New Strategies of ARV: the Road to Simplification.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Simplification of antiretroviral therapy is a strategy aiming to reduce pill burden, drug interactions, and toxicity. This review focuses on the most recent and important studies evaluating a reduction on the number of drugs for HIV treatment, both in naive and virologically suppressed patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Interesting studies have been performed in the past years testing dual therapy and monotherapy, with variable rates of virological control. Novel therapeutics like immunotherapy or long-acting antiretrovirals can also be considered for simplification. Reducing the number of drugs for HIV treatment can be an option for selected patients. Current available evidence favors dual therapy over monotherapy. Future research should seek to identify the best candidates for simplification.

The Intelence aNd pRezista Once A Day Study (INROADS): a multicentre, single-arm, open-label study of etravirine and darunavir/ritonavir as dual therapy in HIV-1-infected early treatment-experienced subjects.

OBJECTIVES: Following antiretroviral therapy failure, patients are often treated with a three-drug regimen that includes two nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs]. An alternative two-drug nucleoside-sparing regimen may decrease the pill burden and drug toxicities associated with the use of N(t)RTIs. The Intelence aNd pRezista Once A Day Study (INROADS; NCT01199939) evaluated the nucleoside-sparing regimen of etravirine 400 mg with darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg once-daily in HIV-1-infected treatment-experienced subjects or treatment-naïve subjects with transmitted resistance. METHODS: In this exploratory phase 2b, single-arm, open-label, multicentre, 48-week study, the primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects who achieved HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL at week 48 [confirmed virological response (CVR), non-virological failure (VF) censored]. Key secondary endpoints included assessments of changes from baseline to week 48 in viral load, immunological response, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, safety, tolerability, metabolic and bone markers and body fat. RESULTS: Forty-one of the 54 enrolled subjects completed the study. Adverse events (7%) and VF (7%) were the most common reasons for discontinuation. The week 48 CVR rate in the intent-to-treat (ITT) non-VF censored population was 89% (primary endpoint). Seven subjects experienced VF. Common adverse events were diarrhoea (15%), rash (15%) and upper respiratory tract infection (11%). Mild/moderate lipid elevations, minimal changes in limb fat distribution and bone mineral density and no clinically relevant changes in glucose metabolism were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Etravirine 400 mg and darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg as a two-drug once-daily regimen in treatment-experienced subjects or treatment-naïve subjects with transmitted resistance was virologically efficacious and well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of switching to raltegravir plus atazanavir dual therapy in pretreated HIV-1-infected patients over 144 weeks: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To decrease drug burden among HIV-1-positive adults, we need a new gold standard for antiretroviral therapy maintenance strategies. METHODS: This retrospective study aimed to assess efficacy in maintenance strategy of atazanavir (ATV) and raltegravir (RAL) dual therapy. The proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 40 copies/ml at specific time points was recorded. Immunological response, safety, and pharmacokinetics were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 39 patients were switched to a RAL/ATV (n = 32) or RAL/ATV plus ritonavir (n = 7) regimen. Almost all patients (95%) received RAL twice daily. Most patients (70%) received a 400 mg ATV dosing per day, once (26%) or twice daily (44%). The percentages of virological success at weeks 24, 48, 96, and 144 were 92% (95% confidence interval (CI), 83-10), 86% (95% CI, 74-98), 70% (95% CI, 52-88), and 63% (95% CI, 42-84), respectively. Overall, 12 (31%) patients stopped dual therapy: 7 patients because of adverse events, mostly clinical myositis (n = 3). Confirmed virological failure occurred in three patients; two of them developed RAL resistance patterns. A significant increase in the CD4+/CD8 + T-cell ratio was observed at week 48 (p < 0.005). Only grade 1-2 adverse events were observed. Trough plasma levels presented a wide variability. Suggested trough concentrations were achieved in 79% and 94% of patients for ATV and RAL, respectively. An unboosted 400 mg per day ATV dosing seemed to be appropriate, regarding the targeted levels achieved and the lack of grade 3 or 4 hyperbilirubinemia. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated, on a 3-year follow-up, the efficacy and safety of RAL plus ATV maintenance dual therapy.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of 150 mg of maraviroc dosed with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir all once daily, with and without nucleoside analogues, in HIV-infected subjects.

BACKGROUND: Once-daily nucleoside-sparing combination antiretroviral therapy regimens are attractive options for the treatment of HIV infection. However, the pharmacokinetic profiles of such regimens are often not established. METHODS: HIV-infected subjects receiving 245/200 mg of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily with plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL were eligible. On day 1 (period 1), 150 mg of maraviroc daily was added and on day 11 (period 2), tenofovir/emtricitabine discontinued. At steady-state (days 10 and 20), intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was undertaken. We assessed (i) the number of subjects with trough (C(trough)) and average (C(avg)) maraviroc concentrations <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively; (ii) geometric mean (GM) ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters for period 2 versus period 1; and (iii) factors associated with total maraviroc exposure. RESULTS: Eleven subjects completed the study procedures (mean age 49 years; range 35-59 years). In three subjects, maraviroc C(trough) and C(avg) were <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively (C(avg), 68 ng/mL and C(trough), 14 and 21 ng/mL). Although not statistically significant, a trend was observed towards lower maraviroc, darunavir and ritonavir concentrations in period 2 versus period 1; total maraviroc exposure was 3579 ng·â€Šh/mL (95% CI: 2983-4294) and 2996 ng·â€Šh/mL (95% CI: 2374-3782) in periods 1 and 2, respectively, and the GM ratio was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-1.05). Only total ritonavir exposure was significantly associated with total maraviroc exposure (P=0.049; 95% CI: 0.01-0.91). No clinical safety concerns were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Within this novel nucleoside-sparing regimen, maraviroc exposure is dependent on ritonavir exposure, which was slightly reduced in the absence of tenofovir/emtricitabine.

Risks and benefits of reducing the number of drugs to treat HIV-1 infection.

Introduction: Despite the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral therapy, new treatment options are needed to address the concerns of patients and physicians regarding long-term toxicities, costs, and convenience of lifelong antiretroviral therapy. To achieve this goal, one strategy is to reduce the number of drugs in the antiretroviral regimen.Areas covered: We review the recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of reduced drug regimens and their potential risks and benefits. There is currently strong evidence showing that some two-drug regimens have a comparable efficacy and short-term safety compared to standard three-drug regimens. The fixed-dose combination of dolutegravir/lamivudine is already an alternative for many treatment-naïve and virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected adults supported by large randomized clinical trials. The co-formulation dolutegravir plus rilpivirine is also a switch strategy for maintenance therapy. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine has already regulatory approval, and islatravir plus doravirine is an expected option in the near future. Some two-drug regimens have not been as successful.Expert opinion: Long-term safety issues of these two-drug regimens remain to be determined, but with the overwhelming evidence available in virological control and short-term safety, the potential benefits of some of these two-drug regimens appear to outweigh the risks.