Shorter Time to Discontinuation Due to Treatment Failure in People Living with HIV Switched to Dolutegravir Plus Either Rilpivirine or Lamivudine Compared with Integrase Inhibitor-Based Triple Therapy in a Large Spanish Cohort

HIV; Triple therapy; Two-drug combinationsVIH; Triple teràpia; Combinacions de dos fàrmacsVIH; Terapia triple; Combinaciones de dos medicamentosIntroduction: Standard therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug regimens (2DR) has been considered for selected patients in part to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-based three-drug regimens (3DR) versus 2DR of dolutegravir (DTG) + rilpivirine (RPV) or DTG + lamivudine (3TC). Methods: All patients in the Spanish VACH cohort switching to INSTI-based 3DR or a 2DR consisting of DTG + RPV or DTG + 3TC between May 2, 2016 and May 15, 2019 were included. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess time to/risk of discontinuation due to treatment failure (TF) (defined as virologic failure [VF], immunologic failure, or disease progression) and adverse events (AEs). Three secondary analyses were performed: (1) in restricting the analysis to patients who were virologically suppressed (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL) at switch; (2) matched analysis (2:1, matched by age, sex, number of previous VFs, and line of regimen), and (3) using VF as the primary endpoint in all patients. Results: Overall, 5047 3DR and 617 2DR patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics differed between groups; 2DR patients were older, more treatment experienced, and more likely to be virologically suppressed at switch. Time to discontinuation due to TF was significantly shorter for 2DR (P = 0.002). The hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation due to TF on 2DR vs 3DR was 2.33 (P = 0.003). No difference was observed for time to discontinuation (P = 0.908) or risk of discontinuation due to AEs (HR = 0.80; P = 0.488). Results were qualitatively similar in virologically suppressed patients, matched analysis, and for VF. Conclusion: In the real world, the risks of discontinuation due to TF and VF were more than two times higher in patients switching to DTG-based 2DR than INSTI-based 3DR, with no difference in discontinuation due to AEs

Validation of a computer-adaptive test to evaluate generic health-related quality of life

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is a relevant variable in the evaluation of health outcomes. Questionnaires based on Classical Test Theory typically require a large number of items to evaluate HRQoL. Computer Adaptive Testing (CAT) can be used to reduce tests length while maintaining and, in some cases, improving accuracy. This study aimed at validating a CAT based on Item Response Theory (IRT) for evaluation of generic HRQoL: the CAT-Health instrument.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study of subjects aged over 18 attending Primary Care Centres for any reason. CAT-Health was administered along with the SF-12 Health Survey. Age, gender and a checklist of chronic conditions were also collected. CAT-Health was evaluated considering: 1) feasibility: completion time and test length; 2) content range coverage, Item Exposure Rate (IER) and test precision; and 3) construct validity: differences in the CAT-Health scores according to clinical variables and correlations between both questionnaires.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>396 subjects answered CAT-Health and SF-12, 67.2% females, mean age (SD) 48.6 (17.7) years. 36.9% did not report any chronic condition. Median completion time for CAT-Health was 81 seconds (IQ range = 59-118) and it increased with age (p < 0.001). The median number of items administered was 8 (IQ range = 6-10). Neither ceiling nor floor effects were found for the score. None of the items in the pool had an IER of 100% and it was over 5% for 27.1% of the items. Test Information Function (TIF) peaked between levels -1 and 0 of HRQoL. Statistically significant differences were observed in the CAT-Health scores according to the number and type of conditions.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although domain-specific CATs exist for various areas of HRQoL, CAT-Health is one of the first IRT-based CATs designed to evaluate generic HRQoL and it has proven feasible, valid and efficient, when administered to a broad sample of individuals attending primary care settings.</p

Real world effectiveness of standard of care triple therapy versus two-drug combinations for treatment of people living with HIV

Teràpia antiretroviral; Diagnòstic i gestió del VIH; Teràpia amb inhibidors de la proteasaTerapia antirretroviral; Diagnóstico y gestión del VIH; Terapia con inhibidores de la proteasaAntiretroviral therapy; HIV diagnosis and management; Protease inhibitor therapyBackground Since 1996, the standard of care (SOC) therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of a backbone of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug combinations (2DC) has been considered for selected patients to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-containing triple therapy (TT) to dolutegravir- (DTG) and/or boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based 2DC in a large Spanish cohort of HIV patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the VACH cohort, a prospective multicentre Spanish cohort of adult HIV patients. All treatment experienced patients initiating a TT of an INSTI combined with two NRTIs or a 2DC-containing DTG and/or a bPI between 01/01/2012 and 01/06/2017 were included. The unit of analysis was patient-regimens. The overall sample analysis was complemented with two sub-analyses. The first sub-analysis focused on patients treated with a backbone plus DTG compared to those treated with DTG+ one other antiretroviral. The second sub-analysis focused on patients with HIV RNA<50 copies/mL at baseline, irrespective of the regimen used. The following endpoints were assessed: time to discontinuation for any reason, time to switch due to virologic failure, and time to switch due to toxicity (reasons for discontinuation according to clinician report in the database). Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox regression models. Results Overall 7,481 patients were included in the analysis, contributing to 9,243 patient-regimens. Patient characteristics at baseline differed among groups, with the 2DC group being significantly older and having a higher proportion of women, a longer time on ART and a higher number of previous virologic failures. Median (95% Confidence Interval [C.I.]) time to switch was 2.5 years (2.3, 2.7) in 2DC group versus 2.9 years (2.7, 3.0) in TT. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% C.I.) for discontinuation due to any reason, virologic failure and toxicity in the 2DC vs TT group were 1.29 (1.15; 1.44), 2.06 (1.54; 2.77) and 1.18 (0.94; 1.48), respectively. Results were consistent in the two sub-analyses. Conclusion In this analysis, time to discontinuation and probability of remaining free of virologic failure were significantly higher in patients on INSTI-based TT compared to DTG- and/or bPI-containing 2DC, with no differences in toxicity.Partial funding was provided by Gilead Sciences. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors (HD-C), but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Comorbidities and costs in HIV patients: A retrospective claims database analysis in Germany.

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) are at high risk of developing non-HIV related comorbidities, particularly at older ages. In a retrospective claims database analysis, we compared PLHIV to a matched, non-HIV cohort to assess the prevalence of comorbidities and healthcare costs in PLHIV and the general non-HIV population in Germany. In total, 2,132 adult patients with HIV were identified in the InGef research database with HIV ICD-10 diagnosis within each year from 2011 to 2014. Of these, 1,969 could be matched to a control cohort of 3,938 individuals (1:2 ratio). Matching criteria included age, gender and socio-economic variables. The prevalence of acute renal disease (0.5% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.045), bone fractures due to osteoporosis (6.4% vs. 2.1%, p<0.001), chronic renal disease (4.3% vs. 2.4%, p<0.001), cardiovascular disease (12.8% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.006), Hepatitis B (5.9% vs. 0.3%, p<0.001) and Hepatitis C infection (8.8% vs. 0.3%, p<0.001) was significantly higher in PLHIV compared to the matched non-HIV cohort. Mean costs excluding costs for antiretroviral therapy (ART) were significantly higher in the HIV cohort (8,049€ vs. 3,658€, p<0.05). On average, PLHIV incurred excess costs of 16,441€ for ART, 2,747€ for pharmaceuticals excluding ART (p<0.05), 1,441€ for outpatient care (p<0.05) and 321€ for inpatient care (p<0.05). Devices and remedies' costs were significantly higher in the control cohort with excess costs of 113€ (p<0.05). Considering mean total costs, excluding ART, excess costs for PLHIV amounted to 8,049€ (p<0.05). This analysis demonstrated an increased comorbidity and economic burden of PLHIV compared to matched controls. Our findings suggest that HIV remains an area of high unmet medical need. To improve patient outcomes, adequate HIV management including regular monitoring, screening for comorbidities and optimal ART selection throughout the life course of PLHIV are of key importance

eGFR-EPI changes among HIV patients who switch from F/TDF to F/TAF while maintaining the same third agent in the Spanish VACH cohort

Background: Evidence from clinical practice on the effects of switching from emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF) to emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF)-based triple-therapy (TT) regimens on renal parameters is limited. Objective: This retrospective analysis evaluated the effects on renal function of switching from F/TDF to F/TAF-based TT regimens with no change in third agent among people living with HIV (PLWH). Methods: Data were from a multicenter Spanish PLWH cohort. Patients with a baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR-EPI) measurement, ≥1 follow-up measurement, ≥30 days treatment with F/TAF, and who switched from F/TDF to F/TAF with no change in third agent were included. Multivariate mixed linear models were used to evaluate change from baseline over time in eGFR-EPI. eGFR-EPI changes before and after switch were analyzed in a matched patient subgroup. Results: Overall, 340 patients were included. Mean (95% CI) eGFR-EPI in patients with baseline eGFR-EPI <90 ml/min/1.73m2 (n = 125) was 79.6 (78.0; 81.2) ml/min/1.73m2 at baseline and 81.3 (79.9; 82.7) ml/min/1.73m2 at 12 months after switch. In the patient-matched subgroup (n = 175), median annual eGFR-EPI declined −4.24 ml/min/1.73m2 while on F/TDF and increased +0.93 ml/min/1.73m2 after switch to F/TAF (P < 0.0001). In patients with baseline eGFR-EPI <90 ml/min/1.73m2, median annual eGFR-EPI increased +4.19 mL/min/1.73m2 after switch (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Switching from F/TDF to F/TAF-based TT regimens while maintaining the same third agent numerically improved eGFR-EPI in PLWH with baseline eGFR-EPI <90 mL/min/1.73m2. eGFR-EPI improved significantly when comparing progression while on F/TDF vs progression after switch, confirming beneficial renal effects of switching to F/TAF in a clinical practice setting

Shorter Time to Discontinuation Due to Treatment Failure in People Living with HIV Switched to Dolutegravir Plus Either Rilpivirine or Lamivudine Compared with Integrase Inhibitor-Based Triple Therapy in a Large Spanish Cohort.

Standard therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug regimens (2DR) has been considered for selected patients in part to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase inhibitor (INSTI)-based three-drug regimens (3DR) versus 2DR of dolutegravir (DTG) + rilpivirine (RPV) or DTG + lamivudine (3TC). All patients in the Spanish VACH cohort switching to INSTI-based 3DR or a 2DR consisting of DTG + RPV or DTG + 3TC between May 2, 2016 and May 15, 2019 were included. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess time to/risk of discontinuation due to treatment failure (TF) (defined as virologic failure [VF], immunologic failure, or disease progression) and adverse events (AEs). Three secondary analyses were performed: (1) in restricting the analysis to patients who were virologically suppressed (HIV RNA  Overall, 5047 3DR and 617 2DR patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics differed between groups; 2DR patients were older, more treatment experienced, and more likely to be virologically suppressed at switch. Time to discontinuation due to TF was significantly shorter for 2DR (P = 0.002). The hazard ratio (HR) for discontinuation due to TF on 2DR vs 3DR was 2.33 (P = 0.003). No difference was observed for time to discontinuation (P = 0.908) or risk of discontinuation due to AEs (HR = 0.80; P = 0.488). Results were qualitatively similar in virologically suppressed patients, matched analysis, and for VF. In the real world, the risks of discontinuation due to TF and VF were more than two times higher in patients switching to DTG-based 2DR than INSTI-based 3DR, with no difference in discontinuation due to AEs

Remdesivir for Severe COVID-19 versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe COVID-19 using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard-of-care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation 94% or lower on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard-of-care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio 2.03: 95% confidence interval 1.34-3.08, p CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: 22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe