Brief Report: Switch to Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir Plus Raltegravir in Virologically Suppressed Patients With HIV-1 Infection: A Randomized Pilot Study

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.

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.

Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of dual therapy with a boosted PI plus lamivudine for maintenance of virological suppression: GeSIDA study 9717

Background

Dual therapy (DT) with a ritonavir-boosted PI (PI/r) plus lamivudine has proven non-inferior (12% margin) to triple therapy (TT) with PI/r plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs] in four clinical trials. It remains unclear whether DT is non-inferior based on the US FDA endpoint (virological failure with a margin of 4%) or in specific subgroups.

Methods

We performed a systematic search (January 1990 to March 2017) of randomized controlled trials that compared switching of maintenance ART from TT to DT. The principal investigators were contacted and agreed to share study databases. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of DT to TT based on the current FDA endpoint (4% non-inferiority margin for virological failure at week 48). We also analysed whether efficacy was modified by gender, active HCV infection and type of PI. Effect estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using generalized estimating equation-based models.

Results

We found 881 references that yielded eight articles corresponding to four clinical trials (1051 patients). At week 48, 4% of patients on DT versus 3.04% on TT had experienced virological failure (difference 0.9%; 95% CI -1.2% to 3.1%), and 84.7% of patients on DT versus 83.2% on TT had <50 copies of HIV RNA/mL (FDA snapshot algorithm) (difference 1.4%; 95% CI -2.8% to 5.8%). Gender, active HCV infection and type of PI had no effect on differences in treatment efficacy between DT and TT.

Conclusions

DT was non-inferior to TT using both current and past FDA endpoints. The efficacy of DT was not influenced by gender, active HCV infection status, or type of PI.

Two-drug regimens with dolutegravir plus rilpivirine or lamivudine in HIV-1 treatment-naïve, virologically-suppressed patients: Latest evidence from the literature on their efficacy and safety

OBJECTIVES

In the HIV-1-positive population, a paradigm shift from three-drug regimens (3DRs) to dolutegravir-based two-drug regimens (2DRs) both as initial and switch treatment is beginning to take place, supported virologically by the availability of new potent drugs with high genetic barrier to overcome, at least in certain conditions, the dogma of 3DRs in effective HIV-1 therapy. This manuscript reviews the increasing evidence on their excellent and sustained long-term effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

This review includes the most recent results on dolutegravir plus rilpivirine or lamivudine 2DRs from randomised clinical trials, meta-analyses and real-life studies, including relevant data presented at international conferences up to August 2019.

RESULTS

As an initial treatment strategy, dolutegravir plus lamivudine showed high efficacy and safety over 96 weeks in 1441 patients from the GEMINI-1&2 phase III non-inferiority trials. In the SWORD 1&2 trials in virologically-suppressed patients, switching to once-daily dolutegravir plus rilpivirine maintained efficacy over 148 weeks. Similarly, in the TANGO trial, no confirmed virological withdrawals were observed with dolutegravir/lamivudine through Week 48. Consistent results were observed in real-life cohorts. No emergent dolutegravir-resistant virus has ever been reported in a patient in whom dolutegravir was prescribed in the context of such 2DRs. Switching to once-daily dolutegravir plus rilpivirine or lamivudine was generally well tolerated and was associated with favourable renal and bone safety.

CONCLUSION

The results available so far support dolutegravir-based 2DRs as excellent treatment options for adults with HIV-1 infection, either naïve or already virologically suppressed on their current antiretroviral regimen.

Switch to dolutegravir and unboosted atazanavir in HIV-1 infected patients with undetectable viral load and long exposure to antiretroviral therapy

: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a two-drug regimen including dolutegravir (DTG) and unboosted atazanavir (uATV) in 151 HIV-1 infected patients with HIV-RNA of more than 50 copies/ml. During a median follow-up of 62 (42-97) weeks, two virological failures (1%) and 13 treatment discontinuations (9%) occurred; the 48-week probability of virological failure was 0.8% (95% confidence interval 0.2-5.6%). Switch to DTG + uATV may represent a boosting and transcriptase reverse inhibitors sparing otion in individuals with long exposure to antiretroviral therapy and risk of cardiovascular disease.

Effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine and boosted darunavir in treatment-experienced patients with advanced HIV infection: a preliminary 24 week analysis (RIDAR study)

Background

The objective was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of dual therapy with rilpivirine plus boosted-darunavir (RPV + bDRV) in real-life patients.

Methods

Observational, retrospective, multi-center study in HIV+ patients who had received RPV + bDRV for 24 weeks to optimize/simplify their previous antiretroviral treatment. We determined the percentage of patients without virologic failure (2 consecutive viral loads > 50 copies/mL) at 24 weeks of treatment.

Results

The study included 161 patients from 15 hospitals with median age of 49 years; 29.3% had previous AIDS stage and median CD4+ lymphocyte nadir of 170 cells/uL. They had been diagnosed with HIV for a median of 17 years and had received 14 years of ART, with five previous treatment combinations, and 36.6% had a history of virological failure. The reasons for the switch were simplification/optimization (49.7%), toxicity/intolerance (17.4%), or inadequate effectiveness of previous ART (10.6%).

Baseline VL of 50–1000 copies/mL was recorded in 25.5% of the patients. In the“intention-to-treat” analysis at 24 weeks, 87.6% of 161 patients continued the study treatment without virologic failure criteria.

In the “on treatment” analysis (excluding patients who discontinued treatment with dual therapy for any reason other than virologic failure) the efficacy was 94.6% (141/149 patients).

Conclusions

Dual therapy with RPV + DRVb proved to be effective and safe in patients with advanced HIV infection, long exposure to ART, low CD4 nadir, previous virologic failure, and/or history of ineffective ART.

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.

Optimizing Antiretroviral Therapy in Treatment-Experienced Patients Living with HIV: A Critical Review of Switch and Simplification Strategies. An Opinion of the HIV Practice and Research Network of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy

Simplifying or switching antiretroviral therapy (ART) in treatment-experienced people living with HIV (PLWH) may improve adherence, tolerability, toxicities, and/or drug-drug interactions. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the literature for efficacy and safety associated with switching or simplifying ART in treatment-experienced PLWH. A systematic literature search using MEDLINE was performed from January 1, 2010 to April 30, 2018. References within articles of interest, the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines, and conference abstracts were also reviewed. Switch/simplification strategies were categorized as those supported by high-level clinical evidence and those with emerging data. Rates of virologic suppression were noninferior for several switch/simplification strategies when compared to baseline ART. Potential for reducing adverse events was also seen. Additional evidence for some strategies, including most 2-drug regimens, is needed before they can be recommended.

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.

A Review of Long-Term Toxicity of Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens and Implications for an Aging Population

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a chronic infectious disease currently requiring lifelong antiretroviral therapy (ART). People living with HIV (PLWH) face an increased risk of comorbidities associated with aging, chronic HIV, and the toxicity arising from long-term ART. A literature review was conducted to identify the most recent evidence documenting toxicities associated with long-term ART, particularly among aging PLWH. In general, PLWH are at a greater risk of developing fractures, osteoporosis, renal and metabolic disorders, central nervous system disorders, cardiovascular disease, and liver disease. There remains limited evidence describing the economic burden of long-term ART. Overall, an aging HIV population treated with long-term ART presents a scenario in which the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden for healthcare systems will demand thoughtful policy solutions that preserve access to treatment. Newer treatment regimens with fewer drugs may mitigate some of the cumulative toxicity burden of long-term ART.

Funding: ViiV Healthcare.

Current and emerging two-drug approaches for HIV-1 therapy in ART-naïve and ART-experienced, virologically suppressed patients

INTRODUCTION

Current guidelines recommend a 2-drug antiretroviral regimen as an alternative to triple antiretroviral therapy (ART) in selected patients to reduce long-term toxicity and costs.

AREAS COVERED

This review is intended to provide insight into the efficacy, safety and tolerability of 2-drug versus 3-drug ART in naïve and in treatment-experienced virologically-suppressed patients.

EXPERT OPINION

Dual therapy regimens are not feasible in HBV-coinfected individuals and should not be applied during pregnancy. Positive data on 2-drug ART in drug naïve patients are still limited, while, in virologically-suppressed individuals, several regimens have shown non-inferiority as compared to 3-drug regimens. The strongest evidence of efficacy applies to ritonavir-boosted PI regimens combined with lamivudine and to dolutegravir with rilpivirine. Dual therapies showed improved renal function and bone mineral density over tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based 3-drug regimens. There are also great expectations for ongoing phase 3 trials testing dolutegravir with lamivudine. New and future single tablet co-formulations of dual regimens are expected to improve their suitability. Despite the lack of comparison with tenofovir alafenamide-based 3-drug regimens, the 2-drug regimens showing consistent non-inferiority and safety versus 3-drug regimens will challenge the current paradigm of 3-drug ART.

Treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine versus maintenance of atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week results from a randomized trial (ATLAS-M)

Background

Combination ART (cART)-related toxicities and costs have prompted the need for treatment simplification. The ATLAS-M trial explored 48 week non-inferior efficacy of simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir  +  lamivudine versus maintaining three-drug atazanavir/ritonavir-based cART in virologically suppressed patients.

Methods

We performed an open-label, multicentre, randomized, non-inferiority study, enrolling HIV-infected adults on atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs, with stable HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL and CD4 + >200 cells/mm 3 . Main exclusion criteria were hepatitis B virus coinfection, past virological failure on or resistance to study drugs, recent AIDS and pregnancy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to either switch to 300 mg of atazanavir/100 mg of ritonavir once daily and 300 mg of lamivudine once daily (atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm) or to continue the previous regimen (atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm). The primary study outcome was the maintenance of HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL at week 48 of the ITT-exposed (ITT-e) analysis with switch = failure. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01599364.

Results

Between July 2011 and June 2014, 266 patients were randomized (133 to each arm). After 48 weeks, the primary study outcome was met by 119 of 133 patients (89.5%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm and 106 of 133 patients (79.7%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm [difference atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine versus atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm: +9.8% (95% CI + 1.2 to + 18.4)], demonstrating non-inferiority and superior efficacy of the atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm. Virological failure occurred in two (1.5%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine arm and six (4.5%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs arm, without resistance selection. A similar proportion of adverse events occurred in both arms.

Conclusions

Treatment simplification to atazanavir/ritonavir + lamivudine showed non-inferior efficacy (superiority on post-hoc analysis) and a comparable safety profile over continuing atazanavir/ritonavir + two NRTIs in virologically suppressed patients.

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.

Switch to Ritonavir-Boosted versus Unboosted Atazanavir plus Raltegravir Dual-Drug Therapy Leads to Similar Efficacy and Safety Outcomes in Clinical Practice

Objectives

To assess immunovirological response, safety and pharmacokinetic of NRTI-sparing regimen dual therapy of atazanavir (ATV) and raltegravir (RAL) in maintenance strategy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of HIV-infected adults followed in French centers (Dat’AIDS cohort), comparing the proportions of virological and therapeutic failures between ATV + RAL and ATV/ritonavir + RAL dual therapy regimens.

Results

283 patients were assessed: 185 switched for ATV + RAL and 98 for ATV/ritonavir + RAL dual therapy. Virological failure rate at week 96 was 13.8% (95% CI, 9.8–17.8), without difference between the two groups (Log-rank Test, p = 0.87). The cumulative percentages of patients remaining free of therapeutic failure at week 24, 48 and 96 of dual therapy were 74.9% (95% CI, 69.9–80.0), 65.4% (95% CI, 59.8–70.9) and 53.4% (95% CI, 47.5–59.2), respectively. Four out of 39 confirmed virological failures developed RAL resistance. By multivariate analysis, virological failure was associated with high HIV-1 RNA zenith (p = 0.02), low CD4+ T-cell count at baseline (p<0.001) and short duration on antiretroviral therapy (p<0.001). Before week 96, dual therapy was discontinued in 44 patients (16%) because of various adverse events, with no difference between the two groups. Minimal plasma levels were targeted in 84% and 87% of patients for ATV and RAL, respectively, and both were significantly higher in ritonavir-boosted regimen.

Conclusions

Emerging RAL-resistance and discontinuations for adverse events resulted in moderate efficacy rates of ATV and RAL dual therapy in heavily pretreated patients.