Learning from drug changes in antiretroviral therapy
aAIDS Research Institute, IrsiCaixa-HIVACAT, Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona bFundació Lluita contra la SIDA, Badalona, Catalonia, Spain.AIDS (Impact Factor: 5.55). 03/2013; 27(5):833-834. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835c1213
In middle 1990s, the availability of nucleoside analog and non-nucleoside analog inhibitors of the HIV reverse transcriptase (NRTI and NNRTI, respectively) and inhibitors of viral protease (PIs) allowed for the introduction of treatments combining different families of antiretrovirals. This approach was defined as HAART and is currently known as Combined Antiretroviral Therapy (cART). Initial cART combinations included three drugs (two NRTI and a PI or NNRTI) and achieved a durable reduction of HIV replication in HIV-infected patients, resulting in a sharp reduction in AIDS-related deaths and opening a new era in HIV treatment. With HIV replication under pharmacological control, new problems emerged. Resistance to cART resulting in virological failure was rapidly reported, mostly in suboptimally treated individuals . An additional relevant fraction of patients showed short-term drug toxicity or a range of long-term side-effects associated with different drugs or combinations. This fact added complexity to the management of dangerous inflammatory sequels of viral replication . Moreover, the requirement of a lifelong treatment uncovered an additional problem, the adherence to treatment, which was rapidly identified as a source for the appearance of resistances and increased risk of comorbidities. Several attempts to lessen these problems were explored, including proactive treatment switch , treatment simplifications , structured treatment inter-ruptions (STIs)  and development of new drugs. Although the former strategies are still under debate, the use of STI was ruled out by the compelling data of the Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy study . The availability of new drugs (more than 20 antiretrovirals are currently available in developed countries) has broaden drug choice and has improved the patient acceptance and satisfaction to treatment, as well as safety profile of new regimens. However, the definition of the best available starting cART is hampered by the lack of data on the exact impact of long-term durability of different regimens. Under the premise 'never change a winning team', the knowledge of how often a combination regimen is changed can be a good surrogate marker of its success. Moreover, the analysis of the reasons leading to drug change may point up the main limitations of cART regimens, and therefore may help to bring regimens closer to the best achievable setting.
Full-textDOI: · Available from: Julià Blanco, Oct 07, 2015
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: HIV protease plays a crucial role in the viral life cycle and is essential for the generation of mature infectious virus particles. Detailed knowledge of the structure of HIV protease and its substrate has led to the design of specific HIV protease inhibitors. Unfortunately, resistance to all protease inhibitors (PIs) has been observed and the genetic basis of resistance has been well documented over the past 15 years. The arrival of the early PIs was a pivotal moment in the development of antiretroviral therapy. They made possible the dual class triple combination therapy that became known as HAART. However, the clinical utility of the first generation of PIs was limited by low bioavailability and high pill burdens, which ultimately reduced adherence and limited long-term viral inhibition. When therapy failure occurred multiple protease resistance mutations were observed, often resulting in broad class resistance. To combat PI-resistance development, second-generation approaches have been developed. The first advance was to increase the level of existing PIs in the plasma by boosting with ritonavir. The second was to develop novel PIs with high potency against the known PI-resistant HIV protease variants. Both approaches increased the number of protease mutations required for clinical resistance, thereby raising the genetic barrier. This review provides an overview of the history of protease inhibitor therapy, its current status and future perspectives. It forms part of a special issue of Antiviral Research marking the 25th anniversary of antiretroviral drug discovery and development, vol. 85, issue 1, 2010.Antiviral research 10/2009; 85(1):59-74. DOI:10.1016/j.antiviral.2009.10.003 · 3.94 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection prevents AIDS-related complications and prolongs life, it does not fully restore health. Long-term treated patients remain at higher than expected risk for a number of complications typically associated with aging, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, osteoporosis, and other end-organ diseases. The potential effect of HIV on health is perhaps most clearly exhibited by a number of immunologic abnormalities that persist despite effective suppression of HIV replication. These changes are consistent with some of the changes to the adaptive immune system that are seen in the very old ("immunosenescence") and that are likely related in part to persistent inflammation. HIV-associated inflammation and immunosenescence have been implicated as causally related to the premature onset of other end-organ diseases. Novel therapeutic strategies aimed at preventing or reversing these immunologic defects may be necessary if HIV-infected patients are to achieve normal life span.Annual review of medicine 02/2011; 62(1):141-55. DOI:10.1146/annurev-med-042909-093756 · 12.93 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The unparalleled success of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is based on the combination of three drugs from two classes. There is insufficient evidence whether simplification to ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) monotherapy in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is effective and safe to reduce cART side effects and costs. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, conference proceedings and trial registries to identify all randomised controlled trials comparing PI/r monotherapy to cART in suppressed patients. We calculated in an intention to treat (loss-of follow-up, discontinuation of assigned drugs equals failure) and per-protocol analysis (exclusion of protocol violators following randomisation) and based on three different definitions for virological failure pooled risk ratios for remaining virologically suppressed. We identified 10 trials comparing 3 different PIs with cART based on a PI/r plus 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1189 patients. With the most conservative approach (viral load <50 copies/ml on two consecutive measurements), the risk ratios for viral suppression at 48 weeks of PI/r monotherapy compared to cART were in the ITT analysis 0.94 8 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.00) p = 0.06; risk difference -0.06 (95%CI -0.11 to 0) p = 0.05, p for heterogeneity = 0.08, I(2) = 43.1%) and in the PP analysis 0.93 ((95%CI 0.90 to 0.97) p<0.001; risk difference -0.07 (95%CI -0.10 to -0.03) p<0.001, p for heterogeneity = 0.44, I(2) = 0%). Reintroduction of cART in 44 patients with virological failure led in 93% to de-novo viral suppression. Virologically well suppressed HIV-infected patients have a lower chance to maintain viral suppression when switching from cART to PI/r monotherapy. Failing patients achieve high rates of de-novo viral suppression following reintroduction of reverse transcriptase inhibitors.PLoS ONE 07/2011; 6(7):e22003. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0022003 · 3.23 Impact Factor