Efficacy, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of the combination of stavudine, nevirapine, nelfinavir, and saquinavir as salvage regimen after ritonavir or indinavir failure

The high rate of protease inhibitor treatment failure in clinical cohorts makes it necessary to define novel salvage therapies. In a prospective study of 31 HIV-infected patients included in a salvage regimen with stavudine, nevirapine, nelfinavir, and saquinavir, viral load decreased a median of 1.65 log(10) and 1.95 log(10) after 6 and 12 months of treatment, respectively, and 35 and 56% of patients had an HIV RNA level below 50 copies/ml at the same time points. At baseline, the mean number of mutations in the protease gene was 10 (2-19), and the V82A and L90M mutations were present in 54 and 21% of patients. The presence of the V82A mutation did not affect significantly the rate of response (36 vs. 38%), whereas the L90M mutation was associated with treatment failure (0 vs. 43%). Plasma trough levels of nelfinavir (NFV) and saquinavir (SQV), in a twice daily dosing regimen, were above the protein-corrected IC(95) in most patients despite the addition of an enzymatic inducer such as nevirapine, and peak levels were 2- and 5-fold increased with respect to standard doses. However, pharmacokinetics of saquinavir-hard gel capsule (SQV-hgc) did not improve significantly in the three times daily dosing regimen. In conclusion, the combination of stavudine, nevirapine, nelfinavir, and saquinavir increased plasma drug levels and produced an adequate virological response in patients who had failed indinavir or ritonavir therapy. This degree of response is not significantly decreased in the presence of genotypic mutations associated with indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/RTV) resistance.     

Efficacy of salvage therapy containing ritonavir and saquinavir after failure of single protease inhibitor-containing regimens.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of salvage therapy containing ritonavir and saquinavir after failure of indinavir- or nelfinavir-containing regimens, and to determine correlates of success or failure. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING. The Moore Clinic - the HIV clinic of Johns Hopkins Hospital. PATIENTS: Forty-one HIV-infected patients were identified through physician contacts, referrals from other providers, and review of a comprehensive clinical database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To determine response to salvage therapy, HIV-1 viral RNA (absolute and log10-transformed) was measured using the Roche Amplicor quantitative HIV-1 RNA assay after initiation of the salvage regimen. Potential correlates of response included: viral RNA at the time of switch; viral RNA at the time of switch as a percentage of baseline viral RNA; magnitude of decline in viral RNA; and the interval between virologic failure of single protease inhibitor therapy and switch to the salvage regimen. RESULTS: Thirteen (56.5%) of 23 patients failing indinavir responded to salvage therapy (HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml) with persistence throughout the follow-up period (median of 37 weeks; range 18-67 weeks). Mean absolute viral RNA at the time of switch was 20 238 copies/ml (median, 9281) compared with 42 953 copies/ml (median, 24 650) for the 10 non-responders. Mean log10 viral RNA at switch was 3.804 for responders versus 4.405 for non-responders (P = 0.040). Among four responders who had failed nelfinavir, mean viral RNA was 9634 copies/ml and mean log10 viral RNA was 3.749 at the time of switch. Two non-responders had a mean viral RNA of 21 551 and a mean log10 viral RNA of 4.037 at switch. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast with previous reports, salvage regimens containing ritonavir and/or saquinavir can be effective and durable following the failure of combination regimens containing either indinavir or nelfinavir. Salvage therapy may be more likely to succeed when it is initiated early in failure at low viral loads.     

Efficacy of a five-drug combination including ritonavir, saquinavir and efavirenz in patients who failed on a conventional triple-drug regimen: phenotypic resistance to protease inhibitors predicts outcome of therapy.

OBJECTIVE: to assess the safety and efficacy of a combination of ritonavir, efavirenz and two recycled nucleosides in patients who failed on a conventional triple-drug regimen including indinavir or ritonavir. METHODS: An open label study of ritonavir (100 mg twice daily), saquinavir (1000 mg twice daily), efavirenz (600 mg per day) and nucleoside analogues in 32 saquinavir- and efavirenz-naive protease inhibitor-experienced patients. Patients were included on the basis of plasma levels of HIV RNA above 5000 copies/ml while on conventional antiretroviral therapy. Phenotypic resistance and genotypic resistance mutations to saquinavir were assessed at baseline. Peak and trough plasma levels of saquinavir were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Median CD4 cell counts and median plasma HIV RNA at baseline were 258 x 10(6)/l and 4.31 log10 copies/ml, respectively. The plasma viral load decreased by a median of 1.20 log10 copies/ml and the CD4 cell count increased by a median 60 x 10(6) cells/l at week 24 of therapy. Seventy-one per cent of the patients achieved a plasma viral load < 500 copies/ml and 45% achieved a viral load < 50 copies/ml. Patients exhibiting phenotypic resistance to saquinavir at baseline experienced a median decrease in HIV RNA of 0.91 log10 copies/ml at week 24 of therapy, as compared with a decrease of 1.52 log10 copies/ml in those exhibiting sensitive viral strains (P = 0.03). Genotypic resistance to saquinavir was not predictive of virologic failure. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the combination of ritonavir, saquinavir and efavirenz is safe and effective at 24 weeks in over two-thirds of patients who previously failed on highly active antiretroviral therapy, and that the determination of phenotypic resistance may be of greater value than the detection of resistance mutations to predict the outcome of salvage therapy in this setting.     

The use of and response to second-line protease inhibitor regimens: results from the EuroSIDA study

OBJECTIVE: To describe the use of second line protease-inhibitor (PI) regimens across Europe and to determine factors associated with virological and immunological response. DESIGN: Analysis of data from 984 patients with a median follow-up of 21 months enrolled in EuroSIDA. Patients started their second PI-containing regimen at least 16 weeks after starting the first PI-containing regimen and with viral load > 1000 copies/ml. METHODS: Virological response was defined as a viral load < 500 copies/ml and immunological response as an increase of 50 x 10(6)/l or more in CD4 lymphocyte count. RESULTS: The median CD4 cell count at starting the second PI was 171 x 10(6) cells/l; viral load was 4.45 log copies/ml. As a second PI regimen, 45% were using a dual PI, while of those on one PI, indinavir (42%) and nelfinavir (34%) were most common. In multivariate Cox models, a higher viral load at starting the second PI [relative hazard (RH), 0.67 per 1 log higher; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.58-0.77; P < 0.0001) and a lower CD4 cell count (RH, 1.15 per 50% higher; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; P = 0.0014) were associated with a reduced probability of virological response. Those who had achieved viral suppression on the first PI-regimen were more likely to respond to the second (RH, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.30-2.10; P < 0.0001) as were those who added one or two new nucleosides to their second PI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiate a second PI regimen at lower viral load, higher CD4 cell count or who added new nucleosides tended to be more likely to achieve a viral load < 500 copies/ml. The roles of cross-resistance and adherence in response to second-line regimens needs further investigation.     

Virologic responses to a ritonavir--saquinavir-containing regimen in patients who had previously failed nelfinavir

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of a second protease inhibitor in patients who failed an initial protease inhibitor is unclear but believed to be low. It has been postulated, however, that patients who fail nelfinavir may respond differently. We therefore assessed the virologic response to a ritonavir-saquinavir-containing regimen in patients who had previously failed nelfinavir. METHODS: A total of 26 patients enrolled in the nelfinavir clinical trials AG506 and AG511 at our two sites who failed (two consecutive HIV viral loads > 5000 copies/ml; branched DNA assay) were switched to a combination of stavudine 40 mg twice daily, lamivudine 150 mg twice daily, ritonavir 400 mg twice daily and saquinavir 400 mg twice daily. RESULTS: The mean viral load at enrollment in this study was 46 674 copies/ml (range, 1075-146400 copies/ml). The median CD4 cell count was 222 x 10(6)/l (range, 82-448 x 10(6)/l). The median duration of nelfinavir use with a detectable viral load before the switch occurred was 48 weeks. Two patients discontinued the study at 3 weeks. All of the remaining patients (n = 24) reached undetectable viral loads (< 500 copies/ml) that were sustained at week 24 in 17 (71%) out of 24 subjects. The most frequent baseline mutations in the protease gene prior to switching were D30N (13 out of 18), N88D (eight out of 18) and M36I (eight out of 18). The presence or absence of these mutations was not predictive of a short-term virologic response. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who failed a nelfinavir-containing regimen responded to a switch to a combination regimen with saquinavir-ritonavir.     

Sequencing of protease inhibitor therapy: insights from an analysis of HIV phenotypic resistance in patients failing protease inhibitors

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the pattern of HIV-1 susceptibility to protease inhibitors in patients failing an initial protease inhibitor-containing regimen. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of antiretroviral susceptibility. SETTING: HIV clinics in six metropolitan areas. PATIENTS: Eighty-eight HIV-infected adults with HIV RNA > 400 copies/ml after > or = 6 months of antiretroviral therapy, including the use of one protease inhibitor for > or = 3 months. MEASUREMENTS: The frequency and magnitude of decreased susceptibility, measured with a phenotypic assay using recombinant constructs, to five protease inhibitors. Decreased susceptibility was defined as > 2.5-fold increase in the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) compared with drug sensitive control virus. RESULTS: At study entry, patients were being treated with nelfinavir (63%), indinavir (25%), or another protease inhibitor (11%). HIV isolates from these patients were susceptible (fold change < 2.5) to all five protease inhibitors in 18% of patients and to none in 8%. Isolates from patients receiving nelfinavir were less likely to have reduced susceptibility to other protease inhibitors than isolates from patients treated with indinavir (P < 0.001) or one of the other three agents (P < 0.001), even after adjustment for the duration of prior protease inhibitor use. Reduced susceptibility to saquinavir and amprenavir was observed significantly less frequently than for the other protease inhibitors. CONCLUSION: The frequency of protease inhibitor cross-resistance and the magnitude of changes in susceptibility varied according to the initial protease inhibitor used in the failing treatment regimen. Significantly less protease inhibitor cross-resistance was demonstrated for isolates from patients failing a nelfinavir-containing regimen compared with those from patients receiving other protease inhibitors.     

Randomized study of saquinavir with ritonavir or nelfinavir together with delavirdine, adefovir, or both in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults with virologic failure on indinavir: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 359

This study compared antiretroviral activity among 6 "salvage" therapy regimens. The study was a prospective, randomized, 2x3 factorial, multicenter study of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group. The study enrolled 277 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naive to nonnucleoside analogues who had taken indinavir >6 months. The patients had 2000-200,000 HIV RNA copies/mL. Patients received saquinavir with ritonavir or nelfinavir together with delavirdine and/or adefovir and were followed for safety and antiretroviral response between baseline and week 16. At week 16, 30% (77/254) of patients had 相似文献   

Regimen-dependent variations in adherence to therapy and virological suppression in patients initiating protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences among four protease inhibitor (PI)-based drug regimens in adherence to therapy and rate of achievement of virological suppression in a cohort of antiretroviral-naive patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). METHODS: Participants were antiretroviral-naive and were first dispensed combination therapy containing two nucleosides and a ritonavir (RTV)-boosted PI, or unboosted nelfinavir, between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2003. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between the prescribed PI and other baseline factors associated with being >90% adherent to therapy and then to determine the associations of prescribed drug regimen, adherence to therapy and baseline variables with the odds of achieving two consecutive viral loads of <500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. RESULTS A total of 385 subjects were available for analysis. Lopinavir (LPV)/RTV was prescribed for 168 patients (42% of total); 86 (22%) received indinavir (IDV)/RTV; 91 (24%) received nelfinavir (NFV) and 40 (10%) received saquinavir (SQV)/RTV. SQV/RTV-based HAART was associated with reduced adherence to therapy [odds ratio (OR)=0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.83]. In multivariate models, IDV/RTV (OR=0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.92), SQV/RTV (OR=0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.43) and NFV were associated with reduced odds of achieving virological suppression within 1 year in comparison to LPV/RTV-based therapy. For patients receiving NFV, adjusting for adherence (OR=0.73; 95% CI 0.36-1.47) rendered this association nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed IDV/RTV, NFV or SQV/RTV were less likely to achieve virological suppression on their first regimen compared with patients prescribed LPV/RTV. Reduced adherence to these therapies only partly explained these observed differences.     

Virologic efficacy of boosted double versus boosted single protease inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVE: Although regimens containing two protease inhibitor (PI) together with ritonavir boosting are used with the aim of improving virologic response to salvage therapy, there is little evidence to support or reject this approach. We compared the probability of attaining an undetectable HIV RNA level after using either boosted double or boosted single PI regimens. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical cohort. METHODS: PI-experienced subjects in a Northern California-based database who initiated either a boosted single or boosted double PI salvage therapy regimen were analysed. Traditional multivariable regression and marginal structural model analyses were used to compare the effects of the two regimens on virologic suppression 12-36 weeks after initiation of salvage therapy, controlling for confounding by baseline HIV RNA level, CD4 lymphocyte count, treatment history, drug resistance, and multiple characteristics of the salvage regimen. RESULTS: Fifty-one percent of boosted single PI regimens (n=805) and 51.6% of boosted double PI regimens (n=183) achieved a plasma HIV RNA level of <75 copies/ml at week 12-36. In models including multiple potentially confounding variables, estimates of the relative odds of suppression on boosted double versus boosted single PI regimens ranged from 1.17 (95% CI, 0.54-2.55) to 1.33 (95% CI, 0.82-2.14). CONCLUSIONS: We were not able to reject the null hypothesis that boosted double versus boosted single PI regimens, resulted in equivalent probabilities of virologic success.     

Toxicity and drug exposure in a quadruple drug regimen in HIV-1 infected patients participating in the ADAM study

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between toxicity and the exposure to nelfinavir and saquinavir as part of a quadruple drug regimen. DESIGN: The ADAM study is a randomized study to investigate the feasibility of induction-maintenance therapy in HIV-1 infection. METHODS: HIV-1-infected patients with no prior use of antiretroviral treatment started induction therapy consisting of stavudine + lamivudine + nelfinavir + saquinavir for a period of 26 weeks. Data regarding toxicity of the quadruple regimen and exposure to the protease inhibitors were collected. RESULTS: Seven of the 65 patients enrolled had to switch therapy for reasons of toxicity within the first 26 weeks. Diarrhoea was frequently reported (49 of 65, one discontinuation), but could be relieved by using antidiarrhoeal agents. Laboratory monitoring revealed elevated liver enzymes (leading to four discontinuations) and mild to moderate elevations of triglycerides and cholesterol (nine and 23 of 65, respectively). The exposure to saquinavir and nelfinavir was lower than expected. Abdominal pain was associated with a higher exposure to nelfinavir or saquinavir. The association of nausea and abdominal distension with drug exposure appeared to vary over time. CONCLUSIONS: The quadruple drug regimen was quite well tolerated. Diarrhoea was frequently reported but could be relieved by the use of antidiarrhoeal agents. In comparison with other protease inhibitor combinations, lipid abnormalities in plasma were infrequent and mild. With the exception of diarrhoea, all gastrointestinal complaints observed were found to be associated with the level of exposure to nelfinavir or saquinavir. The exposure to the protease inhibitors was relatively low, although the virologic efficacy of the regimen used was satisfactory.     

Combination nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor(s) plus nevirapine, nelfinavir, or ritonavir in stable antiretroviral therapy-experienced HIV-infected children: week 24 results of a randomized controlled trial--PACTG 377. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 377 Study Team

One hundred eighty-one antiretroviral-experienced, protease inhibitor-naive, clinically stable HIV-infected children between 4 months and 17 years of age were randomly assigned to receive one of four combination regimens to evaluate the change in plasma HIV RNA, safety, and tolerance when changing antiretroviral therapy to a protease inhibitor-containing combination regimen. All four regimens contained stavudine; in addition children received nevirapine plus ritonavir, lamivudine plus nelfinavir, nevirapine plus nelfinavir, or lamivudine plus nevirapine plus nelfinavir. Twelve additional children chose to receive stavudine plus lamivudine plus nelfinavir, with nelfinavir given bid, rather than tid as for the main regimens. Overall, 51% (89/176; 95% CI 43-58%) of the children on the randomized portion of the study had an HIV RNA response (< or =400 copies/ml) on at least two of the three HIV RNA determinations taken at Weeks 8, 12, and 16. At Week 24 the proportion of children with an HIV RNA response still on initial therapy was 47% (83/176; 95% CI 40-55%) and ranged from 41 to 61% for the four randomized treatment arms. Rash was frequently seen (27%) on the treatment arms containing nevirapine. At Week 24 64% (7/11, 95% CI 31-89%) of the children on the bid nelfinavir combination regimen were still on initial therapy with an HIV RNA response as compared with 46% (23/50; 95% CI 32-61%) on the corresponding tid nelfinavir combination regimen. A change in antiretroviral therapy to a protease inhibitor-containing regimen was associated with a virological response rate of approximately 50% for this patient population.     

Individualizing salvage regimens: the inhibitory quotient (Ctrough/IC50) as predictor of virological response

Increased drug levels could overcome resistance and improve the response to a salvage regimen. We evaluate the inhibitory quotient (IQ, Ctrough/protein-binding corrected IC50) as a predictor of virological response in 52 patients included in two dual protease inhibitor (PI)-based salvage regimens. The HIV-RNA level decrease at 12 weeks was greater in patients who achieved an IQ greater than 1. The IQ could be useful to improve the virological response to a dual PI salvage regimen.     

Baseline HIV drug resistance profile predicts response to ritonavir-saquinavir protease inhibitor therapy in a community setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether baseline drug resistance assays could help to predict treatment failure with the protease inhibitor combination ritonavir-saquinavir. METHODS: Baseline HIV-1 drug resistance was determined for 76 consecutive patients who started treatment with the dual protease inhibitor combination ritonavir-saquinavir between September 1996 and June 1997 either alone or in combination with other antiviral agents. Resistance to 10 different antiviral agents was assessed by both phenotype (Virco Antivirogram) and genotype (Vircogen). RESULTS: Resistance inferred from viral genotype was similar to measured phenotypic resistance for both ritonavir and saquinavir (P<0.01). Baseline drug resistance phenotype was predictive of poor virological response to this dual protease inhibitor combination, despite the confounding effects of other antivirals. Patients were at least four times less likely to achieve a 0.5 log10 decrease in plasma HIV RNA viral load if their viral isolates were resistant to ritonavir or saquinavir. Patients classified as resistant to either drug using either method had median decreases in plasma viral load of 0.05 log10 HIV RNA copies/ml or less, compared to >0.8 log10 for those with sensitive virus. Patients resistant to both drugs never achieved plasma viral loads <100000 copies/ml. As little as fourfold increases in baseline resistance appeared to be sufficient to compromise even dual protease inhibitor therapy. CONCLUSION: Baseline resistance to ritonavir or saquinavir or both was associated with a poor antiviral response. Our data suggest that the measurement of drug resistance may assist in optimizing antiretroviral therapy in the clinic.     

Phenotypic cross-resistance to nelfinavir: the role of prior antiretroviral therapy and the number of mutations in the protease gene

Cross-resistance to nelfinavir (NFV) is observed in patients failing protease inhibitor (PI)-containing therapies. We performed a study with 111 patients who started an NFV-based salvage regimen after failing PI-based therapy to evaluate genotypic changes and to identify factors associated with resistance to NFV. Genotypic and phenotypic resistance data at entry (111 and 51 samples) and after NFV failure (74 and 31 samples) were available. Median CD4(+) cell count was 208 x 10(6)/liter, HIV RNA level was 4.6 log(10) copies/ml, and median number of mutations in the protease was 9. At baseline, 51 and 14% of viral isolates showed high or intermediate phenotypic resistance to NFV. Phenotypic data correlated with virological outcome, reaching undetectability at the third month in 40, 14, and 0% of those patients with susceptible, intermediate, or resistant viral isolates, respectively. Phenotypic resistance to NFV was associated with the presence of the L90M mutation: 46% for resistant vs. 6% in susceptible strains. The number of mutations in the protease correlated with the fold-increase in the IC(50)-NFV. The D30N mutation was detected in only 1 of 74 patients who failed. In a logistic regression analysis, the number of mutations in the protease was associated with NFV cross-resistance (RR, 2.09 per each additional mutation; 95% CI 1.23-3.55; p < 0.01). In conclusion, phenotypic cross-resistance to NFV for PI-experienced patients can be predicted by the number of mutations in the protease. The L90M mutation is significantly associated with the subsequent failure of NFV-containing regimens. The presence of the D30N mutation was rare and not useful in identifying NFV-resistant isolates.     

Analysis of HIV cross-resistance to protease inhibitors using a rapid single-cycle recombinant virus assay for patients failing on combination therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the patterns of HIV phenotypic cross-resistance to protease inhibitors (PI) in patients experiencing viral load rebound on combination therapy including a PI. METHODS: Phenotypic analysis of sensitivity to indinavir, nelfinavir, saquinavir, ritonavir and amprenavir was carried out using a single-cycle recombinant virus assay. Viral protease was sequenced by automated dideoxynucleotide chain termination. RESULTS: Of the 108 patients studied, 68 had received indinavir, 50 ritonavir, 25 saquinavir and eight nelfinavir. The majority (71%) had received only one PI. The incidence of cross-resistance between indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir was high (60-90%). Cross-resistance to amprenavir was less frequent (37-40%). However there was some correlation between levels of sensitivity to amprenavir and indinavir (r2 = 0.34; P < 0.01). Conversely, the correlation between levels of sensitivity to indinavir and saquinavir was poor (r2 = 0.25), particularly for patients who had not received saquinavir. The degree of cross-resistance correlated with the level of resistance and with the total number of mutations in the protease gene (P < 0.05, chi square test) but could not be significantly correlated to any one particular mutation or combination of mutations. Mutation 184V was significantly associated with cross-resistance to amprenavir, with no mutations at codon 50 observed, while mutations associated with cross-resistance to saquinavir differed according to the treatment received. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that, although the total number of protease mutations correlates with the degree of cross-resistance, the specific mechanisms accounting for primary resistance and for cross-resistance may be different.