Effectiveness of dolutegravir-based regimens as either first-line or switch antiretroviral therapy: data from the Icona cohort

Introduction: Concerns about dolutegravir (DTG) tolerability in the real-life setting have recently arisen. We aimed to estimate the risk of treatment discontinuation and virological failure of DTG-based regimens from a large cohort of HIV-infected individuals. Methods: We performed a multicentre, observational study including all antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve and virologically suppressed treatment-experienced (TE) patients from the Icona (Italian Cohort Naïve Antiretrovirals) cohort who started, for the first time, a DTG-based regimen from January 2015 to December 2017. We estimated the cumulative risk of DTG discontinuation regardless of the reason and for toxicity, and of virological failure using Kaplan–Meier curves. We used Cox regression model to investigate predictors of DTG discontinuation. Results: About 1679 individuals (932 ART-naïve, 747 TE) were included. The one- and two-year probabilities (95% CI) of DTG discontinuation were 6.7% (4.9 to 8.4) and 11.5% (8.7 to 14.3) for ART-naïve and 6.6% (4.6 to 8.6) and 7.6% (5.4 to 9.8) for TE subjects. In both ART-naïve and TE patients, discontinuations of DTG were mainly driven by toxicity with an estimated risk (95% CI) of 4.0% (2.6 to 5.4) and 2.5% (1.3 to 3.6) by one year and 5.6% (3.8 to 7.5) and 4.0% (2.4 to 5.6) by two years respectively. Neuropsychiatric events were the main reason for stopping DTG in both ART-naïve (2.1%) and TE (1.7%) patients. In ART-naïve, a concomitant AIDS diagnosis predicted the risk of discontinuing DTG for any reason (adjusted relative hazard (aRH) = 3.38, p = 0.001), whereas starting DTG in combination with abacavir (ABC) was associated with a higher risk of discontinuing because of toxicity (aRH = 3.30, p = 0.009). TE patients starting a DTG-based dual therapy compared to a triple therapy had a lower risk of discontinuation for any reason (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 2.50, p = 0.037 for ABC-based triple-therapies, aHR = 3.56, p = 0.012 for tenofovir-based) and for toxicity (aHR = 5.26, p = 0.030 for ABC-based, aHR = 6.60, p = 0.024 for tenofovir-based). The one- and two-year probabilities (95% CI) of virological failure were 1.2% (0.3 to 2.0) and 4.6% (2.7 to 6.5) in the ART naïve group and 2.2% (1.0 to 3.3) and 2.9% (1.5 to 4.3) in the TE group. Conclusions: In this large cohort, DTG showed excellent efficacy and optimal tolerability both as first-line and switching ART. The low risk of treatment-limiting toxicities in ART-naïve as well as in treated individuals reassures on the use of DTG in everyday clinical practice

First-line antiretroviral therapy with efavirenz plus tenofovir disiproxil fumarate/emtricitabine or rilpivirine plus tenofovir disiproxil fumarate/emtricitabine: a durability comparison

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the durabilities of efavirenz (EFV) and rilpivirine (RPV) in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in first-line regimens. Methods: A multicentre prospective and observational study was carried out. We included all patients participating in the Italian Cohort Naive Antiretrovirals (ICONA) Foundation Study who started first-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) with TDF/FTC in combination with RPV or EFV, with a baseline viral load < 100 000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. Survival analyses using Kaplan–Meier (KM) curves and Cox regression with time-fixed covariates at baseline were employed. Results: Overall, 1490 ART-naïve patients were included in the study, of whom 704 were initiating their first cART with EFV and 786 with RPV. Patients treated with EFV, compared with those on RPV, were older [median 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 30–43) years vs. 33 (IQR 27–39) years, respectively; P < 0.001], were more frequently at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stage C (3.1% vs. 1.4%, respectively; P = 0.024), and had a lower median baseline CD4 count [340 (IQR 257–421) cells/μL vs. 447 (IQR 347–580) cells/μL, respectively; P < 0.001] and a higher median viral load [4.38 (IQR 3.92–4.74) log10 copies/mL vs. 4.23 (IQR 3.81–4.59) log10 copies/mL, respectively], (P = 0.004). A total of 343 patients discontinued at least one drug of those included in the first cART regimen, more often EFV (26%) than RPV (13%), by 2 years (P < 0.0001). After adjustment, patients treated with EFV were more likely to discontinue at least one drug for any cause [relative hazard (RH) 4.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.89–5.80], for toxicity (RH 2.23; 95% CI 1.05–4.73) for intolerance (RH 5.17; 95% CI 2.66–10.07) and for proactive switch (RH 10.96; 95% CI 3.17–37.87) than those starting RPV. Conclusions: In our nonrandomized comparison, RPV was better tolerated, less toxic and showed longer durability than EFV, without a significant difference in rates of discontinuation because of failures