PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Scott M Hammer

Publications and source records attributed to Scott M Hammer.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel.

CONTEXT: Guidelines for antiretroviral therapy are important for clinicians worldwide given the complexity of the field and the varied clinical situations in which these agents are used. The International AIDS Society-USA panel has updated its recommendations as warranted by new developments in the field. OBJECTIVE: To provide physicians and other human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinicians with current recommendations for the use of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults in circumstances for which there is relatively unrestricted access to drugs and monitoring tools. The recommendations are centered on 4 key issues: when to start antiretroviral therapy; what to start; when to change; and what to change. Antiretroviral therapy in special circumstances is also described. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: A 16-member noncompensated panel was appointed, based on expertise in HIV research and patient care internationally. Data published or presented at selected scientific conferences from mid 2004 through May 2006 were identified and reviewed by all members of the panel. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data that might change previous guidelines were identified and reviewed. New guidelines were drafted by a writing committee and reviewed by the entire panel. CONCLUSIONS: Antiretroviral therapy in adults continues to evolve rapidly, making delivery of state-of-the-art care challenging. Initiation of therapy continues to be recommended in all symptomatic persons and in asymptomatic persons after the CD4 cell count falls below 350/microL and before it declines to 200/microL. A nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or a protease inhibitor boosted with low-dose ritonavir each combined with 2 nucleoside (or nucleotide) reverse transcriptase inhibitors is recommended with choice being based on the individual patient profile. Therapy should be changed when toxicity or intolerance mandate it or when treatment failure is documented. The virologic target for patients with treatment failure is now a plasma HIV-1 RNA level below 50 copies/mL. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy in the short-term and the long-term is crucial for treatment success and must be continually reinforced.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Amdoxovir versus placebo with enfuvirtide plus optimized background therapy for HIV-1-infected subjects failing current therapy (AACTG A5118).

BACKGROUND: Amdoxovir (2,6-diaminopurine dioxolane; DAPD) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) with activity against wild-type and NRTI-resistant viruses. METHODS: ACTG A5118 assessed the antiretroviral activity and safety of DAPD (300 mg orally, twice daily) versus placebo in combination with enfuvirtide (ENF) plus an optimized background (OB) regimen in subjects with failure of two or more antiretroviral (ARV) regimens. The primary endpoints for comparison were time-averaged area under the curve minus baseline (AAUCMB) of plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration at 24 weeks and time to first serious (DAIDS toxicity table Grade > or = 3) adverse event (AE). An unplanned interim review recommended closing enrollment because the study was unlikely to demonstrate a difference between arms. The 18 subjects on study, nine in each arm, were unblinded and allowed to continue study treatment through 48 weeks. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed the median AAUCMB was -0.9 log10 copies/mL (95% CI = -2.2, -.0.1) in the DAPD arm and -0.9 log10 copies/ml (95% CI = -1.1, -0.1) in the placebo arm (P = 0.69). Median CD4+ T-cell increase was 79 cells/mm3 (95% CI =1, 115) in the DAPD arm and 60 (95% CI =1, 101) in the placebo arm (P = 0.45). Time to first serious AE did not differ between arms (P = 0.91). Mild decreases of creatinine clearance were observed with similar frequency between arms; no subject developed lens opacities. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of DAPD to ENF plus OB in advanced subjects with highly resistant virus appeared safe, but did not add statistically significant antiretroviral activity at 24 weeks in this small study.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Comparison of two indinavir/ritonavir regimens in the treatment of HIV-infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacokinetic enhancement of protease inhibitors (PIs) with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) for salvage therapy is increasingly common. The purpose of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of indinavir (IDV)/RTV at 800/200 mg (arm A) and 400/400 mg (arm B) administered twice daily in HIV-infected subjects failing their first PI-based regimen. METHODS: A phase I/II, randomized, open-label, 24-week study was conducted. Formal 12-hour pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed, and study visits occurred at baseline; at weeks 1, 2, and 4; and every 4 week thereafter for 24 weeks. Clinical symptoms and laboratory assessments were collected. Subjects were allowed to switch arms because of toxicity. RESULTS: Forty-four subjects were enrolled (22 per arm). IDV predose concentration, maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve were significantly higher in arm A. Fifty-five percent and 45% of subjects in arms A and B responded (<200 copies/mL at week 24; P = 0.76), respectively. CD4 cell responses were similar. All subjects had IDV-sensitive virus at baseline and at virologic failure. Tolerability was comparable, but all grade 3 or higher triglyceride increases occurred in arm B and more subjects in arm B switched because of toxicity (5 vs. 1 triglyceride increases). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest formal pharmacokinetic evaluation of 2 dosage combinations of IDV/RTV in HIV-infected individuals. Pharmacokinetic parameters were consistent with previous results in patients but lower than in seronegative controls. Both regimens exhibited similar tolerability and response rates. High toxicity with a low response suggests that the optimum IDV/RTV combination would include an RTV dose <400 mg and an IDV dose <800 mg in this population.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

HIV-1 drug resistance in subjects with advanced HIV-1 infection in whom antiretroviral combination therapy is failing: a substudy of AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 388.

We evaluated phenotypic and genotypic markers of drug resistance in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) at the time of virologic failure (VF) in subjects in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 388 (ACTG 388) who received lamivudine-zidovudine (or lamivudine-stavudine) and either indinavir, efavirenz-indinavir, or nelfinavir-indinavir. At VF, phenotypically susceptible HIV-1 was found in 55% of subjects in the nelfinavir-indinavir arm, compared with 22% in the indinavir arm (P=.006). Phenotypic resistance to lamivudine was less common in the efavirenz-indinavir arm (33% of subjects; P=.002) and the nelfinavir-indinavir arm (43%; P=.003), compared with the indinavir arm (78%). Isolated phenotypic resistance to efavirenz at VF occurred in HIV-1 recovered from 33% of subjects in the efavirenz-indinavir arm; 24% of the subjects had HIV-1 with both efavirenz and lamivudine resistance. Results of genotypic tests were similar. The lower frequency of resistance in the nelfinavir-indinavir arm likely reflects decreased drug exposure that is due to intolerance, which is consistent with the lower potency and tolerability of this combination in ACTG 388. The lower frequency of lamivudine resistance in the efavirenz-indinavir arm is consistent with reports in other studies of potent regimens. Thus, although dual resistance to efavirenz and lamivudine occurred at VF in the efavirenz-indinavir arm, this risk was relatively low when evaluated in the context of the potency and tolerability of this regimen.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2004

Combination therapy with polymyxin B for the treatment of multidrug-resistant Gram-negative respiratory tract infections.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative organisms poses a therapeutic challenge. The use of polymyxin B has been resurrected specifically for this purpose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical and microbiological efficacy, and safety profile of polymyxin B in the treatment of MDR Gram-negative bacterial infections of the respiratory tract. Twenty-five critically ill patients received a total of 29 courses of polymyxin B administered in combination with another antimicrobial agent. RESULTS: Patients were treated with intravenous, and/or aerosolized polymyxin B. Mean duration of polymyxin B therapy was 19 days (range 2-57 days). End of treatment mortality was 21%, and overall mortality at discharge was 48%. Nephrotoxicity was observed in three patients (10%) and did not result in discontinuation of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Polymyxin B in combination with other antimicrobials can be considered a reasonable and safe treatment option for MDR Gram-negative respiratory tract infections in the setting of limited therapeutic options.

Acinetobacter baumannii↗
PubMed2004

Impact of indinavir on the quality of life in patients with advanced HIV infection treated with zidovudine and lamivudine.

OBJECTIVE: In AIDS Clinical Trial Group (ACTG) study 320, triple-combination antiretroviral therapy including indinavir significantly slowed progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or death, compared with treatment with dual nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) alone, in zidovudine-experienced patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. We examined the impact of indinavir on quality of life in participants from this study. METHODS: A total of 1156 protease inhibitor- and lamivudine-naive patients stratified by CD4 cell count (<or=50 and 51-200 cells/mm(3)) were randomized to receive zidovudine (or stavudine) and lamivudine, with or without indinavir. Health-related quality of life was measured using the ACTG QoL601-602 questionnaire, which assesses general health status measured on a visual analogue scale and 8 specific health-related domains. Quality-adjusted survival time was estimated using the visual analogue scale for general health. RESULTS: Mean changes in general health scores after 24 weeks were +2.9 in the triple-therapy group versus -0.2 in the dual-therapy group (P=.018). By week 24, scores in all specific domains were higher with triple-drug therapy than dual-drug therapy, with statistically significant differences in role function, energy, and pain scores. Benefits of triple-drug therapy were largely confined to patients with CD4 cell counts of <or=50 cells/mm(3). Quality-adjusted survival time did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Triple-drug therapy with indinavir and 2 NRTIs resulted in a significant improvement in general health status after 24 weeks, especially in patients with low CD4 cell counts. Patients receiving triple-drug therapy also had significantly better role function, energy, and pain scores than did patients treated with dual-drug therapy.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2004 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel.

CONTEXT: Substantial changes in the field of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment have occurred in the last 2 years, prompting revision of the guidelines for antiretroviral management of adults with established HIV infection. OBJECTIVE: To update recommendations for physicians who provide HIV care regarding when to start antiretroviral therapy, what drugs to start with, when to change drug regimens, and what drug regimens to switch to after therapy fails. DATA SOURCES: Evidence was identified and reviewed by a 16-member noncompensated panel of physicians with expertise in HIV-related basic science and clinical research, antiretroviral therapy, and HIV patient care. The panel was designed to have broad US and international representation for areas with adequate access to antiretroviral management. STUDY SELECTION: Evidence considered included published basic science, clinical research, and epidemiological data (identified by experts in the field or extracted through MEDLINE searches using terms relevant to antiretroviral therapy) and abstracts from HIV-oriented scientific conferences between July 2002 and May 2004. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were reviewed to identify any information that might change previous guidelines. Based on panel discussion, guidelines were drafted by a writing committee and discussed by the panel until consensus was reached. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four antiretroviral drugs recently have been made available and have broadened the options for initial and subsequent regimens. New data allow more definitive recommendations for specific drugs or regimens to include or avoid, particularly with regard to initial therapy. Recommendations are rated according to 7 evidence categories, ranging from I (data from prospective randomized clinical trials) to VII (expert opinion of the panel). CONCLUSION: Further insights into the roles of drug toxic effects, drug resistance, and pharmacological interactions have resulted in additional guidance for strategic approaches to antiretroviral management.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Detection of drug-resistant minority variants of HIV-1 during virologic failure of indinavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine.

We evaluated zidovudine-experienced patients for whom treatment with indinavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine failed, for indinavir-resistant minority variants. Of 10 patients with plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA suppression and subsequent rebound, 6 without primary indinavir-resistance mutations underwent clonal analysis. One had evidence of V82A in 9 of 30 clones at week 24, with no increase at week 40. The dominant week-40 82V-M184V clones had changes at protease codons 62-64, compared with all clones at week 24 and minority clones at week 40. Resistance to indinavir can emerge during treatment failure in nucleoside-experienced patients but may be missed by routine sequence analysis. Selection for indinavir-resistant variants on treatment with indinavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine may occur slowly, depending on the genetic context in which they arise.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2003

A randomized trial of 2 different 4-drug antiretroviral regimens versus a 3-drug regimen, in advanced human immunodeficiency virus disease.

To compare long-term virologic benefits of antiretroviral regimens in persons with advanced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease, a randomized, open-label study was conducted of 517 subjects with no or limited previous experience with antiretroviral therapy. Subjects received lamivudine plus zidovudine and indinavir (indinavir group), efavirenz plus indinavir (efavirenz + indinavir group), or nelfinavir plus indinavir (nelfinavir + indinavir group) and were monitored for 2.1 years. Virologic failure was lower in the efavirenz + indinavir group (P=.04) and higher in the nelfinavir + indinavir group (P=.006), compared with that in the indinavir group. No difference in grade 3 or 4 adverse event rates in the efavirenz + indinavir group (P=.97) and a trend toward an increased rate in the nelfinavir + indinavir group (P=.07), compared with the indinavir group, were noted. A 4-drug regimen containing efavirenz plus indinavir resulted in a superior virologic response, whereas one containing nelfinavir plus indinavir resulted in an inferior response and a greater likelihood of toxicity.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

What constitutes efficacy for a human immunodeficiency virus vaccine that ameliorates viremia: issues involving surrogate end points in phase 3 trials.

Initial human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccines are unlikely to prevent acquisition of HIV in all recipients. Moreover, several HIV vaccines are under evaluation that are designed to reduce viremia after acquisition of infection. Such vaccines could provide important benefits to delay HIV progression and to reduce transmission. The decision to license a vaccine on the basis of observed effects on virus load and other postinfection surrogate end points in an efficacy trial is complicated by uncertainty about whether the vaccine effects will persist and reliably predict clinical effects, and by the challenge in interpreting the data posed by treatment of some seroconverters with antiretroviral drugs. Here, we evaluate how analyses of certain surrogate end points can be used for inferring clinically significant vaccine effects and propose end points that could be evaluated in efficacy trials to support licensure. The assessment suggests that a vaccine demonstrating moderately durable effects to delay therapy and to ameliorate viremia merits consideration for licensure.

AIDS Vaccines↗
PubMed2003

Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1: 2003 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel.

New information about the benefits and limitations of testing for resistance to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) drugs has emerged. The International AIDS Society-USA convened a panel of physicians and scientists with expertise in antiretroviral drug management, HIV-1 drug resistance, and patient care to provide updated recommendations for HIV-1 resistance testing. Published data and presentations at scientific conferences, as well as strength of the evidence, were considered. Properly used resistance testing can improve virological outcome among HIV-infected individuals. Resistance testing is recommended in cases of acute or recent HIV infection, for certain patients who have been infected as long as 2 years or more prior to initiating therapy, in cases of antiretroviral failure, and during pregnancy. Limitations of resistance testing remain, and more study is needed to refine optimal use and interpretation.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of efavirenz, nelfinavir, and indinavir: Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group Study 398.

The present population pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study modeled the effects of covariates including drug adherence and the coadministration of protease inhibitors (PIs) on the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz (EFV) and the relationship between EFV exposure and virological failure in patients who failed initial PI treatment in Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group (AACTG) study 398. We also report on the population PKs of the PIs nelfinavir (NFV) and indinavir (IDV). AACTG study 398 patients received EFV, amprenavir, adefovir dipivoxil, and abacavir and were randomized to take, in addition, one of the following: NFV, IDV, saquinavir (SQV), or placebo. The PK databases consisted of 531 EFV concentrations (139 patients), 219 NFV concentrations (75 patients), and 66 IDV concentrations (11 patients). Time to virological failure was ascertained for all patients in the PK databases. PK data were fit with a population PK model that assumed exclusive hepatic elimination (the well-stirred model). Notable findings with respect to EFV PK and PD are as follows. (i) The hepatic clearance of EFV is unaltered by NFV, IDV, or SQV coadministration. (ii) The hepatic clearance of EFV appears to be 28% higher in white non-Hispanics than in African Americans and Hispanics (P = 0.03). (iii) Higher adherence scores (as measured with the Medication Event Monitoring System) are associated with marginally increased levels of exposure to EFV. (iv) In patients with no prior experience with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), a given percent increase in the oral clearance (CL/F) of EFV is associated with a greater percent increase in the hazard of virological failure (P < 0.0003). Among NNRTI-experienced patients, however, hazard is relatively uncorrelated with EFV CL/F.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2003

Indinavir, efavirenz, and abacavir pharmacokinetics in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects.

Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (AACTG) Protocol 886 examined the dispositions of indinavir, efavirenz, and abacavir in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects who received indinavir at 1,000 mg every 8 h (q8h) and efavirenz at 600 mg q24h or indinavir at 1,200 mg and efavirenz at 300 mg q12h with or without abacavir 300 at mg q12h. Thirty-six subjects participated. The median minimum concentration in plasma (C(min)) for indinavir administered at 1,200 mg q12h was 88.1 nM (interquartile range [IR], 61.7 to 116.5 nM), whereas the median C(min) for indinavir administered at 1,000 mg q8h was 139.3 nM (IR, 68.8 to 308.7 nM) (P = 0.19). Compared to the minimum C(min) range for wild-type virus (80 to 120 ng/ml) estimated by the AACTG Adult Pharmacology Committee, the C(min) for indinavir administered at 1,200 mg q12h (54 ng/ml) is inadequate. The apparent oral clearance (CL/F) (P = 0.28), apparent volume of distribution at steady state (V(ss)/F) (P = 0.25), and half-life (t(1/2)) (P = 0.80) of indinavir did not differ between regimens. The levels of efavirenz exposure were similar between regimens. For efavirenz administered at 600 mg q24h and 300 mg q12h, the median maximum concentrations in plasma (C(max)s) were 8,968 nM (IR, 5,784 to 11,768 nM) and 8,317 nM (6,587 to 10,239 nM), respectively (P = 0.66), and the C(min)s were 4,289 nM (IR, 2,462 to 5,904 nM) and 4,757 nM (IR, 3,088 to 6,644 nM), respectively (P = 0.29). Efavirenz pharmacokinetic parameters such as CL/F (P = 0.62), V(ss)/F (P = 0.33), and t(1/2) (P = 0.37) were similar regardless of the dosing regimen. The median C(max), C(min), CL/F, V(ss)/F, and t(1/2) for abacavir were 6,852 nM (IR, 5,702 to 7,532), 21.0 nM (IR, 21.0 to 87.5), 43.7 liters/h (IR, 37.9 to 55.2), 153.9 liters (IR, 79.6 to 164.4), and 2.0 h (IR, 1.8 to 2.8), respectively. In summary, when indinavir was given with efavirenz, the trough concentration of indinavir after administration of 1,200 mg q12h was inadequate. Abacavir did not influence the pharmacokinetics or exposure parameters of either indinavir or efavirenz. The levels of efavirenz exposure were similar in subjects receiving efavirenz q12h or q24h.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2002

Prognostic value of baseline human immunodeficiency virus type 1 DNA measurement for disease progression in patients receiving nucleoside therapy.

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 DNA assay data were obtained at baseline from 111 HIV-1-positive subjects who were treated with nucleosides. Higher baseline DNA level, HIV-1 RNA level, and infectious titer were comparably associated with an increased hazard of disease progression (each P<.03). Only DNA level was significantly associated with survival (adjusted hazard ratio for 1 log(10) higher level, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.44-11.09; P=.008).

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗