Week 48 efficacy and central nervous system analysis of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus darunavir/ritonavir with two nucleoside analogues

BACKGROUND: In previous studies in virologically suppressed patients, protease inhibitor monotherapy has shown trends for more low-level elevations in HIV-1 RNA compared with triple therapy, but no increase in the risk of drug resistance. METHODS: A total of 273 patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml on first-line antiretrovirals switched to darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once daily, either as monotherapy (n = 137) or as triple therapy with two nucleoside analogues (n = 136). Treatment failure was defined as HIV-1 RNA levels 50 copies/ml or above, or discontinuation of study treatment by week 48 (FDA Snapshot algorithm). RESULTS: Patients were 83% male and 88% white, with mean age 42 years. In the primary efficacy analysis, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml by week 48 [intention-to-treat (ITT)] was 118 of 137 (86%) in the DRV/r monotherapy arm versus 129 of 136 (95%) in the triple therapy arm (difference = -8.7%, 95% confidence interval -15.50, -1.80). In a post-hoc analysis, for patients with nadir CD4 cell count 200 cells/μl or above, rates of HIV-1 RNA suppression were 91 of 96 (95%) in the DRV/r monotherapy arm and 100 of 106 (94%) in the triple therapy arm. There was no difference in neurocognitive function or the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse events between DRV/r monotherapy and triple therapy. Two patients in the monotherapy arm with CD4 nadir less than 200 cells/μl developed viraemia in both cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma, with one symptomatic case. CONCLUSIONS: In this study for patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at baseline, switching to DRV/r monotherapy showed lower efficacy versus triple therapy at week 48 in the primary ITT switch equals failure analysis, with two cases of viraemia in the CSF in the protease inhibitor monotherapy arm

Uptake and effectiveness of two-drug compared with three-drug antiretroviral regimens among HIV-positive individuals in Europe

Objective: To assess the use of two-drug antiretroviral regimens (2DR) and virologic and immunologic outcomes compared with three-drug regimens (3DR) in the EuroSIDA cohort. Design: Multicentre, prospective cohort study. Methods: Logistic regression was used to analyse the uptake and outcomes among HIV-positive individuals who started or switched to a 2DR compared with those on a 3DR. Virologic outcomes were assessed on-treatment as the proportion of individuals with controlled viral load (<400 copies/ml), or with a composite modified FDA snapshot endpoint (mFDA), with mFDA success defined as controlled viral load at 6 months or 12 months for individuals with a known viral load, no regimen changes, AIDS or death. Immunologic response was defined as a 100 cells/mu l or a 25% increase in CD4(+) cell counts from baseline. Results: Between 1 July 2010 and 31 December 2016, 423 individuals started or switched to a 2DR (eight antiretroviral-naive) and 4347 started a 3DR (566 naive). Individuals on 2DR tended to have suppressed viral load, higher CD4(+) cell counts and more comorbidities at baseline compared with those on 3DR. There were no differences in the proportions of individuals who obtained on-treatment or mFDA success, and no significant differences in the adjusted odds ratios for mFDA success or immunologic responses between the 2DR and 3DR groups at 6 months or 12 months. Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, 2DR were largely used for virologically suppressed individuals with higher cumulative exposure to antiretrovirals and comorbidities. Virologic and immunologic outcomes were similar among those on 2DR or 3DR, although confounding by indication cannot be fully excluded due to the observational nature of the study