Suchergebnisse

ObjectivesPrimary ‐ evaluate the improvement in psychiatric symptoms attributable to changing the antiretroviral drug responsible for such symptoms to nevirapine (NVP). The tools used were a sleep test (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index [PSQI]) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Secondary ‐ determine the neuropsychiatric disorders and evaluate adherence to treatment and quality of life.MethodsProspective, observational post‐authorisation study that included HIV‐1 patients from 36 Spanish hospitals who satisfied the following criteria: age over 18 years; change of antiretroviral treatment to NVP due to CNS side‐effects; a PSQI score >5 (significant sleep disturbance); a HADS score ≥10 on the day of starting NVP treatment; and no psychoactive drug treatment initiated during the 6 weeks prior to starting treatment with NVP. Other data gathered from the patients included clinical and demographic details and administration of the Epworth somnolence scale, the Medical Outcomes Study‐short form 30 items (MOS‐SF‐30) quality of life scale and the Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ). Evaluations were performed at baseline, 1 and 3 months after the change.Results129 patients were included (73.6% men; mean age, 43.2 ± 9.8 years; 36.5% homosexual, 30.2% heterosexual; 28.7% drug users; 38% AIDS; 33.3% co‐infection). The drug changed was efavirenz in 89.9% of cases. The reason for the change was sleep disturbances in 75.2%, anxiety in 65.1%, other psychiatric disturbances in 38.7%, attention disturbances in 31%, and other reasons in 31%; a mean of 2.4 neuropsychiatric disturbances were detected in each patient. CD4 rose from 582 ± 261 to 619 ± 299 (non‐significant difference). Only three patients had developed an HIV viral load at the end of the study. The differences produced by the change are shown in Table 1. 29 patients withdrew from the study, for the following reasons: 9 for NVP‐related toxicity (7 cases of rash and 2 of hepatitis); 7 for loss to follow‐up; 4 for voluntary withdrawal; 9 for other reasons.












Baseline (n=129)
1 month (n=100)
3 months (n=100)
p value, baseline‐1 mo
p value, baseline‐3 mo




Percentage of patients with a PSQI score >5, suggestive of a significant alteration of sleep
96.9%
60.7%
44%
<0.001
<0.001


Percentage of patients with clinical problems of anxiety and depression, HADS
86.8%
46.4%
32%
<0.001
<0.001


Mean score and percentage of patients with normal somnolence, Epworth scale
8.3±4.7/(65.9%)
6±4 (89.3%)
5.5±3.6 (91%)
<0.001/0.001
<0.001/0.001


Percentage of compliant patients, SMAQ
65.9%
75.9%
81%
0.036
0.013


Percentage of patients with a good quality of life, MOS‐SF‐30
57.5±18.9%
69.8±19.7%
73.6±16.8%
<0.001
<0.001




DiscussionThe study shows that the change to NVP from a drug that is causing neuropsychiatric disturbances (principally, efavirenz) is effective in resolving those disturbances, with an improvement in all the parameters studied (quality of sleep, anxiety/depression and somnolence). This leads to better adherence and a better quality of life with no detriment to their immunological and virological control.

Antiretroviral treatment simplification with darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy maintains sustained HIV viremia suppression in clinical trials. However, data about the efficacy of this strategy in routine clinical practice is still limited, and no direct comparison between darunavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir has been performed to date. We retrospectively studied all HIV‐1‐infected subjects who initiated monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir while having plasma VL<50 c/mL, and had at least 1 subsequent follow‐up visit in our clinic. When two consecutive PI‐monotherapy regimens were used, each regimen was considered separately. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who maintained virological suppression (HIV‐1 VL <50 c/mL) through follow‐up. Virological failure was defined as at least two consecutive HIV‐1 VL >50 c/mL. We also evaluated other reasons for treatment discontinuation. Analyses were performed considering all regimens (full dataset analysis) either as "on treatment" or as "treatment switch equals failure". Five hundred and seventy‐three PI‐monotherapy regimens corresponding to 520 subjects were included, 262 with darunavir/ritonavir and 311 with lopinavir/ritonavir. Medians (IQR) follow‐up were 50 (26.3–107.6) and 85.6 (36.9–179.1) weeks for subjects on darunavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir, respectively (p<0.001). Overall, 67 (11.7%) subjects experienced virological failure, 23 (8.7%) were on darunavir/ritonavir and 42 (13.5%) were on lopinavir/ritonavir (p=0.796). Two hundred and three (77.5%) patients on darunavir/ritonavir and 154 (49.5%) on lopinavir/ritonavir maintained virological suppression in the "treatment switch equals failure" (p=0.002). Other reasons for treatment discontinuation were gastrointestinal toxicity and dyslipidemia in 7.2% and 5.9% of cases, respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicities and dyslipidemia leading to treatment discontinuation were more frequent in patients on lopinavir/ritonavir (10.6% and 10.3%, respectively) than in patients on darunavir/ritonavir (3.1% and 0.8%, respectively). Monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir as simplification strategy appears to be effective and safe in subjects with virological suppression in clinical practice. Virological efficacy seems to be similar between regimens. However, rates of discontinuation due to toxicities were higher in subjects on lopinavir/ritonavir than darunavir/ritonavir.

Purpose of the studyFew clinical trials have compared non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and ritonavir‐boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) as initial combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) for HIV‐1‐infected patients with high plasma viral load (pVL), and non‐conclusive results have been reported. We compared the effectiveness between NNRTI and PI/r as first‐line cART for HIV‐1‐infected patients with high pVL.MethodsObservational retrospective study of 664 consecutive treatment‐naïve HIV‐1‐infected patients with pVL (HIV‐1 RNA) >100,000 copies/mL who initiated NNRTI or PI/r‐based cART between 2000–2010 in three University hospitals. Only currently preferred or alternative regimens in clinical guidelines were included. Primary endpoint: percentage of therapeutic failures at week 48. Virologic failure was defined as: a) lack of virologic response (<1 log RNA HIV‐1 decrease in first 3 months); b) RNA HIV‐1 >50 c/mL at week 48; c) confirmed rebound >50 c/ml after a previous value <50 c/mL. Intent‐to‐treat (ITT noncompleter=failure) and on‐treatment (OT) analyses were performed.Results62% of patients initiated NNRTI‐regimens (83% efavirenz) and 38% PI/r‐regimens (62% lopinavir/). Baseline characteristics: male 83%; median age 39 yrs; median CD4 count: 212/µL (NNRTI 232 vs PI/r 177, p=0.028); pVL 5.83 log10 c/mL (NNRTI 5.43 vs PI/r 5.55, p=0.007); AIDS 24% (NNRTI 21% vs PI/r 29%, p=0.015). NRTI backbones were tenofovir plus 3TC or FTC in 72%. The percentage of therapeutic failure was higher in the PI/r group (ITT NC=F 26% vs 18%, p=0.012) with no differences in virologic failures (PI/r 5%, NNRTI 6%, p=0.688). The rate of treatment changes due to toxicity and/or voluntary discontinuations was higher in the PI/r group (15% vs 8%, p=0.008). A multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, CD4 count, VL and AIDS showed NNRTI vs PI/r as the only variable associated with treatment response (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.88). Median pVL and rate of resistance at virologic failure were higher in patients receiving NNRTI (3.97 vs 2.49 log copies/mL, p<0.001 and 62% vs 12%, p=0.004, respectively).ConclusionsInitial NNRTI‐regimens showed higher effectiveness compared with PI/r‐regimens in HIV‐1‐infected patients with high pVL, although virologic failure rates were low and comparable. Resistance emergence was more frequent and pVL higher in patients failing NNRTI. However, more patients initiating PI/r‐based regimens changed or discontinued therapy.