A meta-analysis comparing 48-week treatment outcomes of single and multi-tablet antiretroviral regimens for the treatment of people living with HIV

Abstract Objectives To compare outcomes with single tablet regimens (STR) versus multi-tablet regimens (MTR) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment using published data. Design Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of literature on approved and investigational HIV regimens. Methods The research followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Single or un-blinded studies reporting a direct comparison between STR and MTR were eligible for the meta-analysis. Double-blinded studies were excluded due to lack of difference in pill burden between cohorts. The key outcomes of interest included: adherence rates/proportion meeting target, efficacy, safety/tolerability, non-clinical and economic outcomes. Results After screening 63 full-text articles and posters, 14 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The analysis showed that patients taking STR had improved outcomes over those taking MTR. Patients were significantly more adherent regardless of daily dosing frequency (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96, p < 0.001) and were more likely to achieve virological suppression (relative risk [RR]: 1.05, p = 0.002). There was a trend toward a lower discontinuation risk in the STR cohort, together with reported higher therapy satisfaction, better symptom control, improved health status, reduced healthcare resource utilization and demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to MTR. There were no differences in CD4 cell count increase (at 48 weeks) or safety outcomes. Conclusions The findings of this study confirm previously reported preliminary findings of the advantages of STR over MTR for HIV treatment in adherence, therapy continuation, viral suppression, tolerability, quality of life improvement, cost-effectiveness and healthcare resource utilization

Antiretroviral resistance at virological failure in the NEAT 001/ANRS 143 trial: Raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir or tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir as first-line ART

Objectives: To describe the pattern of drug resistance at virological failure in the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial (first-line treatment with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus either tenofovir/emtricitabine or raltegravir). Methods: Genotypic testing was performed at baseline for reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes and for RT, protease and integrase (IN) genes for patients with a confirmed viral load (VL) >50 copies/mL or any single VL >500 copies/mL during or after week 32. Results: A resistance test was obtained for 110/805 (13.7%) randomized participants qualifying for resistance analysis (61/401 of participants in the raltegravir arm and 49/404 of participants in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm). No resistance-associated mutation (RAM) was observed in the tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir arm, and all further analyses were limited to the raltegravir plus darunavir arm. In this group, 15/55 (27.3%) participants had viruses with IN RAMs (12 N155H alone, 1 N155H + Q148R, 1 F121Y and 1 Y143C), 2/53 (3.8%) with nucleotide analogue RT inhibitor RAMs (K65R, M41L) and 1/57 (1.8%) with primary protease RAM (L76V). The frequency of IN mutations at failure was significantly associated with baseline VL: 7.1% for a VL of TREND = 0.007). Of note, 4/15 participants with IN RAM had a VL <200 copies/mL at time of testing. Conclusions: In the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial, there was no RAM at virological failure in the standard tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir regimen, contrasting with a rate of 29.5% (mostly IN mutations) in the raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir NRTI-sparing regimen. The cumulative risk of IN RAM after 96 weeks of follow-up in participants initiating ART with raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir was 3.9%