Incidences and risk factors of first-line HAART discontinuation: a limitation to the success of the "seek, test, treat, and retain" strategy?

To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of first-highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) modifications/interruptions and their causes in a cohort of newly-treated patients by using a competing risk model. In nine centers of the French cohort Dat'AIDS, in 1 year and 2 years of censorship, a competing risk analysis was implemented in HIV1 patients aged 18 years or older first-treated between September 2002 and March 2012. In 4669 patients, 3628 modifications (77.7%) were observed (median: 13.5 months). Cumulative incidence in 1 year: 46.8% [45.4-48.3]; in 2 years: 65.3% [63.8-66.8]. Intolerance (n = 1167; 32.3%): in 1 year, except first-treated from 2002 to 2005, modifications were not different: 2002-2003 (24.6%) 2004-2005 (26.1%), 2006-2007 (19.4%), 2008-2009 (18.8%) and 2010-2011 (15.7%). Women, AIDS patients, and those aged 50 years and older had an excess risk. Therapeutic simplification (n = 1037; 28.6%): in 1 year, except first-treated from 2002 to 2003, modifications were not different: 2002-2003 (9.0%), 2004-2005 (16.0%), 2006-2007 (11.0%), 2008-2009 (15.7%) and 2010-2011 (10.0%). Conversely to injecting-drug-users and AIDS patients, women and first-treated with non-nucleosides had an excess risk. Therapeutic failure (n = 189; 5.2%): contrary to first-treated between 2002 and 2003 or 2008 and 2009, in 1 year as in 2 years, modifications were not different. In 1 year, 1.9% for 2004-2005, 1.6% for 2006-2007 and 1.2% for 2010-2011. Maximum viral load ≥5.0 log10 copies/ml and CD4 <200 cells/mm(3) had a high probability. The study of first-HAART modifications suggests that in 1-year follow-up, intolerance incidence in the recent calendar year is still as frequent as the previous period which may constitute a limitation to the success of the seek, test, treat, and retain.

To what extent do people living with HIV, people on pre-exposure prophylaxis, doctors and pharmacists endorse 90-day dispensing of antiretroviral therapy in France?

JUSTIFICATION: The WHO 95-95-95 targets for 2030 do not imply that people living with HIV (PLHIV) achieve a good quality of life. The current 30-day dispensing interval for antiretroviral (ART) burdens the healthcare system. Lengthening dispensing intervals could alleviate this burden as well as enhance patient well-being. OBJECTIVES: To capture perceptions on 90-day dispensing interval (90D) for ART from the perspective of PLHIV, people on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), doctors, and pharmacists. METHODS: Multi-centre observational survey led in France from 16 to 20 October 2020, among doctors agreeing to participate via regional coordinated care organisations for HIV, all PLHIV or people on PrEP consulting these outpatient-clinic doctors, and pharmacists doing ART dispensing. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 220 doctors who saw 1087 people (999 PLHIV; 88 on PrEP) and 176 pharmacists from 55 centres. Among the PLHIV, 855 (85.6%, 95% CI: 83.2%-87.7%) and among the patients on PrEP, 70 (79.5%, 95% CI: 69.6%-87.4%) stated they would be interested in 90D. All in all, patients who were more likely to endorse 90D are those who opt exclusively for hospital dispensing (OR 3.22 [1.57-6.58]) and who rotate between hospital and community pharmacy dispensing (OR 3.29 [1.15-9.32]). Patients who were less likely to endorse 90-D were those who consult in a city located outside the 3 French high HIV prevalence regions (OR 0.66 [0.44-0.99]), receive 2 vs 1 pill QD regimens (OR 0.53 [0.31-0.91]), and anticipate at least one vs no limitation to 90D (OR 0.27 [0.17-0.42]). 90D was perceived as possible by 152 pharmacists (86.4%), including 8 (5%) without restriction, and 219 doctors (99.6%), including 42 (19.2%) regardless of PLHIV's immunovirologic status or social conditions (health insurance coverage, access to housing or accommodation, access to rights, resources). Comparison of the benefits and limitations of a 90-day ART dispensing interval as perceived by PLHIV and people on PrEP, doctors and pharmacists shows that doctors anticipate a higher number of benefits than people on ART and/or pharmacists, chiefly that 90D would be more convenient and create less risk of drug shortages and that patients would gain autonomy and a better quality of life. Pharmacists were found to clearly perceive the economic benefits (90D would be less expensive) but anticipate more drawbacks than doctors and the people on ART themselves: more administrative burdens, more non-dispensing if doses get lost, harder to track adherence and more drug-drug interaction issues, and more work as they shall have to warn the patient of potential risks of shortages due to the cost of the stock. CONCLUSION: A clear majority of PLHIV, people on PrEP, doctors, and pharmacists endorsed 90D of ART. Most patients thought that 90D would be a good option, whereas most pharmacists and doctors thought that eligibility for 90D dispensing should depend on immunovirologic factors and social condition criteria. Moreover, pharmacists thought it would be necessary to commit regulatory resources and a better follow-up on adherence and drug-drug interactions.