Lipid and lipoprotein profile in HIV-infected patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir as a component of the first combination antiretroviral therapy

We characterized lipid and lipoprotein changes associated with a lopinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. We enrolled previously antiretroviral-naive patients participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Fasting blood samples (baseline) were retrieved retrospectively from stored frozen plasma and posttreatment (follow-up) samples were collected prospectively at two separate visits. Lipids and lipoproteins were analyzed at a single reference laboratory. Sixty-five patients had two posttreatment lipid profile measurements and nine had only one. Most of the measured lipids and lipoprotein plasma concentrations increased on lopinavir/ritonavir-based treatment. The percentage of patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG >150?mg/dl) increased from 28/74 (38%) at baseline to 37/65 (57%) at the second follow-up. We did not find any correlation between lopinavir plasma levels and the concentration of triglycerides. There was weak evidence of an increase in small dense LDL-apoB during the first year of treatment but not beyond 1 year (odds ratio 4.5, 90% CI 0.7 to 29 and 0.9, 90% CI 0.5 to 1.5, respectively). However, 69% of our patients still had undetectable small dense LDL-apoB levels while on treatment. LDL-cholesterol increased by a mean of 17?mg/dl (90% CI -3 to 37) during the first year of treatment, but mean values remained below the cut-off for therapeutic intervention. Despite an increase in the majority of measured lipids and lipoproteins particularly in the first year after initiation, we could not detect an obvious increase of cardiovascular risk resulting from the observed lipid changes.

ADME pharmacogenetics: investigation of the pharmacokinetics of the antiretroviral agent lopinavir coformulated with ritonavir

An ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)-pharmacogenetics association study may identify functional variants relevant to the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir co-formulated with ritonavir (LPV/r), a first-line anti-HIV agent.

Renal function in patients with HIV starting therapy with tenofovir and either efavirenz, lopinavir or atazanavir

Tenofovir is associated with reduced renal function, but it is not clear whether there is a greater decline in renal function when tenofovir is co-administered with a boosted protease inhibitor rather than with a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI).

Virological and immunological responses to efavirenz or boosted lopinavir as first-line therapy for patients with HIV

BACKGROUND: Efavirenz and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir are both recommended as first-line therapies for patients with HIV when combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. It is uncertain which therapy is more effective for patients starting therapy with an advanced infection. METHODS: We estimated the relative effect of these two therapies on rates of virological and immunological failure within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and considered whether estimates depended on the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. We defined virological failure as either an incomplete virological response or viral rebound after viral suppression and immunological failure as failure to achieve an expected CD4(+) T-cell increase calculated from EuroSIDA statistics. RESULTS: Patients starting efavirenz (n=660) and lopinavir (n=541) were followed for a median of 4.5 and 3.1 years, respectively. Virological failure was less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.63 (0.50-0.78) then multiplied by a factor of 1.00 (0.90-1.12) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. Immunological failure was also less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio of 0.68 (0.51-0.91) then multiplied by a factor of 1.29 (1.14-1.46) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Virological failure is less likely with efavirenz regardless of the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. Immunological failure is also less likely with efavirenz; however, this advantage disappears if patients start therapy with a low CD4(+) T-cell count.

Outcomes of patients on dual-boosted PI regimens: experience of the Swiss HIV cohort study

Dual-boosted protease inhibitors (DBPI) are an option for salvage therapy for HIV-1 resistant patients. Patients receiving a DBPI in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study between January1996 and March 2007 were studied. Outcomes of interest were viral suppression at 24 weeks. 295 patients (72.5%) were on DBPI for over 6 months. The median duration was 2.2 years. Of 287 patients who had HIV-RNA >400?copies/ml at the start of the regimen, 184 (64.1%) were ever suppressed while on DBPI and 156 (54.4%) were suppressed within 24 weeks. The median time to suppression was 101 days (95% confidence interval 90-125 days). The median number of past regimens was 6 (IQR, 3-8). The main reasons for discontinuing the regimen were patient's wish (48.3%), treatment failure (22.5%), and toxicity (15.8%). Acquisition of HIV through intravenous drug use and the use of lopinavir in combination with saquinavir or atazanavir were associated with an increased likelihood of suppression within 6 months. Patients on DBPI are heavily treatment experienced. Viral suppression within 6 months was achieved in more than half of the patients. There may be a place for DBPI regimens in settings where more expensive alternates are not available.

Randomized controlled study demonstrating failure of LPV/r monotherapy in HIV: the role of compartment and CD4-nadir

Long-term side-effects and cost of HIV treatment motivate the development of simplified maintenance. Monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r-MT) is the most widely studied strategy. However, efficacy of LPV/r-MT in compartments remains to be shown.

Determinants of sustained viral suppression in HIV-infected patients with self-reported poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy

Background Good adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is critical for successful HIV treatment. However, some patients remain virologically suppressed despite suboptimal adherence. We hypothesized that this could result from host genetic factors influencing drug levels. Methods Eligible individuals were Caucasians treated with efavirenz (EFV) and/or boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) with self-reported poor adherence, defined as missing doses of ART at least weekly for more than 6 months. Participants were genotyped for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in candidate genes previously reported to decrease EFV (rs3745274, rs35303484, rs35979566 in CYP2B6) and LPV/r clearance (rs4149056 in SLCO1B1, rs6945984 in CYP3A, rs717620 in ABCC2). Viral suppression was defined as having HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml throughout the study period. Results From January 2003 until May 2009, 37 individuals on EFV (28 suppressed and 9 not suppressed) and 69 on LPV/r (38 suppressed and 31 not suppressed) were eligible. The poor adherence period was a median of 32 weeks with 18.9% of EFV and 20.3% of LPV/r patients reporting missed doses on a daily basis. The tested SNPs were not determinant for viral suppression. Reporting missing >1 dose/week was associated with a lower probability of viral suppression compared to missing 1 dose/week (EFV: odds ratio (OR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.01–0.99; LPV/r: OR 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09–0.94). In both groups, the probability of remaining suppressed increased with the duration of continuous suppression prior to the poor adherence period (EFV: OR 3.40, 95% CI: 0.62–18.75; LPV/r: OR 5.65, 95% CI: 1.82–17.56). Conclusions The investigated genetic variants did not play a significant role in the sustained viral suppression of individuals with suboptimal adherence. Risk of failure decreased with longer duration of viral suppression in this population.

Choice of Initial Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Individuals With HIV Infection: Determinants and Outcomes

BACKGROUND Current guidelines give recommendations for preferred combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). We investigated factors influencing the choice of initial cART in clinical practice and its outcome. METHODS We analyzed treatment-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and starting cART from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009. The primary end point was the choice of the initial antiretroviral regimen. Secondary end points were virologic suppression, the increase in CD4 cell counts from baseline, and treatment modification within 12 months after starting treatment. RESULTS A total of 1957 patients were analyzed. Tenofovir-emtricitabine (TDF-FTC)-efavirenz was the most frequently prescribed cART (29.9%), followed by TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r (16.9%), TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r (12.9%), zidovudine-lamivudine (ZDV-3TC)-lopinavir/r (12.8%), and abacavir/lamivudine (ABC-3TC)-efavirenz (5.7%). Differences in prescription were noted among different Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, compared with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, starting TDF-FTC-lopinavir/r was associated with prior AIDS (relative risk ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 1.78-4.35), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.53; 1.07-2.18), and CD4 greater than 350 cells/μL (1.67; 1.04-2.70); TDF-FTC-atazanavir/r with a depressive disorder (1.77; 1.04-3.01), HIV-RNA greater than 100 000 copies/mL (1.54; 1.05-2.25), and an opiate substitution program (2.76; 1.09-7.00); and ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r with female sex (3.89; 2.39-6.31) and CD4 cell counts greater than 350 cells/μL (4.50; 2.58-7.86). At 12 months, 1715 patients (87.6%) achieved viral load less than 50 copies/mL and CD4 cell counts increased by a median (interquartile range) of 173 (89-269) cells/μL. Virologic suppression was more likely with TDF-FTC-efavirenz, and CD4 increase was higher with ZDV-3TC-lopinavir/r. No differences in outcome were observed among Swiss HIV Cohort Study sites. CONCLUSIONS Large differences in prescription but not in outcome were observed among study sites. A trend toward individualized cART was noted suggesting that initial cART is significantly influenced by physician's preference and patient characteristics. Our study highlights the need for evidence-based data for determining the best initial regimen for different HIV-infected persons.

Orosomucoid (alpha1-acid glycoprotein) plasma concentration and genetic variants: effects on human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor clearance and cellular accumulation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Protease inhibitors are highly bound to orosomucoid (ORM) (alpha1-acid glycoprotein), an acute-phase plasma protein encoded by 2 polymorphic genes, which may modulate their disposition. Our objective was to determine the influence of ORM concentration and phenotype on indinavir, lopinavir, and nelfinavir apparent clearance (CL(app)) and cellular accumulation. Efavirenz, mainly bound to albumin, was included as a control drug. METHODS: Plasma and cells samples were collected from 434 human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Total plasma and cellular drug concentrations and ORM concentrations and phenotypes were determined. RESULTS: Indinavir CL(app) was strongly influenced by ORM concentration (n = 36) (r2 = 0.47 [P = .00004]), particularly in the presence of ritonavir (r2 = 0.54 [P = .004]). Lopinavir CL(app) was weakly influenced by ORM concentration (n = 81) (r2 = 0.18 [P = .0001]). For both drugs, the ORM1 S variant concentration mainly explained this influence (r2 = 0.55 [P = .00004] and r2 = 0.23 [P = .0002], respectively). Indinavir CL(app) was significantly higher in F1F1 individuals than in F1S and SS patients (41.3, 23.4, and 10.3 L/h [P = .0004] without ritonavir and 21.1, 13.2, and 10.1 L/h [P = .05] with ritonavir, respectively). Lopinavir cellular exposure was not influenced by ORM abundance and phenotype. Finally, ORM concentration or phenotype did not influence nelfinavir (n = 153) or efavirenz (n = 198) pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: ORM concentration and phenotype modulate indinavir pharmacokinetics and, to a lesser extent, lopinavir pharmacokinetics but without influencing their cellular exposure. This confounding influence of ORM should be taken into account for appropriate interpretation of therapeutic drug monitoring results. Further studies are needed to investigate whether the measure of unbound drug plasma concentration gives more meaningful information than total drug concentration for indinavir and lopinavir.

Are plasma levels valid surrogates for cellular concentrations of antiretroviral drugs in HIV-infected patients?

Total plasma concentrations are currently measured for therapeutic drug monitoring of HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). However, the pharmacological target of antiretroviral drugs reside inside cells. To study the variability of their cellular accumulation, and to determine to which extent total plasma concentrations (TPC) correlate with cellular concentrations (CC), plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were simultaneously collected at single random times after drug intake from 133 HIV infected patients. TPC levels were analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection and CC by LC-MS/MS from peripheral blood mononuclear cells. The best correlations between TPC and CC were observed for nelfinavir (NFV, slope=0.93, r=0.85), saquinavir (SQV, slope=0.76, r=0.80) and lopinavir (LPV, slope=0.87, r=0.63). By contrast, TPC of efavirenz (EFV) exhibited a moderate correlation with CC (slope=0.69, r=0.58), while no correlation was found for nevirapine (NVP, slope=-0.3, r=0.1). Interindividual variability in the CC/TPC ratio was lower for protease inhibitors (coefficients of variation 76%, 61%, and 80% for SQV, NFV and LPV, respectively) than for nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (coefficients of variation 101% and 318%, for EFV and NVP). As routine CC measurement raises practical difficulties, well-correlated plasma concentrations (ie, NFV, SQV and LPV) can probably be considered as appropriate surrogates for cellular drug exposure. For drugs such as EFV or NVP, there may be room for therapeutic drug monitoring improvement using either direct CC determination or other predictive factors such as genotyping of transporters or metabolizing enzyme genes.

Gilbert syndrome and the development of antiretroviral therapy-associated hyperbilirubinemia

BACKGROUND: Unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia results from Gilbert syndrome and from antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing protease inhibitors. An understanding of the interaction between genetic predisposition and ART may help to identify individuals at highest risk for developing jaundice. METHODS: We quantified the contribution of UGT1A1*28 and ART to hyperbilirubinemia by longitudinally modeling 1386 total bilirubin levels in 96 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals during a median of 6 years. RESULTS: The estimated average bilirubin level was 8.8 micromol/L (0.51 mg/dL). Atazanavir increased bilirubin levels by 15 mu mol/L (0.87 mg/dL), and indinavir increased bilirubin levels by 8 micromol/L (0.46 mg/dL). Ritonavir, lopinavir, saquinavir, and nelfinavir had no or minimal effect on bilirubin levels. Homozygous UGT1A1*28 increased bilirubin levels by 5.2 micromol/L (0.3 mg/dL). As a consequence, 67% of individuals homozygous for UGT1A1*28 and receiving atazanavir or indinavir had > or =2 episodes of hyperbilirubinemia in the jaundice range (>43 micromol/L [>2.5 mg/dL]), versus 7% of those with the common allele and not receiving either of those protease inhibitors (P<.001). Efavirenz resulted in decreased bilirubin levels, which is consistent with the induction of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1. CONCLUSIONS: Genotyping for UGT1A1*28 before initiation of ART would identify HIV-infected individuals at risk for hyperbilirubinemia and decrease episodes of jaundice.

Lipid profiles for antiretroviral-naive patients starting PI- and NNRTI-based therapy in the Swiss HIV cohort study

BACKGROUND: Blood lipid abnormalities in patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) have been associated with exposure to protease inhibitors (PIs), particularly ritonavir. First therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) leads to relatively favourable lipid profiles. We report on medium-term lipid profiles (up to 5 years) for antiretroviral-naive patients starting NNRTI- and PI-based HAART in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. METHODS: Since April 2000, blood samples taken at visits scheduled every 6 months have been analysed for cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations. For 1065 antiretroviral-naive patients starting HAART after April 2000, we estimated changes in concentration over time using multivariate linear regression with adjustment for baseline covariates, use of lipid-lowering drugs and whether the sample was taken in a fasting state. RESULTS: Non-high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels increase with increasing exposure to either PI- or NNRTI-based therapy, HDL cholesterol levels increase and triglyceride levels decrease with increasing exposure to NNRTI-based therapy, whereas triglyceride levels increase with increasing exposure to PI-based therapy. Between NNRTI-based therapies, there is a slight difference in triglyceride levels, which tend to increase with increasing exposure to efavirenz and to decrease with increasing exposure to nevirapine. Of the three common PI-based therapies, nelfinavir appears to have a relatively favourable lipid profile, with little change with increasing exposure. Of the other two PI therapies, lopinavir with ritonavir has a more favourable profile than indinavir with ritonavir, with smaller increases in both non-HDL cholesterol and triglycerides and an increase in HDL cholesterol. Increasing exposure to abacavir is associated with a decrease in the level of triglycerides. CONCLUSION: In general, NNRTI-based therapy is associated with a more favourable lipid profile than PI-based therapy, but different PI-based therapies are associated with very different lipid profiles. Nelfinavir appears to have a relatively favourable lipid profile. Of the two boosted PI therapies, lopinavir appears to have a more favourable lipid profile than indinavir.

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.