Doravirine: A Return of the NNRTI Class?

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-74
Author(s):  
Sarah R. Blevins ◽  
E. Kelly Hester ◽  
Daniel B. Chastain ◽  
David B. Cluck
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Transcriptase Inhibitor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Scenarios ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor

Objective: To compare and contrast doravirine (DOR) with other agents in the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) class, review safety and efficacy data from both completed and ongoing clinical trials, and outline the potential place in therapy of DOR. Data Sources: A literature search using the PubMed database (inception to June 2019) was conducted using the search terms HIV, doravirine, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NNRTI, and MK-1439. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Clinical data were limited to those published in the English language from phase 2 or 3 clinical trials. Ongoing trials were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. Data Synthesis: DOR was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on the strength of 2 phase 3 randomized, double-blind, noninferiority clinical trials with additional studies currently underway examining its utility in other clinical scenarios. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: The role of NNRTIs as part of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy has diminished in recent years given the introduction of more tolerable individual ARV agents and regimens. Despite this, new agents are still needed in the therapeutic arena because treatment failure as well as intolerance can still occur with many first-line therapies. The optimal place in therapy of DOR remains to be defined. Conclusions: DOR is a new NNRTI that represents a potential treatment option for treatment-naïve patients, without many of the previously described untoward effects of the NNRTI class.

Diversity of HIV-1 subtypes and transmitted drug-resistance mutations among minority HIV-1 variants in a Turkish cohort

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rabia Can Sarinoglu ◽  
Uluhan Sili ◽  
Ufuk Hasdemir ◽  
Burak Aksu ◽  
Guner Soyletir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Resistance ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase ◽  
Transcriptase Inhibitor ◽  
Transmitted Drug Resistance ◽  
Resistance Mutations ◽  
Drug Resistance Mutations ◽  
Subtype B ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor ◽  
Hiv 1

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the surveillance of transmitted drug resistance mutations (TDRMs) to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of HIV treatment programs. Objective: Our aim was to determine the TDRMs and evaluate the distribution of HIV-1 subtypes using and compared next-generation sequencing (NGS) and Sanger-based sequencing (SBS) in a cohort of 44 antiretroviral treatment-naïve patients. Methods: All samples that were referred to the microbiology laboratory for HIV drug resistance analysis between December 2016 and February 2018 were included in the study. After exclusions, 44 treatment-naive adult patients with a viral load of >1000 copies/mL were analyzed. DNA sequencing for reverse transcriptase and protease regions was performed using both DeepChek ABL single round kit and Sanger-based ViroSeq HIV-1 Genotyping System. The mutations and HIV-1 subtypes were analyzed using the Stanford HIVdb version 8.6.1 Genotypic Resistance software, and TDRMs were assessed using the WHO surveillance drug-resistance mutation database. HIV-1 subtypes were confirmed by constructing a maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree using Los Alamos IQ-Tree software. Results: NGS identified nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-TDRMs in 9.1% of the patients, non-nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-TDRMs in 6.8% of the patients, and protease inhibitor (PI)-TDRMs in 18.2% of the patients at a detection threshold of ≥1%. Using SBS, 2.3% and 6.8% of the patients were found to have NRTI- and NNRTI-TDRMs, respectively, but no major PI mutations were detected. M41L, L74I, K65R, M184V, and M184I related to NRTI, K103N to NNRTI, and N83D, M46I, I84V, V82A, L24I, L90M, I54V to the PI sites were identified using NGS. Most mutations were found in low-abundance (frequency range: 1.0% - 4.7%) HIV-1 variants, except M41L and K103N. The subtypes of the isolates were found as follows; 61.4% subtype B, 18.2% subtype B/CRF02_AG recombinant, 13.6% subtype A, 4.5% CRF43_02G, and 2.3% CRF02_AG. All TDRMs, except K65R, were detected in HIV-1 subtype B isolates.. Conclusion: The high diversity of protease site TDRMs in the minority HIV-1 variants and prevalence of CRFs were remarkable in this study. All minority HIV-1 variants were missed by conventional sequencing. TDRM prevalence among minority variants appears to be decreasing over time at our center.

Flibanserin

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ximena Vallejos ◽  
Christine Wu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Sexual Desire ◽  
English Language ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Premenopausal Women ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Study Selection

Objective: To review pivotal clinical trials, pharmacology, contraindications, precautions, and key patient education points of flibanserin for the treatment of hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women. Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed using the key words flibanserin and HSDD was conducted in September 2015. There was no time frame to exclude relevant clinical trials. All trials referenced were published between March 2012 and June 2014. Other relevant information was obtained from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site, press releases, prescribing information from the manufacturer, and ClinicalTrials.gov . Study Selection/Data Extraction: All articles in the English language and involving human subjects were reviewed. Data Synthesis: There are three 24-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of flibanserin in North American premenopausal women with HSDD. There was 1 trial that studied the effects of flibanserin in postmenopausal women. In all of the trials, the investigators found statistical significant improvements in Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) desire domain score and satisfying sexual events (SSEs). The most frequently reported adverse events in all flibanserin arms of treatment were somnolence, dizziness, and nausea. Conclusion: Flibanserin, a novel, nonhormonal agent that modulates excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters was studied in premenopausal women and has shown efficacy in improving sexual desire and SSEs.

scholarly journals Time to treatment disruption in children with HIV-1 randomized to initial antiretroviral therapy with protease inhibitors versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. e0242405
Author(s):  
Dwight E. Yin ◽  
Christina Ludema ◽  
Stephen R. Cole ◽  
Carol E. Golin ◽  
William C. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antiretroviral Therapy ◽  
Protease Inhibitor ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase ◽  
Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor ◽  
Transcriptase Inhibitor ◽  
Continuous Therapy ◽  
Time To Treatment ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor ◽  
Hiv 1

Background Choice of initial antiretroviral therapy regimen may help children with HIV maintain optimal, continuous therapy. We assessed treatment-naïve children for differences in time to treatment disruption across randomly-assigned protease inhibitor versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based initial antiretroviral therapy. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of a multicenter phase 2/3, randomized, open-label trial in Europe, North and South America from 2002 to 2009. Children aged 31 days to <18 years, who were living with HIV-1 and treatment-naive, were randomized to antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus a protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Time to first documented treatment disruption to any component of antiretroviral therapy, derived from treatment records and adherence questionnaires, was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards models. Results The modified intention-to-treat analysis included 263 participants. Seventy-two percent (n = 190) of participants experienced at least one treatment disruption during study. At 4 years, treatment disruption probabilities were 70% (protease inhibitor) vs. 63% (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor). The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for treatment disruptions comparing protease inhibitor vs. non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens was 1.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–1.61 (adjusted HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91–1.68). By study end, treatment disruption probabilities converged (protease inhibitor 81%, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor 84%) with unadjusted HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.84–1.48 (adjusted HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84–1.50). Reported reasons for treatment disruptions suggested that participants on protease inhibitors experienced greater tolerability problems. Conclusions Children had similar time to treatment disruption for initial protease inhibitor and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy, despite greater reported tolerability problems with protease inhibitor regimens. Initial pediatric antiretroviral therapy with either a protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor may be acceptable for maintaining optimal, continuous therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document