AIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta

After the original publication of this manuscript [Thompson MA, Horberg MA, Agwu AL, et al. Primary Care Guidance for Persons With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: 2020 Update by the HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis; November 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1391], revisions were submitted for Table 5 under Section III, "ROUTINE HEALTHCARE MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH HIV". Recommendation for Vaccinations have been updated to read: "Pneumococcus (PCV13 and PPV23): repeat PPV23 once 5 years after first vaccination. Give a third and final dose of PPV23 after age 65. All patients with HIV should receive 1 dose of PCV13. If not vaccinated previously, this should be the first dose, If previously vaccinated, give 1 dose of PCV13 at least 1 year after PPV23." Recommendation for Colon Cancer Screenings has been updated to read: "Age 45-75 years if average risk (including personal and family history). Age 76-85...

COVID-19 has caused devastating health consequences and social inequities globally and in the United States. Unfortunately, the US has not developed a comprehensive National COVID-19 Strategy. In this editorial, we briefly review lessons about the development, structure, implementation and evaluation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS) for the US, and use these lessons to inform an initial proposal for a timely, dynamic, evidence-based, participatory, comprehensive and impactful National COVID-19 Strategy. Without such a strategy, the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic will remain uneven across jurisdictions and less than optimally impactful on disease-related mortality, short- and long-term morbidity, and health and social inequities.

BackgroundIn the DISCOVER PrEP trial, emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) was noninferior to emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) for HIV prevention. Here we report the bone safety outcomes of F/TAF and F/TDF.MethodsMen who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW) at risk of HIV were randomized 1:1 to receive blinded F/TDF or F/TAF, taken once daily. Those on PrEP with F/TDF were eligible to enroll. Bone densitometry (DXA) of the hip and spine were performed in a subset of participants (BMD subset). Fracture events were compared in all study participants. Week 48 data are presented.Results5387 participants were enrolled in the main study, with 383 included in the BMD subset. In the BMD subset, the median age was 37 (IQR 29, 46); 0.8% were TGW, 9.4% were black, and 20.6% were Hispanic or Latinx. Fifty-three BMD subset participants were on baseline F/TDF PrEP at enrollment, 26 of whom were randomized to F/TAF. F/TAF was associated with more favorable changes in hip and spine BMD compared with F/TDF (Table 1); these differences were similar when participants on baseline PrEP were excluded. Participants age <35 on F/TAF gained BMD, whereas those on F/TDF lost BMD (Table 1). BMD decreases of ≥3% were less frequent in the F/TAF group than the F/TDF group at the hip (3.8% vs. 18.4%, P < 0.001) and spine (10.1% vs. 26.9%, P < 0.001). Osteopenia was more frequently diagnosed in the spine in participants on F/TDF compared with F/TAF (Figure 1, P = 0.007); but not in the hip. Fracture event frequency was the same (53 [2.0%] per group, P = 1.00). One pathological fracture was reported in the F/TAF group compared with two in the F/TDF group (P = 0.57). In participants on baseline F/TDF PrEP, those randomized to F/TAF had significantly improved hip BMD compared with baseline (median percent change 1.13 [IQR −0.86, 3.47], P = 0.027), while spine BMD was unchanged.ConclusionThrough 48 weeks, DXA subset participants taking F/TAF for PrEP had significantly less change in BMD than those taking F/TDF, and were less likely to develop spine osteopenia. The incidence of fracture was similar, and pathological fractures were rare. F/TAF for PrEP is effective and has a superior bone safety profile compared with F/TDF.DisclosuresAll authors: No reported disclosures.

ObjectivesThe single‐tablet regimen rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (RPV/FTC/TAF) for treatment of HIV‐1‐infected adults was approved based on bioequivalence. We assessed the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of switching to RPV/FTC/TAF from either RPV/FTC/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF.MethodsWe conducted two distinct randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled, noninferiority trials in participants taking RPV/FTC/TDF (Study 1216) and EFV/FTC/TDF (Study 1160). Each study randomized virologically suppressed (HIV‐1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) adults (1:1) to switch to RPV/FTC/TAF or continue their current regimen for 96 weeks. We evaluated efficacy as the proportion with HIV‐1 RNA < 50 copies/mL using the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm and prespecified bone and renal endpoints at week 96.ResultsWe randomized and treated 630 participants in Study 1216 (RPV/FTC/TAF, n = 316; RPV/FTC/TDF, n = 314) and 875 in Study 1160 (RPV/FTC/TAF, n = 438; EFV/FTC/TDF, n = 437). In both studies, the efficacy of switching to RPV/FTC/TAF was noninferior to that of continuing baseline therapy at week 96, with respective percentages of patients with HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL being 89.2% versus 88.5% in Study 1216 [difference 0.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) −4.3 to +5.8%] and 85.2% versus 85.1% in Study 1160 (difference 0%; 95% CI −4.8 to +4.8%). No participant on RPV/FTC/TAF developed treatment‐emergent resistance versus two on EFV/FTC/TDF and one on RPV/FTC/TDF. Compared with continuing baseline therapy, significant improvements in bone mineral density and renal tubular markers were observed in the RPV/FTC/TAF groups (P < 0.001).ConclusionsSwitching to RPV/FTC/TAF from RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF was safe and effective and improved bone mineral density and renal biomarkers up to 96 weeks with no cases of treatment‐emergent resistance.

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal

New data and therapeutic options warrant updated recommendations for the use of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) to treat or to prevent HIV infection in adults. To provide updated recommendations for the use of antiretroviral therapy in adults (aged ≥18 years) with established HIV infection, including when to start treatment, initial regimens, and changing regimens, along with recommendations for using ARVs for preventing HIV among those at risk, including preexposure and postexposure prophylaxis. A panel of experts in HIV research and patient care convened by the International Antiviral Society-USA reviewed data published in peer-reviewed journals, presented by regulatory agencies, or presented as conference abstracts at peer-reviewed scientific conferences since the 2014 report, for new data or evidence that would change previous recommendations or their ratings. Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in the PubMed and EMBASE databases through April 2016. Recommendations were by consensus, and each recommendation was rated by strength and quality of the evidence. Newer data support the widely accepted recommendation that antiretroviral therapy should be started in all individuals with HIV infection with detectable viremia regardless of CD4 cell count. Recommended optimal initial regimens for most patients are 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI). Other effective regimens include nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or boosted protease inhibitors with 2 NRTIs. Recommendations for special populations and in the settings of opportunistic infections and concomitant conditions are provided. Reasons for switching therapy include convenience, tolerability, simplification, anticipation of potential new drug interactions, pregnancy or plans for pregnancy, elimination of food restrictions, virologic failure, or drug toxicities. Laboratory assessments are recommended before treatment, and monitoring during treatment is recommended to assess response, adverse effects, and adherence. Approaches are recommended to improve linkage to and retention in care are provided. Daily tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine is recommended for use as preexposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV infection in persons at high risk. When indicated, postexposure prophylaxis should be started as soon as possible after exposure. Antiretroviral agents remain the cornerstone of HIV treatment and prevention. All HIV-infected individuals with detectable plasma virus should receive treatment with recommended initial regimens consisting of an InSTI plus 2 NRTIs. Preexposure prophylaxis should be considered as part of an HIV prevention strategy for at-risk individuals. When used effectively, currently available ARVs can sustain HIV suppression and can prevent new HIV infection. With these treatment regimens, survival rates among HIV-infected adults who are retained in care can approach those of uninfected adults.

Background & AimsInteractions between C-C chemokine receptor types 2 (CCR2) and 5 (CCR5) and their ligands, including CCL2 and CCL5, mediate fibrogenesis by promoting monocyte/macrophage recruitment and tissue infiltration, as well as hepatic stellate cell activation. Cenicriviroc (CVC) is an oral, dual CCR2/CCR5 antagonist with nanomolar potency against both receptors. CVC’s anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic effects were evaluated in a range of preclinical models of inflammation and fibrosis.MethodsMonocyte/macrophage recruitment was assessed in vivo in a mouse model of thioglycollate-induced peritonitis. CCL2-induced chemotaxis was evaluated ex vivo on mouse monocytes. CVC’s antifibrotic effects were evaluated in a thioacetamide-induced rat model of liver fibrosis and mouse models of diet-induced non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and renal fibrosis. Study assessments included body and liver/kidney weight, liver function test, liver/kidney morphology and collagen deposition, fibrogenic gene and protein expression, and pharmacokinetic analyses.ResultsCVC significantly reduced monocyte/macrophage recruitment in vivo at doses ≥20 mg/kg/day (p < 0.05). At these doses, CVC showed antifibrotic effects, with significant reductions in collagen deposition (p < 0.05), and collagen type 1 protein and mRNA expression across the three animal models of fibrosis. In the NASH model, CVC significantly reduced the non-alcoholic fatty liver disease activity score (p < 0.05 vs. controls). CVC treatment had no notable effect on body or liver/kidney weight.ConclusionsCVC displayed potent anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic activity in a range of animal fibrosis models, supporting human testing for fibrotic diseases. Further experimental studies are needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms of CVC’s antifibrotic effects. A Phase 2b study in adults with NASH and liver fibrosis is fully enrolled (CENTAUR Study 652-2-203; NCT02217475).

Objective:To compare the efficacy, safety, and anti-inflammatory effects of cenicriviroc (CVC), an oral, once-daily C-C chemokine receptor types 5 and 2 antagonist, with those of efavirenz (EFV) in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults.Design:A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 2b trial at 43 institutions (USA and Puerto Rico).Methods:Study participants (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/ml, CD4+ cell count ≥200 cells/μl, C-C chemokine receptor type 5-tropic virus) were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to CVC 100 mg (CVC100), CVC 200 mg (CVC200), or EFV 600 mg, each administered with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Key end points were virologic success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml) at week 24 (primary) and week 48 (secondary), safety/tolerability at weeks 24 and 48. Study sites and patients remained blinded until week 48.Results:A total of 143 patients were randomized (CVC100, n = 59; CVC200, n = 56; EFV, n = 28). Virologic success was obtained at week 24 in 76, 73, and 71% of study participants for CVC100, CVC200, and EFV, respectively (all P > 0.05 versus EFV), and at week 48 in 68, 64, and 50%, respectively (all P > 0.05 versus EFV). Resistance mutations emerged in five and zero CVC and EFV-treated study participants, respectively. Virologic nonresponse and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance decreased when CVC minimum plasma concentration was at least 47.8 ng/ml. Treatment-related adverse events of at least grade 2 and discontinuations because of adverse events were less frequent in CVC-treated study participants. Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased with CVC, but increased with EFV. C-C chemokine ligand type 2 (CCL2) (aka monocyte chemotactic protein-1) increased in a dose-dependent manner, whereas soluble CD14 levels decreased with CVC.Conclusion:CVC showed efficacy and favorable safety in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected study participants, supporting selection of CVC200 for phase 3 studies.Trial registration:NCT01338883.