Search

Objectives To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir (DTG)/lamivudine (3TC) among treatment-naive and virologically suppressed treatment-experienced individuals in the multicentre cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS) during the years 2018–2021. Methods We used multivariable regression models to compare viral suppression (VS) [HIV RNA viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL] and the change in CD4 cell counts at 24 and 48 (±12) weeks after initiation with dolutegravir/lamivudine or other first-line ART regimens. Results We included 2160 treatment-naive subjects, among whom 401 (18.6%) started with dolutegravir/lamivudine. The remaining subjects started bictegravir (BIC)/emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) (n  = 949, 43.9%), DTG + FTC/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (n  = 282, 13.1%), DTG/3TC/abacavir (ABC) (n  = 255, 11.8%), darunavir (DRV)/cobicistat(COBI)/FTC/TAF (n  = 147, 6.8%) and elvitegravir (EVG)/COBI/FTC/TAF (n  = 126, 5.8%). At 24 and 48 weeks after starting dolutegravir/lamivudine, 91.4% and 93.8% of the subjects, respectively, achieved VS. The probability of achieving VS with dolutegravir/lamivudine was not significantly different compared with any other regimen at 24 or 48 weeks, with the exception of a lower chance of achieving VS at 24 weeks for DRV/COBI/FTC/TAF (adjusted OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.30–0.74) compared with dolutegravir/lamivudine. For the analysis of treatment-experienced virally suppressed subjects we included 1456 individuals who switched to dolutegravir/lamivudine, among whom 97.4% and 95.5% maintained VS at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively. During the first 48 weeks after dolutegravir/lamivudine initiation, 1.0% of treatment-naive and 1.5% of treatment-experienced subjects discontinued dolutegravir/lamivudine due to an adverse event. Conclusions In this large multicentre cohort, effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir/lamivudine were high among treatment-naive and treatment-experienced subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrase strand-transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) constitute at present one of the pillars of first-line ART.Objectives: To study the prevalence of and the trend in transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to INSTIs in ART-naive patients in Spain.Methods: During the period 2012-17, 1109 patients from CoRIS were analysed. The Stanford algorithm v8.7 was used to evaluate TDR and transmission of clinically relevant resistance. To describe individual mutations/polymorphisms, the most recent IAS list (for INSTIs) and the 2009 WHO list update (for the backbone NRTIs used in combination with INSTIs in first-line treatment) were used.Results: Clinically relevant resistance to the INSTI class was 0.2%: T66I, 0.1%, resistance to elvitegravir and intermediate resistance to raltegravir; and G163K, 0.1%, intermediate resistance to raltegravir and elvitegravir. No clinical resistance to dolutegravir or bictegravir was observed. The prevalence of INSTI TDR following the IAS-USA INSTI mutation list was 2.6%, with no trend towards changes in the prevalence throughout the study period. The overall prevalence of NRTI WHO mutations was 4.3%, whereas clinically relevant resistance to tenofovir, abacavir and emtricitabine/lamivudine was 1.7%, 1.9% and 0.7%, respectively.Conclusions: Given the low prevalence of clinically relevant resistance to INSTIs and first-line NRTIs in Spain, it is very unlikely that a newly diagnosed patient will present with clinical resistance to a first-line INSTI-based regimen. These patients may not benefit from INSTI and NRTI baseline resistance testing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence, prevalence and clinical consequences of virological failure (VF) to raltegravir-based regimens in Spain.Methods: A multicentre, retrospective, observational study was performed in 10 tertiary hospitals (January 2006 to June 2013). The study included HIV-1-infected patients with loss of virological suppression (LVS; two consecutive HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL) while receiving raltegravir. VF and low-level viraemia (LLV) were defined as two consecutive HIV-1 RNA ≥200 copies/mL and 50 to <200 copies/mL, respectively. Integrase strand-transfer inhibitor resistance was investigated at LVS. During the 48 weeks following LVS, recorded data included clinical characteristics, treatment discontinuations, AIDS-associated events and deaths. Effectiveness of therapy following LVS was evaluated by ITT and PP. Multivariate regression was used to assess predictors of efficacy.Results: Of the 15 009 HIV-infected patients in participating centres, 2782 (18.5%) had received raltegravir-based regimens. Of those, 192 (6.9%), 125 (4.5%) and 67 (2.4%) experienced LVS, VF and LLV, respectively. The incidence of VF was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.1) per 100 patients/year. The prevalence of VF was 4.5% (95% CI, 3.8%-5.3%). Integrase-associated mutations were found in 78.8% of patients with integrase genotyping results available. High-level resistance to dolutegravir was not observed. Salvage therapy failed in 34.1% of patients; progression to AIDS/death occurred in 8.3% during the first year following LVS. The latter was associated with intravenous drug use, time on raltegravir and lower CD4+ count nadir in patients who started raltegravir-based treatments as salvage regimens.Conclusions: VF with raltegravir is infrequent, but often associated with major clinical complications in treatment-experienced patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Limited data are available on resistance to etravirine, rilpivirine, darunavir and tipranavir in patients infected with HIV-1 non-B subtypes, in which natural polymorphisms at certain positions could influence the barrier and/or pathways to drug resistance. Methods FASTA format sequences from the reverse transcriptase and protease genes recorded within the Spanish Drug Resistance database (ResRIS) were examined. Results From 8272 genotypes derived from 5930 different HIV-1 patients included in ResRIS, 5276 genotypes had complete treatment information. Overall, 85% were from antiretroviral-experienced subjects and 7.5% belonged to HIV-1 non-B subtypes: CRF02_AG, C, F and G being the most prevalent variants. For etravirine, only G190A was more prevalent in B than non-B subtypes, whereas V90I and V179E were more frequent in non-B than B subtypes. For rilpivirine, V108I and Y188I were more frequent in B than non-B subtypes, whereas V90I was more prevalent in non-B subtypes. Despite these differences, the overall prevalence of resistance did not differ significantly when comparing etravirine or rilpivirine in B versus non-B subtypes (11.3% versus 7.4%, P = 0.13, and 10.5% versus 7.4%, P = 0.23, respectively). Despite more frequent natural polymorphisms in non-B than B subtypes at tipranavir resistance positions, the prevalence of tipranavir resistance was greater in B than non-B subtypes (11% versus 4.3%, P = 0.004), reflecting a greater antiretroviral exposure in the former. Darunavir resistance did not differ significantly when comparing B and non-B subtypes (5.8% versus 5.5%, P = 0.998). Conclusions The rate of resistance to the most recently approved protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors is low in antiretroviral-experienced patients, regardless of the HIV-1 subtype. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]