Pilot, randomized study assessing safety, tolerability and efficacy of simplified LPV/r maintenance therapy in HIV patients on the 1 PI-based regimen

Psychometric characteristics of the Spanish version of the HIV Symptom Index

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the Spanish-language version of the HIV-Symptom Index (HIV-SI) questionnaire in Spanish patients undergoing antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

Between 2014 and 2016, an observational, multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted in seventeen Spanish hospitals to validate HIV-SI questionnaire in terms of: construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), convergent validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient) and Known-group validity. In addition, a sensitivity to change analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients were included in the study. They had a mean age of 46.17 (SD9.82) and were 75% male. The median overall score for the HIV-SI was 10 (IQR 4- 19.5) and the most common symptoms reported were feelings of nervousness or anxiety, fatigue or energy loss, feeling sad or depressed, stomach pain or bloating, and difficulty sleeping. In the current study, the Spanish HIV-SI questionnaire showed a high internal consistency (α = 0.89) and adequate construct validity (CFI and TLI > 0.90). When contrasted with the MOS-HIV questionnaire, an inverse correlation was found. It showed a good association with the mental (r=-0.61; P < 0.0001) and physical score (r=-0.60; P < 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis, the age of the patient, female condition, hepatitis C coinfection, concomitant treatment and non-adherence resulted in a higher HIV-SI score.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study has shown that the Spanish HIV-SI is a valid and reliable self-administered PROM for routine measurement of patient- reported symptoms among Spanish patients on antiretroviral treatment.

Comparative outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 with mild-to-moderate severity: A retrospective observational study

Background

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are both being used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their relative effectiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 with LPV/r or HCQ.

Methods

A retrospective observational study was conducted at 2 hospitals in Busan, South Korea, where approximately 90% of COVID-19 patients were hospitalised during February/March 2020. All patients aged ≥15 years that were hospitalised with mild or moderately severe COVID-19 received LPV/r or HCQ as their initial treatment and were included in the analysis.

Results

Among the 72 patients with mild-to-moderate disease severity on admission, 45 received LPV/r and 27 received HCQ as their initial therapy. A higher proportion of the LPV/r group had pneumonia on admission (LPV/r, 49% vs HCQ, 15%), but there were no other significant differences in the demographic or clinical characteristics between groups. Switching therapy due to clinical failure was significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (41% [11/27] and 2% [1/45], respectively, P = .001). Disease progression was also significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (44% [12/27] and 18% [8/45], respectively, P = .030).

Conclusion

Based on our study results, HCQ shows no apparent advantage compared to LPV/r for preventing progression to severe disease in patients with COVID-19.

Patient-reported outcomes in HIV clinical trials evaluating antiretroviral treatment: a systematic review

We aimed to assess patterns of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments' utilization in HIV clinical trials in relation to antiretroviral therapy (ART). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched using the terms "Patient-Reported Outcomes" and "HIV/AIDS" or "Antiretroviral Treatment" or "ART" or "Antiretroviral Therapy" from 1 January 1990 until 1 December 2019. In total, 173 studies were identified and 26 were directly related to ART. Study population included treatment-naïve patients (n = 4), treatment-experienced (n = 20), or both (n = 2). Instruments were implemented to assess general experience with ART (n = 3), single-tablet regimens (STR) (n = 2), monotherapy (n = 4), regimen switch (n = 9), or regimen comparison (n = 8). The most commonly used instruments were Medical Outcomes Study-HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV, n = 8), HIV Symptom Index (HIV-SI, n = 7) and unstructured self-reports (n = 5) followed by others. MOS-HIV was used mainly in comparative (n = 4) and monotherapy (n = 3) trials, HIV-SI in switch (n = 4) and STR (n = 2) trials, and self-reports in comparative trials (n = 3). Even though, the implementation of PRO tools is increasing with time, reporting of PRO in HIV clinical trials remains limited.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)

BACKGROUND

Protease inhibitor monotherapy is a simplified treatment strategy for virally suppressed HIV-positive patients that has the potential for cost savings, as fewer drugs are used than with combination therapy. However, evidence for its economic value is limited.

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy followed by treatment intensification in case of viral load rebound versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial.

METHODS

DREAM was conducted in 36 French Hospitals between 2009 and 2013. For each treatment strategy, we estimated the unadjusted and multivariate-adjusted mean costs (in €, year 2010 values) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient, as well as incremental costs and QALYs per patient. We then assessed uncertainty using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, scenario analyses and cost-effectiveness price-threshold (CEPT) analysis.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis considering 2009-2013 antiretroviral drug (ARV) prices, adjusted incremental costs and QALYs were - €3296 (95% confidence interval [CI] - 5202 to - 1391) and 0.006 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.033), respectively, over 2 years, suggesting that monotherapy was cost-effective with a probability of 100% at various cost-effectiveness thresholds. In scenario analyses considering 2018 ARV prices, monotherapy remained cost-effective but with a lower probability (94% vs. 100% in the base-case analysis). The current price of cART would have to decrease by 34% to be cost-effective with a probability of 95%.

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy appears to be cost-effective compared with cART for virologically suppressed HIV-positive patients in France. CEPT analysis is a useful tool to identify the preferred strategy to adopt given that ARV prices change rapidly.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595.

High quality of life, treatment tolerability, safety and efficacy in HIV patients switching from triple therapy to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy: A randomized clinical trial

Trial design

The QoLKAMON study evaluated quality of life, efficacy and treatment safety in HIV patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir in monotherapy (MT) versus continuing combined antiretroviral triple treatment with a boosted protease inhibitor (TT).

Methods

This was a 24-week, open-label, multicentre study in virologically-suppressed HIV-infected participants (N = 225) with a 2:1 randomization: 146 patients who switched to MT were compared with 79 patients who remained on a TT regimen. The primary endpoint was change in patient-reported outcomes in quality of life as measured by the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D questionnaires. Secondary endpoints included treatment adherence, patient satisfaction, incidence of adverse events and differences in plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) and CD4 cell counts.

Results

Baseline quality of life, measured with the MOS-HIV score, was very good (overall score of 83 ± 10.5 in the MT arm and 82.3 ± 11.3 in the TT arm) and suffered no change during the study in any of the arms (at week 24, 83.5 ± 12.2 in MT arm and 81.9 ± 12.7 in TT arm), without statistically significant differences when compared. In regards to adherence to therapy and patient satisfaction, some aspects (number of doses forgotten in the last week and satisfaction of treatment measured with the CESTA score, dimension 1) improved significantly with MT. There were also no differences in the incidence and severity of adverse events, even though 22.8% of those in the MT arm switched their treatment when they were included in the study. Moreover, there was also no significant difference between the immunological and virological evolution of MT and TT. In the MT arm, the VL was always undetectable in 83% of patients (vs 90.7% in the TT arm) and there were only 6.7% of virological failures with VL > 50 copies/mL (vs 2.3% in the TT arm), without resistance mutations and with resuppression of VL after switching back to TT.

Conclusions

In a new clinical trial, monotherapy as a treatment simplification strategy in HIV-1 infected patients with sustained viral suppression has demonstrated quality of life, safety and efficacy profiles comparable to those of conventional triple therapy regimens.

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a protease inhibitor monotherapy strategy for long-term management of human immunodeficiency virus infection

BACKGROUND

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection uses a combination of drugs, until now considered essential to minimise treatment failure and development of drug resistance. Protease inhibitors (PIs) are potent with a high genetic barrier to resistance and have the potential for use as monotherapy after viral load (VL) suppression achieved on combination therapy. However, longer-term resistance and toxicity risks are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, toxicity profile and cost-effectiveness of PI monotherapy with those of standard-of-care triple therapy in a pragmatic long-term clinical trial.

DESIGN

Open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Forty-three HIV clinical centres in the UK NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

HIV-positive adults taking standard combination ART with a suppressed VL for ≥ 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy (PI-mono), with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of VL rebound.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-/high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was considered to be sensitive at trial entry (non-inferiority comparison, 10% margin). Secondary outcomes included confirmed virological rebound, serious drug- or disease-related complications, total grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), neurocognitive function change, cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell count change, change in health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk change, health-care costs and health economic analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 587 participants were randomised (77% male, 68% white) to OT (n = 291) or PI-mono (n = 296) and followed for a median of 44 months, of whom 2.7% withdrew/were lost to follow-up. One or more episodes of confirmed VL rebound were observed in eight patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3.2%) in the OT group and 95 patients (35.0%) in the PI-mono group [absolute risk difference 31.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6% to 39.0%; p < 0.001]. PI-mono patients who changed to ART after VL rebound all resuppressed (median 3.5 weeks). The proportions with loss of a future drug option at 3 years were 0.7% in the OT group and 2.1% in the PI-mono group (difference 1.4%, (95% CI -0.4% to 3.4%); non-inferiority demonstrated). There were no significant differences in serious disease complications between groups or in the frequency of grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs (16.8% OT group vs. 22% PI-mono group; absolute risk difference 5.1%, 95% CI -1.3% to 11.5%; p = 0.12). Overall, the PI-mono strategy was shown to be cost-effective compared with OT under most scenarios explored. PI-mono was cost saving because of the large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years in the within-trial analysis and only marginally less effective when extrapolated to lifetime outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PI monotherapy, with prompt reintroduction of combination therapy for VL rebound, was non-inferior to combination therapy in preserving future treatment options and is an acceptable and cost-effective alternative for long-term management of HIV infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04857074.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy: 96 week efficacy, safety and bone mineral density from the MODAt randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To report the 96 week results on efficacy, safety and bone mineral density (BMD) in subjects with HIV-1 that were virologically suppressed and treated with atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy.

METHODS

MODAt is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, 96 week trial (NCT01511809) comparing efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy. Treatment success was defined as no occurrence of confirmed viral rebound (two consecutive HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL) or discontinuation for any cause of the ongoing regimen.

RESULTS

The 96 week treatment success was 64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 63% in the triple-therapy arm (difference 1.3%, 95% CI: -17.5 to 20.1). In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, no PI- or NRTI-associated resistance mutations were observed at virological failure and all patients re-suppressed after re-intensification. In the monotherapy arm, treatment failure was more frequent in patients coinfected with hepatitis C virus [64% versus 28% (difference 35.4%, 95% CI: 3.7-67.2)]. Drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were 3 (6%) in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 11 (21.5%) in the triple-therapy arm (P = 0.041). The 96 week adjusted mean percentage change in total proximal femur (not at lumbar spine) BMD was +1.16% and -1.64% in the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and the triple-therapy arm, respectively (P = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The 96 week analyses suggested that long-term efficacy of atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy was inferior as compared with atazanavir/ritonavir triple therapy, particularly when administered in subjects coinfected with hepatitis C virus. In the atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm, reintroduction of nucleosides, as needed, was always effective with no new resistance mutation; monotherapy was also associated with a lower incidence of adverse events and improvement in femur BMD.

Is HIV Painful? An Epidemiologic Study of the Prevalence and Risk Factors for Pain in HIV-infected Patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence, impact, and risk factors for pain among a cohort of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults treated with combination antiretroviral therapy if indicated according to current guidelines.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional epidemiological observational study. All patients attending 1 HIV-outpatient center in the United Kingdom in a 10-month period were eligible. Patients completed a validated questionnaire enquiring about demographics, HIV factors, and symptoms of pain.

RESULTS

Of 1050 eligible participants, 859 (82%) completed a questionnaire. The 1-month period prevalence of pain lasting >1 day was 62.8% among whom 63% reported current pain. The prevalence of pain at most anatomic sites was broadly similar to that observed in population studies using the same questionnaires except that we found considerably higher rates of foot/ankle pain. The median duration of pain was 3 years (range, 0 to 51 y) and the median pain score was 5.0 on an 11-point visual analogue score. Over 40% of people in pain had consulted their primary care physician and >20% were taking analgesics daily. Independent risk factors for current pain were older age (P=0.001), time since diagnosis of HIV infection (P=0.001), and receipt of a protease inhibitor-based regimen (P=0.04).

DISCUSSION

Pain, and notably foot/ankle pain, is common among adults living with prevalent HIV and is associated with substantial morbidity and health care utilization.

Immune activation throughout a boosted darunavir monotherapy simplification strategy

Our aim was to assess the evolution and the impact that blips, intermittent low-level viraemia and virological failure (VF) episodes have on patients' immune activation (IA) profiles during ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy (mtDRV/rtv). A prospective cohort of human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients who switched to mtDRV/rtv was followed for 2 years. Cellular IA was assessed according to HLA-DR and CD38 expression in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cells and their naïve, effector memory and central memory subpopulations, and systemic IA was evaluated according to sCD14 and D-dimer levels. Seventy-five patients from the MonDAR cohort were selected for this substudy, and classified according to viral outcome as having continuous undetectable viraemia (n = 19), blips (n = 19), intermittent viraemia (n = 21), and VF (n = 16). The IA profile was closely linked to viral behaviour. Patients on viral suppression for 24 months showed a significant decrease in CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell activation and sCD14 and D-dimer levels. Patients with transient low-level viraemia episodes (blips and intermittent viraemia) showed cellular and systemic IA similar to baseline values. In contrast, significant increases in T-cell activation and sCD14 and D-dimer levels were observed in patients with VF. Baseline levels of HLA-DR(+)CD38(+)CD8(+) T-cells of >6.4% were independently associated with the emergence of VF. Therefore, mtDRV/rtv might be considered as a safe simplification strategy, on the basis of the IA results, whenever viral replication is under medium-term and long-term control. Transient low-level viraemia episodes do not affect patients' IA status. Moreover, HLA-DR(+)CD38(+)CD8(+) T-cell baseline levels should be considered when patients are switched to mtDRV/rtv.

Cellular HIV reservoir replenishment is not affected by blip or intermittent viremia episodes during darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of blips and persistent viremia episodes on cell-associated HIV-DNA reservoir in extensively pretreated patients receiving ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy (MtDRV/rtv) for 24 months.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients from the MonDAR prospective study (NCT01606722) who received at least 6 months of MtDRV/rtv and had at least two available peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) samples were selected and classified according to the viral outcome as continuous undetectable viremia (cUV; n = 40), blips (n = 31), intermittent viremia (IV; n = 23), and virological failure (VF, two consecutive viral loads >200 copies/ml; n = 20). Proviral HIV-DNA was quantified by real-time PCR in PBMCs samples at baseline, and months 6, 12, 18 and 24. Additionally, HIV-DNA levels were exhaustively analyzed at virological failure and blip episodes.

RESULTS

The HIV-DNA levels remained constant during the 24 months in every group. Neither blips nor intermittent viremia influenced the HIV-DNA levels at short-term or at middle term. By contrast, virological failure episodes gave rise to a significant increase in proviral DNA (2.15 vs. 2.32 log10 HIV-DNA copies/10 PBMCs; P = 0.042). Basal proviral DNA levels more than 2 log10 copies/10 PBMCs predicted the time to viral rebound at any given cut-off point (>20, >50, and >200 copies/ml. HR: 3.02, 2.61, and 3.02, respectively; P ≤ 0.03. Besides, an adherence less than 95% was also strongly associated with virological failure (HR, 3.17; P = 0.021).

CONCLUSION

Blip episodes and intermittent viremia did not affect the cellular HIV reservoir dynamic during MtDRV/rtv. Higher adherence and an HIV-DNA levels less than 2 log10 copies/10 PBMCs at baseline were associated with a lower risk of virological failure.

Durability of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in individuals with viral load ≤50 copies/ml in an observational setting

BACKGROUND

The main objective is to evaluate the efficacy and durability of lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy (LPV/r-MT) in virologically controlled HIV-positive individuals switching from combination antiretroviral therapy (cART).

METHODS

Criteria to be included in this observational study were to have initiated for the first time LPV/r-MT after ≥2 consecutive HIV RNA≤50 copies/ml achieved on a ≥3-drug-including regimen. The main end points were time to virological rebound (VR; defined in two ways: time of first of two consecutive viral load [VL]>50 and >200 copies/ml), time to discontinuation/intensification and time to experience either a single VL>200 copies/ml or discontinuation/intensification (treatment failure [TF]). Individuals' follow-up accrued from the date of starting LPV/r-MT to event or last available VL. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analyses were used.

RESULTS

A total of 228 individuals were included: median age 46 years (IQR 40-50), 36% females, 36% intravenous drug users and 25% HCV-coinfected. Median CD4(+) T-cell count at nadir was 215 cell/mm(3) (IQR 116-336) and at baseline was 615 cell/mm(3) (IQR 436-768). By 36 months after switching to LPV/r-MT, the proportion of individuals with VR (confirmed VL>200 copies/ml) was 11% and with TF was 35%. In the multivariable Cox model the factors associated with a lower risk of TF was the duration of viral suppression <50 copies/ml prior to baseline (ARH=0.92; 95% CI 0.85, 0.99; P=0.024, per 6 months longer) and having LPV/r as part of last cART (ARH=0.45; 95% CI 0.21, 0.95; P=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

In daily clinical practice, we confirm a relatively safe approach of treatment simplification to LPV-MT in a selected population with long-lasting virological control.

Lopinavir plasma concentrations and virological outcome with lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy in HIV-1-infected patients

There is significant intra- and intersubject variability in lopinavir (LPV) plasma concentrations after standard dosing; thus, this prospective study was conducted to determine whether low plasma LPV concentrations could be associated with virological outcome throughout lopinavir-ritonavir maintenance monotherapy (mtLPVr) in the clinical practice setting. If this hypothesis would be confirmed, LPV drug monitoring could improve the efficacy of mtLPVr regimens. Patients with previous virological failure (VF) on protease inhibitor-based regimens were also included if the genotypic resistance tests showed no major resistance mutation associated with reduced susceptibility to lopinavir-ritonavir. VF was defined as 2 consecutive determinations of HIV RNA levels of >200 copies/ml. Efficacy was analyzed by per-protocol analysis. Plasma LPV trough concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography using a UV detector. A total of 127 patients were included (22% with previous failure on protease inhibitors). After 96 weeks, the efficacy rate was 82.3% (95% confidence interval [CI(95)], 75.3 to 89.3%). Virological efficacy was independent of LPV plasma concentrations even when LPVr was given once daily. An adherence of <90% (HR, 4.4 [CI(95), 1.78 to 10.8; P = 0.001]) and the presence of blips in the preceding 12 months (HR, 3.06 [CI(95), 1.17 to 8.01; P = 0.022]) were the only variables independently associated with time to VF. These findings suggest that the LPV concentrations achieved with the standard doses of LPVr are sufficient to maintain virological control during monotherapy and that measurement of LPV concentrations is not useful for predicting virological outcome. Tight control of viral replication in the previous months and strict adherence throughout the mtLPVr regimen could improve the virological efficacy of this maintenance regimen.

Simplification to monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir in adolescents with vertically acquired HIV-1 infection

In recent years, the use of boosted protease inhibitors monotherapy has become increasingly important, especially considering the advantages in terms of costs, tolerability, and simplification. Despite that, knowledge about the efficacy and safety of this approach in HIV-1-infected adolescents who have acquired HIV-1 infection through perinatal transmission is still limited. We report here our experience with two adolescents who have been successfully treated with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy.

Long-term efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: week 96 results from the MONOI ANRS 136 study

OBJECTIVES

Long-term results at week 96 are needed to evaluate the capacity of the darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy strategy to maintain a sustained control of the HIV-1 viral load.

METHODS

MONOI is a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized, 96 week trial comparing darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus a darunavir/ritonavir triple-therapy strategy to maintain HIV-1 viral load suppression in HIV-1-infected patients.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00412551.

RESULTS

From 225 randomized patients, 219 patients reached the 48 week follow-up and 211 reached the 96 week follow-up (106 patients in the darunavir monotherapy arm and 105 in the darunavir triple-therapy arm). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment groups. At week 96, in intent-to-treat analysis, 91/103 patients (88%, 95% CI 81-94) allocated to the darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy arm and 87/104 patients (84%, 95% CI 75-90) allocated to the darunavir triple-therapy arm achieved an HIV-1 viral load <50 copies/mL, with no statistical difference between the two groups. Throughout the 96 week follow-up, 66/112 patients (59%, 95% CI 49-68) and 79/113 patients (70%, 95% CI 61-78) consistently had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL with darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy and darunavir/ritonavir triple therapy, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The MONOI study establishes darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy as durable and efficacious for maintaining virological suppression in HIV-1 patients. Darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy should be considered as a (tailored) treatment option for standard triple-therapy patients who have had a substantial period of viral suppression.