Dynamics of Low-Level Viremia and Immune Activation after Switching to a Darunavir-Based Regimen.

There is an ongoing debate regarding whether low-level viremia (LLV), in particular persistent LLV, during HIV treatment with optimal adherence originates from low-level viral replication, viral production, or both. We performed an observational study in 30 individuals with LLV who switched to a boosted darunavir (DRV)-based therapy. In-depth virological analyses were used to characterize the viral population and the (activity) of the viral reservoir. Immune activation was examined using cell-bound and soluble markers. The primary outcome was defined as the effect on HIV-RNA and was categorized by responders (<50 cp/mL) or non-responders (>50 cp/mL). At week 24, 53% of the individuals were considered responders, 40% non-responders, and 7% could not be assigned. Sequencing showed no evolution or selection of drug resistance in the non-responders. Production of defective virus with mutations in either the protease (D25N) or RT active site contributed to persistent LLV in two individuals. We show that in about half of the study participants, the switch to a DRV-based regimen resulted in a viral response indicative of ongoing low-level viral replication as the cause of LLV before the switch. Our data confirm that in clinical management, high genetic barrier drugs like DRV are a safe choice, irrespective of the source of LLV.

Dolutegravir/Lamivudine Is Noninferior to Continuing Dolutegravir- and Non-Dolutegravir-Based Triple-Drug Antiretroviral Therapy in Virologically Suppressed People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: DUALING Prospective Nationwide Matched Cohort Study.

Background: Confirming the efficacy of dolutegravir/lamivudine in clinical practice solidifies recommendations on its use. Methods: Prospective cohort study (DUALING) in 24 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment centers in the Netherlands. HIV RNA-suppressed cases were on triple-drug antiretroviral regimens without prior virological failure or resistance and started dolutegravir/lamivudine. Cases were 1:2 matched to controls on triple-drug antiretroviral regimens by the use of dolutegravir-based regimens, age, sex, transmission route, CD4+ T-cell nadir, and HIV RNA zenith. The primary endpoint was the treatment failure rate in cases versus controls at 1 year by intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses with 5% noninferiority margin. Results: The 2040 participants were 680 cases and 1380 controls. Treatment failure in the 390 dolutegravir-based cases versus controls occurred in 8.72% and 12.50% (difference: -3.78% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -7.49% to .08%]) by intention-to-treat and 1.39% and 0.80% (difference: 0.59% [95% CI, -.80% to 1.98%]) by on-treatment analyses. The treatment failure risk in 290 non-dolutegravir-based cases was also noninferior to controls. Antiretroviral regimen modifications unrelated to virological failure explained the higher treatment failure rate by intention-to-treat. A shorter time on triple-drug antiretroviral therapy and being of non-Western origin was associated with treatment failure. Treatment failure, defined as 2 consecutive HIV RNA >50 copies/mL, occurred in 4 cases and 5 controls but without genotypic resistance detected. Viral blips occured comparable in cases and controls but cases gained more weight, especially when tenofovir-based regimens were discontinued. Conclusions: In routine care, dolutegravir/lamivudine was noninferior to continuing triple-drug antiretroviral regimens after 1 year, supporting the use of dolutegravir/lamivudine in clinical practice. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04707326.