Switching to abacavir versus use of a nucleoside-sparing dual regimen for HIV-infected patients with tenofovir-associated renal toxicity

Effectiveness of boosted darunavir plus rilpivirine in patients with long-lasting HIV-1 infection: DARIL study

BACKGROUND

The combination of boosted darunavir plus rilpivirine, once daily, could be a convenient, effective and well-tolerated two-drug regimen to achieve HIV suppression in HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

Multicentre, retrospective cohort study in nine hospitals in Spain. All HIV-infected subjects starting boosted darunavir plus rilpivirine were included, irrespective of their viral load (VL). The primary objective was the percentage of patients with VL <50 copies/mL at 48 weeks. Secondary objectives included changes in CD4+ cell count, lipid profile and renal function.

RESULTS

Eighty-one of 84 patients reached Week 48. Fifty-nine (70.2%) patients had VL <50 copies/mL at baseline and the rest had a median VL of 202 (IQR 98-340) copies/mL. Subjects had a median of 21 years of infection with six prior regimens. The main reasons for starting boosted darunavir plus rilpivirine were simplification (44%), kidney or bone toxicity (28.6%) and virological failure (17.9%). Historical genotypes from 47 patients showed 41 (87.2%) patients with NRTI RAMs, 21 (44.7%) with NNRTI RAMs, 12 (25.5%) with primary PI RAMs and 7 (14.9%) with integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) RAMs. One patient had low-level resistance to boosted darunavir and five patients had some resistance to rilpivirine. At 48 weeks, 71 (87.7%) patients had VL <50 copies/mL. According to undetectable or detectable baseline VL, effectiveness was 91.1% or 80%, respectively. There were four virological failures with no emergence of new RAMs. Three of these patients resuppressed viraemia while maintaining the same regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of boosted darunavir plus rilpivirine has shown good effectiveness and tolerability in this cohort of pretreated patients with a long-lasting HIV infection, exposure to multiple antiretroviral regimens and prior HIV resistance.

Switching to dual antiretroviral regimens is associated with improvement or no changes in activation and inflammation markers in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients: the TRILOBITHE pilot study

OBJECTIVES

While the use of dual antiretroviral therapies could reduce the toxicity of antiretroviral treatment in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients, it is crucial to know if reducing the number of drugs could lead to an adverse increase in inflammation and activation markers.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional pilot study conducted at the HIV-1 Unit at the Tertiary University Hospital in Madrid, Spain, evaluating biomarkers of activation [interferon-γ-induced protein 10 (IP10), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), soluble CD14 (sCD14) and sCD163], inflammation [interleukin-6 (IL-6)], blood coagulation (d-dimer), and immune response [interferon (IFN)-γ, tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α and IL-4] in three groups of suppressed HIV-1-infected patients: patients continuing on triple therapy (26 patients), and patients who switched from triple to dual therapy, at 24 or 48 weeks after switching (13 and 36 patients, respectively).

RESULTS

Demographic and immunovirological parameters were similar in the three groups of patients. IL-6 and sCD14 levels were lower in patients at 48 weeks after switching to dual therapy compared with those found in patients who continued to receive triple therapy (P = 0.012 and P = 0.001, respectively), with no differences in the levels of the remaining biomarkers. Among patients with nadir CD4 count ≤ 200 cells/μL, sCD14 levels were lower in patients who had been on dual therapy for 48 weeks (14 patients) compared with those found in patients who received ongoing triple therapy (11 patients; P = 0.029), with no differences in the levels of the other biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV-1-infected patients receiving dual regimens showed similar or even lower levels of inflammatory and activation markers compared with those found in patients who received ongoing triple therapy. Of note, similar data were obtained in patients with low nadir CD4 count.

Alternative switching strategies based on regimens with a low genetic barrier: do clinicians have a choice nowadays?

Clinicians sometimes use switching strategies based on regimens such as RAL + ABC/3TC or RPV + ABC/3TC in order to resolve tolerability or safety issues associated with conventional recommended first-line strategies. Despite the low genetic barrier of these regimens, high safety and efficacy rates have been reported in retrospective studies.