Browsing by Author "Walmsley, Sharon L."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection: 2008 Recommendations of the International AIDS Society–USA Panel
    (2008) Hammer, Scott M.; Eron, Joseph J. Jr.; Reiss, Peter; Schooley, Robert T.; Thompson, Melanie A.; Walmsley, Sharon L.; Cahn, Pedro; Fischl, Margaret A.; Gatell, Jose; Hirsch, Martin S.; Jacobsen, Donna M.; Montaner, Julio; Richman, Douglas D.; Yeni, Patrick; Volberding, Paul A.; International AIDS Society-USA
    Context: The availability of new antiretroviral drugs and formulations, including drugs in new classes, and recent data on treatment choices for antiretroviral-naive and -experienced patients warrant an update of the International AIDS Society-USA guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adult human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Objectives: To summarize new data in the field and to provide current recommendations for the antiretroviral management and laboratory monitoring of HIV infection. This report provides guidelines in key areas of antiretroviral management: when to initiate therapy, choice of initial regimens, patient monitoring, when to change therapy, and how best to approach treatment options, including optimal use of recently approved drugs (maraviroc, raltegravir, and etravirine) in treatment-experienced patients. Data sources and study selection: A 14-member panel with expertise in HIV research and clinical care was appointed. Data published or presented at selected scientific conferences since the last panel report (August 2006) through June 2008 were identified. Data extraction and synthesis: Data that changed the previous guidelines were reviewed by the panel (according to section). Guidelines were drafted by section writing committees and were then reviewed and edited by the entire panel. Recommendations were made by panel consensus. Conclusions: New data and considerations support initiating therapy before CD4 cell count declines to less than 350/microL. In patients with 350 CD4 cells/microL or more, the decision to begin therapy should be individualized based on the presence of comorbidities, risk factors for progression to AIDS and non-AIDS diseases, and patient readiness for treatment. In addition to the prior recommendation that a high plasma viral load (eg, >100,000 copies/mL) and rapidly declining CD4 cell count (>100/microL per year) should prompt treatment initiation, active hepatitis B or C virus coinfection, cardiovascular disease risk, and HIV-associated nephropathy increasingly prompt earlier therapy. The initial regimen must be individualized, particularly in the presence of comorbid conditions, but usually will include efavirenz or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine). Treatment failure should be identified and managed promptly, with the goal of therapy, even in heavily pretreated patients, being an HIV-1 RNA level below assay detection limits.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Can herpes simplex virus type 2 suppression slow HIV disease progression: A study protocol for the VALacyclovir In Delaying Antiretroviral Treatment Entry (VALIDATE) trial
    (2010) Tan, Darrell H. S. T.; Raboud, Janet M.; Kaul, Rupert; Grinsztejn, Beatriz; Cahn, Pedro; Walmsley, Sharon L.
    Background: Although highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has dramatically decreased HIV-related morbidity and mortality, the associated costs, toxicities, and resistance risks make the potential delay of HAART initiation an attractive goal. Suppression of herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) may be a novel strategy for achieving this goal because HSV-2 is associated with clinically significant increases in HIV viral load, the primary driver of HIV disease progression. Methods/design: The VALacyclovir In Delaying Antiretroviral Treatment Entry (VALIDATE) trial is a multicentre, randomized, fully blinded, clinical trial of twice daily valacyclovir 500 mg versus placebo for delaying the need for initiating HAART among HIV-1, HSV-2 co-infected HAART-naïve adults. 480 participants from Canada, Brazil and Argentina will undergo quarterly clinical follow-up until reaching the composite primary endpoint of having a CD4+ T-cell count ≤ 350 cells/mm(3) or initiation of HAART for any reason, whichever occurs first. The primary analysis will use a proportional hazards model, stratified by site, to estimate the relative risk of progression to this endpoint associated with valacyclovir. Secondary analyses will compare the rates of change in CD4 count, median log10 HIV viral load, drug-related adverse events, frequency of HSV reactivations, rate of acyclovir-resistant HSV, and quality of life between study arms. Discussion: Although HIV treatment guidelines continue to evolve, with some authorities recommending earlier HAART among asymptomatic individuals, the potential delay of HAART remains a clinically relevant goal for many. If shown to be of benefit, implementation of the VALIDATE intervention will require careful consideration of both individual patient-level and public health implications. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66756285. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00860977.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Durable efficacy of tipranavir-ritonavir in combination with an optimised background regimen of antiretroviral drugs for treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks in the Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug reSistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST) studies: An analysis of combined data from two randomised open-label trials
    (2006) Hicks, Charles B.; Cahn, Pedro; Cooper, David A.; Walmsley, Sharon L.; Katlama, Christine; Clotet, Bonaventura; Lazzarin, Adriano; Johnson, Mark A.; Neubacher, Daniel; Mayers, David; Valdez, Hector; RESIST investigator group
    Background: Treatment options for HIV-1 infected individuals who have received extensive previous antiretroviral therapy are limited. We compared efficacy and safety of the novel non-peptidic protease inhibitor tipranavir co-administered with ritonavir plus an optimised background regimen with that of an investigator-selected ritonavir-boosted comparator protease inhibitor (CPI-ritonavir) in such patients. Methods: We did a combined analysis of 48-week data from two ongoing, randomised, open-label, multinational, phase III, RESIST studies. HIV-1-infected adults with 3 months or longer previous triple antiretroviral class experience, two or more previous protease inhibitor regimens, HIV-1 RNA 1000 copies per mL or greater, and genotypically demonstrated primary resistance to protease inhibitor, were eligible. Primary endpoints were proportion of treatment responders (with reduction in viral load of 1 log(10) copies per mL or greater below baseline without treatment change) at 48 weeks and time to treatment failure through 48 weeks (intention-to-treat analysis). The RESIST studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00054717 (RESIST-1) and NCT00144170 (RESIST-2). Findings: 3324 patients were screened; 746 received tipranavir-ritonavir and 737 CPI-ritonavir. 486 (65.1%) patients on tipranavir-ritonavir and 192 (26.1%) on CPI-ritonavir remained on assigned treatment until week 48. At week 48, more patients achieved and maintained treatment response in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (251 [33.6%] vs 113 [15.3%]; p<0.0001). Median time to treatment failure was significantly longer in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group (113 days vs 0 days; p<0.0001). Gastrointestinal system disorders and raised transaminase, cholesterol, and triglycerides were more frequent in the tipranavir-ritonavir group than in the CPI-ritonavir group. Interpretation: Compared with CPI-ritonavir, tipranavir-ritonavir with an optimised background regimen provides better virological and immunological responses over 48 weeks in patients who have received extensive previous antiretroviral treatment.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): A phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial
    (2011) Molina, Jean-Michel; Cahn, Pedro; Grinsztejn, Beatriz; Lazzarin, Adriano; Mills, Andrew; Saag, Michael; Supparatpinyo, Khuanchai; Walmsley, Sharon L.; Crauwels, Herta; Rimsky, Laurence T.; Vanveggel, Simon; Boven, Kristof
    Background: Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Methods: We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. Findings: 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was -0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 5.2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11%vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2-4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0.0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. Interpretation: Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. Funding: Tibotec.