Antiretroviral therapy: now "it just works"

Secular trends in opportunistic infections, cancers and mortality in patients with AIDS during the era of modern combination antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to estimate the incidence of, determine risk factors for, and investigate the consequences of opportunistic infections (OIs) and malignancies among patients with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the era of modern combination antiretroviral therapy (cART).

METHODS

Three enrolment periods (1998-2002, 2003-2005 and 2006-2012), corresponding to changes in predominant cART regimens, were compared among 1889 participants enrolled in a prospective cohort study, the Longitudinal Study of Ocular Complications of AIDS (LSOCA). Incidences of AIDS-related OIs and cancers were estimated. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression models were used to determine the effect of demographic and clinical characteristics on OIs and mortality.

RESULTS

Between participants enrolled in the 1998-2002 and 2006-2012 enrolment periods, the incidence of OIs decreased from 27 per 1000 person-years (PY) to 11 per 1000 PY (P < 0.001), and mortality decreased from 41 per 1000 PY to 18 per 1000 PY (P < 0.0001), corresponding to improvements in cART regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in cART regimens led to a progressive decline in the incidence of OIs and mortality between 1999 and 2013 among patients with AIDS in the era of modern cART.

Legal, ethical, and economic implications of breaking down once-daily fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations into their single components for cost reduction

The availability of generic lamivudine in the context of the current economic crisis has raised a new issue in some European countries: breaking up the once-daily fixed-dose antiretroviral combinations (FDAC) of efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine, tenofovir/emtricitabine, or abacavir/lamivudine, in order to administer their components separately, thereby allowing the use of generic lamivudine instead of branded emtricitabine or lamivudine. The legal, ethical, and economic implications of this potential strategy are reviewed, particularly in those patients receiving a once-daily single-tablet regimen. An unfamiliar change in antiretroviral treatment from a successful patient-friendly FDAC into a more complex regimen including separately the components to allow the substitution of one (or some) of them for generic surrogates (in the absence of a generic bioequivalent FDAC) could be discriminatory because it does not guarantee access to equal excellence in healthcare to all citizens. Furthermore, it could violate the principle of non-maleficence by potentially causing harm both at the individual level (hindering adherence and favouring treatment failure and resistance), and at the community level (hampering control of disease transmission and transmission of HIV-1 resistance). Replacing a FDAC with the individual components of that combination should only be permitted when the substituting medication has the same qualitative and quantitative composition of active ingredients, pharmaceutical form, method of administration, dosage and presentation as the medication being replaced, and a randomized study has demonstrated its non-inferiority. Finally, a strict pharma-economic study supporting this change, comparing the effectiveness and the cost of a specific intervention with the best available alternative, should be undertaken before its potential implementation.