Neurocognitive safety after 96 weeks on dual therapy with atazanavir/ritonavir plus lamivudine: results of the neurocognitive substudy of the SALT randomized clinical trial

Changes in Cerebrospinal Fluid, Liver and Intima-media-thickness Biomarkers in Patients with HIV-associated Neurocognitive Disorders Randomized to a Less Neurotoxic Treatment Regimen

The prevalence of neurocognitive impairment in people living with HIV is estimated between 30 and 50%. The pathogenesis of HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders is complex and multifactorial. Aim of the study was to measure the change in CSF biomarkers, Fibroscan and IMT measurements in PLWH with HAND randomized to a less neurotoxic regimen, or continuing their treatment. Adult patients with HAND were screened and enrolled if presenting no major resistance associated mutations, no HIV viral replication, not on efavirenz or darunavir, with R5-tropic HIV and without major confounding conditions. Lumbar puncture, IMT and Fibroscan measurements were performed. After 1:1 randomization to a less neurotoxic regimen consisting of darunavir/cobicistat plus emtricitabine plus maraviroc, or mantaining actual care, tests were repeated after 24 weeks: CSF biomarkes (HIV RNA, tau, p-tau, Beta-amyloid1-42, S100Beta and neopterin) were included. Non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon's) were used. 28 participants completed the study. Male and European ancestry were prevalent; median age was 55 years (51-60). All patients were virally suppressed; median CD4 + count was 626 cell/uL (469-772). Baseline characteristics were similar between the study arms. A significant decrease in CSF p-tau and an increase in CSF neopterin and NFL were observed. We observed a significant reduction in liver stiffness at W24. Despite a small sample size we observed changes in neuromarkers and in hepatic stiffness in patients randomized to the experimental arm. We observed changes in CSF biomarkers (lower phosphorylated-tau and higher neopterin and NFL) that need to be replicated in large cohorts. Subclinical neurotoxicity may be observed in patients with HAND and warrants prospective studies.

Two-drug regimens for HIV treatment

Combination therapy with three antiretroviral agents has been integral to successful HIV-1 treatment since 1996. Although the efficacy, adverse effects, and toxicities of contemporary three-drug regimens have improved, even the newest therapies have potential adverse effects. The use of two-drug regimens is one way to reduce lifetime exposure to antiretroviral drugs while maintaining the benefits of viral suppression. Multiple large, randomised trials have shown the virological non-inferiority of certain two-drug regimens versus three-drug comparators, including adverse effect differences that reflect known profiles of the antiretroviral drugs in the respective regimens. Two-drug combinations are now recommended in treatment guidelines and include the first long-acting antiretroviral regimen for the treatment of HIV-1. Recommended two-drug regimens differ in their risks for, and factors associated with, virological failure and emergent resistance. The tolerability, safety, metabolic profiles, and drug interactions of two-drug regimens also vary by the constituent drugs. No current two-drug regimen is recommended for people with chronic hepatitis B virus as none include tenofovir. Two-drug regimens have increased options for individualised care.

Risks and benefits of reducing the number of drugs to treat HIV-1 infection

Introduction: Despite the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral therapy, new treatment options are needed to address the concerns of patients and physicians regarding long-term toxicities, costs, and convenience of lifelong antiretroviral therapy. To achieve this goal, one strategy is to reduce the number of drugs in the antiretroviral regimen.Areas covered: We review the recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of reduced drug regimens and their potential risks and benefits. There is currently strong evidence showing that some two-drug regimens have a comparable efficacy and short-term safety compared to standard three-drug regimens. The fixed-dose combination of dolutegravir/lamivudine is already an alternative for many treatment-naïve and virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected adults supported by large randomized clinical trials. The co-formulation dolutegravir plus rilpivirine is also a switch strategy for maintenance therapy. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine has already regulatory approval, and islatravir plus doravirine is an expected option in the near future. Some two-drug regimens have not been as successful.Expert opinion: Long-term safety issues of these two-drug regimens remain to be determined, but with the overwhelming evidence available in virological control and short-term safety, the potential benefits of some of these two-drug regimens appear to outweigh the risks.

Dual antiretroviral therapies are effective and safe regimens in the central nervous system of neurologically symptomatic people living with HIV

OBJECTIVE

Aim of this study was to compare cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) virological control, biomarkers and neurocognition of neurologically symptomatic patients on dual antiretroviral therapies (dual therapy) vs. 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors-based three-drug regimens (triple therapy).

DESIGN

Retrospective monocentric cross-sectional study.

METHODS

We analysed data from people living with HIV undergoing lumbar puncture for clinical/research reasons with plasma HIV-RNA less than 200 copies/ml and neurological/neurocognitive symptoms without significant contributing comorbidities. We measured CSF HIV-RNA, inflammation, blood-brain barrier integrity, neuronal damage and astrocytosis biomarkers (five biomarkers by ELISA and five indices by immunoturbidimetry) and recorded the neurocognitive performance (14 tests). CSF escape was defined as any case of CSF HIV-RNA 0.5 Log10 higher than viraemia or any case of detectable CSF HIV-RNA coupled with undetectable viraemia.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients on triple therapy and 19 on dual therapy were included. Overall, 75.3% male, median age 51 years (46-58), current CD4 count 545 cells/μl (349-735), time on current regimens 18 months (8-29), but length of plasma suppression 32 months (14-94). The two groups did not differ in terms of HIV-associated neurological diagnoses, demographic and viro-immunological features. Undetectable CSF HIV-RNA (73.7% in dual therapy vs. 78.2% in triple therapy, p.67) and CSF escape (21.1% in dual therapy vs. 19.2% in triple therapy, p.86) did not differ. No difference was observed in depression, anxiety, neurocognition (in 63 participants) nor in any tested biomarker.

CONCLUSION

In people living with HIV with neurological/neurocognitive symptoms, peripherally effective dual therapy can show CSF virosuppression, inflammation, neuronal and astrocyte integrity and neurocognition comparable to triple therapy.

Switching strategies in the recent era of antiretroviral therapy

INTRODUCTION

Although antiretroviral therapy is highly effective, many patients may benefit from switching strategies. Rapid advances in the development of new antiretroviral drugs could enhance the success of these approaches. In this review, we build on a previous review from 2014 and summarize the current options for switching strategies in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients. Areas covered: We conduct a critical analysis of scientific evidence for various switching strategies used in the modern era of antiretroviral therapy, as well as reasons for these approaches, other considerations to be taken into account, and alternative strategies. Expert opinion: Current antiretroviral regimens are effective and well tolerated in HIV patients. A number of options may provide benefit to patients, even virologically suppressed patients, possibly enhancing adherence and avoiding adverse effects and toxicities. Cost reduction may also be an important goal of switching strategies. The present scenario is excellent, as many good antiretroviral compounds and regimens allow clinicians to further improve on effective treatments now used in routine practice. Even the current paradigm of triple-drug regimens as the standard of care could change, at least in some patients.