Search

Background: There are few data comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized trials of initial antiretroviral therapy. We present results from a substudy of the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial. Methods: The randomized trial compared first-line DRV/r 800/100 mg once daily plus RAL 400 mg twice daily and DRV/r plus TDF/FTC 245/200 mg once daily. Changes in PROs were assessed with 3 questionnaires: EuroQoL 5 domains (EQ-5D), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) scale, and HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. Major depressive disorder (MDD) was defined as CES-D >= 16. General estimating equations were used to model change over 96 weeks in PROs from baseline. Results: Of the 805 participants, 797 (99%) contributed to the substudy. Baseline PRO data were similar for the 2 randomized groups. Health status improved over time with a mean increase in EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) of 8.0 by W96 [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5 to 9.4; P < 0.001], and no statistically significant differences between groups (difference of 0.3 on VAS score (95% CI: -1.7 to 2.3); P = 0.7, global P value >=0.05 for all domains over follow-up). There was no significant difference between groups on CES-D [difference of -0.1 (95% CI: -1.3 to 1.1); P = 0.9], or MDD during follow-up, adjusted for baseline MDD (odds ratio = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.18; P = 0.9). RAL + DRV/r group had lower level of convenience (P = 0.03) and fitted less well into patients' lifestyle (P = 0.007) than the TDF/FTC + DRV/r regimen, and was associated with lower treatment satisfaction [median score: 53 RAL + DRV/r vs 55 TDF/FTC + DRV/r (P = 0.001)]. Conclusion: PROs improved after starting antiretroviral therapy, with no statistically significant difference between groups. The lower satisfaction with RAL + DRV/r may be explained by twice-daily administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed at defining protease (PR) resistance mutations associated with darunavir (DRV) failure and PR resistance evolution at DRV failure in a large database of treatment-experienced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients. Results: Overall, 1,104 patients were included: 118 (10.7%) failed at a median observation time of 16 months. The mean number of PR mutations at baseline was 2.7, but it was higher in patients who subsequently failed DRV. In addition, the number of PR mutations increased at failure. The increase in the mean number of mutations was completely related to mutations considered to be associated with DRV resistance following the indications of the main DRV clinical trials. Discussion: The higher statistical difference at baseline between failing versus non-failing patients was observed for the V32I and I84V mutations. At DRV failure, the major increase was still observed for V32I; I54L, V11I, T74P and I50V also increased. Despite the increment in the mean number of mutations per patient between baseline and failure, in 21 patients (17.8%) at baseline and 36 (30.5%) at failure, no PR mutation was detected. Conclusion: The HIV-DB interpretation algorithm identified few patients with full DRV resistance at baseline and few patients developed full resistance at DRV failure, indicating that complete resistance to DRV is uncommon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r) is a protease inhibitor widely used in the treatment of HIV-1 infection. However, skin rash is a well-known adverse event of DRV, and limited data are available from observational settings. This observational study examined the characteristics of DRV-induced skin rash in treatment-naïve patients who commenced once-daily DRV/r-containing antiretroviral therapy (ART). Of the 292 study patients, DRV rashes developed in 31 (11%) patients with a median latency of 10 days (developing from 7 to 14 days in 93%) from initiation of ART. DRV skin rash was generally mild, as only one patient (3%) had grade 3 rash whereas 24 (77%) patients had grade 2 and 6 (19%) patients had grade 1. Only two patients (7%) discontinued DRV/r due to skin rash, and the other continued DRV/r and their rashes disappeared completely without any complications. Interestingly, DRV rash occurred more frequently to patients with less advanced HIV-1 infection than those with advanced infection. The incidence of DRV rash was not significantly different between patients with and without history of sulfonamide allergy (p = 0.201). Furthermore, when we exclude patients without history of sulfonamide use and only examine patients with sulfonamide use (n = 145), the result was similar (p = 0.548). In conclusion, DRV rashes were frequently observed but the prognosis was benign. Most patients tolerated DRV rashes with use of oral steroid or antihistamine without discontinuation of DRV. To date, there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest that DRV should be avoided in patients with history of sulfonamide allergy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]