Effects of switching to protease inhibitor monotherapy on nucleoside analogue-related adverse events

Switching from triple combination treatment to protease inhibitor monotherapy may increase the risk of elevations in HIV RNA, and is not recommended in most international treatment guidelines. However, the use of protease inhibitor monotherapy could prevent or reverse adverse events related to long-term use of nucleoside analogues, such as lipoatrophy, renal adverse events, osteopenia, and anemia. A detailed MEDLINE search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials of triple- combination treatment versus protease inhibitor monotherapy with detailed analyses of safety. Summary results from analysis of changes in body composition, changes in lipids, renal adverse events, and anemia were evaluated for patients taking either protease inhibitor monotherapy or triple therapy. In six trials with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry data available, the percentage of patients with lipoatrophy was significantly lower in the protease inhibitor monotherapy arms than the triple therapy arms (p = 0.03). In these trials there was also no significant difference in the risk of lipohypertrophy between protease inhibitor monotherapy and triple therapy arms. In one trial there was a higher risk of renal adverse events for patients taking tenofovir in the triple therapy arm. In two trials there were rises in total cholesterol when patients stopped taking tenofovir in the protease inhibitor monotherapy arms. In conclusion, there is a mixed pattern of changes in nucleoside analogue-related adverse events after switching from triple therapy to protease inhibitor therapy. The potential for safety benefits of stopping nucleoside analogues needs to be set against a higher risk of HIV RNA elevations during protease inhibitor monotherapy.SCOPUS: re.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Etravirine as a Switching Option for Patients with HIV RNA Suppression: A Review of Recent Trials

Unlike other nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, etravirine is only approved for use in treatment-experienced patients. In the DUET 1 and 2 trials, 1203 highly treatment-experienced patients were randomized to etravirine or placebo, in combination with darunavir/ritonavir and optimized background treatment. In these trials, etravirine showed significantly higher rates of HIV RNA suppression when compared with placebo (61% versus 40% at Week 48). There was no significant rise of lipids or neuropsychiatric adverse events, but there was an increase in the risk of rash with etravirine treatment. In the SENSE trial, which evaluated etravirine and efavirenz in 157 treatment-naïve patients in combination with 2 nucleoside analogues, there was a lower risk of lipid elevations and neuropsychiatric adverse events with etravirine when compared to efavirenz. Etravirine has been evaluated in three randomized switching studies. In the SSAT029 switch trial, 38 patients who had neuropsychiatric adverse events possibly related to efavirenz showed an improvement in these after switching to etravirine. The Swiss Switch-EE recruited 58 individuals without neuropsychiatric adverse events who were receiving efavirenz, and no benefit was shown when switching to etravirine. In the Spanish ETRA-SWITCH trial ( = 46), there were improvements in lipids when individuals switched from a protease inhibitor to etravirine. These switching trials were conducted in patients with full HIV RNA suppression: <50 copies/mL and with no history of virological failure or resistance to therapy. The results from these three randomized switching studies suggest a possible new role for etravirine, in combination with two nucleoside analogues, as a switching option for those with HIV RNA suppression but who are reporting adverse events possibly related to antiretroviral therapy. However a large well-powered trial would need to be conducted to strengthen the evidence from the pilot studies conducted so far

Etravirine as a Switching Option for Patients with HIV RNA Suppression: A Review of Recent Trials

Unlike other nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, etravirine is only approved for use in treatment-experienced patients. In the DUET 1 and 2 trials, 1203 highly treatment-experienced patients were randomized to etravirine or placebo, in combination with darunavir/ritonavir and optimized background treatment. In these trials, etravirine showed significantly higher rates of HIV RNA suppression when compared with placebo (61% versus 40% at Week 48). There was no significant rise of lipids or neuropsychiatric adverse events, but there was an increase in the risk of rash with etravirine treatment. In the SENSE trial, which evaluated etravirine and efavirenz in 157 treatment-naïve patients in combination with 2 nucleoside analogues, there was a lower risk of lipid elevations and neuropsychiatric adverse events with etravirine when compared to efavirenz. Etravirine has been evaluated in three randomized switching studies. In the SSAT029 switch trial, 38 patients who had neuropsychiatric adverse events possibly related to efavirenz showed an improvement in these after switching to etravirine. The Swiss Switch-EE recruited 58 individuals without neuropsychiatric adverse events who were receiving efavirenz, and no benefit was shown when switching to etravirine. In the Spanish ETRA-SWITCH trial (n=46), there were improvements in lipids when individuals switched from a protease inhibitor to etravirine. These switching trials were conducted in patients with full HIV RNA suppression: <50 copies/mL and with no history of virological failure or resistance to therapy. The results from these three randomized switching studies suggest a possible new role for etravirine, in combination with two nucleoside analogues, as a switching option for those with HIV RNA suppression but who are reporting adverse events possibly related to antiretroviral therapy. However a large well-powered trial would need to be conducted to strengthen the evidence from the pilot studies conducted so far

Budget Impact Analysis of Switching to Darunavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy for HIV-Infected People in Spain

Antiretrovirals, Budget-impact-analysis, Darunavir/ritonavir, HIV-infections

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

96 week results from the MONET trial: A randomized comparison of darunavir/ritonavir with versus without nucleoside analogues, for patients with hiv RNA <50 copies/ml at baseline

Background: In virologically suppressed patients, switching to darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy could avoid resistance and adverse events from continuing nucleoside analogues. Methods: Two hundred and fifty-six patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL on current antiretrovirals were switched to darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n=127) or with two nucleoside analogues (n=129). Treatment failure was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA levels at least 50 copies/mL by week 96, or discontinuation of study drugs. The trial had 80% power to show non-inferiority (δ=-12%) at week 48. Results: Patients were 81% male, 91% Caucasian, and had a median baseline CD4 count of 575 cells/mm. 3. There were more patients with hepatitis C co-infection at baseline in the monotherapy arm (18%) compared with the triple therapy arm (12%). In the efficacy analysis, HIV RNA <50 copies/mL by week 96 (per protocol, time to loss of virological response, switch equals failure) was 78% versus 82% in the monotherapy and triple therapy arms [difference -4.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.3% to +5.8%]; in a switch included analysis, HIV RNA <50 copies/mL was 93% versus 92% (difference +1.6%, 95% CI -5.0% to +8.1%). The percentage of patients with HIV RNA <5 copies/mL (optical density from the sample equal to the negative control) remained constant over time in both treatment arms. Conclusions: In the week 96 analysis of the MONotherapy in Europe with TMC114 (MONET) trial, switching to darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy showed non-inferior efficacy to darunavir/ritonavir plus two nucleoside analogues in the switch included and observed failure analyses, but not in the main switch equals failure analysis. © The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe