Search

Introduction: Satisfaction and knowledge among patients with HIV after switching from tenofovir to tenofovir/alafenamide remain unexplored. Given that both parameters are associated with better health outcomes it is relevant to measure them in patients during routine clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate the degree of knowledge and satisfaction in patients who had their antiretroviral regimen switched from rilpivirine (RPV)/emtricitabine (FTC)/TDF to RPV/FTC/TAF. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective study in a third-level hospital between September, 2018, and November, 2018. We included patients who had previously been treated with RPV/FTC/TDF and collected their RPV/FTC/TAF treatment in the second visit. A 5-point Likert-type agreement/disagreement scale was used to assess satisfaction and knowledge regarding the medication switch. Results: We included 116 patients in the study of whom 75% were satisfied and 64% had a high-level of knowledge. Young patients were less satisfied with the way in which the change was explained (p=0.0487). Concerning the new medication, the patients were better informed about its renal (85% of them) and bone benefits (82%) than about its adverse effects on the lipid profile (40%). Conclusions: The patients were generally satisfied with the change in medication and well nformed about the dosage and advantages of TAF over TDF, but less well informed about the possible adverse effects of TAF.

Objective: To investigate whether the switch from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/rilpivirine (TDF/FTC/RPV) to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC/RPV is associated with weight gain in people living with HIV (PLWHIV)., Design: Retrospective single-centre study., Methods: All PLWHIV on TDF/FTC/RPV who switched to TAF/FTC/RPV from January 2017 to December 2018 were considered if they had at least two weight measures in the year before and two after the switch. The weight trend across the study was evaluated by a generalized linear model for repeated measures, with pair comparison performed by Bonferroni adjustment., Results: Two hundred and fifty-two patients on TDF/FTC/RPV were included, 65% men, mean age 51.2 years (±9.6), history of 18 (±18.2) years of HIV infection and CD4 T-cell count of 744 (±329) cells/μl. All had HIV-RNA <50 copies/ml. Twelve months before the switch, baseline weight was 73.8 (±14.3) kg, and remained stable to 73.8 (±14.3) kg in the following 6 months. A weight increase was noticed 3 and 6 months after the switch, to 77.7 (±42.3) and 75.5 (±14.5) kg, respectively (P < 0.0001). A significant weight change exactly within the timeframe of the switch (between 6 months before and 3 months after) was found in women, patients with higher BMI (>25 kg/m), lower CD4 T-cell count (≤500 cells/μl) and history of previous drug abuse. The frequency of BMI greater than 25 kg/m rose from 122/252 patients (48.4%), to 133/252 (52.8%) (P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: TAF appears to have an impact on weight gain, similarly to what observed in naïve patients, also in experienced PLWHIV with good virologic control.

Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) has similar efficacy compared to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), but a less favorable effect on lipids. Aim of this retrospective multicentre study was to evaluate the impact on lipids of switching from rilpivirine (RPV)/ emtricitabine (FTC)/TDF to RPV/FTC/TAF in a cohort of HIV-1 infected patients. Total cholesterol (TC), high density lipoproteins (HDL) and low density lipoproteins (LDL) were compared at the moment of the switch and at the first following evaluation, by using paired t-test. Overall, 573 patients were considered, 99% with HIV-RNA <50 copies/ml, with mean age of 49.7 (±0.4) years and median 13.4 (6.9-22.5) years of HIV infection. In the study population with available data (431/573, 75%), mean TC changed from 173 ±1.7 to 188 ±1.8 mg/dl; mean HDL from 46 ±0.7 to 51± 0.7 mg/dl; mean LDL from 111 ±1.5 to 120 ±1.8 mg/dl (p<0.0001 for all). Neither LDL/HDL nor TC/HDL ratio changed significantly, with LDL/HDL from 2.6 ±0.5 to 2.5 ±0.5 (p = 0.12) and TC/HDL from 4.0 ±0.6 to 3.9 ±0.6 (p = 0.11). In patients with baseline diagnosis of hypercholesterolemia (TC>200 mg/dl, N = 87), there was no significant change in TC (224 ±2.2 to 228 ±3.4 mg/dl, p = 0.286) or LDL (150±2.5 to 151±3.2 mg/dl, p = 0.751), while HDL increased from 51 ±1.6 to 55 ±1.7 mg/dl (p<0.0001) and both LDL/HDL and TC/HDL ratio decreased significantly, from 3.2±0.1 to 3.0 ±0.1 (p = 0.025) and from 4.7±0.1 to 4.4 ±0.1 (p = 0.004). In this real life study, a slight increase in lipids was found after switching from RPV/FTC/TDF to RPV/FTC/TAF, but these results were not confirmed in people with hypercholesterolemia, in which lipids did not change and LDL/HDL and TC/HDL ratio decreased., Competing Interests: The authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: LT has received consulting fees from Jannsen and ViiV; ADB has received consulting fees or honoraria from Gilead Sciences, ViiV, Janssen, Abbvie and MSD; AG has received consulting fees or honoraria from Jannsen, ViiV, MSD, BMS, Abbvie, Gilead, Pfizer, Angelini; FM received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Bayer, Boehring Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, Tibotec, Pfizer. All other authors declare no competing interests. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Background: Switch strategies based on rilpivirine/tenofovir/emtricitabine or on an integrase inhibitor (InSTI) plus tenofovir/emtricitabine have never been compared in randomized clinical trials. The main aim of the study was to investigate the durability of these two switch regimens in virologically suppressed, HIV-infected patients., Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients who started rilpivirine or an InSTI (both with tenofovir and emtricitabine) with <50 HIV-RNA copies/mL and had at least one HIV-RNA assessed while receiving the study regimen. Virological failure (VF) was defined as two consecutive measurements of HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL. Treatment failure (TF) was define as either VF or discontinuation of any drug of the regimen. Durability was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by Log-rank test. Residual viremia was defined as any detectable HIV-RNA below 50 copies/mL, as assed by a real-time PCR assay., Results: Six hundred seventy-five patients (466 switched to a rilpivirine-, 209 switched to an InSTI-based regimen [18% dolutegravir, 39% raltegravir, 43% elvitegravir/cobicistat] were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range, IQR) follow-up in the rilpivirine and in the InSTI group was 16.7 (8.8-22.2) and 10.4 (5.4-19.6) months. The 1-year cumulative probabilities (95%CI) of VF and TF were 0.97% (0.36%-2.62%) and 9.73% (7.21%-13.06%) in the rilpivirine group and 1.83% (0.57%-5.77%) and 8.75% (5.25%-14.4%) in the InSTI group, with no difference between groups (p = 0.328 and 0.209 for VF and TF). The proportion of time spent with residual viremia was comparable in the two groups (9% [IQR 0.5%-49%] and 17% [IQR 0.5%-50%] in the rilpivirine and in the InSTI group, p = 0.087). By the multivariable Cox regression model, TF was independently associated with being on therapy with a protease inhibitor vs. a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor at switch (AHR = 0.52; 95%CI = 0.31-0.90; p = 0.018), baseline total/HDL-cholesterol ratio (AHR = 1.19 per 0.5-units increments; 95%CI = 1.06-1.34; p = 0.004), baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (AHR = 0.78 per 10-units increments; 95%CI = 0.67-0.90; p = 0.001) and baseline hemoglobin (AHR = 0.78 per 1-unit increments; 95%CI = 0.64-0.94; p = 0.009), but not with treatment group (rilpivirine vs. InSTI)., Conclusions: In our clinical practice, the durability of the two regimens was comparable and both showed a very low probability of VF.

Objectives: This study evaluates the effectiveness, safety and costs of switching to a rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) regimen in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients with sustained virological suppression., Methods: Observational, prospective study. Study population included all treatment-experienced patients with sustained virological suppression who switched to RPV/FTC/TDF during 2013 in a tertiary hospital. Patients were followed until they completed 96 weeks of treatment. The effectiveness end-point was defined as the proportion of patients who maintained virological suppression at week 96 by intention-to-treat analysis (discontinuation=failure). The safety of RPV/FTC/TDF (incidence of adverse events leading to discontinuation and laboratory abnormalities) and adherence to this regimen were evaluated, and the cost of switching was analysed., Results: One-hundred forty-six patients were included. At week 96, 71.9% of patients remained virologically suppressed; 6.8% experienced virological failure. During follow-up, 25.3% of patients discontinued RPV/FTC/TDF (14.4% because of adverse events, mainly renal impairment). Throughout the 96 weeks, there were significant decreases in total cholesterol (TC) (14.0 mg/dL, P<.001), TC/HDL cholesterol ratio (0.4 mg/dL, P=.019) and triglycerides (42.0 mg/dL, P<.001). A slight decrease in glomerular filtration rate was observed (4.3 mL/min/1.73 m 2 , P<.001). Switching to RPV/FTC/TDF improved adherence in the subgroup of patients whose previous treatment was based on a twice-daily schedule, although differences did not reach statistical significance. Switching to RPV/FTC/TDF reduced the annual per-patient antiretroviral cost by €1744 (P<.001)., Conclusions: In virologically suppressed patients, the switch to a RPV/FTC/TDF regimen was associated with a mild but maintained improvement in lipid parameters and a significant reduction in costs. However, the relatively high rates of virological failure and treatment discontinuation because of adverse events make this combination a less favourable choice over other regimens currently available., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Rilpivirine is safe and effective in HIV-naïve patients with low baseline HIV-RNA or in switch strategy. It offers the advantages of few drug-drug interactions and a favourable toxicity profile. We aimed to determine the reasons for prescribing the rilpivirine (RPV)/tenofovir disoproxil (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) co-formulation within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and to assess its effectiveness and safety over a 24 months period., Methods: All individuals enrolled in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study who initiated a RPV/TDF/FTC co-formulation between April 2013 and March 2014 were included. Primary outcomes were the HIV-RNA viral load (copies/mL) and CD4 cell count (cells/mm 3 ) at 6, 12 and 24 months. Reasons for a switch to RPV/TDF/FTC were evaluated through a standardized questionnaire. We also assessed discontinuation and reasons for discontinuation of RPV/TDF/FTC until October 30, 2015., Results: Of 644 individuals who started the RPV/TDF/FTC co-formulation, only 7.5% were treatment-naïve. At 24 months, viral suppression (HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) was achieved in 100% and 96.7% of cART-naïve and cART-experienced patients respectively. The switch to RPV was mainly done for simplification (44.6%) and to overcome central nervous system toxicity symptoms due to efavirenz (24%). Six months after switch, 74.8% of patients reported an improvement of psycho-neurological symptoms with continued improvement at 12 months for almost 80%. However, one quarter of patients reported a discontinuation of RPV/TDF/FTC on October 30, 2015 after a median time of 18.4 months. Reasons for discontinuation included physician decision (5.3%) and side-effects (3.9%) mainly related to the central nervous system and to renal toxicity., Conclusion: The RPV/TDF/FTC co-formulation was safe and effective throughout 24 months of follow-up but barely prescribed for HIV-naïve patients. Despite excellent virological suppression among both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients, we observed a high rate of treatment discontinuation.

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide is a prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90% compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, thereby decreasing bone and renal risks. The coformulation of rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide has recently been approved, and we aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to this regimen compared with remaining on coformulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 120 hospitals and outpatient clinics in eight countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to continue a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz (600 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02345226., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 27, 2015, 875 participants were randomly assigned and treated (438 with rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide and 437 with efavirenz, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Viral suppression at week 48 was maintained in 394 (90%) of 438 participants assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide regimen and 402 (92%) of 437 assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen (difference -2·0%, 95·001% CI -5·9 to 1·8), demonstrating non-inferiority. 56 (13%) of 438 in participants in the rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group experienced treatment-related adverse events compared with 45 (10%) of 437 in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group., Interpretation: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide, a tenofovir prodrug, results in 90% lower tenofovir plasma concentrations than does tenofovir disproxil fumarate, thereby minimising bone and renal risks. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a single-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with remaining on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 119 hospitals in 11 countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of either rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to remain on a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo, once daily for 96 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug and were on the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen before screening were included in primary efficacy analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with less than 50 copies per mL of plasma HIV-1 RNA at week 48 (by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 25, 2015, 630 participants were randomised (316 to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 314 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, 296 (94%) of 316 participants on tenofovir alafenamide and 294 (94%) of 313 on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had maintained less than 50 copies per mL HIV-1 RNA (difference -0·3%, 95·001% CI -4·2 to 3·7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Numbers of adverse events were similar between groups. 20 (6%) of 316 participants had study-drug related adverse events in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 37 (12%) of 314 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group; none of these were serious., Interpretation: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to continuing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the maintenance of virological suppression (VS) in antiretroviral-treated HIV-1-suppressed patients switching to a tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine (TDF/FTC/RPV) single-tablet regimen, by considering pre-existent resistance (pRes)., Methods: pRes was evaluated according to resistance on all previous plasma genotypic resistance tests. Probability and predictors of virological rebound (VR) were evaluated., Results: Three hundred and nine patients were analysed; 5.8% of them showed resistance to both NRTIs and NNRTIs, while 12.6% showed resistance to only one of these drug classes. By 72 weeks, the probability of VR was 11.3%. A higher probability of VR was found in the following groups: (i) patients with NRTI + NNRTI pRes compared with those harbouring NRTI or NNRTI pRes and with those without reverse transcriptase inhibitor pRes (39.2% versus 11.5% versus 9.4%, P  <   0.0001); (ii) patients with a virus with full/intermediate resistance to both tenofovir/emtricitabine and rilpivirine compared with those having a virus with full/intermediate resistance to tenofovir/emtricitabine or rilpivirine and those having a virus fully susceptible to TDF/FTC/RPV (36.4% versus 17.8% versus 9.7%, P  <   0.001); and (iii) patients with pre-therapy viraemia >500 000 copies/mL compared with those with lower viraemia levels (>500 000: 16.0%; 100 000-500 000: 9.3%; <100 000 copies/mL: 4.8%, P  =   0.009). pRes and pre-therapy viraemia >500 000 copies/mL were independent predictors of VR by multivariable Cox regression., Conclusions: TDF/FTC/RPV as a treatment simplification strategy shows a very high rate of VS maintenance. The presence of pRes to both NRTIs and NNRTIs and a pre-therapy viraemia >500 000 copies/mL are associated with an increased risk of VR, highlighting the need for an accurate selection of patients before simplification., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: In the context of a rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate switch in HIV-1-infected patients with at least 1 year of virological success, we determined whether proviral DNA is an alternative to plasma HIV RNA for resistance genotyping., Methods: Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in DNA after at least 1 year of virological success [viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL] were compared with those identified in the last plasma RNA genotype available. Rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate RAMs studied were K65R, L100I, K101E/P, E138A/G/K/R/Q, V179L, Y181C/I/V, M184V/I, Y188L, H221Y, F227C and M230I/L in the RT. We studied patients without virological failure (VF) and with at least 1 VF (two consecutive VLs >50 copies/mL). Kappa's coefficient was used to measure agreement between the DNA and RNA genotypes., Results: In patients without VF (n = 130) and with VF (n = 114), RNA and DNA showed resistance to at least one drug of the rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate combination in 8% and 9% and in 60% and 45%, respectively. For rilpivirine RAMs, correlation between RNA and DNA was higher in patients without VF than in patients with VF (kappa = 0.60 versus 0.19, P = 0.026). Overall, the prevalence of RAMs was lower in DNA than in RNA., Conclusions: Incomplete information provided by the DNA genotypic test is more notable in patients with VF, suggesting that all resistance mutations associated with prior VF have not been archived in the proviral DNA or decreased to a level below the threshold of detection. In the case where no historical plasma genotypic test is available, DNA testing might be useful to rule out switching to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Pharmacokinetic (PK) data describing a prolonged time course of antiretrovirals in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) are important for understanding and managing late or missed doses and to assess the appropriateness of compounds for preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP). This study aimed to evaluate the PK of coformulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF), emtricitabine, and rilpivirine in plasma and of the intracellular (IC) anabolites tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) and emtricitabine triphosphate (FTC-TP) in healthy volunteers up to 9 days after drug cessation. Individuals received daily tenofovir DF-emtricitabine-rilpivirine (245/200/25 mg) for 14 days. Drug intake was stopped, and serial sampling occurred prior to the final dose and up to 216 h (9 days) after stopping drug intake. Concentrations were quantified and PK parameters calculated. Eighteen volunteers completed the study. The terminal elimination plasma half-lives for tenofovir and emtricitabine over 216 h (geometric mean [90% confidence interval]) were higher than those seen over 0 to 24 h (for tenofovir, 31 h [27 to 40 h] versus 13.3 h [12.5 to 15.1 h]; for emtricitabine, 41 h [36 to 54 h] versus 6.4 h (5.9 to 7.6 h]). Model-predicted IC half-lives (0 to 168 h) were 116 h (TFV-DP) and 37 h (FTC-TP). The plasma rilpivirine concentration at 216 h was 4.5 ng/ml (4.2 to 6.2 ng/ml), and half-lives over 0 to 216 h and 0 to 24 h were 47 h (41 to 59 h) and 35 h (28 to 46 h), respectively. These data contribute to our understanding of drug behavior following treatment interruption; however, adherence to therapy should be promoted. Validated plasma and IC target concentrations are necessary to allow interpretation with respect to sustained virus suppression or HIV prevention. (The trial was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [EudraCT 2012-002781-13].)., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

This paper reviews the current literature and information on the combination drug Complera(™) (rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in August 2011. PubMed, Cochrane and Embase (2001-2014) were searched for primary and review articles on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, individually or in combination. Data from drug manufacturer and product label was also used. Clinical trial reports were selected, extracted and analyzed to include relevant and recent ones. Selected English-language trials were limited to those with human subjects and included both safety and efficacy outcomes. Results from two phase 3 randomized double blind trials (ECHO and THRIVE) showed that rilpivirine is non-inferior to efavirenz in suppressing viral load below 50 copies/mL in anti-retroviral therapy (ART) naïve human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infected patients. In addition, psychiatric disturbances, rash and increase in lipid levels occurred less frequently with rilpivirine when compared to efavirenz. However, virological failure and drug resistance were higher with rilpivirine in patients with baseline viral load >100,000 copies/mL. Rilpivirine showed cross resistance to efavirenz and etravirine. Efavirenz, on the other hand, did not demonstrate cross resistance to rilpivirine and etravirine, leaving the latter drugs as options for use in case of virological failure with efavirenz. Complera(™) remains an acceptable alternative treatment to Atripla(™) in ART naïve patients who have a pre-ART plasma HIV RNA <100,000 copies/mL and CD4 count >200 cells/mm(3) with non-inferior efficacy and better safety and tolerability., (Copyright © 2015 King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess, in a clinical cohort, the efficacy of switching treatment in virologically-suppressed patients to tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine as a single-tablet regimen (STR) using the PCR signal of the viral load (VL) assay and plasma drug determination (C24h)., Patients and Methods: An observational single-centre study enrolling patients with VL<50 copies/mL initiating rilpivirine-based STR. C24h and VL were performed until W48 and W96 of STR, respectively. PCRneg was defined as an undetected PCR signal. Medians (IQR) were presented., Results: 116 patients were enrolled. At STR baseline, time since first antiretroviral therapy and time of virological suppression were 6 years (2-9) and 17 months (7-43), respectively. Before STR initiation, patients were receiving protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-based regimen in 44% and 47% of cases, respectively. Historical genotype showed virus resistant to one drug of the STR in 6 patients (5%). At W96, 17 (15%) discontinued STR due to adverse events. The proportion of patients maintaining VL <50 copies/mL on treatment was 98%, 99%, 100%, 100%, 100% and 100% at W12, W24, W36, W48, W72 and W96, respectively. Among them, 70%, 66%, 68%, 59%, 74%, 68% and 60% were PCRneg at baseline, W12, W24, W36, W48, W72 and W96, respectively. Median rilpivirine C24h was 91 ng/mL (57-141, n = 285), with 91% of rilpivirine C24h >50 ng/mL, the target effective concentration., Conclusions: In this clinical cohort of virologically-suppressed patients switching to a new STR, most subjects had adequate rilpivirine C24h and displayed a high level of virological suppression with no residual viremia until W96.

Introduction: Switching to a rilpivirine, tenofovir and emtricitabine (RTE) single-tablet regimen (STR) has been evaluated in a limited number of virologically suppressed patients. The aim of this study was to describe clinical outcomes in HIV-positive patients switched from a suppressive antiretroviral regimen to RTE STR in routine clinical practice., Methods: In this retrospective study of antiretroviral-treated patients with <50 copies of HIV RNA/mL switched to RTE STR, virological failure (VF) was defined as two consecutive measurements of ≥50 copies/mL or a single measurement of ≥50 copies/mL followed by any change in treatment. Treatment failure (TF) was defined as VF or discontinuation of the STR for any reason. Univariate mixed-linear models were used to identify differences in laboratory parameters over time., Results and Discussion: The analysis involved 307 patients (83% males) with a median age of 45.8 years (interquartile range (IQR 39.3-50.9), who were followed up for a median of 7.4 months (IQR 4.6-10.9). VF occurred in three patients (1%) switched from a protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen, after a median of 2.6 months (IQR 1.6-3.0), and TF in 34 patients (11%) after a median of three months (IQR 1.4-5.8), 24 of whom (71%) were receiving a PI-based regimen at baseline. Overall, there was a slight but statistically significant improvement in the mean monthly change from baseline in CD4+ cell counts (p=0.027), the CD4+/CD8+ ratio (p=0.0001), and Hb (p=0.024), alanine amino transferase (ALT) (p=0.009), total bilirubin (p<0.0001), indirect bilirubin (p<0.0001), total cholesterol (p<0.0001) and triglyceride (p<0.0001) levels. There was also a slight but statistically significant increase in serum creatinine (p=0.0004), aspartate amino transferase (AST) (p=0.001) and liver fibrosis index (FIB-4) (p=0.002), and a decrease in eGFRcreat (p<0.0001) and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (p<0.0001) values. The study limitations include its retrospective design, the relatively short follow-up, and the absence of data concerning the severity of clinical adverse events; however, it does provide new information concerning the laboratory changes that occur in patients switching from PI-based or PI-sparing regimens to RTE STR., Conclusions: The study findings confirm the efficacy and safety in clinical practice of switching to RTE STR in virologically suppressed patients receiving other antiretrovirals.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can provide important information about treatment tolerability in HIV-1-infected patients., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate PROs following switching from a boosted protease inhibitor-based regimen to the single-tablet regimen (STR) of rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) in the 48-week open-label Switching Boosted PI to Rilpivirine in Combination with Truvada as a Single-Tablet Regimen (SPIRIT) trial., Methods: In the open-label SPIRIT trial, patients were randomized to receive an STR of RPV/FTC/TDF (n = 317) for 48 weeks or stay on their baseline regimen of a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor and two nucleoside/nucleotide analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors (PI + RTV + 2NRTIs, n = 159) for 24 weeks before switching to RPV/FTC/TDF for another 24 weeks. PRO assessments included the HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (TSQ) and the HIV Symptom Index Questionnaire (SIQ)., Results: At week 24, the mean HIV TSQ improvement from baseline was significantly greater in the RPV/FTC/TDF group than the PI + RTV + 2NRTIs group (p < 0.001). On the HIV SIQ, the percentage of patients reporting a shift from 'symptom' to 'no symptom' was significantly greater with RPV/FTC/TDF treatment compared with PI + RTV + 2NRTIs for all items (all p ≤ 0.01), with total within-group occurrence of 13/20 symptoms significantly decreasing from baseline for RPV/FTC/TDF patients. In the delayed switch group, significantly fewer patients reported diarrhea and sleep problems at week 48 vs. week 24., Conclusions: These data suggest that switching to the STR RPV/FTC/TDF from a PI-based multi-pill regimen is associated with greater patient-reported treatment satisfaction and improved tolerability in HIV-1-infected, virologically suppressed individuals.

Background: STaR (GS-US-264-0110) was a 96-week phase 3b study evaluating the safety and efficacy of two single-tablet regimens, rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EFV/FTC/TDF) in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected subjects., Methods: Genotypic analyses (population sequencing) of HIV-1 protease (PR) and reverse transcriptase (RT) were performed at screening; subjects with pre-existing resistance to study drugs were excluded. The protocol-defined resistance analysis population had genotypic/phenotypic analyses at failure and baseline for PR and RT., Results: Through week 96, the resistance analysis population included 24/394 subjects (6.1%) receiving RPV/FTC/TDF and 9/392 subjects (2.3%) receiving EFV/FTC/TDF. In the RPV/FTC/TDF arm, HIV-1 isolates from 21/394 subjects (5.3%) developed non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) and/or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance mutations and 20/21 isolates had both NNRTI and NRTI genotypic and/or phenotypic resistance. In the EFV/FTC/TDF arm, isolates from 4/392 subjects (1.0%) developed NNRTI and/or NRTI resistance mutations. Resistance development after week 48 was infrequent (1.0% RPV/FTC/TDF; 0.3% EFV/FTC/TDF). When stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤  or >100 000 copies/ml, 9/260 (3.5%) versus 12/134 (9.0%) RPV/FTC/TDF-treated subjects and 3/250 (1.2%) versus 1/142 (0.7%) EFV/FTC/TDF-treated subjects developed resistant isolates, respectively. Pre-existing NRTI- and NNRTI-associated resistance mutations (not related to study drugs) did not impact treatment response to either regimen., Conclusions: Resistance development to RPV/FTC/TDF consisted of NNRTI and NRTI mutations and was more frequent than resistance development to EFV/FTC/TDF through week 96. Emergent resistance after week 48 was infrequent in both arms. Within the RPV/FTC/TDF arm, resistance development was more frequent in subjects with baseline HIV-1 RNA >100 000 copies/ml compared to baseline HIV-1 RNA ≤ 100 000 copies/ml.