Efficacy and tolerability of lamivudine plus dolutegravir compared with lamivudine plus boosted PIs in HIV-1 positive individuals with virologic suppression: a retrospective study from the clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Direct comparisons between lamivudine plus bPIs and lamivudine plus dolutegravir as maintenance strategies in virologically-suppressed HIV positive patients are lacking.

METHODS

Time to treatment discontinuation (TD) and virological failure (VF) were compared in a cohort of HIV+ patients on a virologically-effective ART starting lamivudine with either darunavir/r, atazanavir/r or dolutegravir. Changes in laboratory parameters were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Four-hundred-ninety-four patients were analyzed (170 switching to darunavir/r, 141 to atazanavir/r, 183 to dolutegravir): median age was 49 years, with 8 years since ART start. Groups differed for age, HIV-risk factor, time since HIV-diagnosis and on ART, previous therapy and reasons for switching. Estimated proportions free from TD at week 48 and 96 were 79.8 and 48.3% of patients with darunavir/r, 87.0 and 70.9% with atazanavir/r, and 88.2 and 82.6% with dolutegravir, respectively (p < 0.001). Calendar years, HIV-risk factor, higher baseline cholesterol and an InSTI-based previous regimen predicted TD, whereas lamivudine+dolutegravir therapy and previous tenofovir use were protective. VF was the cause of TD in 6/123 cases with darunavir/r, 4/97 with atazanavir/r and 3/21 with dolutegravir. Other main reasons for TD were: toxicity (43.1% with darunavir/r, 39.2% with atazanavir/r, 52.4% with dolutegravir), further simplification (36.6% with darunavir/r, 30.9% with atazanavir/r, 14.3% with dolutegravir). Incidence of VF did not differ among study groups (p = 0.747). No factor could predict VF. Lipid profile improved in the dolutegravir group, whereas renal function improved in the bPIs groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In real practice, a switch to lamivudine+dolutegravir showed similar efficacy but longer durability than a switch to lamivudine+bPIs.

Comparing outcomes of hospitalized patients with moderate and severe COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir

BACKGROUND

The role of the antiviral therapy in treatment of COVID-19 is still a matter to be investigated. Also efficacy and safety of antiviral regimens were not compared according severity of the disease. In this study the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir was compared in patients with moderate and severe COVID-19.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 213 patients with COVID-19 during the hospitalization course and up to 56 days after the hospital discharge. The disease was categorized to moderate and severe based on the severity of pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2). The patients received the national treatment protocol containing hydroxychloroquine (400 mg BD in first day and then 200 mg BD) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg daily) for 7 days. Main outcomes included discharge rates at day 7, 14 and 28, 28-day mortality, rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and intubation, length of hospital and ICU stay and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) age of patients was 60(14) years and 53% were male. According to WHO definition, 51.64% and 48.36% of the patients had moderate (SpO2 ≥ 90%) and severe disease (SpO2 < 90%) at baseline, respectively. The discharge rate of the moderate group was significantly higher than the severe group at day 7, 14 and 28 (HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.69, p = < 0.001 at day 7, HR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, p = < 0.001 at day 14 and HR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67, p = < 0.001at day 28). The 28-day mortality of the severe group was six times higher than the moderate group (HR = 6.00; 95% CI: 2.50-14.44), p = < 0.001). The need of admission in ICU for the severe group and the moderate group was 37.86% and 18.18% of the patients. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the moderate group in comparison with the severe group (5 ± 4 vs. 8 ± 6 days, p < 0.001). Patients in the moderate group experienced the serious adverse events and complications less than the severe group. The discharged patients were followed up to 56 days after discharge. Some of the patients complained of symptoms such as exertional dyspnea, weakness and new-onset hair loss.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not support the use of hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir in patients who had SpO2 < 90% at the time of hospital admission. SpO2 was the only predictor of clinical outcomes (duration of hospital stay, discharge from the hospital and mortality) in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine plus atazanavir/ritonavir.

Atazanavir / ritonavir versus Lopinavir / ritonavir-based combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) for HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Atazanavir/ritonavir over lopinavir/ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection.

METHODS

Clinical trials with a head-to-head comparison of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1 were included. Electronic databases: PubMed/Medline CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Viral suppression below 50 copies/ml at the longest follow-up period was the primary outcome measure. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse drug events, lipid profile changes and grade 3-4 bilirubin elevations were used as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of nine articles from seven trials with 1938 HIV-1 patients were included in the current study. Atazanavir/ritonavir has 13% lower overall risk of failure to suppress the virus level < 50 copies/ml than lopinavir/ritonavir in fixed effect model (pooled RR: 0.87; CI: 0.78, 0.96; P=0.006). The overall risk of hyperbilirubinemia is very high for atazanavir/ritonavir than lopinavir/ritonavir in the random effects model (pooled RR: 45.03; CI: 16.03, 126.47; P< 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Atazanavir/ritonavir has a better viral suppression at lower risk of lipid abnormality than lopinavir/ritonavir. The risk and development of hyperbilirubinemia from atazanavir-based regimens should be taken into consideration both at the time of prescribing and patient follow-up.

A cross-sectional study to evaluate second line virological failure and elevated bilirubin as a surrogate for adherence to atazanavir/ritonavir in two urban HIV clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi

Background

Malawi’s national antiretroviral therapy program provides atazanavir/ritonavir–based second line regimens which cause concentration-dependent rise in indirect bilirubin. We sought to determine if elevated bilirubin, as a surrogate of atazanavir/ritonavir adherence, can aid in the evaluation of second line virological failure in Malawi.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of HIV-infected patients ≥15 years who were on boosted protease inhibitor-based second line antiretroviral therapy for at least 6 months in two urban HIV clinics in Lilongwe, Malawi. Antiretroviral therapy history and adherence data were extracted from the electronic medical records and blood was drawn for viral load, complete blood count, total bilirubin, and CD4 cell count at a clinic visit. Factors associated with virological failure were assessed using multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

Out of 376 patients on second line antiretroviral therapy evaluated, 372 (98.9%) were on atazanavir/ritonavir-based therapy and 142 (37.8%) were male. Mean age was 40.9 years (SD ± 10.1), mean duration on second line antiretroviral therapy was 41.9 months (SD ± 27.6) and 256 patients (68.1%) had elevated bilirubin >1.3 mg/dL. Overall, 35 (9.3%) patients had viral load >1000 copies/ml (virological failure). Among the virologically failing vs. non-failing patients, bilirubin was elevated in 34.3% vs. 72.0% respectively (p < 0.001), although adherence by pill count was similar (62.9% vs. 60.7%, p = 0.804). The odds of virological failure were higher for adults aged 25–40 years (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.5, p = 0.048), those with CD4 cell count <100 (aOR 17.5, p < 0.001), and those with normal bilirubin levels (aOR 5.4, p < 0.001); but were lower for the overweight/obese patients (aOR 0.3, p = 0.026). Poor pill count adherence (aOR 0.7, p = 0.4) and male gender (aOR 1.2, p = 0.698) were not associated with second line virological failure.

Conclusions

Among patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir-based second line antiretroviral therapy, bilirubin levels better predicted virological failure than pill count adherence. Therefore, strategic use of bilirubin and viral load testing to target adherence counseling and support may be cost-effective in monitoring second line antiretroviral therapy adherence and virological failure. Drug resistance testing targeted for patients with virological failure despite elevated bilirubin levels would facilitate timely switch to third line antiretroviral regimens whenever available.