Suchergebnisse

IntroductionAssessing virological response of four‐drugs antiretroviral regimen that include raltegravir (RAL) in naïve patients with high viral load (>500,000 copies/mL) selected from a multicentre Italian database.MethodsNaïve patients with HIV RNA>500,000 copies/mL, who began standard antiretroviral regimens either based on non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) or boosted‐PI (PI/r), or a standard regimen plus RAL between 2008 and 2013 were analyzed. Observation was censored at 12 months and the percentage of patients who achieved a viral load below the limit of detection (BLD) was calculated. Virological failure was defined as two consecutive viral loads>40 copies/mL.ResultsOverall, 179 patients were included (13% with primary HIV infection (PHI), and 42.5% with AIDS diagnosis). Of them, 156 started standard three‐drugs antiretroviral regimen (75.6% PI/r‐based, 24.4% NNRTI‐based. Among patients with PHI, 23 patients (12.8%), 6 (25%) started a four‐drugs antiretroviral regimen containing both RAL and PI/r. Patients' characteristics were as follows: males 74%, median age 42 years (IQR 35–51), sexually transmission 75.1%, median CD4 count 156 cells/µL (IQR 47–368) and median HIV‐RNA 6.1 log10 copies/mL (IQR 5.8–6.4). 91 of 179 patients (50.8%) reached BLD viral load during the twelve months of observation. Three patients (1.7%) who began regimens PI/r‐based with three‐drugs had virological rebound after reaching BLD viral load. By use of survival analysis, we show that those patients who added RAL to the standard regimen have reached the primary end point faster (mean 8.4 months (95% CI 7.2–9.6) vs 11.4 (95% CI 11.0–11.8) in PI group and 10.3 (95% CI 9.4–11.1) in NNRTI group; p<0.001, Figure 1). In the adjusted analysis, the choice of a standard regimen versus a four‐drugs regimen was driven only by higher baseline viral load (OR. 9.05; 95% CI 2.41–37.41; p=0.001).ConclusionsOnly half of the naïve patients who began antiretroviral therapy having >500,000 copies/mL HIV‐RNA had virological success at 12 months. The success was reached faster using the RAL‐containing four‐drugs regimen, suggesting that strengthening the initial regimen could be an option in patients with very high viral load to improve virological response.

BackgroundWe assessed the virological response of DRV/r‐based dual therapy in drug‐experienced patients included in the Italian antiretroviral resistance database (ARCA).Materials and MethodsPatients included in the study were treated with DRV/r in association with raltegravir (RAL), etravirine (ETV) or maraviroc (MAR) following treatment failure(s) and with a resistance test and at least one follow‐up visit available. Observation was censored at last visit under dual therapy and survival analysis and proportional hazard models were used, taking virological failure (confirmed >50 c/mL HIV‐RNA) as the end‐point.ResultsOf the total 221 patients included, 149 (67.4%) started DRV/r with RAL, 45 (20.4%) with ETV, 27 (12.2%) with MAR. Patients characteristics at the start of dual regimen were as follows: mean number of previous regimens, nine (IQR: 5–13); non‐B subtype, 17 (7.7%); median CD4 count, 347 (IQR: 246–544); undetectable viral load, 74 (33.5%). Full DRV/r resistance was detected in one (0.5%, HIV‐DB interpretation system), 13 (5.9%, ANRS) and 17 patients (7.7%, Rega). 69 virological failures (31.2%) were observed during follow‐up. At survival analysis, the overall proportion of failure was 29.2% at one year and 33.8% at two years. The proportion of failure was lower in patients starting with undetectable versus detectable viral load (13.3% and 25.2% versus 37.4% and 38.8% at one and two years, respectively, p=0.001 for both analyses) and in patients treated with DRV 600 BID versus 800 QD (HR: 0, 56; 95% CI 0.31–0.99; p<0.05). By regimen, patients treated with DRV/r‐RAL showed a non‐significant lower proportion of failure (27.7% at one year, 32.0% at two years) if compared with DRV/r‐MAR (35.9%, 47.1%) and DRV/r‐ETV (34.1%, 34.1% at one and two years). In the adjusted proportional model, no significant difference among the three regimens was detected. A significant lower risk of failure was associated with higher overall GSS (HIV‐DB HR: 0.53, 95% CI 0.32–0.88, p=0.014; Rega 0.60, 0.40‐0.88, p<0.01; ANRS 0.55, 0.34–0.90, p=0.017), while a higher risk of failure was associated with detectable HIV‐RNA (3.02, 1.70–5.72, p<0.001).ConclusionsAmong experienced patients, the best candidates to dual‐therapy regimens including DRV/r are those with undetectable viral load and higher GSS. The association with RAL is the most commonly used but no clear advantage with respect to ETV or MAR was observed in our dataset, possibly due to the limited sample size.

BackgroundTo assess efficacy and safety of treatment simplification to co‐formulated Rilpivirine/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir (RPV/FTC/TDF) in virologically suppressed patients.Materials and MethodsEndpoints of the analysis were: (a) treatment discontinuation of RPV/FTC/TDF for any reasons and (b) occurrence of virological failure (VF) defined as confirmed HIV‐RNA >50 cp/mL).ResultsOverall, 508 patients from five Italian reference centres were included: male gender 71.9%; median age 47 years (IQR 40–52); IVDU as HIV risk 17.7%; HCV‐AB positive 23.4%; CDC‐C stage 17.5%; median CD4 cells/µL at switch 655 (IQR: 487–843); median number of previous regimens three (IQR 2–7). In a median follow‐up of 196 days (IQR: 84–287), 31 patients discontinued RPV/FTC/TDF (virological failure n=5, hypersensitivity reaction n=2, GI‐toxicity n=6, liver toxicity n=1, CNS‐toxicity n=4, kidney toxicity n=5, patient's decision/lost in follow‐up n=10). Moreover, VF occurred in eight patients (five discontinued regimen, while three remained on RPV/FTC/TDF). At survival analysis, the probabilities of treatment discontinuation or VF were 5.5% and 1.2% at 6 months, 13.2% and 2.8% at 12 months, respectively (Figure 1). At adjusted Cox model, factors associated with discontinuation were: <200 CD4 cells/µL at switch (HR 5.3, 95% CI 1.1–25.9, p=0.038), number of pre‐switch regimens (for each extra regimen: HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01–1.10, p=0.024), male gender (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2–0.9, p=0.032). Only the number of pre‐switch regimens was associated with VF (HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21, p=0.001). Type of pre‐switch regimen was not associated with discontinuation or failure, but no VF was observed if switching from co‐formulated Efavirenz/FTC/TDF or from Raltegravir containing regimens. Switching to RPV/FTC/TDF led to significant improvement in fasting lipids levels: the decrease in cholesterol, LDL and triglycerides was observed switching from any regimen, but was more marked from boosted PI. In contrast, a moderate increase in transaminase (switching from all regimens except NNRTI‐containing) and creatinine (except from TDF‐containing regimens) were observed.ConclusionsOur data suggest that switching to RPV/FTC/TDF in virologically suppressed patients could be a good strategy with low risk of virological failure or treatment discontinuation; the switch is also associated with significant improvement in lipid profile.

BackgroundTo assess the role of drugs used in dual therapy (DT), as cART simplification, over the risk of treatment failure.Materials and MethodsPatients starting DT regimen composed by a boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r): darunavir (DRV/r), lopinavir (LPVr) or atazanavir (ATV/r) plus a second drug: raltegravir (RAL), maraviroc (MRV) etravirine (ETR), lamivudine (3TC) or tenofovir (TDF), this one generally used in HBV co‐infected patients, were included. The effect of each drug as well as other clinical and virological cofactors over treatment failure was assessed using survival analysis.ResultsOverall, 480 patients from six reference Italian centres were included: all switched to DT with HIV‐RNA <500 cp/µL, 376 of them at <50 cp/µL. Patients who switched at <50 cp/µL showed a significant lower risk of treatment failure (13.3% versus 23.3% at 1 year and 28.0% versus 44.6% at 3 years, p=0.005), thus the analysis was focused on this subgroup. Among the patients who switched at <50 cp/µL, the proportion of drug used in DT was: DRV/r 63.0%, RAL 53.7%, ETR 19.4%, ATV/r 18.4%, MRV 17.3%, LPV/r 12.8%, TDF 6.4% and 3TC 5.9%; DRV/r‐RAL was the most widely used combination: 32.5%. Treatment failure was observed in 78 patients, of whom 38 virological and 35 for toxicity/intolerance, one patient died during follow‐up and four patients interrupted for personal decision with undetectable HIV‐RNA. At Cox Model, adjusted by gender, age, non‐Italian origin, AIDS diagnosis, time on cART, number of regimens, CD4 nadir, baseline CD4, all the drugs had a positive effect on probability of failure (Figure), however the effect was significant for DRV/r (HR:0.21, 95% CI 0.07–0.59, p=0.03), ATV/r (0.30, 0.09–0.97, p=0.044) and RAL (0.37, 0.15–0.93, p=0.034); higher CD4 count at baseline was also associated with lower risk of failure while number of previous regimens with a higher risk. Moreover, ATV/r was found significant associated with significant higher risk of failure by toxicity (as well as LPV/r) but lower risk of virological failure, while both 3TC and RAL with significant lower risk of toxicity.ConclusionsOur analysis suggest that using PI/r‐based DL is highly effective if switching from HIV‐RNA <50 cp/µL; DL should be used with caution in patients with low CD4 count and longer history of treatment; DRV/r is the best compromise among PI/r, ATV/r is effective but is associate with frequent interruption by toxicity; RAL showed high tolerability so that its use is related to the lowest risk of failure as second drug.