RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Reducing the number of active compounds for lifelong HIV treatment is of interest, especially to reduce potential long-term side effects. So far, available data assessing viral control, support the robustness and safety of 2DR (2-drug regimen) ART compared to 3DR. However, further in-depth investigations of the viral reservoirs are mandatory to guarantee long-term safety of these regimens regarding stable intact HIV-1 DNA copies, HIV-1 RNA transcripts and sustained immunological control. METHODS: The Rumba study is the first prospective randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of switch from 3DR to 2DR on the viral reservoir. Participants on any stable 2nd generation INSTI-based 3DR regimen with HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml plasma for at least 3 months were randomized to switch to dolutegravir/lamivudine (DTG/3TC, N=89) or to switch or stay on bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF, N=45). After 48 weeks, virological, immunological and metabolic parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: We did not observe a significant difference in change over time in the mean number of intact HIV-1 DNA copies/million CD4+ T cells with DTG/3TC compared to B/F/TAF. There was no evidence in this study that switching to DTG/3TC increased the active reservoir by HIV-1 transcription. No significant changes in pro-inflammatory cytokines or major immune cell subsets were observed. Changes in exhaustion and activation of specific cellular subsets were small and bidirectional. Metabolic outcomes are similar between the treatment regimens. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the safety of DTG/3TC compared to B/F/TAF through viral control after in-depth investigations of the intact HIV-1 reservoir, HIV-1 transcription and inflammatory markers.
RESUMO
AIMS: In the absence of a commonly agreed dosing protocol based on pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations, the dose and treatment duration for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in COVID-19 disease currently vary across national guidelines and clinical study protocols. We have used a model-based approach to explore the relative impact of alternative dosing regimens proposed in different dosing protocols for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. METHODS: We compared different PK exposures using Monte Carlo simulations based on a previously published population pharmacokinetic model in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, externally validated using both independent data in lupus erythematous patients and recent data in French COVID-19 patients. Clinical efficacy and safety information from COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ were used to contextualize and assess the actual clinical value of the model predictions. RESULTS: Literature and observed clinical data confirm the variability in clinical responses in COVID-19 when treated with the same fixed doses. Confounding factors were identified that should be taken into account for dose recommendation. For 80% of patients, doses higher than 800 mg day on day 1 followed by 600 mg daily on following days might not be needed for being cured. Limited adverse drug reactions have been reported so far for this dosing regimen, most often confounded by co-medications, comorbidities or underlying COVID-19 disease effects. CONCLUSION: Our results were clear, indicating the unmet need for characterization of target PK exposures to inform HCQ dosing optimization in COVID-19. Dosing optimization for HCQ in COVID-19 is still an unmet need. Efforts in this sense are a prerequisite for best benefit/risk balance.