Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen
ABSTRACT Complex antiretroviral regimens can be associated with increased toxicity and poor adherence. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of switching to two simplified, class-sparing antiretroviral regimens.
We conducted a randomized, open-label study in 236 patients with virologic suppression who were taking a three- or four-drug protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor regimen for > or = 18 months. Patients received lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 533 mg/133 mg twice daily + efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once daily or EFV + two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI). Primary study endpoint was time to first virologic failure (VF, confirmed HIV-1 RNA > 200 copies/ml) or discontinuation because of study drug-related toxicity.
After 2.1 years of follow up, patients receiving LPV/r + EFV discontinued treatment at a greater rate than patients receiving EFV + NRTI (P < 0.001). Twenty-one patients developed VF (14 receiving LPV/r + EFV and seven receiving EFV + NRTI) and 26 discontinued because of a study drug-related toxicity (20 receiving LPV/r + EFV and six receiving EFV + NRTI). Time to VF or study drug related-toxicity discontinuation was significantly shorter for LPV/r + EFV than EFV + NRTIs (P = 0.0015). A significantly higher risk of drug-related toxicity occurred with LPV/r + EFV, mainly for increased triglycerides (P = 0021). A trend toward a higher VF rate occurred with LPV/r + EFV in an intent-to-treat and as-treated analyses (P = 0.088 and P = 0.063 respectively).
Switching to EFV + NRTI resulted in better outcomes, fewer drug-related toxicity discontinuations and a trend to fewer virologic failures compared to switching to LPV/r + EFV.
SourceAvailable from: Mark A Boyd[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The nucleoside(tide) reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) have traditionally been an important 'back-bone' of an antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen. However all agents have been associated with both short- and long-term toxicity. There have also been concerns regarding the efficacy and safety of a treatment sequencing strategy in which those with past exposure and/or resistance to one or more NRTIs are re-exposed to 'recycled' NRTIs in subsequent ART regimens. Newer, potent and possible safer, agents from various ART classes continue to become available. There has therefore been growing interest in evaluating NRTI-sparing regimens. In this review, we examined studies of NRTI-sparing regimens in adult HIV-positive patients with varying degrees of ART experience. We found that in treatment experienced patients currently on a failing regimen with detectable viral load, there now exists a robust evidence for the use of NRTI-sparing regimens including raltegravir with a boosted-protease inhibitor with or without a third agent. In those on a virologically suppressive regimen switching to a NRTI-sparing regimen or in those ART-naïve patients initiating an NRTI-sparing regimen, evidence is sparse and largely comes from small exploratory trials or observational studies. Overall, these studies suggest that caution needs to be exercised in carefully selecting the right candidate and agents, especially in the context of a dual-therapy regimen, to minimise the risks of virological failure. There is residual toxicity conferred by the ritonavir boost in protease-inhibitor containing NRTI-sparing regimens. Fully-powered studies are needed to explore the place of N (t)RTI-sparing regimens in the sequencing of ART. Additionally research is required to explore how to minimise the adverse effects associated with ritonavir-based pharmacoenhancement.AIDS Research and Therapy 12/2013; 10(1):33. DOI:10.1186/1742-6405-10-33 · 1.84 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We conducted a secondary data analysis of 11 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) studies to examine longitudinal associations between 14 self-reported antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence barriers (at 12 weeks) and plasma HIV RNA (at 24 weeks) and to discern the relative importance of these barriers in explaining virologic detectability. Studies enrolled from 1997 to 2003 and concluded between 2002 and 2012. We included 1496 (54.2% of the original sample) with complete data. The most commonly selected barriers were "away from home" (21.9%), "simply forgot" (19.6%), "change in daily routine" (19.5%), and "fell asleep/slept through dosing time" (18.9%). In bivariate analyses, "too many pills to take" (OR=0.43, p<0.001), "wanted to avoid side effects" (OR=0.54, p=0.001), "felt drug was toxic/harmful" (OR=0.44, p<0.001), "felt sick or ill" (OR=0.49, p<0.001), "felt depressed/overwhelmed" (OR=0.58, p=0.004), and "problem taking pills at specified time" (OR=0.71, p=0.04) were associated with a lower odds of an undetectable HIV RNA. "Too many pills to take," "wanted to avoid side effects," "felt drug was toxic/harmful," "felt sick/ill,", and "felt depressed/overwhelmed" had the highest relative importance in explaining virologic detectability. "Simply forgot" was not associated with HIV RNA (OR=0.99, p=0.95) and was ninth in its relative importance. Adherence interventions should prioritize barriers with highest importance in explaining virologic outcomes rather than focusing on more commonly reported barriers.AIDS PATIENT CARE and STDs 01/2015; 29(3). DOI:10.1089/apc.2014.0255 · 3.58 Impact Factor