Sex differences in the effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine as a switch strategy in people living with HIV.

INTRODUCTION: Dolutegravir + rilpivirine (DTG + RPV) is an effective antiretroviral therapy regimen approved in clinical guidelines as a switch therapy for virologically suppressed people with HIV. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of DTG + RPV in women and men in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of treatment-experienced people with HIV from a large HIV unit who switched to DTG + RPV. We analysed treatment effectiveness, rates of adverse events and discontinuation, and metabolic changes after 48 weeks of treatment. HIV-RNA levels <50 copies/mL were analysed at 48 weeks using both intention-to treat analysis (where missing data were interpreted as failures) and per-protocol analysis (excluding those with missing data or changes due to reasons other than virological failure). Outcomes were compared between women and men based on sex at birth. RESULTS: A total of 307 patients were selected (71 women and 236 men). No transgender people were included. At baseline, women had lived with HIV infection and received antiretroviral therapy for longer than men (23.2 vs 17.4 years and 18.9 vs 14.2 years, respectively). In the intention-to-treat analysis, 74.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.4-83.3%) of women and 83.5% (95% CI 78.2-87.7) of men had HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL. In the per-protocol analysis, 96.4% (95% CI 87.7-99) of women and 99% (95% CI 98.9-99.7) of men had HIV-RNA levels <50 copies/mL. Two women and two men had HIV-RNA >50 copies/mL at 48 weeks. Discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent in women than in men: 12.7% vs 7.2% (p < 0.02). Neuropsychiatric and gastrointestinal events were the most frequently reported. A median (interquartile range) weight gain of 1.9 kg (0-4.2) in women and 1.2 kg (-1-3.1) in men was reported (median of differences between baseline visit and week 48); the remaining changes in metabolic parameters were neutral. CONCLUSIONS: DTG + RPV exhibited good and similar virological effectiveness in women and men in real-world settings. However, poorer tolerability and more treatment interruptions were observed in women.

Immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 booster in ChAdOx1-S-primed participants (CombiVacS): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, no immunological data on COVID-19 heterologous vaccination schedules in humans have been reported. We assessed the immunogenicity and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, BioNTech, Mainz, Germany) administered as second dose in participants primed with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca, Oxford, UK). METHODS: We did a phase 2, open-label, randomised, controlled trial on adults aged 18-60 years, vaccinated with a single dose of ChAdOx1-S 8-12 weeks before screening, and no history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either BNT162b2 (0·3 mL) via a single intramuscular injection (intervention group) or continue observation (control group). The primary outcome was 14-day immunogenicity, measured by immunoassays for SARS-CoV-2 trimeric spike protein and receptor binding domain (RBD). Antibody functionality was assessed using a pseudovirus neutralisation assay, and cellular immune response using an interferon-γ immunoassay. The safety outcome was 7-day reactogenicity, measured as solicited local and systemic adverse events. The primary analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of BNT162b2 and who had at least one efficacy evaluation after baseline. The safety analysis included all participants who received BNT162b2. This study is registered with EudraCT (2021-001978-37) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04860739), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 24 and 30, 2021, 676 individuals were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=450) or control group (n=226) at five university hospitals in Spain (mean age 44 years [SD 9]; 382 [57%] women and 294 [43%] men). 663 (98%) participants (n=441 intervention, n=222 control) completed the study up to day 14. In the intervention group, geometric mean titres of RBD antibodies increased from 71·46 BAU/mL (95% CI 59·84-85·33) at baseline to 7756·68 BAU/mL (7371·53-8161·96) at day 14 (p<0·0001). IgG against trimeric spike protein increased from 98·40 BAU/mL (95% CI 85·69-112·99) to 3684·87 BAU/mL (3429·87-3958·83). The interventional:control ratio was 77·69 (95% CI 59·57-101·32) for RBD protein and 36·41 (29·31-45·23) for trimeric spike protein IgG. Reactions were mild (n=1210 [68%]) or moderate (n=530 [30%]), with injection site pain (n=395 [88%]), induration (n=159 [35%]), headache (n=199 [44%]), and myalgia (n=194 [43%]) the most commonly reported adverse events. No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: BNT162b2 given as a second dose in individuals prime vaccinated with ChAdOx1-S induced a robust immune response, with an acceptable and manageable reactogenicity profile. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

[Treatment and prevention of monkeypox]. / Tratamiento y prevención de la viruela del mono.

Monkeypox is a zoonosis that is spread mainly through direct contact with fluids and skin lesions of infected people with vesicles still active. Although the virus was isolated for the first time in 1958 and the first human case was identified in a child in 1970, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the disease has progressively increased its incidence in Africa reaching in May 2022 sustained transmission outside this continent. As it is a newly introduced virus in our health system, it is necessary to learn the epidemiological pattern in a different environment from that of traditionally endemic areas and to know the available antiviral treatments, as well as the prophylactic measures that could be considered, knowing that as a virus emerging in our regions, scientific evidence is still limited. There are antivirals that have been shown, in animal models, to effectively combat the disease with very good clinical tolerance. This disease has also forced us to review the characteristics of smallpox vaccines, because they have shown a protective effect against monkeypox. For this reason, it is important to have a document that compiles all the scientific information published in this regard.

Detection of archived lamivudine-associated resistance mutations in virologically suppressed, lamivudine-experienced HIV-infected adults by different genotyping techniques (GEN-PRO study).

BACKGROUND: Previously selected lamivudine resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) may remain archived within the proviral HIV-DNA. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the ability of proviral DNA genotyping to detect lamivudine RAMs in HIV-1 virologically suppressed participants; the correlation between Sanger and next generation sequencing (NGS); and predictive factors for detection of lamivudine RAMs in proviral DNA. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of participants on stable antiretroviral therapy and suppressed for ≥1 year. Analysis of proviral DNA was performed by Sanger sequencing in whole blood and by NGS in PBMCs. RESULTS: We analysed samples from 102 subjects (52 with and 50 without lamivudine RAMs in historical plasma RNA-genotypes). Among participants with previous lamivudine resistance, Sanger sequencing detected RAMs in 26.9%. Detection rates significantly increased using NGS: 47.9%, 64.6%, 75% and 87.5% with the 20%, 10%, 5% and 1% thresholds, respectively. As for participants without historical lamivudine resistance, Sanger detected the RAMs in 1/49 (2%), and NGS (5% threshold) in 8/45 (17.8%). Multivariate models fitted to the whole population revealed that having a history of lamivudine resistance was a risk factor for detection of lamivudine RAMs by NGS. Among participants with historical lamivudine resistance, multivariate analysis showed that a longer time since HIV diagnosis was associated with persistence of archived mutations by NGS at thresholds of >10% [OR 1.10 (95% CI: 1.00-1.24)] and >5% [OR 1.16 (95% CI: 1.02-1.32)]. CONCLUSIONS: Proviral DNA Sanger sequencing does not detect the majority of historical lamivudine RAMs. NGS increases the sensitivity of detection at lower thresholds, although the relevance of these minority populations with lamivudine RAMs needs further evaluation.

Long-term efficacy of dolutegravir plus lamivudine for maintenance of HIV viral suppression in adults with and without historical resistance to lamivudine: Week 96 results of ART-PRO pilot study.

BACKGROUND: In the ART-PRO pilot trial there were no virological failures through 48 weeks of treatment with dolutegravir plus lamivudine in suppressed individuals with and without archived lamivudine resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) detected through next-generation sequencing (NGS) but without evidence of lamivudine RAMs in baseline proviral DNA population sequencing. OBJECTIVES: To present 96 week results from ART-PRO. METHODS: Open-label, single-arm pilot trial. At baseline, all participants switched to dolutegravir plus lamivudine. Participants were excluded if proviral DNA population genotyping detected lamivudine RAMs. To detect resistance minority variants, proviral DNA NGS was retrospectively performed from baseline samples. For this analysis the efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at week 96. Safety and tolerability outcomes were incidence of adverse events and treatment discontinuations. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were included, 21 with lamivudine RAMs in historical plasma RNA genotypes. Baseline proviral DNA NGS detected lamivudine RAMs (M184V/I and/or K65R/E/N) above a 5% threshold in 71.4% (15/21) and 15% (3/20) of participants with and without history of lamivudine resistance, respectively. At 96 weeks, 90.2% of participants achieved the efficacy endpoint. Between week 48 and 96 there was one discontinuation due to consent withdrawal and no discontinuations related to adverse events. Two participants had a transient viral rebound, both re-suppressed on dolutegravir plus lamivudine. Through week 96, there were no virological failures. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot trial, dolutegravir plus lamivudine maintained virological suppression at 96 weeks despite historical lamivudine resistance and persisting archived minority lamivudine RAMs.

Incidence and Severity of COVID-19 in HIV-Positive Persons Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy : A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among HIV-positive persons receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) have not been characterized in large populations. OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence and severity of COVID-19 by nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) use among HIV-positive persons receiving ART. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: HIV clinics in 60 Spanish hospitals between 1 February and 15 April 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART. MEASUREMENTS: Estimated risks (cumulative incidences) per 10 000 persons and 95% CIs for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. Risk and 95% CIs for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospital admission by use of the NRTIs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/FTC, abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC), and others were estimated through Poisson regression models. RESULTS: Of 77 590 HIV-positive persons receiving ART, 236 were diagnosed with COVID-19, 151 were hospitalized, 15 were admitted to the ICU, and 20 died. The risks for COVID-19 diagnosis and hospitalization were greater in men and persons older than 70 years. The risk for COVID-19 hospitalization was 20.3 (95% CI, 15.2 to 26.7) among patients receiving TAF/FTC, 10.5 (CI, 5.6 to 17.9) among those receiving TDF/FTC, 23.4 (CI, 17.2 to 31.1) among those receiving ABC/3TC, and 20.0 (CI, 14.2 to 27.3) for those receiving other regimens. The corresponding risks for COVID-19 diagnosis were 39.1 (CI, 31.8 to 47.6), 16.9 (CI, 10.5 to 25.9), 28.3 (CI, 21.5 to 36.7), and 29.7 (CI, 22.6 to 38.4), respectively. No patient receiving TDF/FTC was admitted to the ICU or died. LIMITATION: Residual confounding by comorbid conditions cannot be completely excluded. CONCLUSION: HIV-positive patients receiving TDF/FTC have a lower risk for COVID-19 and related hospitalization than those receiving other therapies. These findings warrant further investigation in HIV preexposure prophylaxis studies and randomized trials in persons without HIV. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Instituto de Salud Carlos III and National Institutes of Health.

Health Care Workers' Reasons for Choosing Between Two Different COVID-19 Prophylaxis Trials in an Acute Pandemic Context: Single-Center Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

Dolutegravir plus lamivudine versus dolutegravir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2): week 48 results from two multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Effective two-drug regimens could decrease long-term drug exposure and toxicity with HIV-1 antiretroviral therapy (ART). We therefore aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a two-drug regimen compared with a three-drug regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in ART-naive adults. METHODS: We conducted two identically designed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trials: GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2. Both studies were done at 192 centres in 21 countries. We included participants (≥18 years) with HIV-1 infection and a screening HIV-1 RNA of 500 000 copies per mL or less, and who were naive to ART. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive a once-daily two-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) or a once-daily three-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg). Both drug regimens were administered orally. We masked participants and investigators to treatment assignment: dolutegravir was administered as single-entity tablets (similar to its commercial formulation, except with a different film colour), and lamivudine tablets and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine tablets were over-encapsulated to visually match each other. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 in the intention-to-treat-exposed population, using the Snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Safety analyses were done on the safety population. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02831673 and NCT02831764, respectively. FINDINGS: Between July 18, 2016, and March 31, 2017, 1441 participants across both studies were randomly assigned to receive either the two-drug regimen (n=719) or three-drug regimen (n=722). At week 48 in the GEMINI-1 intention-to-treat-exposed population, 320 (90%) of 356 participants receiving the two-drug regimen and 332 (93%) of 358 receiving the three-drug regimen achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted treatment difference -2·6%, 95% CI -6·7 to 1·5); in GEMINI-2, 335 (93%) of 360 in the two-drug regimen and 337 (94%) of 359 in the three-drug regimen achieved HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted treatment difference -0·7%, 95% CI -4·3 to 2·9), showing non-inferiority at a -10% margin in both studies (pooled analysis: 655 [91%] of 716 in the two-drug regimen vs 669 [93%] of 717 in the three-drug regimen; adjusted treatment difference -1·7%, 95% CI -4·4 to 1·1). Numerically, more drug-related adverse events occurred with the three-drug regimen than with the two-drug regimen (169 [24%] of 717 vs 126 [18%] of 716); few participants discontinued because of adverse events (16 [2%] in the three-drug regimen and 15 [2%] in the two-drug regimen). Two deaths were reported in the two-drug regimen group of GEMINI-2, but neither was considered to be related to the study medication. INTERPRETATION: The non-inferior efficacy and similar tolerability profile of dolutegravir plus lamivudine to a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen at 48 weeks in ART-naive adults supports its use as initial therapy for patients with HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare.

The Role of HIV-1 Drug-Resistant Minority Variants in Treatment Failure.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) drug resistance genotyping is recommended to help in the selection of antiretroviral therapy and to prevent virologic failure. There are several ultrasensitive assays able to detect HIV-1 drug-resistance minority variants (DRMVs) not detectable by standard population sequencing-based HIV genotyping assays. Presence of these DRMVs has been shown to be clinically relevant, but its impact does not appear to be uniform across drug classes. In this review, we summarize key evidence for the clinical impact of DRMVs across drug classes for both antiretroviral treatment-naive and antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients, and highlight areas where more supporting evidence is needed.

Costs and cost-efficacy analysis of the 2016 GESIDA/Spanish AIDS National Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults.

INTRODUCTION: GESIDA and the AIDS National Plan panel of experts suggest preferred (PR), alternative (AR), and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for the year 2016. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the efficacy of initiating treatment with these regimens. METHODS: Economic assessment of costs and efficiency (cost/efficacy) based on decision tree analyses. Efficacy was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50copies/mL at week 48 in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2016. A sensitivity deterministic analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable, and least favourable. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 4663 Euros for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) to 10,894 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL (PR). The efficacy varies from 0.66 for ABC/3TC+ATV/r (AR) and ABC/3TC+LPV/r (OR), to 0.89 for TDF/FTC+DTG (PR) and TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR). The efficiency, in terms of cost/efficacy, ranges from 5280 to 12,836 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for 3TC+LPV/r (OR), and RAL+DRV/r (OR), respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the overall most efficient regimen being 3TC+LPV/r (OR), among the PR and AR, the most efficient regimen was ABC/3TC/DTG (PR). Among the AR regimes, the most efficient was TDF/FTC/RPV.

[Ebola virus disease: Update]. / Enfermedad por virus ebola: actualización.

The first known Ebola outbreak occurred in 1976. Since then, 24 limited outbreaks had been reported in Central Africa, but never affecting more than 425 persons. The current outbreak in Western Africa is the largest in history with 28,220 reported cases and 11,291 deaths. The magnitude of the epidemic has caused worldwide alarm. For the first time, evacuated patients were treated outside Africa, and secondary cases have occurred in Spain and the United States. Since the start of the current epidemic, our knowledge about the epidemiology, clinical picture, laboratory findings, and virology of Ebola virus disease has considerably expanded. For the first time, experimental treatment has been tried, and there have been spectacular advances in vaccine development. A review is presented of these advances in the knowledge of Ebola virus disease.

Costs and cost-effectiveness analysis of 2015 GESIDA/Spanish AIDS National Plan recommended guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected adults.

INTRODUCTION: GESIDA and the AIDS National Plan panel of experts suggest a preferred (PR), alternative (AR) and other regimens (OR) for antiretroviral treatment (ART) as initial therapy in HIV-infected patients for 2015. The objective of this study is to evaluate the costs and the effectiveness of initiating treatment with these regimens. METHODS: Economic assessment of costs and effectiveness (cost/effectiveness) based on decision tree analyses. Effectiveness was defined as the probability of reporting a viral load <50 copies/mL at week 48, in an intention-to-treat analysis. Cost of initiating treatment with an ART regimen was defined as the costs of ART and its consequences (adverse effects, changes of ART regimen, and drug resistance studies) during the first 48 weeks. The payer perspective (National Health System) was applied, only taking into account differential direct costs: ART (official prices), management of adverse effects, studies of resistance, and HLA B*5701 testing. The setting is Spain and the costs correspond to those of 2015. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted, building three scenarios for each regimen: base case, most favourable and least favourable. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, the cost of initiating treatment ranges from 4663 Euros for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) to 10,902 Euros for TDF/FTC+RAL (PR). The effectiveness varies from 0.66 for ABC/3TC+ATV/r (AR) and ABC/3TC+LPV/r (OR), to 0.89 for TDF/FTC+DTG (PR) and TDF/FTC/EVG/COBI (AR). The efficiency, in terms of cost/effectiveness, ranges from 5280 to 12,836 Euros per responder at 48 weeks, for 3TC+LPV/r (OR) and RAL+DRV/r (OR), respectively. CONCLUSION: The most efficient regimen was 3TC+LPV/r (OR). Among the PR and AR, the most efficient regimen was TDF/FTC/RPV (AR). Among the PR regimes, the most efficient was ABC/3TC+DTG.

Executive summary: Prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections and other coinfections in HIV-infected patients: May 2015.

Opportunistic infections continue to be a cause of morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients. They often arise because of severe immunosuppression resulting from poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy, failure of antiretroviral therapy, or unawareness of HIV infection by patients whose first clinical manifestation of AIDS is an opportunistic infection. The present article is an executive summary of the document that updates the previous recommendations on the prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in HIV-infected patients, namely, infections by parasites, fungi, viruses, mycobacteria, and bacteria, as well as imported infections. The article also addresses immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome. This document is intended for all professionals who work in clinical practice in the field of HIV infection.

Prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections and other coinfections in HIV-infected patients: May 2015.

Despite the huge advance that antiretroviral therapy represents for the prognosis of infection by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), opportunistic infections (OIs) continue to be a cause of morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients. OIs often arise because of severe immunosuppression resulting from poor adherence to antiretroviral therapy, failure of antiretroviral therapy, or unawareness of HIV infection by patients whose first clinical manifestation of AIDS is an OI. The present article updates our previous guidelines on the prevention and treatment of various OIs in HIV-infected patients, namely, infections by parasites, fungi, viruses, mycobacteria, and bacteria, as well as imported infections. The article also addresses immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome.

Executive summary of the GESIDA/National AIDS Plan Consensus Document on antiretroviral therapy in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (updated January 2015).

In this update, antiretroviral therapy (ART) is recommended for all patients infected by type 1 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1). The strength and grade of the recommendation vary depending on the CD4+ T-lymphocyte count, the presence of opportunistic infections or comorbid conditions, age, and the efforts to prevent the transmission of HIV. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable plasma viral load (PVL). Initial ART should comprise three drugs, namely, two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and one drug from another family. Three of the recommended regimens, all of which have an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) as the third drug, are considered a preferred regimen; a further seven regimens, which are based on an INSTI, an non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), or a protease inhibitor boosted with ritonavir (PI/r), are considered alternatives. The reasons and criteria for switching ART are presented both for patients with an undetectable PVL and for patients who experience virological failure, in which case the rescue regimen should include three (or at least two) drugs that are fully active against HIV. The specific criteria for ART in special situations (acute infection, HIV-2 infection, pregnancy) and comorbid conditions (tuberculosis and other opportunistic infections, kidney disease, liver disease, and cancer) are updated.