Context New trial data and drug regimens that have become available in the last 2 years warrant an update to guidelines for antiretroviral therapy (ART) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected adults in resource-rich settings. Objective To provide current recommendations for the treatment of adult HIV infection with ART and use of laboratory-monitoring tools. Guidelines include when to start therapy and with what drugs, monitoring for response and toxic effects, special considerations in therapy, and managing antiretroviral failure. Data Sources, Study Selection, and Data Extraction Data that had been published or presented in abstract form at scientific conferences in the past 2 years were systematically searched and reviewed by an International Antiviral Society–USA panel. The panel reviewed available evidence and formed recommendations by full panel consensus. Data Synthesis Treatment is recommended for all adults with HIV infection; the strength of the recommendation and the quality of the evidence increase with decreasing CD4 cell count and the presence of certain concurrent conditions. Recommended initial regimens include 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine) plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir or darunavir), or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (raltegravir). Alternatives in each class are recommended for patients with or at risk of certain concurrent conditions. CD4 cell count and HIV-1 RNA level should be monitored, as should engagement in care, ART adherence, HIV drug resistance, and quality-of-care indicators. Reasons for regimen switching include virologic, immunologic, or clinical failure and drug toxicity or intolerance. Confirmed treatment failure should be addressed promptly and multiple factors considered. Conclusion New recommendations for HIV patient care include offering ART to all patients regardless of CD4 cell count, changes in therapeutic options, and modifications in the timing and choice of ART in the setting of opportunistic illnesses such as cryptococcal disease and tuberculosis.

/pdf/antiretroviral-treatment-of-adult-hiv-infection-2012-4sv2pp4tfj.pdf

Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection: 2012 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society–USA Panel

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 toinitiatetherapy,choiceofinitialregimens,patientmonitoring,whentochangetherapy, and how best to approach treatment options, including optimal use of recently approved drugs (maraviroc, raltegravir, and etravirine) in treatment-experienced patients.

/pdf/antiretroviral-treatment-of-adult-hiv-infection-2b9ceai825.pdf

Antiretroviral Treatment of Adult HIV Infection

The overall purpose of these guidelines is to provide guidance on best clinical practice in the treatment and management of adults with HIV infection with antiretroviral therapy (ART). The scope includes: (i) guidance on the initiation of ART in those previously naive to therapy; (ii)support of patients on treatment; (iii) management of patients experiencing virological failure; and (iv) recommendations in specific patient populations where other factors need to be taken into consideration. The guidelines are aimed at clinical professionals directly involved with and responsible for the care of adults with HIV infection and at community advocates responsible for promoting the best interests and care of HIV-positive adults. They should be read in conjunction with other published BHIVA guidelines.

/pdf/british-hiv-association-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-hiv-58cu62k9mn.pdf

British HIV Association guidelines for the treatment of HIV-1-positive adults with antiretroviral therapy 2012

Fifteen years of HIV Protease Inhibitors: raising the barrier to resistance

Antiretroviral therapy has changed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection from a near-certainly fatal illness to one that can be managed chronically. More patients are taking antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for longer periods of time, which naturally results in more observed toxicity. Overdose with ARVs is not commonly reported. The most serious overdose outcomes have been reported in neonates who were inadvertently administered supratherapeutic doses of HIV prophylaxis medications. Typical ARV regimens include a “backbone” of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and a “base” of either a protease inhibitor (PI) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. New classes of drugs called entry inhibitors and integrase inhibitors have also emerged. Older NRTIs were associated with mitochondrial toxicity, but this is less common in the newer drugs, emtricitabine, lamivudine, and tenofovir. Mitochondrial toxicity results from NRTI inhibition of a mitochondrial DNA polymerase. Mitochondrial toxicity manifests as myopathy, neuropathy, hepatic failure, and lactic acidosis. Routine lactate assessment in asymptomatic patients is not indicated. Lactate concentration should be obtained in patients taking NRTIs who have fatigue, nausea, vomiting, or vague abdominal pain. Mitochondrial toxicity can be fatal and is treated by supportive care and discontinuing NRTIs. Metabolic cofactors like thiamine, carnitine, and riboflavin may be helpful in managing mitochondrial toxicity. Lipodystrophy describes changes in fat distribution and lipid metabolism that have been attributed to both PIs and NRTIs. Lipodystrophy consists of loss of fat around the face (lipoatrophy), increase in truncal fat, and hypertriglyceridemia. There is no specific treatment of lipodystrophy. Clinicians should be able to recognize effects of chronic toxicity of ARVs, especially mitochondrial toxicity.

/pdf/a-review-of-the-toxicity-of-hiv-medications-cmlrzul7s9.pdf

A Review of the Toxicity of HIV Medications

OBJECTIVE Present 96-week data from ongoing ARTEMIS (AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In Naive Subjects) trial. METHODS Randomized, open-label, phase III trial of antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml (stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count) receiving darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg total daily dose (twice daily or once daily) and fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine. Primary outcome measure was noninferiority of DRV/r vs. LPV/r in virologic response (<50 copies/ml, time-to-loss of virologic response) at 96 weeks (secondary outcome: superiority). RESULTS Six hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled. At week 96, significantly more DRV/r (79%) than LPV/r patients (71%) had viral load less than 50 copies/ml, confirming statistical noninferiority (estimated difference: 8.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9-14.8; P < 0.001; per-protocol) and superiority (P = 0.012; intent-to-treat) in virologic response. Median CD4 cell count increases from baseline were 171 and 188 cells/microl for DRV/r and LPV/r, respectively (P = 0.57; noncompleter=failure). Overall, 4% of DRV/r patients and 9% of LPV/r patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Lower rates of grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhea were seen with DRV/r (4%) vs. LPV/r (11%; P < 0.001), whereas grade 2-4 treatment-related rash occurred infrequently in both arms (3 vs. 1%, respectively; P = 0.273). DRV/r patients had smaller median increases in triglycerides (0.1 and 0.6 mmol/l, respectively, P < 0.0001) and total cholesterol (0.6 and 0.9 mmol/l, respectively; P < 0.0001) than LPV/r patients; levels remained below National Cholesterol Education Program cut-offs for DRV/r. CONCLUSION At week 96, once-daily DRV/r was both statistically noninferior and superior in virologic response to LPV/r, with a more favorable gastrointestinal and lipid profile, confirming DRV/r as an effective, well tolerated, and durable option for antiretroviral-naive patients.

Anthony M. Mills

Papers

Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week analysis.