Transmission of HIV drug resistance and the predicted effect on current first-line regimens in Europe

Numerous studies have shown that baseline drug resistance patterns may influence the outcome of antiretroviral therapy. Therefore, guidelines recommend drug resistance testing to guide the choice of initial regimen. In addition to optimizing individual patient management, these baseline resistance data enable transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to be surveyed for public health purposes. The SPREAD program systematically collects data to gain insight into TDR occurring in Europe since 2001. Demographic, clinical, and virological data from 4140 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals from 26 countries who were newly diagnosed between 2008 and 2010 were analyzed. Evidence of TDR was defined using the WHO list for surveillance of drug resistance mutations. Prevalence of TDR was assessed over time by comparing the results to SPREAD data from 2002 to 2007. Baseline susceptibility to antiretroviral drugs was predicted using the Stanford HIVdb program version 7.0. The overall prevalence of TDR did not change significantly over time and was 8.3% (95% confidence interval, 7.2%-9.5%) in 2008-2010. The most frequent indicators of TDR were nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mutations (4.5%), followed by nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations (2.9%) and protease inhibitor mutations (2.0%). Baseline mutations were most predictive of reduced susceptibility to initial NNRTI-based regimens: 4.5% and 6.5% of patient isolates were predicted to have resistance to regimens containing efavirenz or rilpivirine, respectively, independent of current NRTI backbones. Although TDR was highest for NRTIs, the impact of baseline drug resistance patterns on susceptibility was largest for NNRTIs. The prevalence of TDR assessed by epidemiological surveys does not clearly indicate to what degree susceptibility to different drug classes is affected

Observational cohort study of rilpivirine (RPV) utilization in Europe

Altres ajuts: ViiV Healthcare LLC; Janssen Scientific Affairs; Janssen R&D; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp; Gilead Sciences; The Swiss National Science Foundation (148522); the Danish National Research Foundation and by the International Cohort Consortium of Infectious Disease (RESPOND) (DNRF126).Introduction: Data on safety and effectiveness of RPV from the real-world setting as well as comparisons with other NNRTIs such as efavirenz (EFV) remain scarce. Methods: Participants of EuroSIDA were included if they had started a RPV- or an EFV-containing regimen over November 2011-December 2017. Statistical testing was conducted using non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and Chi-square test. A logistic regression model was used to compare participants' characteristics by treatment group. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the cumulative risk of virological failure (VF, two consecutive values > 50 copies/mL). Results: 1,355 PLWH who started a RPV-based regimen (11% ART-naïve), as well as 333 initiating an EFV-containing regimen were included. Participants who started RPV differed from those starting EFV for demographics (age, geographical region) and immune-virological profiles (CD4 count, HIV RNA). The cumulative risk of VF for the RPV-based group was 4.5% (95% CI 3.3-5.7%) by 2 years from starting treatment (71 total VF events). Five out of 15 (33%) with resistance data available in the RPV group showed resistance-associated mutations vs. 3/13 (23%) among those in the EFV group. Discontinuations due to intolerance/toxicity were reported for 73 (15%) of RPV- vs. 45 (30%) of EFV-treated participants (p = 0.0001). The main difference was for toxicity of central nervous system (CNS, 3% vs. 22%, p 50 copies/mL and resistance in participants treated with RPV were similar to those reported by other studies. RPV safety profile was favourable with less frequent discontinuation due to toxicity than EFV (especially for CNS)