Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 375–397

Current and Future Antiretroviral Treatment Options in Paediatric HIV Infection

  • Carlo Giaquinto
  • Erika Morelli
  • Federica Fregonese
  • Osvalda Rampon
  • Martina Penazzato
  • Anita de Rossi
  • Ruggero D’Elia
Review Article

Abstract

Because of a lack of prevention policies or problems in implementing prevention of mother-to-child transmission (P-MTCT), most of the 1500 daily new HIV infections in children aged <15 years are caused by MTCT. Fifteen percent of all HIV-infected individuals are children, but the vast majority lack access to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), which can drastically reduce morbidity and mortality. There are 22 antiretroviral drugs currently approved by the US FDA for use in the treatment of HIV-infected adults and adolescents, but only 12 of these drugs are approved for use in children. Antiretroviral drugs belong to four major classes: nucleoside and nucleotide analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors and fusion inhibitors. According to international guidelines developed by organizations including WHO, the Paediatric European Network for Treatment of AIDS (PENTA) and the US National Institutes of Health (US-NIH), the treatment of choice for HIV-infected children and adults is a combination of two NRTIs (backbone treatment) plus a third potent agent from a different class, either an NNRTI or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor. There are specific challenges in treating HIV-infected children, including uncertainty about the best time to start treatment, the need for more paediatric formulations, the lack of pharmacokinetic studies for new drugs, and incomplete dosing guidelines. Furthermore, the most appropriate regimen for an individual child depends on a variety of factors, including the age of the child; the availability of appropriate drug formulations; the potency, complexity and toxicity of the drug regimen; the home situation; the child and caregiver’s ability to adhere to the regimen; and the child’s antiretroviral treatment history. In addition, antiretroviral drugs are not licensed for all age groups and the drugs are often not affordable. This review describes NNRTI and protease inhibitors as key components of first- and second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), focusing on the rationale for choosing an NNRTI-versus protease inhibitor-based regimen based on the results of available phase II and III studies. Some of the new agents available for children as second-line and salvage therapy both on- and off-label are also discussed. The drug regimens described in this review are relevant to clinicians in developed and developing countries. The availability of new, potent compounds with different resistance and toxicity profiles may represent an alternative option to interclass switching and could redefine ART strategy, including the option of first-line NRTI-sparing regimens.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Antiretroviral treatment of HIV infection in infants and children in resource-limited settings, towards universal access: recommendations for a public health approach (2006 revision) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/guidelines/art/en/index.html [Accessed 2007 Jul 1]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Martino M, Tovo PA, Balducci M, et al. Reduction in mortality with availability of antiretroviral therapy for children with perinatal HIV-1 infection. Italian Register for HIV Infection in Children and the Italian National AIDS Registry. JAMA 2000; 284(2): 190–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gibb DM, Duong T, Tookey PA, et al. Decline in mortality, AIDS, and hospital admissions in perinatally HIV-1 infected children in the United Kingdom and Ireland. BMJ 2003; 327(7422): 1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization (WHO). Progress on global access to HIV antiretroviral therapy: a report on “3 by 5” and beyond (March 2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.wpro.who.int/health_topics/antiretroviral_therapy/publications.htm [Accessed 2007 Jul 1]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doerholt K, Duong T, Tookey P, et al. Outcomes for human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected infants in the United kingdom and Republic of Ireland in the era of effective antiretroviral therapy. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2006; 25(5): 420–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amaya RA, Kozinetz CA, McMeans A, et al. Lipodystrophy syndrome in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2002; 21(5): 405–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leonard EG, McComsey GA. Metabolic complications of anti-retroviral therapy in children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2003; 22(1): 77–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Egger M, May M, Chene G, et al. Prognosis of HIV-1-infected patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis of prospective studies. Lancet 2002; 360(9327): 119–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Florence E, Lundgren J, Dreezen C, et al. Factors associated with a reduced CD4 lymphocyte count response to HAART despite full viral suppression in the Euro SIDA study. HIV Med 2003; 4(3): 255–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Palella Jr FJ, Deloria-Knoll M, Chmiel JS, et al. Survival benefit of initiating antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected persons in different CD4+ cell strata. Ann Intern Med 2003; 138(8): 620–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994 revised classification system for human immunodeficiency infection in children less than 13 years of age. MMWR Recomm Rep 1994 Sep 30; 43 (RR-12): 1-19Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Burns DN, Mofenson LM. Paediatric HIV-1 infection. Lancet 1999; 354Suppl. 2: SII1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dorrucci M, Rezza G, Porter K, et al. Temporal trends in postseroconversion CD4 cell count and HIV load: the Concerted Action on Seroconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe Collaboration, 1985–2002. J Infect Dis 2007; 195(4): 525–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    HIV Paediatric Prognostic Markers Collaborative Study. Use of total lymphocyte count for informing when to start antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected children: a meta-analysis of longitudinal data. Lancet 2005; 366(9500): 1868–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    HIV Paediatric Prognostic Markers Collaborative Study. Predictive value of absolute CD4 cell count for disease progression in untreated HIV-1-infected children. AIDS 2006; 20(9): 1289–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dunn D. Short-term risk of disease progression in HIV-1-infected children receiving no antiretroviral therapy or zidovudine monotherapy: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2003; 362(9396): 1605–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sharland M, Blanche S, Castelli G, et al. PENTA guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy, 2004. HIV Med 2004; 5Suppl. 2: 61–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    François-Xavier Bagnoud Center, UMDNJ, The Health Resources and Services Administration, et al. Working group on antiretroviral therapy and medical management of HIV-infected children: guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in pediatric HIV infection [online]. Available at URL: http:// aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/PediatricGuidelines.pdf [Accessed 2008 Apr 30]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Italian guidelines for antiretroviral therapy in children with human immunodeficiency virus-type 1 infection. Italian Register for HIV Infection in Children. Acta Paediatr 1999; 88(2): 228–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Niehues T, Wintergerst U, Funk M, et al. Recommendations for antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected children: completely revised and updated consensus statement of the Pediatric AIDS Committee (PAAD) and the German Society for Pediatric Infectiology. Monatsschr Kinderheilk 2001; 149: 1372–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Borleffs JC, Danner SA, Lange JM, et al. Commissie Rich-tlijnen van de Nederlandse Vereniging van Aids Behandelaren. CBO guidelines Antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001; 145(33): 1585–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giaquinto C, Rampon O, Penazzato M, et al. Nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in children. Clin Drug Investig 2007; 27(8): 509–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Handforth J, Sharland M. Triple nucleoside reverse trans-criptase inhibitor therapy in children. Paediatr Drugs 2004; 6(3): 147–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pensieroso S, Romiti ML, Palma P, et al. Switching from protease inhibitor-based-HAART to a protease inhibitor-sparing regimen is associated with improved specific HIV-immune responses in HIV-infected children. AIDS 2006; 20(14): 1893–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bartlett JA, Fath MJ, Demasi R, et al. An updated systematic overview of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults. AIDS 2006; 20(16): 2051–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR, et al. Tenofovir DF, emtricitabine, and efavirenz vs. zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz for HIV. N Engl J Med 2006; 354(3): 251–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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. JAMA 2004; 292(2): 191–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Starr SE, Fletcher CV, Spector SA, et al. Combination therapy with efavirenz, nelfinavir, and nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors in children infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 382 Team. N Engl J Med 1999; 341(25): 1874–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bartlett JA, Johnson J, Herrera G, et al. Long-term results of initial therapy with abacavir and lamivudine combined with efavirenz, amprenavir/ritonavir, or stavudine. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 43(3): 284–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    DeJesus E, Herrera G, Teofilo E, et al. Abacavir versus zidovudine combined with lamivudine and efavirenz, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39(7): 1038–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gulick RM, Ribaudo HJ, Shikuma CM, et al. ACTG 5095: zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir vs zidovudine/lamivudine + efavirenz vs zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir + efavirenz for initial HIV therapy. In: Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy: 45th Interscience Conference, 2005, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gulick RM, Ribaudo HJ, Shikuma M, et al. Triple-nucleoside regimens versus efavirenz-containing regimens for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(18): 1850–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moyle GJ, DeJesus E, Cahn P, et al. Abacavir once or twice daily combined with once-daily lamivudine and efavirenz for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults: results of the Ziagen Once Daily in Antiretroviral Combination Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 38(4): 417–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Robbins GK, De Gruttola V, Shafer RW, et al. Comparison of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(24): 2293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shafer RW, Smeaton LM, Robbins GK, et al. Comparison of four-drug regimens and pairs of sequential three-drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2003; 349(24): 2304–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Staszewski S, Morales-Ramirez J, Tashima KT, et al. Efavirenz plus zidovudine and lamivudine, efavirenz plus indinavir, and indinavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine in the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults: study 006 team. N Engl J Med 1999; 341(25): 1865–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tashima K, Staszewski S, Nelson M, et al. Durable viral suppression on EFV-based HAART: 168 weeks of follow-up [abstract no. TUPEB4547]. Presented at the 15th International AIDS Conference; 2004 Jul 11–16; BangkokGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    van Leth F, Phanuphak P, Ruxrungtham K, et al. Comparison of first-line antiretroviral therapy with regimens including nevirapine, efavirenz, or both drugs, plus stavudine and lamivudine: a randomised open-label trial, the 2NN Study. Lancet 2004; 363(9417): 1253–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carr A. Antiretroviral therapy for previously untreated HIV-1-infected adults: 2NN, or just one? Lancet 2004; 363(9417): 1248–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Manfredi R, Calza L, Chiodo F. Efavirenz versus nevirapine in current clinical practice: a prospective, open-label observational study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 35(5): 492–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Manosuthi W, Sungkanuparph S, Vibhagool A, et al. Nevirapine-versus efavirenz-based highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with advanced HIV infection. HIV Med 2004; 5(2): 105–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Teglas JP, Quartier P, Treluyer JM, et al. Tolerance of efavirenz in children. AIDS 2001; 15(2): 241–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Krogstad P, Lee S, Johnson G, et al. Nucleoside-analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors plus nevirapine, nelfinavir, or ritonavir for pretreated children infected with human immuno-deficiency virus type 1. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34(7): 991–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Luzuriaga K, Bryson Y, Krogstad P, et al. Combination treatment with zidovudine, didanosine, and nevirapine in infants with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. N Engl J Med 1997; 336(19): 1343–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Luzuriaga K, Bryson Y, McSherry G, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety, and activity of nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected children. J Infect Dis 1996; 174(4): 713–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Luzuriaga K, McManus M, Mofenson L, et al. A trial of three antiretroviral regimens in HIV-1-infected children. N Engl J Med 2004; 350(24): 2471–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mirochnick M, Clarke DF, Dorenbaum A. Nevirapine: pharma-cokinetic considerations in children and pregnant women. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000; 39(4): 281–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Verweel G, Sharland M, Lyall H, et al. Nevirapine use in HIV-1-infected children. AIDS 2003; 17(11): 1639–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wiznia A, Stanley K, Krogstad P, et al. Combination nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor(s) plus nevirapine, nelfinavir, or ritonavir in stable antiretroviral therapy-experienced HIV-infected children: week 24 results of a randomized controlled trial: PACTG 377. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 377 Study Team. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2000; 16(12): 1113–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    King JR, Nachman S, Yogev R, et al. Efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of two nelfinavir-based regimens in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children and adolescents: pediatric AIDS clinical trials group protocol 403. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24(10): 880–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kiertiburanakul S, Khongnorasat S, Rattanasiri S, et al. Efficacy of a generic fixed-dose combination of stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine (GPO-VIR) in Thai HIV-infected patients. J Med Assoc Thai 2007; 90(2): 237–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    L’Homme RF, Dijkema T, Warris A, et al. Pharmacokinetics of two generic fixed-dose combinations for HIV-infected children (Pedimune Baby & Pedimune Junior) are similar to the branded products in healthy adults. J Antimicrob Chemother 2007; 59(1): 92–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pujari SN, Patel AK, Naik E, et al. Effectiveness of generic fixed-dose combinations of highly active antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV infection in India. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 37(5): 1566–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Vezina HE, Henry K, Ravindran GD, et al. A randomized crossover study to determine bioequivalence of generic and brand name nevirapine, zidovudine, and lamivudine in HIV-negative women in India. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2006; 41(2): 131–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wamalwa DC, Farquhar C, Obimbo EM, et al. Early response to highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected Kenyan children. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 45(3): 311–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Novak RM, Chen L, MacArthur RD, et al. Prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in chronically HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients: implications for routine resistance screening before initiation of antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 40(3): 468–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Weinstock HS, Zaidi I, Heneine W, et al. The epidemiology of antiretroviral drug resistance among drug-naive HIV-1-infected persons in 10 US cities. J Infect Dis 2004; 189(12): 2174–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wensing AM, van de Vijver DA, Angarano G, et al. Prevalence of drug-resistant HIV-1 variants in untreated individuals in Europe: implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis 2005; 192(6): 958–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kontorinis N, Dieterich DT. Toxicity of non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Semin Liver Dis 2003; 23(2): 173–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sanne I, Mommeja-Marin H, Hinkle J, et al. Severe hepato-toxicity associated with nevirapine use in HIV-infected subjects. J Infect Dis 2005; 191(6): 825–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Shepard K. Clarification of risk factors for severe, life threatening and fatal hepatotoxicity with Viramune (nevirapine) [letter]. Rigdefield (CT): Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, 2004Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mocroft A, Staszewski S, Weber R, et al. Risk of discontinuation of nevirapine due to toxicities in antiretroviral-naive and -experienced HIV-infected patients with high and low CD4+ T-cell counts. Antivir Ther 2007; 12(3): 325–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Eshleman SH, Mracna M, Guay LA, et al. Selection and fading of resistance mutations in women and infants receiving nevirapine to prevent HIV-1 vertical transmission (HIVNET 012). AIDS 2001; 15(15): 1951–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mandelbrot L, Landreau-Mascaro A, Rekacewicz C, et al. Lamivudine-zidovudine combination for prevention of maternal-infant transmission of HIV-1. JAMA 2001; 285(16): 2083–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kaletra® (lopinavir-ritonavir tablets, oral solution). Prescribing information. North Chicago (IL): Abbott Laboratories, 2007Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pinto J, Robbins B, Chen J, et al. Pharmacokinetics and 24-week efficacy and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 infected infants < 6 weeks of age. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Murphy RL, da Silva B, McMillan F, et al. Seven-year follow-up of a lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based regimen in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive subjects [poster PE7.9/3]. European AIDS, 10th Conference; 2005 Nov 17–20: DublinGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Walmsley S, Bernstein B, King M, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 346(26): 2039–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gathe Jr JC, Ive P, Wood R, et al. SOLO: 48-week efficacy and safety comparison of once-daily fosamprenavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily nelfinavir in naive HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS 2004; 18(11): 1529–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rodriguez-French A, Boghossian J, Gray GE, et al. The NEAT study: a 48-week open-label study to compare the antiviral efficacy and safety of GW433908 versus nelfinavir in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 35(1): 22–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chadwick E, Borkowsky W, Fortuny C, et al. Safety and antiviral activity of fosamprenavir/ritonavir once daily regimens in HIV-infected pediatric subjects ages 2 to 18 years (48-week interim data, study APV20003) [abstract no. 719]. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA))Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Cunningham C, Freedman A, Read S, et al. Safety and antiviral activity of fosamprenavir-containing regimens in HIV-infected 2- to 18-year-old pediatric subjects (interim data, study APV29005) [abstract no. 718]. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    PREA Labeling Changes. Lexiva oral suspension (fosam-prenavir) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/ cder/foi/label/2007/022116lbl.pdf [Accessed 2008 Apr 30]Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Eron Jr JJ, Yeni GP, Gathe Jr JC, et al. The KLEAN study: fosamprenavir + ritonavir (FPV/r) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in antiretroviral-naive (ART-naive) HIV-1 infected adults over 48 weeks. XVI International AIDS; 2006 Aug 13–18; TorontoGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Murphy RL, Sanne I, Cahn P, et al. Dose-ranging, randomized, clinical trial of atazanavir with lamivudine and stavudine in antiretroviral-naive subjects: 48-week results. AIDS 2003; 17(18): 2603–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Squires K, Lazzarin A, Gatell JM, et al. Comparison of once-daily atazanavir with efavirenz, each in combination with fixed-dose zidovudine and lamivudine, as initial therapy for patients infected with HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2004; 36(5): 1011–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Malan N, Krantz E, David N, et al. Efficacy and safety of atazanavir-based therapy in antiretroviral naive HIV-1 infected subjects, both with and without ritonavir: 48-week results from AI424-089. 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2006 Feb 5–8, Denver (CO)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Rutstein R, Samson P, Kiser J, et al. The PACTG 1020A protocol: atazanavir with or without ritonavir in HIV-infected infants, children, and adolescents. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hicks CB, Cahn P, Cooper DA, et al. Durable efficacy of tipranavir-ritonavir in combination with an optimised back-ground regimen of antiretroviral drugs for treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks in the Randomized Evaluation of Strategic Intervention in multi-drug re Sistant patients with Tipranavir (RESIST) studies: an analysis of combined data from two randomised open-label trials. Lancet 2006; 368(9534): 466–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Katlama C, Berger DS, Bellos N, et al. Efficacy of TMC114/r in 3-class experienced patients with limited treatment options: 24-week planned interim analysis of 2 96-week multinational dose-finding trials. 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2005 Feb 22–25, Boston (MA)Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adult and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services 2007; Washington,DC: 1–136Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Bartlett JA, Johnson J, Herrera G, et al. Initial therapy with abacavir + lamivudine (ABC + 3TC) combined with efavirenz (NNRTI), amprenavir/ritonavir (PI), or stavudine (NRTI): ESS40001 (CLASS). In: International AIDS, 15th Conference; 2004: BangkokGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo G, et al. A prospective, randomized, phase III trial of NRTI-, PI-, and NNRTI-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: ACTG 5142. IXVI International AIDS; 2006 Aug 13–18; TorontoGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    MacArthur RD, Novak RM, Peng G, et al. Long-term clinical and immunologic outcomes are similar in HIV-infected persons randomized to NNRTI vs PI vs NNRTI + PI-based antiretroviral regimens as initial therapy: results of the CPCRA 058 FIRST study. XVI International AIDS; 2006 Aug 13–18; TorontoGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Resino S, Bellon JM, Munoz-Fernandez MA. Antiretroviral activity and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir in protease inhibitor-experienced HIV-infected children with severe-moderate immunodeficiency. J Antimicrob Chemother 2006; 57(3): 579–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Resino S, Bellon JM, Ramos JT, et al. Salvage lopinavir-ritonavir therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2004; 23 (10): 923-30Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Resino S, Galan I, Perez A, et al. Immunological changes after highly active antiretroviral therapy with lopinavir-ritonavir in heavily pretreated HIV-infected children. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2005; 21(5): 398–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Wiznia A, Church J, Emmanuel P, et al. Safety and efficacy of enfuvirtide for 48 weeks as part of an optimized antiretroviral regimen in pediatric human immunodeficiency virus 1-infected patients. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2007; 26(9): 799–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Lalezari JP, Henry K, O’Hearn M, et al. Enfuvirtide, an HIV-1 fusion inhibitor, for drug-resistant HIV infection in North and South America. N Engl J Med 2003; 348(22): 2175–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nelson M, Arasteh K, Clotet B, et al. Durable efficacy of enfuvirtide over 48 weeks in heavily treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in the T-20 versus Optimized back-ground Regimen Only 1 and 2 clinical trials. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 40(4): 404–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nadler JP, Berger DS, Blick G, et al. Efficacy and safety of etravirine (TMC125) in patients with highly resistant HIV-1: primary 24-week analysis. AIDS2007; 21(6): Fl–10Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gazzard BG, Pozniak AL, Rosenbaum W, et al. An open-label assessment of TMC 125: a new, next-generation NNRTI, for 7 days in HIV-1 infected individuals with NNRTI resistance. AIDS 2003; 17(18): F49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Gruzdev B, Rakhmanova A, Doubovskaya E, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of TMC125 as 7-day monotherapy in antiretroviral naive, HIV-1 infected subjects. AIDS 2003; 17(17): 2487–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Cohen C, Steinhart CR, Ward D, et al. Efficacy and safety results at 48 weeks with the novel NNRTI, TMC125, and impact of baseline resistance on the virologie response in study TMC125, and impact of baseline resistance on the virologic response in study TMC125-C223. XVI International AIDS; 2006 Aug 13–18; TorontoGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Schapiro JM, Cahn P, TrottierB, et al. Effect of baseline genotype on response to tipranavir/ritonavir compared with standard-of-care comparator in treatment-experienced patients: the phase 3 RESIST-1 and -2 trials. 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2005 Feb 22–25, Boston (MA)Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Baxter JD, Schapiro JM, Boucher CA, et al. Genotypic changes in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease associated with reduced susceptibility and virologie response to the protease inhibitor tipranavir. J Virol 2006; 80(21): 10794–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Sabo JP, Cahn P, Delia Negra M, et al. Population pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of systemic steady-state tipranavir (TPV) concentrations for HIV + pédiatrie patients administered tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r 290/115 mg/m2 BID BI1192.14 and PACTG 1051 study team). 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2006 Feb 5–8, Denver (CO)Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hammer SM, Saag MS, Schechter M, et al. Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 2006; 296(7): 827–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Clotet B, Bellos N, Molina JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials. Lancet 2007; 369(9568): 1169–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Ananworanich J, Kosalaraksa P, Hill A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and 24-week efficacy/safety of dual boosted saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir in nucleoside-pretreated children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24(10): 874–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Calmy A, Petoumenos K, Lewden C, et al. Combination antiretroviral therapy without a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor: experience from 334 patients in three cohorts. HIV Med 2007; 8(3): 171–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Fischl MA, Collier AC, Mukherjee AL, et al. Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen. AIDS 2007; 21(3): 325–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    La Porte CJ, Wasmuth JC, Schneider K, et al. Lopinavir/ ritovinar plus saquinavir in salvage therapy: pharmacokinetics, tolerability and efficacy. AIDS 2003; 17: 1700–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Smith GH, Boulassel MR, Klien M, et al. Virologie and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor-based therapy in highly pretreated HIV-1-infected patients. HIV Clin Trials 2005; 6: 63–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Temesgen Z, Cainelli F, Poeschla EM, et al. Approach to salvage antiretroviral therapy in heavily antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive adults. Lancet Infect Dis 2006; 6(8): 496–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Hazuda DJ, Felock P, Witmer M, et al. Inhibitors of strand transfer that prevent integration and inhibit HIV-1 replication in cells. Science 2000; 287(5453): 646–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Zolopa A, Mullen M, Berger DS, et al. The HIV integrase inhibitor GS-9137 demonstrates potent antiretroviral activity in treatment-experienced patients. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Cooper D, Gatell J, Rockstroh J, et al. Results of BENCHMRK-1, a phase 111 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of MK-0518, a novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitor, in patients with triple-class resistant virus. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Steigbigel R, Kumar P, Eron Jr JJ, et al. Results of BENCHMRK-2, a phase 111 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of MK-0518, a novel HIV-1 integrase inhibitor, in patients with triple-class resistant virus. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Reeves JD, Piefer AJ. Emerging drug targets for antiretroviral therapy. Drugs 2005; 65(13): 1747–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Westby M, Smith-Burchnell C, Mori J, et al. Reduced maximal inhibition in phenotypic susceptibility assays indicates that viral strains resistant to the CCR5 antagonist maraviroc utilize inhibitor-bound receptor for entry. J Virol 2007; 81(5): 2359–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Dorr P, Westby M, Dobbs S, et al. Maraviroc (UK-427,857), a potent, orally bioavailable, and selective small-molecule inhibitor of chemokine receptor CCR5 with broad-spectrum anti-human immunodeficiency virus type 1 activity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2005; 49(11): 4721–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Fatkenheuer G, Pozniak AL, Johnson MA, et al. Efficacy of short-term monotherapy with maraviroc, a new CCR5 antagonist, in patients infected with HIV-1. Nat Med 2005; 11(11): 1170–2PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Lalezari JP, Goodrich J, DeJesus E, et al. Efficacy and safety of maraviroc plus optimized background therapy in viremic ART-experienced patients infected with CCR5-tropic HIV-1: 24-week results of a phase 2b/3 study in the US and Canada. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Nelson M, Fatkenheuer G, Konourina I, et al. Efficacy and safety of maraviroc plus optimized background therapy in viremic, ART-experienced patients infected with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 in Europe, Australia, and North America: 24-week results. 14th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2007 Feb 25–28; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    Hatano H, Deeks SG. Drug resistant HIV. BMJ 2007; 334(7604): 1124–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Regulation (EC) no 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006} on medicinal products for paediatric use and amending regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92, Directive 2001/20/EC, Directive 2001/83/EC and Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004. Official Journal of the European Union [online]. Available from URL: http://eurlex.europa.eu/Lex-UriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2006R1901:20070126:EN: PDF [Accessed 2008 Apr 30]Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlo Giaquinto
    • 1
  • Erika Morelli
    • 1
  • Federica Fregonese
    • 1
  • Osvalda Rampon
    • 1
  • Martina Penazzato
    • 1
  • Anita de Rossi
    • 2
  • Ruggero D’Elia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PaediatricsUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.Department of Oncology and Surgical Science, AIDS Reference CentreUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations