Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Truvada kaletra o maraviroc PrEp

324 views

Published on

Ensayo clinico Truvada kaletra vs Truvada Maraviroc en Profilaxis postexposición para Infeccion por VIH

Published in: Health & Medicine
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Truvada kaletra o maraviroc PrEp

  1. 1. A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection Lorna Leal1,2, Agathe Leo´n1,2, Berta Torres1, Alexy Inciarte1, Constanza Lucero1, Josep Mallolas1, Montserrat Laguno1, Marı´a Martı´nez-Rebollar1, Ana Gonza´lez-Cordo´n1, Christian Manzardo1, Jhon Rojas1, Judit Pich1, Joan A. Arnaiz1, Josep M. Gatell1,2 and Felipe Garcı´a1,2* on behalf of the MARAVIPEP Study Group† 1 Infectious Diseases Unit, Hospital Clı´nic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 2 Institut d’Investigacions Biome`diques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain *Corresponding author. Infectious Diseases Unit, Hospital Clı´nic, Villarroel, 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain. Tel: +34932275586; Fax: +34934514438; E-mail: fgarcia@clinic.ub.es †Members are listed in the Acknowledgements section. Received 29 September 2015; returned 17 November 2015; revised 15 January 2016; accepted 4 February 2016 Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus maraviroc, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone. Methods: We conducted a prospective, open, randomized clinical trial. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV and who met criteria for receiving PEP were randomized to one of two groups: tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. Five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. Results: One-hundred-and-seventeen individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 120 to maraviroc (n¼237). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 38% (n¼89), with significant differences between arms [ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% (n¼51) versus maraviroc 32% (n¼38), P¼0.05]. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n¼182). PEP non- completion in this subgroup was also significantly higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P¼0.004). The proportion of patients with low adherence was similar between arms (52% versus 47%, P¼0.56). Adverse events were reported by 111 patients and were significantly more common in the ritona- vir-boosted lopinavir arm (72% versus 51%, P¼0.003). No seroconversions were observed during the study. Conclusions: PEP non-completion and adverse events were both significantly higher in patients allocated to ritona- vir-boosted lopinavir. These data suggest that maraviroc is a well-tolerated antiretroviral that can be used in this setting. Introduction Considerable emphasis is now placed on prevention strategies involving ART.1 Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) is a 28 day course of ART recommended for persons who have had a potential exposure to HIV. Results from animal studies2 indicate that ade- quate compliance is necessary for PEP to be effective; however, compliance is often limited by frequent drop-outs and the toxicity of antiretroviral drugs such as PIs.3 – 5 The search for better toler- ated regimens is a priority. Maraviroc has been shown to be well-tolerated and may be considered as a candidate for PEP.6 In animal models maraviroc has demonstrated preventive effectiveness as a microbicide,7 while recent studies in HIV-negative women and men have found that the drug reaches higher concentrations in the cervico-vaginal tract and rectal mucosa than in plasma.8,9 Here, we examined whether tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus maraviroc would achieve better completion rates, adherence and tolerability than would tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. # The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com J Antimicrob Chemother doi:10.1093/jac/dkw048 1 of 5 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Advance Access published March 18, 2016 atOrtaDoguTeknikUniversityLibrary(ODTU)onMarch23,2016http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  2. 2. Methods We performed an open, randomized clinical trial at a tertiary-care hospital in Barcelona. Participants were individuals who attended the emergency room (ER) between April 2012 and July 2014 due to a potential sexual exposure to HIV. Risk assessment and PEPrecommendation were performed according to Spanish guidelines.10 Individuals who were ≥18 years old, resident in Barcelona and who agreed to participate and signed informed consent were randomized to receive tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) once daily plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) twice daily or maraviroc (300 mg) twice daily. A full 28 day prescription was given and initiated immediately (day 0). A computer- generated list of numbers was used to randomize participants. Prophylactic measures for other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were adminis- tered.10 Owing to our hospital’s protocols we were not able to perform HIV testing in the ER, and therefore HIV-negative status could not be confirmed before starting PEP. After randomization, five follow-up visits were scheduled for days 1, 10, 28, 90 and 180. The primaryendpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. PEP non-completion was considered when the patient was lost to follow-up before day 28, when treatment was discontinued or switched for any reason, or if the patient died. Secondary endpoints were: being lost to follow-up at days 1, 28, 90 and 180; low adherence to PEP; number of adverse events; and rate of seroconversions. The study was approved by the hospital’s research ethics committee (approval number: HCP/2011/106) and was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01533272. The day 1 visit was scheduled with an infectious diseases specialist within 72 h of starting PEP. Demographics, risk behaviour, history of STIs and previous PEP were recorded. As part of the risk assessment, we also gathered information about the sexual partner: hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B virus and HIV serostatus, ART and level of detection of viral load. This information was conferred by our patients; we had no access to any other personal information of partners or that enabled us to identify them. Laboratory monitoring and sexual risk exposure counselling were performed and repeated at days 28, 90 and 180. Treatment adherence was reinforced on days 1, 10 and 28. Adherence was measured on day 28 with the Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire.11 The degree of adherence can be calculated based on a patient’s responses and for the present study we classified ≤94% as low adherence, a cut-off that has also been adopted by other authors.12,13 Adverse events were assessed and graded at every scheduled visit, following WHO recommendations.14 Statistical analysis The sample size was calculated with a 1-b statistical power of 90% and a protection level versus the bilateral a Type I error of 5%, assuming a treat- ment discontinuation of 51% in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm and 30% in the maraviroc arm, and a 30% of unevaluable patients. An ITTanalysis was performed considering PEP non-completion at day 28. Since we had no information about treatment initiation in individuals who did not attend any of the scheduled visits, we hypothesized that rea- sons for non-attendance could be independent of the regimen prescribed. Hence, we also performed a modified ITT analysis considering patients who attended at least on day 1. Theindividualswho discontinued PEP because they were found to be HIV positive on day 1 or because the sexual partners subsequently were found to be HIV negative were excluded from this analysis. Continuous variables were compared by means of the Student’s t-test or the Mann–Whitney U-test. Categorical variables were compared using either the x2 test or Fisher’s exact test. Backward logistic regression (Wald) was performed to assess the independent factors associated with PEP non- completion at day 28. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSSw 20. Results A total of 237 individuals were randomized to receive tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (n¼117) or maraviroc (n¼120). The study flow chart is shown in Figure 1. Participants were mostly MSM. The level of risk was appreciable (defined as any sexual exposure excluding those of low risk) in 83% of individuals (13% high and 70% moderate). Characteristics of exposed individuals are shown in Table S1 (avail- able as Supplementary data at JAC Online). HIV infection was detected in three randomized patients at the day 1 visit and they were referred to an HIV clinic to continue follow-up. PEP non-completion Only 187 individuals (79%) of those who were randomized attended the first scheduled visit, there being no differences in loss to follow-up between arms (P¼0.87) (Figure 1). PEP non- completion at day 28 was 38% (n¼89), with significant dif- ferences between arms (ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 44% versus maraviroc 32%, P¼0.05). We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended the day 1 visit and excluding individuals who discontinued PEP because they tested HIV positive on day 1 (n¼3) or because the sexual partner subse- quently tested HIV negative (n¼2) (n¼182). Characteristics of this subgroup are shown in Table S1. PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (27% versus 13%, P¼0.004), as was the proportion of patients lost to follow-up (21% versus 11%, P¼0.02). Only a few patients discontinued PEP or switched treatment due to adverse events (Figure 1). The Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire was administered on day 28 and showed that the proportion of patients with low adherence to PEP was similar between arms (ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 52% versus maraviroc 47%, P¼0.56). There were no seroconversions during this study. Factors associated with PEP non-completion The factors associated with PEP non-completion were analysed (Table 1). The logistic regression model showed that being in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (P¼0.015), non-Caucasian ethni- city (P,0.0001), a low risk of exposure (P,0.0001) and previous PEP (P¼0.005) were independent factors associated with PEP non-completion. Adverse events There were 353 adverse events in 111 individuals (Table S2). No grade III or IV adverse events related to medication were reported. All adverse events resolved. Regarding laboratory abnor- malities at day 28, no significant differences between groups were observed and all were resolved at day 90. Discussion In this study, we found that rates of PEP non-completion and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, as compared with maraviroc. Additionally, non-Caucasian individuals with a low risk of exposure and those who had had previous PEP had a significant and inde- pendent higher risk of PEP non-completion. The present study was conducted concurrently with another one15 of similar characteristics and using the same methods, which compared ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with raltegravir, both with tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine as the backbone, Leal et al. 2 of 5 atOrtaDoguTeknikUniversityLibrary(ODTU)onMarch23,2016http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  3. 3. and we found that rates of loss to follow-up, poor adherence and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm. In line with previous reports,16,17 21% of the individuals who were initially randomized in our study did not attend any of the follow-up visits; furthermore, drop-out rates increased over time, such that only one-third of participants completed all 6 months of follow-up. This is an important limitation to our study, since adverse events, laboratory changes or seroconver- sions could not be assessed in this group and might represent a Table 1. Factors associated with PEP non-completion at day 28 due to any cause or to adverse events Characteristic PEP discontinuations due to any cause in the entire cohort (n¼237), OR (95% CI) PEP discontinuations due to any cause in patients who attended the day 1 visit (n¼182), OR (95% CI) Type of analysisa univariate multivariate univariate multivariate Randomization arm: ritonavir-boosted lopinavir 1.3 (1.0–1.7), P50.05 2.6 (1.2–5.4), P50.015 2.9 (1.3–3.6), P50.006 2.9 (1.2–6.6), P50.015 Race: non-Caucasian 2.1 (1.6–2.8), P<0.0001 5.6 (2.5–12.3), P<0.0001 2.2 (1.0–4.5), P50.04 3.5 (1.5–8.4), P50.005 Risk assessment: low 1.2 (1.1–1.4), P50.009 5.3 (2.1–12.9), P<0.0001 4.8 (2.1–11.2), P<0.0001 5.5 (2.1–13.7), P<0.0001 Previous PEP: yes 1.4 (1.1–1.7), P<0.0001 3.3 (1.5–7.7), P50.005 1.6 (0.6–4.2), P¼0.32 Presence of adverse events due to PEPb : no 0.3 (0.4–2.7), P¼0.46 Bold formatting represents significant P values. a Individuals attending the day 1 visit with an HIV-positive test at baseline or with an HIV-negative partner were excluded from analysis. b Not measured in patients not attending the day 1 visit. Randomized n=237 On study ART n=82 (68%) Switch ART n=1 (1%) Discontinuation AEs n=1 (1%) n=24 (21%) n=20 (17%) n=26 (22%) n=10 (8%) n=22 (18%) n=12 (10%) n=51 (44%) n=22 (19%) n=24 (21%) n=94 (78%) Maraviroc arm (n=120)Day 0 Assessed for eligibility (n=661) *Excluded (424) Not meeting inclusion criteria (220) Declined to participate (56) Other reasons (148) Day 1 Day 28 Day 90 Day 180 n=62 (52%) n=27 (23%) n=50 (42%) On study ART n=66 (56%) Switch ART n=2 (2%) Discontinuation AEs n=5 (4%) n=93 (79%) Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (n=117) Figure 1. Study flow chart. Day 0: randomization in the ER and treatment immediately initiated. Black boxes represent individuals on follow-up according to arm. Grey boxes represent individuals lost to follow-up according to arm. Percentages in each box were calculated according to individuals randomized to each arm. Day 1: patients that attended first follow-up visit scheduled with an infectious disease specialist within 72 h after treatment initiation and individuals lost to follow-up to day 28. Day 28: patients who attended day 28 and individuals lost to follow-up to day 90 (on study ART patients who continued with the same ART received at day 0, those patients who switched to other medication but continued receiving medication and attended day 28, and those patients who discontinued medication due to side effects and attended day 28). Day 90: patients who attended day 90 and individuals lost to follow-up to day 180 visit. Day 180: patients who attended day 180 and completed the study. AEs, adverse events. Post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV 3 of 5 JAC atOrtaDoguTeknikUniversityLibrary(ODTU)onMarch23,2016http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  4. 4. threat for efficacy and generate safety issues, as well as limiting any conclusions that can be drawn from the results. We consider that in addition to tolerability of the PEP regimen, the possible rea- sons for drop-out include pill-burden, difficulties accessing the health system and a non-anonymous environment, a reduced perception of risk, easier access to non-clinical community orga- nizations and rapid HIV/STI tests. Adherence was also compromised to a similar extent as in pre- vious reports.18,19 In the present study both antiretrovirals were prescribed twice daily and missing doses were frequently reported, which suggests that a single tablet three-drug regimen could improve outcomes.20 Contrary to what we expected, the presence of adverse events related to PEP was not associated with non-completion. A pos- sible explanation for this could be that although adverse events were frequently described by participants, most were mild, well tolerated and easily resolved. Other limitations to our study are that we only included sex- ual exposures and only 8% of our studied population were women. Different outcomes may therefore have been observed with parenteral risk and with a sample that was more balanced by gender. In summary, we observed an improvement in PEP completion and toxicity with a maraviroc-containing regimen, suggesting that maraviroc is a well-tolerated candidate for prophylactic use. Acknowledgements This study was presented at the Twenty-second Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Seattle, WA, USA, 2015 (Abstract 959). We would like to thank other members of the MARAVIPEP Study Group for their invaluable collaboration. Members of the MARAVIPEP Study Group Lorna Leal, Agathe Leo´n, Berta Torres, Alexy Inciarte, Constanza Lucero, Jose´ L. Blanco, Esteban Martı´nez, Josep Mallolas, Josep M. Miro´, Monserrat Laguno, Jhon Rojas, Marı´a Martı´nez-Rebollar, Ana Gonza´lez- Cordo´n, Carlos Cervera, Ana del Rı´o, Christian Manzardo, Juan Manuel Perica´s, Gemma Sanclemente, Nazaret Cobos, Cristina de la Calle, Laura Morata, Alejandro Soriano, Gerard Espinosa, Judit Pich, Joan A. Arnaiz, Jose M. Gatell and Felipe Garcı´a. Funding This work was supported by Red Tema´tica Cooperativa de Grupos de Investigacio´n en Sida (RIS) del Fondo de Investigacio´n Sanitaria (FIS) grant SAF2012-39075 and by Pfizerw . Transparency declarations Research funding, consultancy fees, lecture sponsorships or served on advisory boards: F. G., Abbott, BMS, Gilead Sciences, ViiV, Janssen and MSD; and J. M. G., Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Gilead Sciences, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, Theratechnologies and Tibotec. All other authors: none to declare. ViiV Healthcare reviewed a preliminary version of this manuscript for factual accuracy. The authors are solely responsible for final content and interpretation. Author contributions L. L., A. L., J. M. G. and F. G. contributed to the design of the clinical study. L. L., A. L., B. T., A. I., C. L., J. M., J. R., M. L., M. M.-R., A. G.-C., C. M., J. P., J. A. A. and F. G. contributed to the implementation of the clinical protocol. L. L., A. L., A. I., J. P., J. A. A. and F. G. contributed to the data analysis and interpretation of the results. L. L., A. L., J. M. G. and F. G. contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript. Supplementary data Tables S1 and S2 are available as Supplementary data at JAC Online (http:// jac.oxfordjournals.org/) References 1 Baggaley R, Doherty M, Ball A et al. The strategic use of antiretrovirals to prevent HIV infection: a converging agenda. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60 Suppl 3: S159–60. 2 Tsai CC, Emau P, Follis KE et al. Effectiveness of postinoculation (R)-9-(2-phosphonylmethoxypropyl) adenine treatment for prevention of persistent simian immunodeficiency virus SIVmne infection depends critically on timing of initiation and duration of treatment. J Virol 1998; 72: 4265–73. 3 Mayer KH, Mimiaga MJ, Cohen D et al. Tenofovir DF plus lamivudine or emtricitabine for nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (NPEP) in a Boston Community Health Center. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008; 47: 494–9. 4 Jain S, Mayer KH. Practical guidance for nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection: an editorial review. AIDS 2014; 28: 1545–54. 5 Diaz-Brito V, Leo´n A, Knobel H et al. Post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection: a clinical trial comparing lopinavir/ritonavir versus atazanavir each with zidovudine/lamivudine. Antivir Ther 2012; 17: 337–46. 6 Me´chai F, Quertainmont Y, Sahali S et al. Post-exposure prophylaxis with a maraviroc-containing regimen after occupational exposure to a multi-resistant HIV-infected source person. J Med Virol 2008; 80: 9–10. 7 Malcolm RK, Forbes CJ, Geer L et al. Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of a vaginally administered maraviroc gel in rhesus macaques. J Antimicrob Chemother 2013; 68: 678–83. 8 Brown KC, Patterson KB, Malone S et al. Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics of maraviroc in saliva, semen, and rectal tissue of healthy HIV-negative men. J Infect Dis 2011; 203: 1484–90. 9 Dumond JB, Patterson KB, Pecha AL et al. Maraviroc concentrates in the cervicovaginal fluid and vaginal tissue of HIV-negative women. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 51: 546–53. 10 Grupo de Consenso Espan˜ol sobre profilaxis postexposicio´n no ocupa- cional al VIH. Recomendaciones para la profilaxis postexposicio´n no ocu- pacional al VIH. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin 2002; 20: 391–400. 11 Knobel H, Alonso J, Casado JL et al. Validation of a simplified medica- tion adherence questionnaire in a large cohort of HIV-infected patients: the GEEMA Study. AIDS 2002; 16: 605–13. 12 Tuldra A, Ferrer, Fumaz C et al. Monitoring adherence to HIV-therapy. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1376–7. 13 Martı´n J, Escobar I, Rubio R et al. Study of the validity of a questionnaire to assess the adherence to therapy in patients infected by HIV. HIV Clin Trials 2001; 2: 31–7. 14 WHO. A Practical Handbook on the Pharmacovigilance of Antiretroviral Medicines. Geneva: WHO Press, 2009. Leal et al. 4 of 5 atOrtaDoguTeknikUniversityLibrary(ODTU)onMarch23,2016http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom
  5. 5. 15 Leal L, Leo´n A, Torres B et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus raltegravir each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; doi:10.1093/jac/dkw049. 16 Bogoch II, Scully EP, Zachary KC et al. Patient attrition between the emergency department and clinic among individuals presenting for HIV nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58: 1618–24. 17 Tissot F, Erard V, Dang T et al. Nonoccupational HIV post-exposure prophylaxis: a 10-year retrospective analysis. HIV Med 2010; 11: 584–92. 18 Van der Maaten G, Davies J, Nyirenda M et al. HIV post-exposure prophylaxis programmes in the developed and developing world: can we learn from each other? Int J STD AIDS 2011; 22: 751–2. 19 Fletcher JB, Rusow JA, Le H et al. High-risk sexual behavior is associated with post-exposure prophylaxis non-adherence among men who have sex with men enrolled in a combination prevention intervention. J Sex Transm Dis 2013; 210403: 7. 20 Foster R, McAllister J, Read T et al. Single-tablet emtricitabine- rilpivirine-tenofovir as HIV postexposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 61: 1336–41. Post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV 5 of 5 JAC atOrtaDoguTeknikUniversityLibrary(ODTU)onMarch23,2016http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/Downloadedfrom

×