[Clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of four highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in antiretroviral-naive treatment with advanced HIV infection]. Randomized, controlled trial of therapy interruption in chronic HIV-1 infection. Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. Early versus delayed initiation of antiretroviral therapy for concurrent HIV infection and cryptococcal meningitis in sub-saharan Africa. A randomized controlled trial of therapeutic drug monitoring in treatment-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected patients. PharmAdapt: a randomized prospective study to evaluate the benefit of therapeutic monitoring of protease inhibitors: 12 week results. Reduced exposure to calcineurin inhibitors in renal transplantation. Randomized trial of tacrolimus (Prograf) in combination with azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil versus cyclosporine (Neoral) with mycophenolate mofetil after cadaveric kidney transplantation. Virologic, immunologic, clinical, safety, and resistance outcomes from a long-term comparison of efavirenz-based versus nevirapine-based antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy in HIV-1-infected persons.
Comparison of efficacy and safety of four highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens (HAART) including two nucleoside analogues (NA) and a protease inhibitor (PI) in HIV positive patients with advanced infection and antiretroviral naive.
                Multicenter, randomized and open labeled clinical trial in ten community hospitals of Castilla-La Mancha and Madrid. Regimen 1 contains zidovudine (AZT), lamivudine (3TC) and indinavir (IDV) regimen 2 includes AZT, 3TC and ritonavir (RTV), regimen 3 was didanosine (DDI), estavudine (D4T) and IDV, and regimen 4 included DDI, D4T and RTV. Decrease in viral load of HIV (VC) has been assessed as primary endpoint and as secondary one, the increase of the numbers of CD4 lymphocytes, percentage of disease progression, adverse reactions and adherence. Measurements were made at baseline visit and at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks.
                A total of 98 patients with a mean baseline CD4 count of 122 x 10(6)/l (range of 5-340) and a baseline viral load of 5.1 log copies/ml were included. At 48 weeks, a mean increase of the CD4 and decrease of the viral load without significant difference between the 4 regimens (103 cells/2.62 log in regimen 1; 169 cells/2.86 log in regimen 2; 171 cells/2.56 log in regimen 3 and 141 cells/1.71 log in regimen 4) were observed in the analysis of the patients in treatment. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse reactions: 24% in regimen 1, 48% in regimen 2, 26% in regimen 3 and 32% in regimen 4, without significant difference. Analyzing by PI groups, 41% of the patients with RTV and 25% of those with IDV discontinued treatment due to adverse effects. There was withdrawal from treatment due to disease progression in 7% of the RTV patients and in 9% of IDV patients.
                In the HIV positive patients with advanced infection, efficacy between the four regimens of HAART is similar, but there is a tendency to require more withdrawal due to adverse effects in the RTV group than in those of IDV, the two used as single PI. Approaches to limiting exposure to antiretroviral therapy (ART) drugs are an active area of HIV therapy research. Here we present longitudinal follow-up of a randomized, open-label, single-center study of the immune, viral, and safety outcomes of structured therapy interruptions (TIs) in patients with chronically suppressed HIV-1 infection as compared to equal follow-up of patients on continuous therapy and including a final therapy interruption in both arms.
                Forty-two chronically HIV-infected patients on suppressive ART with CD4 counts higher than 400 were randomized 1:1 to either (1) three successive fixed TIs of 2, 4, and 6 wk, with intervening resumption of therapy with resuppression for 4 wk before subsequent interruption, or (2) 40 wk of continuous therapy, with a final open-ended TI in both treatment groups. Main outcome was analysis of the time to viral rebound (>5,000 copies/ml) during the open-ended TI. Secondary outcomes included study-defined safety criteria, viral resistance, therapy failure, and retention of immune reconstitution. There was no difference between the groups in time to viral rebound during the open-ended TI (continuous therapy/single TI, median [interquartile range] = 4 [1-8] wk, n = 21; repeated TI, median [interquartile range] = 5 [4-8] wk, n = 21; p = 0.36). No differences in study-related adverse events, viral set point at 12 or 20 wk of open-ended interruption, viral resistance or therapy failure, retention of CD4 T cell numbers on ART, or retention of lymphoproliferative recall antigen responses were noted between groups. Importantly, resistance detected shortly after initial viremia following the open-ended TI did not result in a lack of resuppression to less than 50 copies/ml after reinitiation of the same drug regimen.
                Cycles of 2- to 6-wk time-fixed TIs in patients with suppressed HIV infection failed to confer a clinically significant benefit with regard to viral suppression off ART. Also, secondary analysis showed no difference between the two strategies in terms of safety, retention of immune reconstitution, and clinical therapy failure. Based on these findings, we suggest that further clinical research on the long-term consequences of TI strategies to decrease drug exposure is warranted. The optimal sequencing of antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) is unknown. We compared several different antiretroviral treatment strategies.
                This multicenter, randomized, partially double-blind trial used a factorial design to compare pairs of sequential three-drug regimens, starting with a regimen including zidovudine and lamivudine or a regimen including didanosine and stavudine in combination with either nelfinavir or efavirenz. The primary end point was the length of time to the failure of the second three-drug regimen.
                A total of 620 subjects who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were followed for a median of 2.3 years. Starting with a three-drug regimen containing efavirenz combined with zidovudine and lamivudine (but not efavirenz combined with didanosine and stavudine) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with a regimen containing nelfinavir (hazard ratio for failure of the second regimen, 0.71; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.48 to 1.06), as well as to delay the second virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.09), and significantly delayed the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.39) and the first virologic failure (hazard ratio, 0.34). Starting with zidovudine and lamivudine combined with efavirenz (but not zidovudine and lamivudine combined with nelfinavir) appeared to delay the failure of the second regimen, as compared with starting with didanosine and stavudine (hazard ratio, 0.68), and significantly delayed both the first and the second virologic failures (hazard ratio for the first virologic failure, 0.39; hazard ratio for the second virologic failure, 0.47), as well as the failure of the first regimen (hazard ratio, 0.35). The initial use of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz resulted in a shorter time to viral suppression.
                The efficacy of antiretroviral drugs depends on how they are combined. The combination of zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz is superior to the other antiretroviral regimens used as initial therapy in this study.
                Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society BACKGROUND. Cryptococcal meningitis (CM) remains a leading cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-related death in sub-Saharan Africa. The timing of the initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated CM remains uncertain. The study aimed to determine the optimal timing for initiation of ART in HIV-positive individuals with CM. METHODS. A prospective, open-label, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary teaching hospital in Zimbabwe. Participants were aged > or = 18 years, were ART naive, had received a first CM diagnosis, and were randomized to receive early ART (within 72 h after CM diagnosis) or delayed ART (after 10 weeks of treatment with fluconazole alone). Participants received 800 mg of fluconazole per day. The ART regimen used was stavudine, lamivudine, and nevirapine given twice daily. The duration of follow-up was up to 3 years. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS. Fifty-four participants were enrolled in the study (28 in the early ART arm and 26 in the delayed ART arm). The median CD4 cell count at enrollment was 37 cells/mm(3) (interquartile range, 17-69 cells/mm(3)). The 3-year mortality rate differed significantly between the early and delayed ART groups (88% vs 54%; P < .006); the overall 3-year mortality rate was 73%. The median durations of survival were 28 days and 637 days in the early and delayed ART groups, respectively (P = .031, by log-rank test). The risk of mortality was almost 3 times as great in the early ART group versus the delayed ART group (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-7.23). The study was terminated early by the data safety monitoring committee. CONCLUSIONS. In resource-limited settings where CM management may be suboptimal, when compared with a delay of 10 weeks after a CM diagnosis, early initiation of ART results in increased mortality. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00830856. To improve the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) by defining the proportion of patients with and predictors of above or below target protease inhibitor (PI) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) concentrations.
                This 48-week, multicenter, open-label clinical trial randomized patients to TDM versus standard of care (SOC). Serial pharmacokinetics, including a week-2 3-sample sparse collection, and expert committee TDM recommendations were given to TDM-arm patients' providers.
                Seventy-four (39%) of 190 patients had week-2 concentrations outside of targets and 122 (64%) of 190 had nontarget exposure at least once over 48 weeks. Providers accepted 75% of TDM recommendations. Among patients with below-target concentrations, more TDM-arm than SOC-arm patients achieved targets (65% vs. 45%; P = 0.09). Increased body weight and efavirenz or lopinavir/ritonavir use were significant predictors of nontarget concentrations. Patients at target and patients who achieved targets after TDM-directed dose modifications trended toward greater viral load reductions at week 48 than patients with below-target exposures (HIV RNA reductions: 2.4, 2.3, and 1.9 log10 copies/mL, respectively; P = 0.09).
                Most patients had nontarget PI and/or NNRTI concentrations over 48 weeks. TDM recommendations were well accepted and improved exposure. Patients below TDM targets trended toward worse virologic response. A randomized study to evaluate the usefulness of protease inhibitor (PI) therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected patients.
                In the control arm, treatment was modified according to genotypic resistance testing. In the TDM arm, therapy was modified on the basis of genotypic resistance testing and at week 8 according to PI plasma trough levels measured at week 4. The major endpoint was the change in HIV-RNA levels at week 12.
                A total of 183 patients, 96 in the control arm and 87 in the TDM arm, were included in the study. Low-dose ritonavir to enhance the associated PI was prescribed to 62.5% of patients in the control arm and 65.5% of patients in the TDM arm. Using our PI concentration targets, 17/81 patients (21%) in the TDM arm were considered to have suboptimal or partly optimal PI plasma levels at week 4. Physician and protocol-driven PI modifications were performed in 18/85 patients (23.5%) in the TDM arm, and in seven of 94 patients (7%) in the control arm (P < 0.01). Week 12 HIV RNA dropped 2 log10 copies/ml in the control arm and 1.7 log10 copies/ml in the TDM arm, respectively.
                We found no statistically significant difference between the TDM arm and control arm in virological outcome at week 12. The utility of TDM could be dependent on the presence of low-dose ritonavir as a booster and the antiretroviral experience of the studied population. Effective non-toxic target concentrations for resistant viruses have still to be determined.
                Copyright 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Immunosuppressive regimens with the fewest possible toxic effects are desirable for transplant recipients. This study evaluated the efficacy and relative toxic effects of four immunosuppressive regimens.
                We randomly assigned 1645 renal-transplant recipients to receive standard-dose cyclosporine, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids, or daclizumab induction, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids in combination with low-dose cyclosporine, low-dose tacrolimus, or low-dose sirolimus. The primary end point was the estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR), as calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault formula, 12 months after transplantation. Secondary end points included acute rejection and allograft survival.
                The mean calculated GFR was higher in patients receiving low-dose tacrolimus (65.4 ml per minute) than in the other three groups (range, 56.7 to 59.4 ml per minute). The rate of biopsy-proven acute rejection was lower in patients receiving low-dose tacrolimus (12.3%) than in those receiving standard-dose cyclosporine (25.8%), low-dose cyclosporine (24.0%), or low-dose sirolimus (37.2%). Allograft survival differed significantly among the four groups (P=0.02) and was highest in the low-dose tacrolimus group (94.2%), followed by the low-dose cyclosporine group (93.1%), the standard-dose cyclosporine group (89.3%), and the low-dose sirolimus group (89.3%). Serious adverse events were more common in the low-dose sirolimus group than in the other groups (53.2% vs. a range of 43.4 to 44.3%), although a similar proportion of patients in each group had at least one adverse event during treatment (86.3 to 90.5%).
                A regimen of daclizumab, mycophenolate mofetil, and corticosteroids in combination with low-dose tacrolimus may be advantageous for renal function, allograft survival, and acute rejection rates, as compared with regimens containing daclizumab induction plus either low-dose cyclosporine or low-dose sirolimus or with standard-dose cyclosporine without induction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00231764 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
                Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society. Our clinical trial was designed to investigate the optimal combination of immunosuppressants for renal transplantation.
                A randomized three-arm, parallel group, open label, prospective study was performed at 15 North American centers to compare three immunosuppressive regimens: tacrolimus + azathioprine (AZA) versus cyclosporine (Neoral) + mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) versus tacrolimus + MMF. All patients were first cadaveric kidney transplants receiving the same maintenance corticosteroid regimen. Only patients with delayed graft function (32%) received antilymphocyte induction. A total of 223 patients were randomized, transplanted, and followed for 1 year.
                There were no significant differences in baseline demography between the three treatment groups. At 1 year the results are as follows: acute rejection 17% (95% confidence interval 9%, 26%) in tacrolimus + AZA; 20% (confidence interval 11%, 29%) in cyclosporine + MMF; and 15% (confidence interval 7%, 24%) in tacrolimus + MMF. The incidence of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy was 12% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 11% in the cyclosporine + MMF group, and 4% in the tacrolimus + MMF group. There were no significant differences in overall patient or graft survival. Tacrolimus-treated patients had a lower incidence of hyperlipidemia through 6 months posttransplant. The incidence of posttransplant diabetes mellitus requiring insulin was 14% in the tacrolimus + AZA group, 7% in the cyclosporine + MMF and 7% in the tacrolimus + MMF groups.
                All regimens yielded similar acute rejection rates and graft survival, but the tacrolimus + MMF regimen was associated with the lowest rate of steroid resistant rejection requiring antilymphocyte therapy. To compare long-term virologic, immunologic, and clinical outcomes in antiretroviral-naïve persons starting efavirenz (EFV)- versus nevirapine (NVP)-based regimens.
                The FIRST study randomized patients into three strategy arms: PI+NRTI, NNRTI+NRTI, and PI+NNRTI+NRTI. NNRTI was determined by optional randomization (NVP or EFV) or by choice. For this randomized substudy, the primary endpoint was HIV RNA >50 copies/mL after 8 months or death. Genotypic resistance testing was done at virologic failure (VF; HIV RNA >1,000 copies/mL at or after 4 months).
                228 persons (111 randomized to EFV, 117 to NVP) were followed for median 5 years. Rates per 100 person years for the primary endpoint were 41.2 (EFV) and 42.8 (NVP; p = .59). The percent of persons with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL was similar throughout follow-up (p = .24), as were average increases in CD4+ cells (p = .30). 423 persons declining the substudy chose EFV; 264 chose NVP. There were 915 persons in the combined cohort (randomized and choice). In the combined cohort, the risk of VF and VF with any NNRTI or NRTI resistance or resistance of any class was significantly less for EFV compared to NVP.
                EFV-based regimens as initial therapy resulted in a lower risk of VF and VF with resistance than did NVP-based regimens, although immunologic and clinical outcomes were similar.
We conclude that for the critical outcomes of virologic response and serious adverse events initial ART regimens containing TDF are equivalent to those containing AZT. However, TDF is superior to AZT in terms of immunologic response and adherence and more frequent emergence of resistance. How much the other drugs in the regimens contributed to these findings is unclear, and true head-to-head trials are still warranted. The role of each drug in initial ART will likely be driven by their specific toxicities.