Volume 10 Issue 5 | June 2003
 C o n t e n t s 
#1 Pill Power
#2 Taz-mania, Bedeviled: Activist Coalition's Cries Threaten To Scuttle BMS' Race To Full Approval For Wily Reyataz
#3 Macaques and Men: Debating the Relevance of Super SIVs—Plus Dendritic Cells Make Their Big Screen Debut
#4 TAG at Ten: The Year 2002
#1Pill Power

World's Largest Corporations

Global RankMkt Cap (3/28)
Pfizer#5$196B
JNJ7170
Merck12124
GSK16107
Novartis17106
Amgen2976
Abbott4260
Astra4359
Roche4458
BMS6342
Source: FT (Top 4= Microsoft, GE, Exxon, Wal Mart)
#2Taz-mania, Bedeviled
Activist Coalition's Cries Threaten To Scuttle BMS' Race To Full Approval For Wily Reyataz
Getting the labeling wrong

On May 13 an FDA advisory committee gave backing to the full approval of Bristol-Myers Squibb's new protease inhibitor, atazanavir (Reyataz). The regulatory body now has until June 20 to make its final decision on the application, explains TAG's Antiviral Project Director, Rob Camp. While the drug is welcomed by activists, patients and clinicians alike, there is growing concern in some quarters over issues that BMS is said to have glossed over in its race to approval. A study presented at the hearing called into question the much touted lipid profile of the new PI on the block: atazanavir-treated people showed body fat changes no different from those treated with nelfinavir-implying that a favorable lipid profile does not necessarily translate into a lack of lipodystrophy. Further red flags were raised over cardiac abnormalities, potential liver toxicity and the drug's contested resistance profile.

Members of the AIDS Treatment Activist Coalition (ATAC) went so far as to draft a letter of protest to Antiviral Drug Products director Dr. Debra Birnkrant, expressing fears that the FDA's granting of full approval so quickly would leave BMS little incentive to more clearly define important long-term safety and efficacy issues in a variety of clinical settings. Excerpts from TAG's position paper, which recommended full approval contingent upon completion of follow-up studies to address these issues, appear below.

Overview
Atazanavir is the first protease inhibitor that can be dosed once daily without using ritonavir or other cytochrome P450 inhibitors as boosters. There may, however, be situations (e.g., second-line regimens, high viral loads) where boosting atazanavir with 100 mg of ritonavir may be necessary or useful. Current data support atazanavir's use only as a first-line protease inhibitor in combination with two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Data on the combination of atazanavir + ritonavir in second-line and subsequent regimens (and its supposed lipid effects) need to be generated and made available.

The 48-week virologic efficacy of atazanavir is similar to that of nelfinavir, and in one large study atazanavir showed comparable efficacy to that of efavirenz (although in most previous studies efavirenz appeared more potent than it did in this particular study). While atazanavir can thus be approved as a first-line protease inhibitor, data are insufficient to recommend use of atazanavir as a sole protease inhibitor in HIV-infected individuals who have already failed another protease inhibitor-containing regimen. The atazanavir label should clearly state that unboosted, atazanavir has only been studied as a first-line protease inhibitor.

So far the safety profile for atazanavir has not been alarming, although concerns about hyperbilirubinemia and hepatic issues need to be more clearly addressed in ongoing studies. Examples: For those with mild liver impairment, are dose reductions to 300 mg QD recommended? What about the recommended atazanavir dose for more serious liver problems? Although there may be no difference between hepatitis co-infected and non-co-infected people with hyperbilirubinemia, atazanavir should be used with caution (i.e., more visits and laboratory analyses) by people with abnormal liver function tests (LFTs) at baseline, including those with chronic hepatitis. Sadly, the serious adverse events data collected in the expanded access program have not been categorized or published in order to help us define the risks of atazanavir use. This should be done immediately.

Another study showed that switching from nelfinavir to atazanavir is a viable strategy to reduce elevated lipids, suggesting that the change from any non-virologically failing regimen to atazanavir can be made safely. Contrary to initial findings, atazanavir shares cross-resistance with most other protease inhibitors. It is unlikely to be of any use when more than five common protease gene mutations are present.

Interaction studies show that efavirenz lowers atazanavir absorption by 70%, so this combination is only recommended with a ritonavir booster. But what are the effects on lipids of atazanavir + ritonavir 100 mg? For absorption, atazanavir is best taken with "food." What kinds of food were used, and how much was recommended? Absorption was less with a high-fat meal. During studies, how were patients advised? Food studies and guidelines are needed.

Atazanavir's development was aided by substantial participation of study volunteers hailing from South Africa, five countries in South America, and two in Asia. Bristol will need to assure that it is made as accessible in these countries as in developed nations-but at an affordable price.

In summary, atazanavir has both pros (the lipid profile) and cons (hyperbilirubinemia), and with the right clinical use it is clearly a welcome addition to the armamentarium of antiretroviral drugs currently available.

Efficacy
Phase II: Comparison to nelfinavir
. Bristol-Myers Squibb studies 007 and 008 compared 693 people on atazanavir to 194 on nelfinavir. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients achieving <400 or <50 HIV-RNA copies/mL at week 48. CD4 lymphocyte increases were similar, approximately 300 CD4 cells from baseline.

Phase III, Study 034: Comparison to efavirenz. In the 034 study, treatment-naïve patients treated with atazanavir- or efavirenz- based regimens plus 3TC + AZT achieved comparable efficacy at 48 weeks. Of the 805 patients, 82% completed 48 weeks of treatment. Switching was not permitted. An intent-to-treat analysis showed that 70% of atazanavir and 64% of efavirenz patients had viral loads below 400 copies/mL; and, 32% of atazanavir and 37% of efavirenz patients had viral loads below 50 copies/mL. The rise in CD4 counts was 176 for atazanavir- and 160 for efavirenz-treated patients.

Atazanavir in Salvage Regimens
The Puzzle study.
Individuals with HIV-RNA >10,000 copies/mL, after failure of two protease inhibitors and one NNRTI, were treated with atazanavir (300 mg QD) + ritonavir (100 mg QD), tenofovir (300 mg QD) and reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Tenofovir decreased atazanavir AUC by 25.2% and ritonavir AUC by 25.6% after four-weeks of tenofovir. One explanation offered was that tenofovir lowers ritonavir, which lowers atazanavir. As tenofovir is a widely used new drug, better studies are needed to confirm this and ascertain its clinical significance. Clearly, when the combination of atazanavir + tenofovir is used, the atazanavir should be boosted by ritonavir.

Atazanavir + saquinavir QD. BMS study 009 evaluated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of dual protease inhibitor therapy with atazanavir (400 or 600 mg QD) + saquinavir (1,200 mg QD), or ritonavir + saquinavir (400/400 BID) + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors after virologic failure on a prior regimen. This was a randomized, blinded study in 85 adults with HIV RNA 1,000-100,000 copies/mL and CD4 <150 cells/mm3. The ritonavir + saquinavir regimen was more potent, but had more discontinuations for treatment-related adverse events.

Resistance Profile
While earlier pre-clinical work suggested that atazanavir might demonstrate a distinct resistance profile, the amino acid changes associated with atazanavir resistance turn out to overlap those of other protease inhibitors (with the exception of the I50L and N88S mutations). The pathways to atazanavir resistance vary, but appear to involve the N88S. As such, broad cross-resistance is expected. A better sense of the resistance profile in antiretroviral-experienced people could have been achieved through a closer look at the virologic outcome of atazanavir use in the expanded access program.

Resistance in Protease Inhibitor Naïve Individuals
The I50L mutation does not confer cross-resistance to other protease inhibitors as assessed by in vitro changes in susceptibility. Indeed, susceptibility to other protease inhibitors may be increased ("hypersusceptibility") by the presence of the I50L substitution. At this time, however, no clinical relevance can be extrapolated because only a handful of samples have been isolated and phenotyped. More studies here are clearly needed. This proposed I50L hypersusceptibility differs from what is seen with mutations I50V or D30N associated with amprenavir and nelfinavir.

Resistance in Protease Inhibitor Experienced Individuals
Seven amino acid substitutions have been identified that correlated with decreased susceptibility to atazanavir: two primary (82 and 90) and five secondary (10, 20, 46, 54 and 73) residues. While no single substitution was uniquely predictive of reduced atazanavir susceptibility, the presence of at least five of the seven key substitutions correlated strongly with an atazanavir fold change greater than four-fold among protease inhibitor resistant clinical isolates which, as previously stated, is detrimental to a constant maintenance of drug above the IC90. One possible combination to study would be atazanavir + ritonavir + amprenavir in salvage settings, as only either the I50L or I50V will be selected. This may force the virus down a pathway that will make it susceptible to the other protease inhibitor(s).

Expanded Access
The program started in May 2002 and now has approximately 3,000 people enrolled in more than 25 countries. serious adverse events have not been reviewed. Once again, an expanded access program has been under-utilized as far as getting useful real-life information.

Follow-Up Studies
Follow-up studies that need to be done include the following:

Dosing. Is the chosen dose the optimum dose? 400 mg QD provides a low inhibitory quotient. It is not altogether clear why Bristol chose the 400 mg QD dose for its Phase III trials. Other studies needed: dosing of 600 mg vs. 800 mg vs. dual protease inhibitor (atazanavir 400 mg + ritonavir 100 mg) as initial therapy.

Switch studies. Because many people with high lipids are going to be interested in switching to atazanavir, it should be clearly demonstrated that this can be done safely and with no loss to efficacy of the regimen in the long term.

Drug-drug interaction/pharmacokinetic studies. Interaction studies need to be done with methadone, H2 blockers, rifampin, statins, fibrates, ribavirin, efavirenz, nevirapine, tenofovir, fos-amprenavir, saquinavir (Invirase and Fortovase), and pegylated interferon.

Pediatrics. No data have been generated for pediatric use. PACTG 020 is presently accruing patients.

Cardiovascular safety. Atazanavir affects the QT interval, like lopinavir + ritonavir. The clinical significance of atazanavir-associated changes in cardiac electrical impulses should be defined, especially with multi-protease inhibitor regimens.

Liver safety. Atazanavir may be contraindicated in people with a history of hyperbilirubinemia or other hepatic abnormalities. Further studies need to be undertaken to characterize atazanavir's side effects in these people, and where and when atazanavir may be contraindicated.

Long-Term Safety
Metabolics.
A study is needed which measures the effect of atazanavir on cardiovascular risk factors (with or without concomitant ritonavir) as well as insulin resistance and body shape changes.

Resistance. Does the I50L substitution lead to clinically meaningful hypersusceptibility to other protease inhibitors? Or is this merely an interesting laboratory phenemenon? Under what circumstances? A study is needed.

Protease inhibitor-experienced persons. Bristol recommends the combination of atazanavir + ritonavir after any protease inhibitor failure. We need a clinical study similar to the lopinavir + ritonavir vs. atazanavir study, in single or multi-failure people with atazanavir + ritonavir before this can be recommended clinically for protease inhibitor failures.

Based on data from ongoing and completed studies, specifically the 008, 009, and 034 studies, TAG believes that the FDA should approve the Bristol-Myers Squibb application for accelerated approval of atazanavir (Reyataz) for the treatment of HIV infection in combination with other antiretroviral agents in adults, provided that the follow-up studies recommended within its report are commenced and successfully completed in a timely fashion. ¤

#3Macaques and Men
Debating the Relevance of Super SIVs—Plus Dendritic Cells Make Their Big Screen Debut
HIV, in flagrante delicto
With part two of our review of the immunological and vaccine offerings at this year's Retrovirus conference, Richard Jefferys reports on big picture questions from Emory's Mark Feinberg about the uses and abuses of challenge virus in vaccine studies and novel video imaging of HIV in action from the University of Illinois.

Animal Models for HIV Vaccines
In a conference session entitled "Challenges in Evaluating HIV Vaccine Candidates," Mark Feinberg (Emory University Vaccine Research Center) delivered a thoughtful talk on the use of animal models in vaccine studies. He began by observing that many important vaccines-such as those licensed for the prevention of polio-were tested empirically, without the use of animal models to assess potential efficacy. However, non-human primates were often used to assess safety and, in the case of polio, were instrumental in identifying the three viral serotypes that needed to be included in vaccines. Today, Feinberg feels "the age of empiricism is over." He listed a number of infectious threats-HIV chief among them-for which vaccine development will likely require extensive pre-clinical work in animal models, although he added that the current gulf between the pre-clinical and clinical development of HIV vaccines needs to be better bridged.

Reviewing the currently available systems for studying HIV vaccines, Feinberg focused on SIV infection in rhesus macaques. The SIVs utilized in this model all derive from a natural host, sooty mangabeys. In this species of monkey, SIV typically replicates at high levels but does not cause disease. When transferred into Asian macaques, however, the same viruses cause the rapid development of immunodeficiency similar to AIDS in humans. Serial passage in macaques further enhances the virulence of these SIV isolates, and this has provided the source of the commonly used challenge viruses SIVmac251 (a primary isolate) and SIVmac239 (a molecular clone). SIVmac239 also provides the genetic backbone of most commonly used SIV/HIV hybrids, such as SHIV89.6P, which combines the tat, rev and env from an HIV-1 isolate (named 89.6) with the remaining genome of SIVmac239.

Feinberg listed a number of important insights that have been derived from work in the SIV/macaque model, including an appreciation of the role of cellular immunity (particularly cytotoxic T-lymphocytes or CTL) in controlling viral replication and the potential for viral escape from CTL responses. Passive transfer experiments in this system have also shed light on both the promise and limitations of neutralizing antibodies in providing protection against an SIV challenge.

Feinberg went on to describe some of the common criticisms aimed at the SIV/macaque model, which tend to stress that other vaccines have been developed empirically (without relying on non-human primate studies) and the many potential differences between monkeys and humans. The countervailing arguments, Feinberg noted, are that optimizing vaccine strategies in human trials can be a Herculean task, the challenges of HIV infection are unique, and testing poor vaccine candidates quickly will not necessarily produce an effective vaccine any faster.

Feinberg suggested staking out a middle ground by striving to make animal models reflect the biology of HIV transmission and disease as accurately as possible-within the limits of current knowledge. From this perspective, he highlighted two critical questions pertaining to the SIV/macaque model:

  • How accurately does the replicative capacity and tropism of SIV/SHIV challenge strains reflect the characteristics of transmitted HIV-1 variants?
  • How closely does the route of exposure and size of the virus inoculum used in macaque challenge studies recapitulate the nature of most human HIV-1 exposures?

Addressing the first issue, Feinberg compared and contrasted the effects that serial passage has had on SIV and SHIV challenge viruses. SIV isolates have developed increased replication capacity and resistance to antibody-mediated neutralization, concomitant with a reduction in genetic variability. In terms of tropism, SIVs primarily utilize the CCR5 co-receptor for entry into cells, but are capable of exploiting additional co-receptors, including CXCR4. SHIVs, on the other hand, primarily or exclusively utilize CXCR4 (although new R5-topic SHIVs are now becoming available).

Serial passage of SHIVs has led to an optimization of their genomic structure, increased replication rates, and an ability to cause an extremely rapid depletion of CD4 T cells. However, SHIVs are sensitive to neutralization by antibodies.

Feinberg pointed out that both SIVs and SHIVs replicate to higher levels, and cause disease more rapidly, than HIV in humans. He posed the question of whether it is good to use an aggressive challenge virus, noting that this may set the bar too high for protection to be achieved by a vaccine that might nevertheless be effective in humans. Conversely, the use of aggressive viruses could also obscure potential enhancing effects of a vaccine.

Addressing the second issue, Feinberg raised the rarely discussed issue of whether the size of the inoculum used in SIV challenge studies is making protection against infection "look more difficult than it really is." The apparent inefficiency of HIV transmission suggests to Feinberg that a vaccine might be capable of showing preventative efficacy even in the absence of perfect viral inhibition. Addressing this question in the SIV/macaque model would require a low-dose challenge model, and Feinberg acknowledged that researchers have shied away from this idea due to the assumption that prohibitively large numbers of animals would be required to achieve statistically significant results. However, he cited recent unpublished modeling work by his colleagues Roland Regoes and Silvija Staprans that suggests that this assumption may be flawed, and that a low-dose challenge model might be feasible using similar numbers of macaques to those employed in current high-dose challenge studies.

In concluding his talk, Feinberg reiterated that the SIV/macaque model might either under- or over-estimate the difficulty of achieving vaccine-induced protection from HIV infection, and for this reason human efficacy trials of promising vaccine candidates are essential. But because studies in macaques are still likely to be critical for identifying and prioritizing promising vaccines, Feinberg argued that it would be useful to work toward a consensus on how best to utilize and optimize this animal model, despite its limitations.

Subverting the Immunological Synapse
The use of video imaging is becoming an increasingly popular-if technically challenging-approach to investigating cell biology. At the Retrovirus conference, Thomas Hope from the University of Illinois turned a session on virus interactions with the host cell into a trip to the movies by showing his latest work documenting the transfer of HIV particles from dendritic cells to T cells. Hope has developed a system for highlighting the movement of HIV in cells by creating virions containing a substance called green fluorescent protein (GFP+HIV).

Under blue light GFP glows, allowing the movement of HIV to be filmed in real time. As a result of recently published studies showing that a molecule expressed on dendritic cells called DC-SIGN can capture infectious HIV and transfer it to T cells (thus allowing the virus to infect the T cell and replicate), Hope decided to see if his technology could visualize and record the process.

Hope and colleagues began by investigating whether GFP+HIV could be identified when cultured with a monocyte cell line called THP that was modified to express DC-SIGN. Video imaging revealed viruses localizing just beneath the cell membrane, while DC-SIGN molecules (stained red) could be seen on the cell surface. The next step was to co-culture the THP cells with CD4 expressing cells (called HOS cells) to see if virus transfer could be observed. However, Hope wanted to ensure that the different cell types (THP and HOS cells) could be distinguished, and the logical approach was to stain for the DC-SIGN molecule which should only be present on the THP cells.

When this analysis was undertaken, Hope got a surprise: DC-SIGN molecules were actually being transferred from the THP cells to the HOS cells. In attempting to understand what was happening, Hope realized that this type of transfer of molecules between cells is a feature of something called the immunological synapse. The formation of an immunological synapse allows T cells to see whether the antigen-presenting cell is carrying an antigen (such as a piece of a virus like HIV) to which the T cell needs to respond. The immunological synapse also allows the transfer of important co-stimulatory molecules from the antigen-presenting cell to the T cell, and these molecules can enhance or dampen the resulting immune response.

Based on this insight, Hope believes that HIV exploits the formation of immunological synapses between dendritic cells and T cells in order to infect its favored target, CD4 cells. He showed striking video images of GFP+ HIV moving rapidly around the DC-SIGN-expressing THP cells to congregate at the point of immunological synapse formation with the CD4-expressing HOS cells.

Hope also monitored the accumulation of other important molecules at the synapse, including CD4 and the co-receptors CCR5 and CXCR4, which HIV utilizes to enter CD4 cells. These findings suggest that dendritic cells play a key role in facilitating HIV infection of CD4 T cells, a point that Hope underscored by noting that dendritic cells are particularly important in ensuring virus dissemination when the amount of HIV placed in the culture is very small (a phenomenon that may be echoed in a typical human HIV exposure).

Hope's work may also have implications for researchers trying to understand how HIV preferentially infects HIV-specific CD4 T cells, given that the formation of an immunological synapse is a key step in the launching of an immune response. †

Immune-Based Therapies Still Languish
The field of immune-based therapies (IBT) offers hope that researchers can develop strategies allowing people with HIV to delay or interrupt antiretroviral therapy, ideally reducing drug resistance problems and side effects due to HAART (highly active antiretroviral therapy). In theory, immune-based therapies could offset the damage to the immune system done by HIV, improve the quality and strength of the immune response, or help the immune system control HIV without antiretrovirals. Yet while we have nearly 20 antiretroviral drugs that attack HIV replication, we have no approved therapies directed at the immune system.

Despite the potential for changing HIV treatment, only one immune-based therapy, interleukin-2, is currently in phase III trials-and the results from these SILCAAT and ESPRIT trials won't be available for years. Therapeutic vaccines, designed to improve the immune system's ability to control HIV in people who are chronically infected, are still in the early stages of development (with the exception of the Phoenix-like tenacity of Remune). The therapeutic vaccines furthest along are being researched in small studies designed to determine safety and measure changes in the immune response to HIV.

At this year's Retrovirus conference, results from a small German study of an HIV-nef based vaccine as well as results from two French ALVAC based vaccine studies failed to generate much enthusiasm.

Other European researchers looked at using mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), an immunosuppressant used to prevent organ rejection in kidney, liver, and heart transplants, to see if it might indirectly prevent HIV replication potentially reduce the viral reservoir of HIV-infected cells by inhibiting the proliferation of CD4 cells (similar to the proposed mechanism of action for hydroxyurea). Results from these studies were mixed and inconclusive. Interestingly, the AIDS Clinical Trials Group in the U.S. is currently studying MMF in combination with DAPD (amdoxovir), an experimental nucleoside analogue, in treatment-experienced patients. ¤

Adapted from Daniel Raymond's coverage of immune-based therapy presentations at this year's Retrovirus conference. Daniel's complete report is available at the Test Positive Aware Network web site: www.tpan.org.

TAGLine index

email: tagnyc@msn.com
611 Broadway, Ste. 612 · New York, NY 10012
phone: (212) 253-7922 · fax: (212) 253-7923
copyright © 2003 TAG