Search

Introduction Standard therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug regimens (2DR) has been considered for selected patients in part to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-based three-drug regimens (3DR) versus 2DR of dolutegravir (DTG) + rilpivirine (RPV) or DTG + lamivudine (3TC). Methods All patients in the Spanish VACH cohort switching to INSTI-based 3DR or a 2DR consisting of DTG + RPV or DTG + 3TC between May 2, 2016 and May 15, 2019 were included. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess time to/risk of discontinuation due to treatment failure (TF) (defined as virologic failure [VF], immunologic failure, or disease progression) and adverse events (AEs). Three secondary analyses were performed: (1) in restricting the analysis to patients who were virologically suppressed (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) at switch; (2) matched analysis (2:1, matched by age, sex, number of previous VFs, and line of regimen), and (3) using VF as the primary endpoint in all patients. Results Overall, 5047 3DR and 617 2DR patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics differed between groups; 2DR patients were older, more treatment experienced, and more likely to be virologically suppressed at switch. Time to discontinuation due to TF was significantly shorter for 2DR (P = 0.002). The hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation due to TF on 2DR vs 3DR was 2.33 (P = 0.003). No difference was observed for time to discontinuation (P = 0.908) or risk of discontinuation due to AEs (HR = 0.80; P = 0.488). Results were qualitatively similar in virologically suppressed patients, matched analysis, and for VF. Conclusion In the real world, the risks of discontinuation due to TF and VF were more than two times higher in patients switching to DTG-based 2DR than INSTI-based 3DR, with no difference in discontinuation due to AEs. Plain Language Summary People living with HIV (PLHIV) need lifelong treatment to prevent progression to AIDS. Standard HIV treatments use three different drugs in combination, but these can potentially cause unwanted side effects. Treatments using just two drugs have been developed. These aim to reduce side effects and treat HIV effectively. This study included 5664 participants in Spain who were split into two groups: 5047 participants switched from their old treatment to a three-drug regimen (3DR), and 617 participants switched to a two-drug regimen (2DR). The researchers measured how long it took for the participants to stop taking their treatment because it was not working, or it caused too many side effects. At the end of the study, more than 70% of participants in either group were still taking the same treatment. Of the 30% of participants who stopped treatment because it stopped working, those taking a 2DR stopped sooner than those taking a 3DR. This difference started to appear at about 18 months and got bigger until the study ended, which was 3 years after starting treatment. Participants taking a 2DR were twice as likely to stop treatment because it was not working than those taking a 3DR. There was no difference between the groups for how long it took for participants to stop their treatment because of side effects. These results show that for some PLHIV, the 2DR stopped working sooner than 3DR, without the benefit of fewer side effects.

Background Approximately 20% of newly diagnosed people with HIV (PWH) in the United States have advanced HIV infection, yet the literature on current antiretroviral therapy (ART) options is limited. The discontinuation/modification and effectiveness of common regimens were compared among ART-naïve people with advanced HIV infection (CD4 cell count Methods ART-naïve adults with advanced HIV infection initiating bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) or a boosted darunavir (bDRV)-, dolutegravir (DTG)-, or elvitegravir/cobicistat (EVG/c)-based 3-drug regimen between January 1, 2018, and July 31, 2019, in the OPERA cohort were included. The association between regimen and discontinuation or viral suppression ( Results Overall, 961 PWH were included (416 B/F/TAF, 106 bDRV, 271 DTG, 168 EVG/c); 70% achieved a CD4 cell count ≥200 cells/μL over a 16-month median follow-up. All regimens were associated with a statistically higher likelihood of discontinuation than B/F/TAF (bDRV: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.65; 95% CI, 1.75–4.02; DTG: aHR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.75–3.35; EVG/c: aHR, 3.52; 95% CI, 2.44–5.07). Compared with B/F/TAF, bDRV initiators were statistically less likely to suppress to Conclusions Among people with advanced HIV infection, those initiating B/F/TAF were less likely to discontinue/modify their regimen than those on any other regimen, and more likely to achieve viral suppression compared with those on bDRV but not compared with those on other integrase inhibitors.

Teràpia antiretroviral; Diagnòstic i gestió del VIH; Teràpia amb inhibidors de la proteasa Terapia antirretroviral; Diagnóstico y gestión del VIH; Terapia con inhibidores de la proteasa Antiretroviral therapy; HIV diagnosis and management; Protease inhibitor therapy Background Since 1996, the standard of care (SOC) therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of a backbone of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug combinations (2DC) has been considered for selected patients to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-containing triple therapy (TT) to dolutegravir- (DTG) and/or boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based 2DC in a large Spanish cohort of HIV patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the VACH cohort, a prospective multicentre Spanish cohort of adult HIV patients. All treatment experienced patients initiating a TT of an INSTI combined with two NRTIs or a 2DC-containing DTG and/or a bPI between 01/01/2012 and 01/06/2017 were included. The unit of analysis was patient-regimens. The overall sample analysis was complemented with two sub-analyses. The first sub-analysis focused on patients treated with a backbone plus DTG compared to those treated with DTG+ one other antiretroviral. The second sub-analysis focused on patients with HIV RNA

Background: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. Methods: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). Results: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P=0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P=.03). Conclusions: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. Methods GS-US-540–5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540–5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. Results After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22–.68, P = .001). Conclusions In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Background Discontinuation of first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) may lead to poor outcomes for persons living with HIV (PLWH). While single-tablet regimens (STRs) have been associated with greater persistence compared to multi-tablet regimens (MTRs), few real-world studies have assessed persistence with current guideline-recommended ART regimens. The study aims to assess persistence among treatment-naïve PLWH initiating guideline-recommended ART regimens Methods Longitudinal pharmacy claims were extracted from IQVIA’s US LRx database for PLWH initiating ART between Jan 1, 2016 - Jul 31, 2019 (index period), with the observational period up to Jan 31, 2020. Index date was defined as the date of the first ART claim for STRs, or the date of the last filled drug of 1st set of claims for MTRs. Persistence was measured as the number of days until treatment discontinuation (≥ 90-day gap in therapy) and presented via Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk of discontinuation was assessed via Cox proportional hazards models, with BIC/FTC/TAF used as the reference ART regimen. Results Overall, 90,949 PLWH initiated STRs and 20,737 initiated MTRs. Average (SD) age was 43 (14) years, 75% were male, and 75% had commercial insurance. At 6 months of follow-up, 71% of PLWH initiating STRs and 56% initiating MTRs remained on their ART regimen. The proportion remaining on their index regimen at 6 months of follow-up was 79% for BIC/FTC/TAF, 73% for EVG/COBI/FTC/TAF, 71% for DTG/ABC/3TC, 69% for DTG + FTC/TAF, 67% for EFV/FTC/TDF, 62% for EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, and 38% for DTG + FTC/TDF. Risk of discontinuation was higher for MTRs compared to STRs (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.61 - 1.66). Compared to the referent BIC/FTC/TAF, risk of discontinuation was higher for EVG/COBI/FTC/TAF (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.48 - 1.60), DTG/ABC/3TC (HR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.52, 1.65), DTG + FTC/TAF (HR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.74 - 1.93), EFV/FTC/TDF (HR: 2.31, 95% CI: 2.21 - 2.41), EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF (HR: 2.58, 95% CI: 2.47 - 2.70), and DTG + FTC/TDF (HR: 6.20, 95% CI: 5.83 - 6.59). Table 1. Persistence with ART by regimen for STR and MTR Figure 1. Forest Plot of Hazard Ratios for Treatment Discontinuation Conclusion Among US adult PLWH, STRs were associated with longer persistence on first-line therapy compared to MTRs. Among STRs, persistence was highest for BIC/FTC/TAF. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Background Weight gain in PWH occurred in both naïve and switch studies and is linked to use of integrase inhibitors (INSTIs) with varying associations with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). One hypothesis is that gain associated with TAF when switching from TDF is a result of cessation of TDF-induced weight suppression. Methods The study evaluated weight change in suppressed PWH on INSTI+NRTIs switched from ABC or TDF to TAF. Eligible pts had HIV, were ≥ 18 yrs at index (date of switch), treatment-experienced with known prior regimen, suppressed at index (-12 to +1 mo) and 1 yr, ≥ 6 mo pre-index history, with weight measures at index and 1 yr, no current or pre-index use of protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Univariate comparisons were performed using Χ2 for categorical and t-test for continuous variables; negative binomial model with log link function evaluated risk of gain ≥ 3% of body weight between groups accounting for age, gender, race, body mass index (BMI), CD4. Linear mixed effects model was used to estimate mean weight at index and 1 yr post switch. Results Of 970 pts, 828 (85%) switched from TDF to TAF and 142 (15%) from ABC to TAF. Groups were balanced by race, gender, index BMI [Table 1]. Figures 1a-b describe pre- and post-switch INSTI use. At 1 yr, mean unadjusted weight change was 1.4 kg in TDF and 0.2 in ABC group p=0.039. TDF to TAF had higher proportion of PWH with gain ≥ 3% vs ABC to TAF (40% vs 27% p=0.003); differences in gain ≥ 5% and ≥ 10% were not statistically significant (26% vs 22% p=0.323 and 10% vs 6% p=0.220). Pts who gained ≥ 3% were younger, with greater proportion of females, non-obese, with 1 prior regimen, and prior elvitegravir (EVG) use. In adjusted analysis TDF to TAF had higher risk of gain ≥ 3% vs ABC to TAF [Figure 2]. In sensitivity analysis accounting for EVG or dolutegravir (DTG) use, TDF to TAF also had higher risk of ≥ 3% gain vs ABC to TAF: adjusted risk ratio (aRR)= 1.38 [1.01–1.89] and aRR= 1.42 [1.02–1.97]. Table 1. Baseline (index) characteristics. Figures 1a-b. Distribution of pre switch and post switch INSTI use. Figure 2. Risk of weight gain ≥ 3% of body weight at 1 year post switch accounting for age, gender, race, index BMI, and CD4. Conclusion Switching from TDF to TAF in INSTI-based regimens had a greater risk of weight gain vs ABC to TAF. This difference persisted when accounting for impact of the INSTI agent in the current regimen. These data suggest that differences in weight gain between TAF and TDF are driven by removal of TDF-associated weight suppression. Disclosures Paul Sax, MD, Gilead (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Consultant)Merck (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) Keri N. Althoff, PhD, MPH, Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member) Keri N. Althoff, PhD, MPH, All of Us Study (NIH) (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; MedIQ (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Consultant; TrioHealth (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Advisor or Review Panel member Todd T. Brown, MD, PhD, Gilead (Consultant)Merck (Consultant)Theratechnologies (Consultant)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant) Janna Radtchenko, MBA, Trio Health (Employee) Helena Diaz Cuervo, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Steven Santiago, MD, Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker's Bureau)Janssen (Speaker's Bureau) Graeme Moyle, MD, Theratechnologies (Consultant) Karam Mounzer, MD, Epividian (Advisor or Review Panel member)Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau) Richard Elion, MD, Gilead (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support, Speaker's Bureau)Janssen (Speaker's Bureau)Proteus (Research Grant or Support)ViiV Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Research Grant or Support)

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) are at high risk of developing non-HIV related comorbidities, particularly at older ages. In a retrospective claims database analysis, we compared PLHIV to a matched, non-HIV cohort to assess the prevalence of comorbidities and healthcare costs in PLHIV and the general non-HIV population in Germany. In total, 2,132 adult patients with HIV were identified in the InGef research database with HIV ICD-10 diagnosis within each year from 2011 to 2014. Of these, 1,969 could be matched to a control cohort of 3,938 individuals (1:2 ratio). Matching criteria included age, gender and socio-economic variables. The prevalence of acute renal disease (0.5% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.045), bone fractures due to osteoporosis (6.4% vs. 2.1%, p

Background Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is a relevant variable in the evaluation of health outcomes. Questionnaires based on Classical Test Theory typically require a large number of items to evaluate HRQoL. Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) can be used to reduce tests length while maintaining and, in some cases, improving accuracy. This study aimed at validating a CAT based on Item Response Theory (IRT) for evaluation of generic HRQoL: the CAT-Health instrument. Methods Cross-sectional study of subjects aged over 18 attending Primary Care Centres for any reason. CAT-Health was administered along with the SF-12 Health Survey. Age, gender and a checklist of chronic conditions were also collected. CAT-Health was evaluated considering: 1) feasibility: completion time and test length; 2) content range coverage, Item Exposure Rate (IER) and test precision; and 3) construct validity: differences in the CAT-Health scores according to clinical variables and correlations between both questionnaires. Results 396 subjects answered CAT-Health and SF-12, 67.2% females, mean age (SD) 48.6 (17.7) years. 36.9% did not report any chronic condition. Median completion time for CAT-Health was 81 seconds (IQ range = 59-118) and it increased with age (p < 0.001). The median number of items administered was 8 (IQ range = 6-10). Neither ceiling nor floor effects were found for the score. None of the items in the pool had an IER of 100% and it was over 5% for 27.1% of the items. Test Information Function (TIF) peaked between levels -1 and 0 of HRQoL. Statistically significant differences were observed in the CAT-Health scores according to the number and type of conditions. Conclusions Although domain-specific CATs exist for various areas of HRQoL, CAT-Health is one of the first IRT-based CATs designed to evaluate generic HRQoL and it has proven feasible, valid and efficient, when administered to a broad sample of individuals attending primary care settings.