Antiretroviral resistance at virological failure in the NEAT 001/ANRS 143 trial: raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir or tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir as first-line ART

Risk of viral failure after simplification therapy without using integrase inhibitors compared with maintenance of triple antiretroviral therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral drug simplification is a strategy to reduce drug exposure and improve treatment adherence. Nowadays, dolutegravir plus lamivudine is the most preferred regimen, which might lead in the future with problems related to drug resistance or drug intolerance. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety of HAART simplification without integrase inhibitors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Embase and Medline databases to include clinical trials and observational studies published between 2008 and March 2024. The studies focused on HIV-positive individuals with suppressed viral load who either simplified their treatment to dual therapy without integrase inhibitors or continued triple therapy. The primary outcome of interest was the likelihood of viral failure within 48 weeks.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included, with a total of 1,977 patients. Boosted Protease Inhibitors (PI) were the core of antiretroviral simplification therapy. The simplification group did not show an increased risk of virological failure, with a pooled RR in 48 weeks of 1.29 (0.61‒2.73, I² = 51 %) when compared to control group. Boosted protease inhibitors were preferred combined with lamivudine, nevirapine, efavirenz, and maraviroc). Only maraviroc plus boosted PI combination was associated with a higher risk of virological failure with an RR of 4.49 (1.99‒10.11).

CONCLUSION

Simplification therapy with boosted PI plus lamivudine or non-nucleoside transcriptase reverse inhibitors was a safe strategy and not associated with a higher risk of virological failure. This approach might be an alternative to dolutegravir-based simplification regimens if needed.

Influence of UGT1A1 and SLC22A6 polymorphisms on the population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of raltegravir in HIV-infected adults: a NEAT001/ANRS143 sub-study

Using concentration-time data from the NEAT001/ARNS143 study (single sample at week 4 and 24), we determined raltegravir pharmacokinetic parameters using nonlinear mixed effects modelling (NONMEM v.7.3; 602 samples from 349 patients) and investigated the influence of demographics and SNPs (SLC22A6 and UGT1A1) on raltegravir pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Demographics and SNPs did not influence raltegravir pharmacokinetics and no significant pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships were observed. At week 96, UGT1A1*28/*28 was associated with lower virological failure (p = 0.012), even after adjusting for baseline CD4 count (p = 0.048), but not when adjusted for baseline HIV-1 viral load (p = 0.082) or both (p = 0.089). This is the first study to our knowledge to assess the influence of SNPs on raltegravir pharmacodynamics. The lack of a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship is potentially an artefact of raltegravir's characteristic high inter and intra-patient variability and also suggesting single time point sampling schedules are inadequate to thoroughly assess the influence of SNPs on raltegravir pharmacokinetics.

Two-Drug Regimens for HIV-Current Evidence, Research Gaps and Future Challenges

During the last 30 years, antiretroviral treatment (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection has been continuously evolving. Since 1996, three-drug regimens (3DR) have been standard-of-care for HIV treatment and are based on a protease inhibitor (PI) or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). The effectiveness of first-generation 3DRs allowed a dramatic increase in the life expectancy of HIV-infected patients, although it was associated with several side effects and ART-related toxicities. The development of novel two-drug regimens (2DRs) started in the mid-2000s in order to minimize side effects, reduce drug-drug interactions and improve treatment compliance. Several clinical trials compared 2DRs and 3DRs in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients and showed the non-inferiority of 2DRs in terms of efficacy, which led to 2DRs being used as first-line treatment in several clinical scenarios, according to HIV clinical guidelines. In this review, we summarize the current evidence, research gaps and future prospects of 2DRs.

Dual therapy with dolutegravir plus boosted protease inhibitor as maintenance or salvage therapy in highly experienced people living with HIV

Real-world experience with dolutegravir (DTG) plus boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) as a two-drug regimen is limited for highly experienced HIV-positive patients with virological failure or intolerance to antiretroviral therapy. Patients receiving DTG plus bPI between September 2016 and June 2019 at 15 designated hospitals for HIV care in Taiwan were retrospectively included in this study. A standardised case record form was used to collect clinical data. The primary endpoint was virological response, defined as achieving or maintaining plasma HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL at Week 48. A total of 77 patients were included; 58 (75.3%) had documented genotypic resistance to 1-4 antiretroviral classes. The most commonly used PI was darunavir (87.0%; 67/77). Seven patients (9.1%) had no virological data at Week 48, including three with loss to follow-up, one severe hyperlipidaemia, one renal failure and cardiovascular disease, one superimposed HBV infection and one death from anal cancer. The virological response rate increased from 59.7% at baseline to 90.9% at Week 24 and 85.7% at Week 48. The only patient (1.3%) with virological failure at Week 48 had poor adherence and baseline low-level resistance to darunavir with resistance-associated mutations at M46L, I50V and V82A. Compared with baseline, mean total cholesterol increased by 20.1 mg/dL and weight by 2.8 kg at Week 48, while the estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased by 14.4 mL/min/1.73m² (both P < 0.05). We conclude that a two-drug regimen containing DTG plus bPI was effective in highly-experienced HIV-positive patients, but metabolic impact and weight gain should be closely monitored.

Factors associated with the emergence of integrase resistance mutations in patients failing dual or triple integrase inhibitor-based regimens in a French national survey

BACKGROUND

Successful 2-drug regimens (2DRs) for HIV were made possible by the availability of drugs combining potency and tolerability with a high genetic barrier to resistance. How these deal with resistance development/re-emergence, compared with 3DRs, is thus of paramount importance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A national survey including patients who were either naive or experienced with any 2DR or 3DR but failing integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-containing regimens [two consecutive plasma viral load (VL) values >50 copies/mL] was conducted between 2014 and 2019. Genotypic resistance tests were interpreted with the v28 ANRS algorithm.

RESULTS

Overall, 1104 patients failing any INSTI-containing regimen (2DRs, n = 207; 3DRs, n = 897) were analysed. Five hundred and seventy-seven (52.3%) patients were infected with a B subtype and 527 (47.3%) with non-B subtypes. Overall, 644 (58%) patients showed no known integrase resistance mutations at failure. In multivariate analysis, factors associated with the emergence of at least one integrase mutation were: high VL at failure (OR = 1.24 per 1 log10 copies/mL increase); non-B versus B subtype (OR = 1.75); low genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) (OR = 0.10 for GSS = 2 versus GSS = 0-0.5); and dolutegravir versus raltegravir (OR = 0.46). Although 3DRs versus 2DRs reached statistical significance in univariate analysis (OR = 0.59, P = 0.007), the variable is not retained in the final model.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is one of the largest studies characterizing integrase resistance in patients failing any INSTI-containing 2DR or 3DR in routine clinical care and reveals factors associated with emergence of integrase resistance that should be taken into consideration in clinical management. No difference was evidenced between patients receiving a 2DR or a 3DR.

Two's a Company, Three's a Crowd: A Review of Initiating or Switching to a Two-Drug Antiretroviral Regimen in Treatment-Naïve and Treatment-Experienced Patients Living with HIV-1

INTRODUCTION

As HIV has become a manageable chronic condition, a renewed and increased interest in challenging traditional three-drug HIV therapies and moving toward two-drug regimens (2DR) for initial or maintenance treatment in people living with HIV (PLWH) has developed. As PLWH are living longer, continual advancements in antiretroviral regimens have been a focus to provide optimal life-long therapy options. Although early studies may have shown poor outcomes in virologic suppression with 2DR, newer studies and treatment options have emerged to show promise in the management of HIV. The purpose of this review is to evaluate current literature and assess the efficacy of two-drug (2DR) antiretroviral therapy in treatment-naïve and -experienced people living with HIV.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed between January 2009 to January 2020, using EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and bibliographies. Combinations of the following search terms were used: HIV-1 infection, antiretroviral therapy, dual therapy, two-drug regimen, two-drug therapy, two-drug regimen, and 2DR. Included studies were those in the adult population with at least one active comparator, outcomes assessing HIV-1 RNA viral load while on treatment, and written in English.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies were included, 13 where 2DRs were evaluated as initial therapy (3 studies with extension data) and 15 where 2DRs were evaluated as maintenance or switch therapy (2 studies with extension data).

CONCLUSION

Although 2DRs may not be appropriate in all patient populations, they are being utilized more frequently and have the potential to reduce costs, adverse effects, and drug interactions.

Management of Advanced HIV Disease

Great progress has been made in caring for persons with human immunodeficiency virus. However, a significant proportion of individuals still present to care with advanced disease and a low CD4 count. Careful considerations for selection of antiretroviral therapy as well as close monitoring for opportunistic infections and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome are vitally important in providing care for such individuals.

New Strategies of ARV: the Road to Simplification

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Simplification of antiretroviral therapy is a strategy aiming to reduce pill burden, drug interactions, and toxicity. This review focuses on the most recent and important studies evaluating a reduction on the number of drugs for HIV treatment, both in naive and virologically suppressed patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Interesting studies have been performed in the past years testing dual therapy and monotherapy, with variable rates of virological control. Novel therapeutics like immunotherapy or long-acting antiretrovirals can also be considered for simplification. Reducing the number of drugs for HIV treatment can be an option for selected patients. Current available evidence favors dual therapy over monotherapy. Future research should seek to identify the best candidates for simplification.

Barrier to Resistance of Dolutegravir in Two-Drug Combinations

A major concern when using two-drug anti-HIV regimens is the risk of viral resistance. However, no techniques to evaluate the barrier to resistance of two-drug combinations in vitro have been reported. We evaluated the emergence of drug-resistant mutants in a passage study with constant concentrations of two drugs simultaneously. The barrier to resistance of dolutegravir-containing two-drug combinations was higher than the other combinations evaluated in this study.

Prevalence and determinants of resistance mutations in HIV-1-infected patients exposed to integrase inhibitors in a large Italian cohort

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to analyse the prevalence of integrase resistance mutations in integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-experienced HIV-1-infected patients and its predictors.

METHODS

We selected HIV-1 integrase sequences from the Antiviral Response Cohort Analysis (ARCA) database, derived from INSTI-experienced patients between 2008 and 2017. Differences in the prevalence of resistance to raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir (EVG) and dolutegravir (DTG) were assessed by χ² test and predictors of resistance were analysed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

We included 462 genotypes from INSTI-exposed individuals: 356 'INSTI-failing' patients and 106 'previously INSTI-exposed' patients (obtained a median of 42 weeks after INSTI discontinuation [interquartile range (IQR) 17-110 weeks]). Overall, at least low-level resistance (LLR) to any INSTI (Stanford 8.5 algorithm) was detected in 198 (42.9%) cases. The most frequent INSTI resistance mutation was N155H, followed by Q148H/K/R, G140A/C/S, E138A/K/T and Y143C/H/R. Y143R and E138A were more prevalent in viral subtype B versus non-B [5.2 versus 1.5%, respectively (P = 0.04), and 3.1 versus 0%, respectively (P = 0.02)]. Overall, the Q148H/K/R plus G140A/C/S and/or E138A/K/T pattern, defining an intermediate level of resistance to DTG, was detected in 70 (15%) cases. Independent predictors of at least LLR to any INSTI were current use versus past use of INSTIs, a lower genotypic sensitivity score (GSS) for contemporary antiretroviral drugs used, and having an integrase sequence obtained in calendar year 2016 as compared to 2008-2009.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support integrase resistance testing in INSTI-experienced patients. Emergence of INSTI resistance is facilitated by the reduced genetic barrier of the regimen as a consequence of resistance to companion drugs. However, INSTI resistance may become undetectable by standard population sequencing upon INSTI discontinuation.

Two-drug regimens for treatment of naïve HIV-1 infection and as maintenance therapy

As people live longer with HIV infection, there has been a resurgence of interest in challenging the use of three-drug therapy, including two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus a third drug, as initial treatment of HIV infection or for maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed individuals. Although initial studies showed poor efficacy and/or substantial toxicity, more recent regimens have held greater promise. The SWORD-1 and -2 studies were pivotal trials of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine as maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed patients with no history of drug resistance, leading to the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the regimen as a small, single tablet. More recently, the GEMINI-1 and -2 studies demonstrated that dolutegravir plus lamivudine is as safe and effective as the same regimen when combined with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naïve individuals. Together, these and other studies of novel two-drug regimens offer the potential for improved tolerability and simplicity, as well as a reduction in cost. We will review historical and recent trials of two-drug therapy for the treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2018 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel

Importance

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the cornerstone of prevention and management of HIV infection.

Objective

To evaluate new data and treatments and incorporate this information into updated recommendations for initiating therapy, monitoring individuals starting therapy, changing regimens, and preventing HIV infection for individuals at risk.

Evidence Review

New evidence collected since the International Antiviral Society-USA 2016 recommendations via monthly PubMed and EMBASE literature searches up to April 2018; data presented at peer-reviewed scientific conferences. A volunteer panel of experts in HIV research and patient care considered these data and updated previous recommendations.

Findings

ART is recommended for virtually all HIV-infected individuals, as soon as possible after HIV diagnosis. Immediate initiation (eg, rapid start), if clinically appropriate, requires adequate staffing, specialized services, and careful selection of medical therapy. An integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI) plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is generally recommended for initial therapy, with unique patient circumstances (eg, concomitant diseases and conditions, potential for pregnancy, cost) guiding the treatment choice. CD4 cell count, HIV RNA level, genotype, and other laboratory tests for general health and co-infections are recommended at specified points before and during ART. If a regimen switch is indicated, treatment history, tolerability, adherence, and drug resistance history should first be assessed; 2 or 3 active drugs are recommended for a new regimen. HIV testing is recommended at least once for anyone who has ever been sexually active and more often for individuals at ongoing risk for infection. Preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and appropriate monitoring is recommended for individuals at risk for HIV.

Conclusions and Relevance

Advances in HIV prevention and treatment with antiretroviral drugs continue to improve clinical management and outcomes for individuals at risk for and living with HIV.

Similar long-term efficacy of dual therapy containing raltegravir and a boosted protease inhibitor versus standard triple therapies in pretreated HIV-1-infected patients in a retrospective, real-life cohort of 14 years

OBJECTIVES

Raltegravir is used in many antiretroviral combinations, but its use in treatment-experienced patients without knowledge of baseline resistance is discussed controversially as a number of comparative studies have shown a higher rate of virological failure. However, it has been used frequently for the management of treatment failure, as it was the first integrase inhibitor to become available, and thus offered new options for patients with multiple resistance. The strategic use of raltegravir in this setting is examined in this study.

METHODS

In order to examine the efficacy of raltegravir in second and later lines of antiretroviral combinations, data for 740 patients from three clinical cohorts were analysed with a focus on the combinations that were used. These were stratified into the combination of two nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and raltegravir (2NRTIs + RAL), the combination of a boosted protease inhibitor and raltegravir (bPI + RAL), and other raltegravir-containing combinations.

RESULTS

The overall rate of virological suppression to < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL was 69.5%. Although the baseline rate of virological suppression was higher for 2NRTIs + RAL than for the other strata, the outcomes were similar for all three groups at weeks 24, 48, 72 and 96.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that, in a real-life setting, raltegravir can be used with a high virological success rate in treatment-experienced patients, and that the different combinations analysed (2NRTIs + RAL, bPI + RAL and others) show comparable rates of virological suppression.

Positive Virological Outcomes of HIV-Infected Patients on Protease Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Regimen in Cambodia: The ANRS 12276 2PICAM Study

Background

Assessment of virological outcomes among HIV-infected patients receiving protease (PR) inhibitor-based second-line regimen are uncommon in Cambodia. The objective of this study is to assess the virological effectiveness of this regimen as well as impact of adherence boosting for patients experiencing virological failure.

Methods

The 2PICAM study (Clinicaltrial: NCT01801618) is a cross-sectional study of HIV-infected adults on PR inhibitor-based second-line regimen since at least 6 months, conducted in 13 representative sites, comprising more than 90% of the target population. Adults with HIV RNA above 250 copies/mL (threshold of the assay) at inclusion received boosted adherence counseling during 3 months followed by HIV RNA control. For confirmed virological failure, genotype resistance test was performed and expert committee used results for therapeutic decision.

Results

Among the 1,317 adults enrolled, the median duration of second-line regimen was 5 years. At inclusion, 1,182 (89.7%) patients achieved virological success (<250 copies/mL) and 135 (10.3%) experienced a virological failure (>250 copies/mL). In multivariable analysis, factors associated with virological success were: CD4 cell count between 201 and 350/mm³ (OR: 4.66, 95% CI: 2.57–8.47, p < 0.0001) and >350/mm³ (OR: 6.67, 95% CI: 4.02–11.06, p < 0.0001), duration of PI-based regimen >2 years (OR: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.03–2.62, p = 0.037), ATV-containing regimen (0R: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.04–2.63, p = 0.034) and high level of adherence (OR: 2.41, 95% CI: 1.07–5.41, p = 0.033). After adherence counseling, 63 (46.7%) patients were rescued while 72 (53.3%) were not. For the 54 patients with genotype resistance tests available, high or intermediate levels of resistance to lopinavir, atazanavir, and darunavir were reported for 13 (24%), 12 (22.2%), and 2 (3.7%) patients, respectively. Change to an alternative PR inhibitor-based regimen was recommended for 17 patients and to third-line regimen, including integrase inhibitors for 12.

Conclusion

This study reports high rate of virological suppression of second-line regimen and importance of adherence boosting prior to deciding any change of ART regimen. Genotype resistance tests appear necessary to guide decisions. Such information was of great importance for National HIV Program to adapt guidelines and program needs for third-line regimen.

Meeting the WHO 90% target: antiretroviral treatment efficacy in Poland is associated with baseline clinical patient characteristics

Introduction: Modern combined antiretroviral therapies (cART) allow to effectively suppress HIV-1 viral load, with the 90% virologic success rate, meeting the WHO target in most clinical settings. The aim of this study was to analyse antiretroviral treatment efficacy in Poland and to identify variables associated with virologic suppression.

Methods: Cross-sectional data on 5152 (56.92% of the countrywide treated at the time-point of analysis) patients on cART for more than six months with at least one HIV-RNA measurement in 2016 were collected from 14 Polish centres. Patients’ characteristics and treatment type-based outcomes were analysed for the virologic suppression thresholds of <50 and <200 HIV-RNA copies/ml. CART was categorized into two nucleos(t)ide (2NRTI) plus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI) inhibitors, 2NRTI plus protease (PI) inhibitor, 2NRTI plus integrase (InI) inhibitor, nucleos(t)ide sparing PI/r+InI and three drug class regimens. For statistics Chi-square and U-Mann Whitney tests and adjusted multivariate logistic regression models were used.

Results: Virologic suppression rates of <50 copies/mL were observed in 4672 (90.68%) and <200 copies/mL in 4934 (95.77%) individuals. In univariate analyses, for the suppression threshold <50 copies/mL higher efficacy was noted for 2NRTI+NNRTI-based combinations (94.73%) compared to 2NRTI+PI (89.93%), 2NRTI+InI (90.61%), nucleos(t)ide sparing PI/r+InI (82.02%) and three drug class regimens (74.49%) (p < 0.0001), with less pronounced but significant differences for the threshold of 200 copies/mL [2NRTI+NNRTI-97.61%, 2NRTI+PI-95.27%, 2NRTI+InI-96.61%, PI/r+InI- 95.51% and 86.22% for three drug class cART) (p < 0.0001). However, in multivariate model, virologic efficacy for viral load <50 copies/mL was similar across treatment groups with significant influence by history of AIDS [OR:1.48 (95%CI:1.01–2.17) if AIDS diagnosed, p = 0.046], viral load < 5 log copies/mL at care entry [OR:1.47 (95%CI:1.08–2.01), p = 0.016], baseline lymphocyte CD4 count ≥200 cells/µL [OR:1.72 (95%CI:1.04–2.78), p = 0.034] and negative HCV serology [OR:1.97 (95%CI:1.29–2.94), p = 0.002]. For viral load threshold <200 copies/mL higher likelihood of virologic success was only associated with baseline lymphocyte CD4 count ≥200 cells/µL [OR:2.08 (95%CI:1.01–4.35), p = 0.049] and negative HCV status [OR:2.84 (95%CI:1.52–5.26), p = 0.001].

Conclusions: Proportion of virologically suppressed patients is in line with WHO treatment target confirming successful application of antiretroviral treatment strategy in Poland. Virological suppression rates depend on baseline patient characteristics, which should guide individualized antiretroviral tre0atment decisions.

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-reducing strategies in HIV treatment: assessing the evidence

Antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, comprising a backbone of two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus another ARV, is the recognized standard of care (SOC), which has helped extend life expectancy in people living with HIV. In a quest to reduce lifelong drug exposure and minimize or avoid the toxicity of NRTIs, "NRTI-reducing" regimens have been investigated. This descriptive review assessing the results of NRTI-reducing strategies from the largest randomized trials focuses on virological efficacy, resistance, regimen safety (in terms of bone mineral density, renal function, lipids and central nervous system function) and simplicity. The review considers efficacy across various NRTI-sparing strategies, for example an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) plus a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) or PI/r + lamivudine (3TC), in both naïve and switch regimes. Of 10 key studies in treatment-naïve adults assessing five NRTI-reducing strategies, only four studies demonstrated noninferiority vs. SOC [GARDEL, NEAT 001, AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5142 and PROGRESS]. In switch settings, 17 studies (10 randomized) were reviewed that used four strategies, including three studies assessing an INSTI plus a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor . Noninferiority of the NRTI-reducing arm was shown in six of 10 studies (ATLAS-M, SALT, DUAL, OLE, LATTE-2 and SWORD). In general, NRTI-reducing therapy did not always result in an improvement in short- or long-term adverse events; however, in many cases, these endpoints were not reported. Some of these studies reported higher virological failure rates with more frequent emergence of resistance mutations. None of these NRTI-reducing strategies has been compared against a single-pill regimen, including those containing tenofovir alafenamide. Only strategies demonstrating noninferior efficacy, a benefit in safety/tolerability, and a favourable cost-efficacy ratio, preferably in a single pill, will eventually match the current SOC of triple ARV therapy.

Dual antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection

INTRODUCTION

For two decades, triple combinations of antiretrovirals have been the standard treatment for HIV infection. The challenges of such lifelong therapy include long-term side effects, high costs and reduced drug adherence. The recent advent of more potent and safer antiretrovirals has renewed the interest for simpler HIV regimens. Areas covered: We discuss the pros and cons of dual antiretroviral therapies in both drug-naïve and in treatment-experienced patients with viral suppression (switch strategy). Expert opinion: Some dual antiretroviral regimens are safe and efficacious, particularly as maintenance therapy. At this time, combinations of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine represent the best dual regimen. Longer follow-up and larger study populations are needed before supporting dolutegravir plus lamivudine. In contrast, dual therapy based on maraviroc is less effective. Although dual regimens with boosted protease inhibitors plus either lamivudine or raltegravir may be effective, they are penalized by metabolic side effects and risk for drug interactions. The newest dual regimens could save money, reduce toxicity and spare drug options for the future. For the first time in HIV therapeutics, less can be more. Dual therapy switching has set up a new paradigm in HIV treatment that uses induction-maintenance.

Dolutegravir as monotherapy in HIV-1-infected individuals with suppressed HIV viraemia

BACKGROUND

Reducing drug burden is a key challenge for achieving lifelong suppressive HIV therapy. Dolutegravir, with a high potency, long half-life and high genetic barrier, offers potential for monotherapy.

METHODS

This observational single-centre study enrolled all patients with HIV RNA (viral load) <50 copies/mL for at least 12 months, with CD4 >350 cells/mm(3) and with no failure under integrase inhibitor therapy who had switched from suppressive ART to dolutegravir monotherapy (50 mg/day). Primary outcome was proportion of patients with viral load <50 copies/mL at week 24.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients treated for a median ART duration of 17 years (IQR 11-20), virally suppressed for a median of 79 months (IQR 42-95) and with a median CD4 count of 624 cells/mm(3) (IQR 524-761), were enrolled. Baseline ART consisted of a three-drug (n = 10), two-drug (n = 10) or single-drug (n = 8) regimen with integrase inhibitor exposure in 13 patients. The proportion of patients maintaining viral load <50 copies/mL was 96% (95% CI 79%-100%) at week 4, 100% (95% CI = 85%-100%) at week 8, 93% (95% CI 76%-99%) at week 12 and 92% (75-99) at week 24. Three patients (3.70%; 95% CI 3.4%-10.8%) with prior integrase inhibitor experience had HIV RNA rebound with the presence of resistance mutations. Genotyping of HIV DNA using the Sanger method or ultradeep sequencing showed no integrase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) except for the mutation 74I in a patient on a suppressive elvitegravir regimen. The median within- and between-subject variability of dolutegravir C24 was 25% and 34%, respectively. Nine patients with a year of follow-up remained virally suppressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Dolutegravir has the potency to be further investigated as a single ART in randomized studies, particularly in patients with no prior exposure to integrase inhibitors.