5.0 What to start

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) transmitted drug resistance mutations (TDRMs) could increase the risk of virological failure (VF) of first-line integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI)-based regimens. Patients starting two NRTIs (lamivudine/emtricitabine plus abacavir/tenofovir) plus raltegravir or dolutegravir were selected from the EuResist cohort. The role of NRTI genotypic susceptibility score and of specific TDRMs in VF (i.e. two consecutive viral loads >50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL or a single viral load ≥200 copies/mL after 3months from antiretroviral therapy start) was evaluated in the overall population and according to the InSTI employed. From 2008 to 2017, 1095 patients were eligible for the analysis (55.5% men, median age 39years). In all, 207 VFs occurred over 1023 patient-years of follow-up. The genotypic susceptibility score (GSS) had no effect on the risk of VF in the overall population. However, the presence of M184V/I independently predicted VF of raltegravir- but not dolutegravir-based therapy when compared with a fully-active backbone [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 3.09, P=0.035], particularly when associated with other non-thymidine analogue mutations (aHR = 27.62, P=0.004). Higher-zenith HIV-RNA and lower nadir CD4 counts independently predicted VF. NRTI backbone TDRMs increased the risk of VF with raltegravir-based but not dolutegravir-based regimens.

No impact of previous NRTIs resistance in HIV positive patients switched to DTG+2NRTIs under virological control: Time of viral suppression makes the difference.

BackgroundSwitching antiretroviral regimens when human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) viremia is controlled for a new regimen is challenging when there is the potential for prior nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance. The objective was to study virologic outcomes after switching to dolutegravir compared with remaining on a boosted protease inhibitor (protease inhibitor/ritonavir [PI/r]) regimen in people with HIV (PWH) with prior documented virologic failure and/or exposure to mono/dual NRTIs. MethodsWe used the Quebec HIV Cohort including 10 219 PWH whose data were collected at 4 sites in Montreal, Canada. We included all PWH with documented virologic failure or exposure to mono/dual NRTI therapy who were virologically suppressed on a PI/r-based regimen for at least 6 months on or after January 1, 2014 (n = 532). A marginal structural Cox model analysis was used to estimate the effect of the switch to dolutegravir on virologic outcome compared with remaining on PI/r. The outcome was defined as 2 consecutive viral loads (VLs) >50 copies/mL or 1 VL >50 copies/mL if it occurred at the last VL available. ResultsAmong 532 eligible participants, 216 (40.6%) had their regimen switched to dolutegravir with 2 NRTIs, whereas 316 (59.4%) remained on the PI/r with 2 NRTIs. The weighted hazard ratio for the effect of dolutegravir switch on virologic failure compared with patients whose regimen remained on PI/r was 0.57 (95% confidence interval, 0.21–1.52). ConclusionsWe did not find evidence of an increased risk for virologic failure after switching to dolutegravir from PI/r among patients with previous virologic failure or prior exposure to mono/dual NRTI.

A nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone is a recommended component of standard highly active antiretroviral therapy (sHAART). However, long-term NRTI exposure can be limited by toxicities. NRTI class-sparing alternatives are warranted in select patient populations. This is a 48-week single-center, open-label pilot study in which 60 HIV-infected adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA (<50 copies/ml) on sHAART were randomized (2:1) to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 400/100 mg BID+raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg BID switch (LPV-r/RAL arm) or to continue on sHAART. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with HIV-RNA<50 copies/ml at week 48. Secondary efficacy and immunologic and safety endpoints were evaluated. Demographics and baseline lipid profile were similar across arms. Mean entry CD4 T cell count was 493 cells/mm(3). At week 48, 92% [95% confidence interval (CI): 83-100%] of the LPV-r/RAL arm and 88% (95% CI: 75-100%) of the sHAART arm had HIV-RNA<50 copies/ml (p=0.70). Lipid profile (mean ± SEM, mg/dl, LPV-r/RAL vs. sHAART) at week 24 was total-cholesterol 194 ± 5 vs. 176 ± 9 (p=0.07), triglycerides 234 ± 30 vs. 133 ± 27 (p=0.003), and LDL-cholesterol 121 ± 6 vs. 110 ± 8 (p=0.27). There were no serious adverse events (AEs) in either arm. Regimen change occurred in three LPV-r/RAL subjects (n=1, due to LPV-r/RAL-related AEs) vs. 0 in sHAART. There were no differences between arms in bone mineral density, total body fat composition, creatinine clearance, or CD4 T cell counts at week 48. In virologically suppressed patients on HAART, switching therapy to the NRTI-sparing LPV-r/RAL combination produced similar sustained virologic suppression and immunologic profile as sHAART. AEs were comparable between arms, but the LPV-r/RAL arm experienced higher triglyceridemia.

To evaluate the longer-term utility of genotypic resistance testing in HIV-1-infected children with virological failure. Children aged 3 months-18 years switching antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV-1 RNA > 2,000 copies/ml were randomized between genotypic testing (Virtual Phenotype) and no testing at baseline and subsequent virological failures. Children were followed to at least 96 weeks. One hundred and seventy eligible children, from 24 clinical centres in six countries, were randomized to resistance testing (n = 87) or no testing (n = 83) between June 2000-July 2003. At baseline, mean HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ T-cell percentage were 4.7 log10 copies/ml and 20%, respectively. Children had taken ART for a mean of 5 years; 24% had received all three classes, 53% nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)+protease inhibitors (PIs), 9% NRTIs+non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and 14% NRTIs only. There was no difference between the arms in the drug classes or the individual PIs/NNRTIs prescribed. However, 49% in the resistance test arm (RT) versus 19% in the no-test arm (NT) continued at least one NRTI from their failing regimen; 56% versus 19% were prescribed didanosine+stavudine as their NRTI backbone. Adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA, mean reductions in HIV-1 RNA at 48 weeks were 1.51 log10 copies/ml in the RT arm and 1.23 in the NT arm (P = 0.3); the difference between the arms was smaller at week 96 (RT: 1.50, NT: 1.47; P = 0.9). In this first paediatric trial of resistance testing, we observed a substantial difference in NRTI-prescribing behaviour across arms. However statistically significant evidence of a long-term virological or immunological benefit was not observed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN14367816.

Although widely recommended, data on bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) efficacy in HIV-1-infected children/adolescents are mainly extrapolated from studies in adults and one paediatric trial in which subjects have good treatment adherence. This study aimed to provide data about the risk of virological failure (VF) and acquired genotypic resistance in children and adolescents receiving BIC/FTC/TAF in a real-world setting. This retrospective monocentric study included 74 paediatric patients who received BIC/FTC/TAF during ≥6 months in 2019-2023. VF was defined as not achieving a plasma viral load <50 copies/mL within 6 months of BIC/FTC/TAF initiation or as experiencing virological rebound ≥50 copies/mL. Most patients were antiretroviral therapy (ART)-experienced (93.2%), previously exposed to integrase inhibitors (85.1%) and displayed viral suppression at baseline (67.6%). Their median age was 11.2 years [interquartile range (IQR): 8.8-15.2]. BIC/FTC/TAF introduction reduced treatment burden in most ART-experienced subjects. Genotypic susceptibility score of BIC/FTC/TAF was ≥2 in all cases. Median follow-up was 40 months (IQR: 21-46). VF occurred in 28 people (37.8%), more frequently in the case of VF versus viral suppression at baseline (68% vs. 26%, P = 0.02). BIC/FTC/TAF was interrupted for suspected intolerance in only one case (1.4%). Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mutation (T69D/N) emerged in one patient (3.6% of VF) after 47 months of continuous detectable viraemia while on ART. No acquisition of mutations in the integrase gene was observed. Because of its high genetic barrier to resistance, BIC/FTC/TAF could be especially useful in the paediatric population, in which the risk of poor treatment adherence and VF is high.

Limited data are available on the use of unboosted atazanavir in combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. We conducted a multicentre, retrospective study among patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL under antiretroviral therapy who switched to unboosted atazanavir + NRTIs between January 2002 and December 2008. Virological failure during follow-up was defined as a confirmed plasma HIV-1 RNA level >50 copies/mL. Baseline risk factors for virological failure were identified using Cox proportional hazards models. A total of 886 patients were analysed. At baseline, median age was 44 years, 71.5% were males and median CD4 cell count was 490 cells/mm(3). NRTIs used in combination with atazanavir were tenofovir, abacavir and emtricitabine/lamivudine in 36.9%, 44.1% and 94.4% of patients, respectively. Median follow-up was 21 months. The 3 year probability of virological failure was 20.1%. Only a history of virological failure under NRTIs [hazard ratio (HR) 1.63, P = 0.049] and under protease inhibitors (HR 2.04, P = 0.006) were significantly associated with the risk of virological failure. Among the 431 patients without a prior history of virological failure, the 3 year probability of virological failure was 11.3%, and only hepatitis C virus co-infection (HR 2.25, P = 0.026) and abacavir use (HR 0.43, P = 0.04) were associated with the risk of virological failure. Safety of the switch was satisfactory, with improvement of the lipid profile. In patients with virological suppression and no prior history of virological failure, a switch to unboosted atazanavir in combination with NRTIs is associated with a low probability of virological failure and a good safety profile.

New antiretroviral drugs and approaches to HIV treatment.

Low-level viraemia among people living with HIV in Nigeria: a retrospective longitudinal cohort study

IntroductionDolutegravir (DTG), Elvitegravir (EVG), Raltegravir (RAL) and Darunavir (DRV) are commonly prescribed core agents for antiretroviral therapy (ART), and a need exists to compare their clinical effectiveness, as defined by virologic failure risks in real-world settings.MethodsThis observational analysis of a US clinical cohort consisted of ART-naïve people living with HIV (PLWH) in the OPERA database initiating DTG-, EVG-, RAL- or DRV-based regimens between August 2013 and July 2016, with follow-up to July 2017. PLWH were observed from first core agent initiation until core agent discontinuation, clinical activity cessation, death, or study end. Key outcomes included viral suppression (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) and confirmed virologic failure (two consecutive viral loads > 200 copies/mL or a viral load > 200 copies/mL followed by discontinuation). Association between core agent and time to virologic failure was assessed with multivariate Cox proportional hazards models.ResultsOverall, 4049 ART-naïve PLWH initiated EVG (47.4%), DTG (34.7%), DRV (14.6%), or RAL (3.2%). DTG and EVG initiators had generally similar baseline demographics and clinical characteristics, including race, risk of infection, baseline viral load, and baseline CD4 levels. RAL and DRV initiators were older and generally sicker than DTG initiators. During follow-up, more DTG initiators achieved virologic suppression (78.7%) compared with EVG (73.6%; p < 0.05), RAL (51.9%; p < 0.0001) and DRV (48.6%; p < 0.0001) initiators. Compared to DTG, both RAL and DRV were associated with higher rates of virologic failure, with adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) of 4.70 (3.03, 7.30) and 2.38 (1.72, 3.29), respectively. No difference was observed between EVG and DTG with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.24 (0.94, 1.64).ConclusionIn this large cohort representative of PLWH in care in the US, ART-naïve PLWH prescribed DTG had better virologic outcomes than RAL and DRV, but had virologic failure risks comparable to EVG, although RAL and DRV were preferentially prescribed to sicker individuals.FundingViiV Healthcare.

This paper presents the final analysis of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) vs. lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected adults. ARTEMIS (AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naïve Subjects; NCT00258557) was a randomized, open-label, phase-III, 192-week trial. Patients were stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count, and randomized to once-daily DRV/r 800/100 mg or LPV/r 800/200 mg total daily dose (either once or twice daily) plus tenofovir/emtricitabine. Of 689 randomized patients receiving treatment (DRV/r: 343; LPV/r: 346), 85 and 114 patients in the DRV/r and LPV/r arms, respectively, had discontinued by week 192. Noninferiority was shown in the primary endpoint of virological response (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) [DRV/r: 68.8%; LPV/r: 57.2%; P < 0.001; intent to treat (ITT)/time to loss of virological response; estimated difference in response 11.6% (95% confidence interval 4.4-18.8%)]. Statistical superiority in virological response of DRV/r over LPV/r was demonstrated for the primary endpoint (P = 0.002) and for the ITT non-virological-failure-censored analysis (87.4% vs. 80.8%, respectively; P = 0.040). No protease inhibitor (PI) primary mutations developed and only low levels of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance developed in virological failures in both groups. Significantly fewer discontinuations because of adverse events were observed with DRV/r (4.7%) than with LPV/r (12.7%; P = 0.005). Grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhoea was significantly less frequent with DRV/r than with LPV/r (5.0% vs. 11.3%, respectively; P = 0.003). DRV/r was associated with smaller median increases in total cholesterol and triglyceride levels than LPV/r. Changes in low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were similar between groups. Similar increases in aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase for DRV/r and LPV/r were observed. Over 192 weeks, once-daily DRV/r was noninferior and statistically superior in virological response to LPV/r, with a more favourable gastrointestinal profile, demonstrating its suitability for long-term use in treatment-naïve patients.

1.0 Introduction

The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has profoundly altered the life expectancy of individuals infected with HIV. Metabolic abnormalities associated with antiretrovirals and cumulative exposure to combination antiretroviral therapy, including dyslipidaemia and insulin resistance, have been linked to an increased risk of myocardial infarction. Longitudinal data from a large prospectively collected clinical database were analysed. All patients who commenced first antiretroviral therapy (ART) [two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)+one nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or one active protease inhibitor (PI)] since 1996 were identified. Patients with elevated cholesterol levels [>5.5 mmol/L (215 mg/dL)] prior to therapy initiation were excluded. Quantitative data were categorized into quartiles and presented stratified by individuals developing abnormal levels of cholesterol during first-line HAART. Event time was defined as time from commencing first-line ART to either development of cholesterol level >6.5 mmol/L (254 mg/dL) or switch of first-line therapy. The Kaplan-Meier product limit survival method was used to estimate time to abnormal cholesterol level, and the chi2 test was used for comparisons between drug classes. Cox's proportional hazards regression analysis was used to identify factors predicting a likelihood of raised cholesterol level. A total of 1664 patients were included in the study: 57.1% on two NRTIs+one NNRTI, 38.4% on two NRTIs+one PI, and 4.4% on two NRTIs+a boosted PI regimen. Regimens containing stavudine or PIs were associated with a significantly higher event risk and earlier time to event. No differences between efavirenz and nevirapine or between didanosine and lamivudine were observed. In 28 patients exposed to the combination of tenofovir+lamivudine+efavirenz, there were no episodes of elevated cholesterol level. Dyslipidaemia has emerged as an important issue in HIV-infected individuals receiving antiretroviral therapy. This study demonstrates that age at start of therapy, baseline cholesterol level, stavudine use and PI use are all associated with increased risk of hypercholesterolemia on initial therapy. Both NRTI and NNRTI/PI choice influence risk of hypercholesterolaemia.

Stavudine (D4T), zidovudine (AZT), and tenofovir (TDF) along with lamivudine (3TC) are the most widely used HIV treatment regimens in China. China's National Free Antiretroviral Treatment Programme (NFATP) has replaced D4T with AZT or TDF in the standard first-line regimens since 2010. Few studies have evaluated the adherence, virological outcome, and drug resistance in HIV patients receiving first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2011 to 2015 due to changes in ART regimen.From 2011 to 2015, 2787 HIV patients were examined, with 364, 1453, and 970 patients having initiated D4T-, AZT-, and TDF-based first-line ART regimens, respectively. The Cochran–Armitage test was used to examine the trends in clinical and virological outcomes during 2011 to 2015. Logistic regression was used to examine the effects of different regimens after 9 to 24 months of ART.From 2011 to 2014–2015, adverse drug reactions decreased from 18.9% to 6.7%, missed doses decreased from 9.9% to 4.6%, virological failure decreased from 16.2% to 6.4%, and drug resistance rates also significantly decreased from 5.4% to 1.1%. These successes were strongly associated with the standardized use of TDF- or AZT-based regimens in place of the D4T-based regimen. Poor adherence decreased from 11.3% in patients who initiated D4T-based regimens to 4.9% in those who initiated TDF-based regimens, adverse drug reactions decreased from 32.4% to 6.7%, virological failure reduced from 18.7% to 8.6%, and drug resistance reduced from 5.8% to 2.9%. Compared with patients who initiated AZT-based regimens, patients who initiated TDF-based regiments showed significant reductions in adherence issues, adverse drug reactions, virological outcomes, and drug resistance. Significant differences were also observed between those who initiated D4T- and AZT-based regimens.The good control of HIV replication and drug resistance was attributed to the success of China's NFATP from 2011 to 2015. This study provided real world evidence for further scaling up ART and minimizing the emergence of drug resistance in the “Three 90” era.

In industrialized countries, virological failure occurs more often among HIV-infected immigrant patients. Non-adherence is the most credible explanation. We compared adherence of immigrant patients with that of non-immigrant patients in the Netherlands, and investigated which method of adherence measurement is most suitable for daily use to predict virological treatment failure: testing knowledge of the current regimen, a quantitative adherence interview, pharmacy prescription refill ratio (dispensed medication divided by prescribed medication, DM/PM), and plasma drug levels. Included were 61 immigrants and 81 non-immigrants. Virological failure did occur more often in immigrants than in non-immigrants (19.7% (12/61) versus 8.6% (7/81), p=0.056), especially among previously naïve patients (19.6% (11/56) versus 0% (0/54), p<0.01). There were no differences between both groups on any of the four adherence measures. Virological failure was associated with reporting stopping medication when not feeling well (OR=12, 95%CI=1.9–77.7, p=0.02), and, among naive patients, also with a DM/PM < 0.85 (Odds Ratio=5.1, 95%Confidence Interval=1.2–22.3, p=0.03). Although our study confirmed a much higher virological failure rate among immigrants, we were unable to identify clear differences in adherence between immigrants and non-immigrant patient, although virological failure was associated with stopping medication when not feeling well and a low DM/PM. Unstructured treatment interruptions are a likely explanation of the findings. Interventions should be aimed at preventing patients to stop medication. A DM/PM below 0.85 can be indicative for patients who did stop medication and are at risk for virological failure.