A gel, used as a vaginal microbicide, when used rectally showed signs of efficacy, but raised safety concerns, the 18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) heard yesterday.
Researcher Peter Anton of the University of California, Los
Angeles told the conference that although the gel, which was identical to the
tenofovir-containing gel used in last year’s CAPRISA
004 vaginal microbicide trial, was 80% effective in inhibiting HIV from infecting rectal
cells, it produced adverse gastrointestinal events such as cramps and
discomfort in some users and was unpopular, with only 25% of users liking it.
The gel is now being
reformulated specifically for rectal use, with various compounds already being
tested on cell cultures, and a formulation given as a douche or enema has also
been devised.
The CAPRISA 004 result seems to have breathed new life into
the microbicide field, with numerous experimental microbicides being presented
at the conference, including hi-tech ones containing broadly neutralising
antibodies, which would act like a short-lived ‘mucosal vaccine’.
However the study presented by Peter Anton was only the
second study of a rectal microbicide on human volunteers.
The study followed a complex and exacting design and
required considerable commitment from its 18 HIV-negative subjects (14 men and
four women), Anton commented. The
subjects were first given a single dose of oral tenofovir and then waited two
weeks. During this time the subjects underwent five rectal sigmoidoscopies and
had biopsies of rectal and colonic cells taken.
Then they were given a single dose of either
the CAPRISA tenofovir gel or a placebo hydroxyethylcellulose (HEC) gel and
again waited two weeks and had biopsies taken at another five timepoints.
Finally they were asked to use either the tenofovir or the inert gel once a day
for seven days and had some final biopsies done. Altogether 2000 biopsies were
taken.
The purpose of so many biopsies was so that the microbicide-treated
cells could be used in an ‘ex vivo’ infection model: cellular explants were kept
alive on gel rafts and subjected to challenge by large doses of HIV. This explant model, which was first aired at the 2008 Microbicides Conference in Delhi, are the nearest we can get to having a surrogate in early safety and dosing
studies to evaluate the protective effect of a microbicide against real-life
infection.
The trial also allowed the researchers to compare the levels
of tenofovir seen in blood and in rectal tissues after oral and topical dosing.
Not surprisingly blood concentrations of tenofovir were 30 times higher after
oral dosing than after the single or multiple rectal dose, while the concentration
of tenofovir inside rectal cells was 100 times higher after the single rectal
dose and 500 times higher after seven rectal doses than in the oral dose.
No significant resistance to viral infection was seen in cell biopsies
after the single oral dose or the single rectal dose, but after seven days of rectal use
there was an 80% decline in viral infectivity.
So the gel shows signs of considerable efficacy, but there were also significant
safety concerns, and it was not popular in volunteers.
The ‘primary safety endpoint’ of the trial had
been the occurrence of adverse events of grade three or four, meaning severe or
worse, and in fact two volunteers did report grade three adverse events,
meaning diarrhoea, cramps and discomfort. These occurred after three or four
doses of the tenofovir gel and the volunteers did not complete the seven-day course.
Declines
in the secretion of two immune activation makers were also seen in rectal cells
after the seven-day course, indicating some cell damage. No similar effects
were seen with the HEC gel.
Only 25% of volunteers said they liked the tenofovir gel,
compared with 50% liking the HEC gel, although 75% said they would be prepared
to use it again if it proved protective against HIV.