Adherence to trizivir and tenofovir as a simplified salvage regimen is associated with suppression of viraemia and a decreased cholesterol

Victoria Latham, Justin Stebbing, Sundhiya Mandalia, Christos Michailidis, Elizabeth Davies, Mark Bower, Brian Gazzard and Mark Nelson*

The St Stephen's Centre, The Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, 369 Fulham Road, London SW10 9NH, UK


* Corresponding author. E-mail: mark.nelson{at}chelwest.nhs.uk

Received 5 January 2005; returned 29 March 2005; revised 2 April 2005; accepted 19 April 2005


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Background: Treatment failure during highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is ultimately common and associated with the development of resistance mutations. Trizivir (zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate may improve adherence and enhance virological suppression in individuals who have failed previous regimens.

Methods: Individuals were identified who had failed previous HAART and who were then prescribed trizivir and tenofovir. Viral load and genotypic information were obtained to assess virological response.

Results: One hundred and twenty-two individuals were identified from a database containing 5883 patients. In a last observation carried forward intention to treat analysis, 34% of individuals achieved an undetectable viral load of <50 copies/mL at 1 year. Of those who were able to remain on treatment for 1 year, 65% achieved undetectability. We observed no effect regarding previous regimens on viral outcome. Accumulation of TAMs (thymidine analogue mutations) was associated with a decrease in the number of patients achieving an undetectable viral load (with <2 TAMs present 38% of patients developed undetectable viral loads, ≥1;2 TAMs 17% undetectable; P = 0.03). Using the mean cell volume as a measure of compliance, those with higher values were more likely to achieve a viral load <50 copies/mL (P = 0.04). A beneficial effect on cholesterol was noted regardless of virological outcome.

Conclusions: In compliant heavily pre-treated individuals with less than 2 TAMs, salvage therapy with trizivir and tenofovir is associated with suppression of viraemia and an improved lipid profile.

Keywords: HAART , HIV/AIDS , thymidine analogue mutations , cholesterol


    Introduction
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
In those for whom it is available, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has reduced mortality and increased quality of life by preventing opportunistic diseases.1 Despite the initial optimism concerning this selective targeting of the HIV reverse transcriptase and protease, HAART is not able to target the latent reservoir2,3 and it is associated with well known and described clinical side effects and toxicities.4,5 Virological failure may be associated with difficulties in adhering to complex regimens and in turn, it is specifically associated with the development of resistance mutations against the agents and associated antiretroviral classes, within received HAART regimens.6 As the number of drugs increases, quality of life and safety assume relatively greater importance and many studies demonstrate that discontinuation is higher in the arm where additional drugs are administered, whatever treatment is chosen for maximal suppression of viral replication.710

The combination of trizivir (zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir) (one tablet twice daily) and tenofovir (one tablet once daily) potentially offers an attractive and simple salvage regimen.7 Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [R-9-(2-phosphonyl-methoxypropyl) adenine; tenofovir DF], the first nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor to be approved by the FDA, has been well tolerated and demonstrated efficacy in large clinical trials of naive and experienced patients, without evidence of long-term toxicity, including the mitochondrial toxicity that has been associated with some nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors.1116 Whilst trizivir, a triple nucleoside-based regimen, is a useful therapy with a favourable lipid profile, one large study demonstrated that it did not suppress viraemia as well as a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor based regimen.17

We therefore studied the efficacy and safety of the tenofovir and trizivir combination in patients requiring salvage therapy. Such a combination spares the use of protease inhibitors and subsequent side effects, including an adverse effect on lipid profile, which in turn may cause premature cardiovascular disease.1820 We therefore studied this profile and also investigated the use of resistance tests to establish patients who were more or less likely to respond to this regimen.


    Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients

The Chelsea and Westminster HIV cohort is one of the largest in Europe. HIV-positive patients are seen at regular intervals for clinical assessment, trial follow-up, and immunological and virological assessments. We have routinely prescribed HAART since 1 January 1996, the date at which HAART became routinely available at our institution in accordance with published guidelines.21 We undertook a systematic search of our database in order to identify those individuals who had received and failed at least one prior antiretroviral regimen and then received trizivir and tenofovir. Antiretroviral histories were collated from the clinical database and patient notes, as well as any available resistance mutation information. Genotypic tests (Virco NV, Mechelen, Belgium), CD4 results (TetraOne antibodies on an Epics XL-MCL facscaliber, Beckman Coulter, High Wycombe, UK) and plasma viral load (Quantiplex HIV RNA 3.0, Chiron, Halstead, UK) were recorded from the database.

Statistics

Statistical analyses were performed in SAS version 8.0 using parametric tests. Where appropriate, data were log10 transformed to stabilize the variance. MIXED procedure in SAS was used to calculate the difference in averages (DAVG), which represents the time weighted difference in viral load and CD4 count from baseline to each time point. On treatment and a last observation carried forward intention to treat analysis (ITT) was performed, firstly where the last observation (<50 copies/mL) was carried forward if data were unavailable at the time point and secondly, where any patient whose data were unavailable for any reason was assumed to have failed at the time of analysis. Fold changes from baseline were further calculated for viral load and CD4 count for each study time points and these have been presented as percentage change from baseline. Log rank {chi}2 tests were used for comparisons and all P values presented are two-sided.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
A total of 5883 patients have been followed up at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital during the HAART era. Of these, we identified 122 (2%) HIV-1-infected individuals who received trizivir and tenofovir after failing at least one prior antiretroviral regimen. The median viral load at baseline measured 35 745 copies/mL and median CD4 count measured 164 cells/mm3 (Table 1). The number of patients achieving a viral load of <50 copies/mL after 1–6 months and at 1 year is demonstrated in Figure 1. Out of those who remained on treatment, 65% achieved undetectability at 1 year versus 34% in an intent to treat analysis.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the 122 patients included in this analysis [median (IQR) and mean (SD)]

 


View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 1. The proportion of patients achieving a viral load <50 copies/mL.

 
Patients had a mean of 4 previous antiretroviral regimens (range 1–6). Out of these individuals, 87% had previously received lamivudine (mean duration 22 months), 77% zidovudine (mean 15 months), 55% abacavir (mean 12 months) and 26% tenofovir (mean 2 months). After 1 year of therapy with trizivir and tenofovir, there were 49 dropouts (15 virological failures, 16 lost to follow-up, 4 abacavir adverse drug reactions, 9 zidovudine adverse drug events related to myelosuppression, 1 tenofovir DF adverse drug event, 2 patient choice, 1 treatment simplification, 1 pregnancy).

The mean CD4 increase on treatment was 131 cells/mm3, 66% of patients (on treatment) achieved a one log drop in viral load and 65% had an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL) at 1 year (Figure 1). Figure 1 demonstrates similar proportions of patients with undetectable viraemia on treatment at 6 months and at 1 year.

The accumulation of TAMs was associated with a decrease in the number of patients achieving an undetectable viral load. Patients with fewer than 2 TAMs had significantly better virological outcomes compared with those with two or more TAMs (Table 2). Out of 15 patients with virological failure, 12 individuals had resistance tests available at baseline. One patient had 5 TAMs plus M184V, 2 had 3 TAMs plus M184V, 3 had 2 TAMs (2 plus M184V) and 2 had 1 TAM (1 plus M184V). At failure, only two patients had more TAMs than at baseline and none had acquired the M184V mutation. Only three patients had the K65R mutation conferring resistance to tenofovir.22 Of these, two experienced virological failure (one by 6 months and one by 1 year). However, the patient who failed at 1 year had 4 TAMs and the patient who failed at 6 months had 2 TAMs, thus the effect of K65R remains unclear.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. Effect of thymidine analogue mutations on individuals achieving an undetectable viral load at 1 year

 
A raised mean corpuscular volume (MCV) resulting from zidovudine therapy, was taken as a crude measure of adherence to the regimen.23,24 We have shown that more patients with a raised MCV (>100 fL) achieved an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL) than those with a ‘normal’ MCV (<100 fL) at each of the time points measured and this was statistically significant (P = 0.04).

In this analysis, we also investigated the effect on lipid profile (cholesterol), in those individuals who did and did not achieve an undetectable viral load. Figure 2, a DAVG analysis with 95% confidence intervals, demonstrates a statistically significant beneficial effect on cholesterol levels after 6 months of therapy that is maintained at 1 year, regardless of whether undetectability was achieved (P < 0.05). At 6 months, this was most evident in those who subsequently achieved undetectability although by 9 months to 1 year, all patients had significantly lower cholesterol levels than at the start of therapy.



View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Figure 2. A DAVG analysis demonstrating changes in cholesterol levels, between those who did and did not achieve a viral load of <50 copies/mL after 1 year of therapy with trizivir and tenofovir.

 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
This study suggests that a simplified regimen of trizivir and tenofovir is able to achieve virological suppression at 1 year, in a majority of patients who have failed previous antiretroviral therapies. We observed that accumulation of more than 2 TAMs, decreased the number of individuals achieving undetectability at 1 year. Therefore, we also conclude from our small dataset that the number of TAMs can be used to guide future strategies in which this regimen is considered. Trizivir and tenofovir should be considered in those individuals who have failed previous antiretrovirals and who have zero or one TAM only. We were unable to conclude the additional significance of K65R22 or M184V mutation. Despite the extensive experience of these 122 individuals to lamivudine and/or zidovudine, previous use of these nucleoside analogues did not appear to affect the response to our simplified regimen (it is also unclear here whether the M184V mutation may restore zidovudine sensitivity25).

We noted significant benefits on cholesterol levels that were maintained from 6 months to 1 year, regardless of outcome. In a large prospective randomized study comparing the safety and efficacy of tenofovir with stavudine (both in combination with lamivudine and efavirenz), a more favourable change in cholesterol was found in the tenofovir group at week 144, and these patients also had less lipodystrophy.26 Switching from stavudine to tenofovir is also associated with reversal of dyslipidaemia.27 Trizivir has also been extensively studied in this setting and in a number of comparative studies, median decreases in cholesterol were greater in those patients who received trizivir.2830 It is therefore not necessarily surprising that a trizivir and tenofovir combination was successful at reducing cholesterol although this is an important benefit of this regimen.

Lack of adherence to HAART is a significant reason for treatment failure. Trizivir and tenofovir has a lower pill burden in terms of both number of tablets and frequency of administration (and food restrictions)7 and we also found that those individuals with increased adherence, as measured by a higher MCV,23,24 were significantly more likely to have virological suppression at any of the time points measured.

In conclusion, the combination of trizivir and tenofovir was well tolerated and associated with a decreased cholesterol. Virological suppression could be achieved in those individuals with a previous history of exposure to components of this regimen and adherence to this protease inhibitor sparing regimen was associated with achieving undetectability. The measurement of TAMs can be used to guide treatment strategies in patients requiring salvage therapy.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
1. Palella FJ, Jr, Delaney KM, Moorman AC et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 853–60.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2. Douek DC, Picker LJ, Koup RA. T cell dynamics in HIV-1 infection. Ann Rev Immunol 2003; 21: 265–304.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

3. Douek DC, Brenchley JM, Betts MR et al. HIV preferentially infects HIV-specific CD4+ T cells. Nature 2002; 417: 95–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

4. Hammer SM. Increasing choices for HIV therapy. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 2022–3.[Free Full Text]

5. Stebbing J, Gazzard B, Douek DC. Where does HIV live? N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1872–80.[Free Full Text]

6. Stebbing J, Gazzard B. Clinical utility of resistance testing. J HIV Therapy 2002; 7: 75–80.

7. Anon. Pill burden key to doing well. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2000; 14: 281–2.[CrossRef]

8. Gallant JE. Strategies for long-term success in the treatment of HIV infection. J Am Med Assoc 2000; 283: 1329–34.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

9. Fumaz CR, Tuldra A, Ferrer MJ et al. Quality of life, emotional status, and adherence of HIV-1-infected patients treated with efavirenz versus protease inhibitor-containing regimens. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 29: 244–53.[ISI][Medline]

10. Williams I, Asboe D, Babiker A et al. (2004). A virological benefit from an induction/maintenance strategy compared with a standard 3-drug regimen in antiretroviral naive patients: the FORTE trial. In: 11th CROI, San Francisco, CA, 2004. Abstract 564.

11. Fung HB, Stone EA, Piacenti FJ. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor for the treatment of HIV infection. Clin Therap 2002; 24: 1515–48.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

12. Louie M, Hogan C, Hurley A et al. Determining the antiviral activity of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive chronically HIV-1-infected individuals. Aids 2003; 17: 1151–6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

13. Walker UA. Update on mitochondrial toxicity: where are we now? J HIV Therapy 2003; 8: 32–5.

14. Nelson M, Portsmouth S, Stebbing J et al. An open-label study of tenofovir in HIV-1 and Hepatitis B virus co-infected individuals. AIDS 2003; 17: F7–F10.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

15. Orkin C, Stebbing J, Nelson M et al. A randomized study comparing a three- and four-drug HAART regimen in first-line therapy (QUAD study). J Antimicrob Chemother 2005; 55: 246–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

16. Jones R, Stebbing J, Nelson M et al. Renal dysfunction with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens is not observed more frequently: a cohort and case-control study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 37: 1489–95.[Medline]

17. Gulick RM, Ribaudo HJ, Shikuma CM et al. Triple-nucleoside regimens versus efavirenz-containing regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 1850–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

18. Sklar P, Masur H. HIV infection and cardiovascular disease—is there really a link? N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2065–7.[Free Full Text]

19. Friis-Moller N, Sabin CA, Weber R et al. Combination antiretroviral therapy and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 1993–2003.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

20. Bozzette SA, Ake CF, Tam HK et al. Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in patients treated for human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 702–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

21. Yeni PG, Hammer SM, Carpenter CC et al. Antiretroviral treatment for adult HIV infection in 2002: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society—USA Panel. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 288: 222–35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22. Winston A, Stebbing J. The K65R mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. J HIV Therapy 2004; 9: 25–7.

23. Steele RH, Keogh GL, Quin J et al. Mean cell volume (MCV) changes in HIV-positive patients taking nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs): a surrogate marker for adherence. Int J STD AIDS 2002; 13: 748–54.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

24. Romanelli F, Empey K, Pomeroy C. Macrocytosis as an indicator of medication (zidovudine) adherence in patients with HIV infection. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2002; 16: 405–11.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

25. Descamps D, Flandre P, Joly V et al. Effect of zidovudine resistance mutations on virologic response to treatment with zidovudine or stavudine, each in combination with lamivudine and indinavir. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 31: 464–71.[Medline]

26. Gallant JE, Staszewski S, Pozniak AL et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 2004; 292: 191–201.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

27. Domingo P, Labarga P, Palacios R et al. Improvement of dyslipidemia in patients switching from stavudine to tenofovir: preliminary results. Aids 2004; 18: 1475–8.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

28. Katlama C, Gazzard B, Mallolas J et al. Comparison of metabolic abnormalities 48 weeks after switching from highly active antiretroviral therapy containing a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor to Trizivir versus continued highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2003; 17: 1855–6.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

29. Katlama C, Fenske S, Gazzard B et al. TRIZAL study: switching from successful HAART to Trizivir (abacavir–lamivudine–zidovudine combination tablet): 48 weeks efficacy, safety and adherence results. HIV Med 2003; 4: 79–86.[CrossRef][Medline]

30. Lafeuillade A, Clumeck N, Mallolas J et al. Comparison of metabolic abnormalities and clinical lipodystrophy 48 weeks after switching from HAART to Trizivir versus continued HAART: the Trizal study. HIV Clin Trials 2003; 4: 37–43.[ISI][Medline]





This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
56/1/186    most recent
dki170v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Latham, V.
Articles by Nelson, M.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Latham, V.
Articles by Nelson, M.