4 lymphocytes increased from 642 to 714/mm(3) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In a very broad series of patients obtained from clinical practice, data from clinical trials was confirmed: MT with DRV as a de-escalation strategy is very safe, it's associated to a negligible rate of adverse effects and maintains a good suppression of HIV replication. VF (with >50 or >200 copies/mL) is always under 10% and in any case without consequences.

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma.

BACKGROUND The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib. METHODS We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy. CONCLUSIONS The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).