Search

Background: Lamivudine + dolutegravir maintenance dual therapy (DT) could be less effective than 3-drug therapy (TT) in the context of resistance-associated mutations to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). The ARCA database was queried to test this hypothesis with a trial emulation strategy. Methods: People with HIV taking 2 NRTIs plus a protease inhibitor or a non-NRTI who switched to DT or dolutegravir-based TT were followed up from the first HIV RNA <50 copies/mL (baseline) to virologic failure (VF; ie, 2 consecutive HIV RNA ≥50 copies/mL or 1 HIV RNA ≥200 copies/mL). Those switching to DT within 6 months were assigned to the treatment arm and all other patients to the control arm. Each participant was also cloned, assigned to the opposite strategy, and censored at the time of deviation from that strategy. Using inverse probability of censoring weight Cox regression models, we calculated hazard ratios of VF for DT vs TT stratified for the presence of resistance-associated mutations. Results: Overall 626 people were analyzed: 204 with DT and 422 with TT (73% men; mean age, 44 years). Ten and 31 VFs occurred with DT and TT, respectively, over a median 5.8 years. When compared with a fully active TT, the DT had similar efficacy (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI,. 29-2.61; P =. 812) when full susceptibility was confirmed at historical genotype. When previous M184V/I was present in both groups, the risk of VF was higher for DT vs TT but was not statistically significant (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.06; 95% CI,. 45-20.84; P =. 252). Conclusions: DT was not associated with a significantly higher risk of VF than dolutegravir-based TT.

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) among people poorly represented in clinical trials and potentially at higher risk of suboptimal response to ART. Methods: Observational cohort study on persons with HIV (PWH) enrolled in ICONA who started BIC/FTC/TAF as initial therapy or as switching regimen while virologically suppressed. Primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TF): new AIDS/death or virological failure (VF) or discontinuation for toxicity/failure. Secondary endpoints were time to treatment discontinuation for toxicity (TDT) and to VF. Groups of interest were those aged >50 years, female sex, and advanced HIV disease at first ART start. Probability of the events overall and according to groups and adjusted HR for every endpoint were calculated by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models. Results: Nine hundred and thirty-three ART-naive and 1655 ART-experienced PWH initiated BIC/FTC/TAF. Over a median follow-up of 69.8 weeks, 89 (9.6%) PWH at their first regimen experienced TF. PWH aged >50 years had 1.83-fold (95% CI: 1.19-2.83) higher risk of TF; PWH with advanced HIV disease had 2.21-fold (95% CI: 1.53-3.82) higher risk; there were no differences in TF according to sex.Over a median follow-up of 146.3 weeks, 109 (6.6%) out of 1655 switching PWH experienced TF; no differences were found in the risk of TF, TDT and VF according to groups of interest. Conclusions: Overall, BIC/FTC/TAF is well tolerated and virologically effective in the real-world scenario for ART-naive and -experienced PWH. Older ART-naive PWH and those with advanced HIV disease may respond less well as the burden of diseases might compromise treatment efficacy.

Cabotegravir and rilpivirine are the first drugs to be approved as injectable therapy to treat individuals with HIV. Despite encouraging results, the guidelines specify strict criteria for eligibility that could limit the feasibility of this strategy. We collected the clinical data of HIV-positive patients who were being treated at a single, third-level center in Italy. All patients were on stable therapy and showed suppressed viral load on their most recent analyses. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the clinical and viro-immunological characteristics of this population and excluded patients who had previous virological failures, resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) to rilpivirine or integrase inhibitors in the historical genotype, hepatitis B infection, absence of previous genotypes, and the coexistence of HIV-subtype A and obesity. Our aim was to evaluate the proportion of patients who could be eligible for switching to this strategy. one thousand seven hundred fifty-two patients were eligible. One hundred and forty-eight were excluded because of a detectable viral load. With regard to the exclusion criteria, 48 patients had coinfection with hepatitis B virus, and 744 had a history of previous virological failures. Of the 896 patients with at least one genotypic resistance test, 161 had one or more RAMs to rilpivirine and 3 had RAMs to cabotegravir. None of the patients presented the combination of obesity and the A viral subtype. Overall, 31.2% of the patients were ineligible for cabotegravir–rilpivirine, and the proportion increased to 47.3% when we considered only patients with all available information concerning resistance tests. Approximately half of our cohort of patients did not fulfill the criteria and even more patients were potentially ineligible for cabotegravir–rilpivirine due to the lack of genotypic resistance tests. Also, fertile women had to be excluded due to the lack of data about this combination during pregnancy

Two hundred two people living with HIV (PLWH) selected from outpatients at the Infectious Disease Institute, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, in Rome (Italy) were consecutively enrolled from May to July 2021. We used an anonymous telephone questionnaire to investigate opinions of PLWH about combined antiretroviral (ARV) therapy and long-acting (LA) formulations of ARVs. All invited participants completed the questionnaire (100%). We found that most PLWH evaluated taking HIV pills for the rest of their life as a continuous, but undemanding commitment (61.4%; n = 124), although they were willing to stop the daily intake of HIV drugs (78.2%, n = 158). Moreover, most PLWH were unaware of the existence of LA therapies at the time of the investigation (60.4%, n = 122). Almost half the PLWH evaluated the need for injections in the hospital as an obstacle (51.4%, n = 104). Regarding the preference between monthly injections and taking pills everyday, most PLWH (68.8%, n = 139) stated that the injection was more advantageous than pills even if they had some pain/swelling at the injection site. The concern about LA therapy indicated most by PLWH was the possible lower efficacy of the drug (83.7%, n = 169). Regarding the possible benefits of LA therapy, those reported most by PLWH were feeling freer because they did not have to remember to take pills everyday (68,8%, n = 139). In conclusion, to date, PLWH in our cohort seem willing to accept LA therapy, but still show some concern about the efficacy of the new therapy and the obligation to come to the hospital to receive it. Thus, clinicians must take into account the needs of their patients and help them overcome their concerns to facilitate the transition to this new therapeutic modality. Clinical Trial Registration Number ID: 2424.

Objectives We aimed to investigate and compare the efficacy and safety of two dolutegravir-based two-drug regimens: dolutegravir + lamivudine versus dolutegravir + rilpivirine. Methods We analysed a cohort of people living with HIV (PLWHIV) switching to dolutegravir + lamivudine or dolutegravir + rilpivirine. We excluded from the analysis PLWHIV with no available pre-switch genotypic test or with a known resistance mutation to one of the study drugs. We evaluated incidence of virological failure (VF) and treatment discontinuation (TD), as well as changes in immunological and metabolic parameters. Results We enrolled 592 PLWHIV: 306 in the lamivudine group and 286 in the rilpivirine group. We observed nine VFs in the lamivudine group [1.4 VF per 100 patient-years of follow-up (PYFU)] and four VFs in the rilpivirine group (0.6 VF per 100 PYFU). Subsequent genotypic analysis showed no acquired resistance-associated mutations in those experiencing VF. Estimated probability of maintaining virological suppression at 144 and 240 weeks were 96.6% and 92.7%, respectively, in the lamivudine group and 98.7% and 98.7%, respectively, in the rilpivirine group (log-rank P = 0.172). The estimated probability of maintaining study regimen at Week 240 was 82.3% in the lamivudine group and 85.9% in the rilpivirine group (log-rank P = 0.018). We observed a significant improvement in CD4+ cell count at Week 240 in the lamivudine group (P = 0.012); in the rilpivirine group we registered a significant increase in CD4/CD8 ratio (P = 0.014). Conclusions Both analysed strategies are effective and safe as switch strategies in clinical practice, with a low incidence of VF and a favourable immunological recovery, even in the long term.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine (DOR) is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) approved for HIV-1 infection treatment. Because of its genetic barrier, DOR appears to be a good alternative in switch strategies compared to other NNRTI. Our aim was to evaluate the percentage of people living with HIV (PLWHIV) followed in our center who could be eligible to a DOR-based regimen. METHODS: We collected data from all treatment-experienced PLWHIV, never exposed to DOR and with a demonstrated virological suppression. We analyzed previous genotypic analyses, clinical history, and previous exposure to NNRTIs. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 653 patients, whose characteristics are shown in Table 1. 59% of them presented no resistance mutation (RAM) at genotypic analysis. The most common DOR-related RAM were V106A, Y181V, and Y188L. We also analyzed RAM that can possibly interfere with combination therapy (mostly K65R and M184V). In the end, 81.8% of our patients results to be eligible for a DOR-based therapy regimen. CONCLUSIONS: DOR represents a good option for switch strategies in virological suppressed PLWHIV. It seems to have a higher genetic barrier and a lower risk for resistance mutation development compared to other NNRTI. In our cohort, we found 81.8% of patients who could be eligible for a regimen containing DOR and almost 2/3 of patients who can be treated with the fixed-dose combination DOR/3TC/TDF.

We tried to investigate and compare the safety of a dual therapy (DT) with dolutegravir+lamivudine (DTG +3TC) versus bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF). We performed a retrospective analysis in a cohort of virologically suppressed HIV+ pts switching to DT or BIC in our center. Primary endpoint was to evaluate time to treatment discontinuation (TD) for any cause. Survival analysis was employed to determine time to TD and its predictors were analyzed by Cox regression. Moreover, we collected viro-immunological parameters as well as markers of renal function and lipid profile at baseline and after 24 weeks and assessed changes through nonparametric tests. We analyzed 476 patients: 350 starting a DT and 126 starting BIC. Overall, we registered 21 TD: 15 in the DT group during 170 patient-years of follow-up (PYFU) (a rate of 8.8 per 100 PYFU) and 6 in the BIC one during 48 PYFU (12.5 per 100 PYFU). Estimated probabilities of maintaining study regimen after 24 weeks were 95.5% [standard deviation (SD) ±1.1] in the DT group and 94.9% (SD ±2.0) in the BIC group, with no significant differences between them (log-rank p = .639). Concerning metabolic profile, in the DT group, after 24 weeks, triglycerides decreased significantly (median change -14 mg/dL, p < .001), whereas high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased (+3 mg/dL, p = .031). In the BIC group, meanwhile, we observed a significant decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol after 24 weeks (-13 mg/dL, p = .026). Both optimization strategies showed high tolerability in the short term in experienced pts, with few differences between them. Further studies are needed to properly assess the matter.

N/A not avalaible

N/A Not Available