Dual Therapy With Darunavir and Ritonavir Plus Lamivudine vs Triple Therapy With Darunavir and Ritonavir Plus Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Emtricitabine or Abacavir and Lamivudine for Maintenance of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Viral Suppression: Randomized, Open-Label, Noninferiority DUAL-GESIDA 8014-RIS-EST45 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to assess the therapeutic noninferiority of dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine compared to triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir plus 2 nucleos(t)ides for maintenance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) suppression. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial (margin 12%). Patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for 6 months or longer on triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and 2 nucleos(t)ides (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine or abacavir and lamivudine) and with no resistance were randomized to continue therapy (n = 128) or switch to darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine (n = 129). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL after 48 weeks of follow-up according to the snapshot algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 249 participants received study drugs (intention-to-treat exposed). The proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL in the dual- and triple-therapy arms was 88.9% (112/126) and 92.7% (114/123; difference, -3.8%; 95% confidence interval, -11.0 to 3.4), respectively. Four participants in the dual-therapy arm and 2 in the triple-therapy arm developed protocol-defined virological failure. Switching to dual therapy was associated with a significant increase in total, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, but not in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio. Serious adverse events and study drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.8% vs 4.9%P = .97) and in 0.8% (1/126) vs 1.6% P = .55) in dual therapy vs triple therapy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine demonstrated noninferior therapeutic efficacy and similar tolerability compared to triple therapy. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02159599.

Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine dual therapy as second-line maintenance treatment for HIV-1-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa (ANRS12 286/MOBIDIP): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite satisfactory efficacy of WHO-recommended second-line antiretroviral treatment for patients with HIV in low-income countries, the need for simplified, low-cost, and less-toxic maintenance strategies remains high. We compared boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy with dual therapy with boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine in patients on second-line antiretrovial therapy (ART). METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority, trial in the HIV services of five hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon; Dakar, Senegal; and Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso). We recruited patients from the long-term, post-trial cohort of the ANRS 12169/2LADY study that compared the efficacy of three second-line combinations based on boosted protease inhibitors. Participants for our study were HIV-1 infected with multiple mutations including M184V, at first-line failure, aged 18 years and older, on boosted protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) for at least 48 weeks with at least 48 weeks follow-up in the 2LADY trial, with two viral load measurements of less than 200 copies per mL in the previous 6 months, CD4 counts of more than 100 cells per µL, adherence of at least 90%, and no change to ART in the past 3 months. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive either monotherapy with their boosted protease inhibitor (once-daily darunavir 800 mg [two 400 mg tablets] boosted with ritonavir 100 mg [one tablet] or coformulation of lopinavir 200 mg with ritonavir 50 mg [two tablets taken twice per day]) or to boosted protease inhibitor plus once-daily lamivudine 300 mg (one 300 mg tablet or two 150 mg tablets). Computer-generated randomisation was stratified by study site and viral load at screening (< 50 copies per mL, and 50-200 copies per mL), and concealed from study personnel throughout the inclusion period. After randomisation, treatment allocation was not masked from clinicians or patients]. Patients had follow-up visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 3 months until 96 weeks; if viral load exceeded 500 copies per mL at any visit, NRTI (tenofovir and lamivudine) were reintroduced into treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who had treatment failure at 96 weeks in the intention-to-treat analysis, where treatment failure was defined as one of the following: a confirmed viral load of more than 500 copies per mL, reintroduction of NRTI, or interruption of boosted protease inhibitor. We designed the study to detect a difference of 12% between groups in the primary outcome, with an expected 20% of patients having treatment failure in the monotherapy group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01905059. FINDINGS: Between March 5, 2014, and Jan 26, 2015, 265 participants were assigned to receive monotherapy (133) or boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine (132). At week 48, an independent data safety monitoring board reviewed data, and advised discontinuation of the monotherapy group because the number of failures had exceeded the expected 20%; therefore results here are for week 48. At this point, treatment failure occurred in four (3·0%; 95% CI 0·8-7·6) of 132 participants on dual therapy and 33 (24·8%; 17·7-33·0) of 133 participants on monotherapy (relative risk 8·2, 95% CI 3·0-22·5; odds ratio 10·6, 95% CI 3·6-42·1). The difference between groups (21·8%, 95% CI 13·9-29·7; p<0·0001) showed superiority of dual therapy compared with monotherapy. We recorded 46 severe adverse events of grade 3 or 4 (29 in the monotherapy group, 17 in the boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine group); one event in the montherapy group (intoxication resulting from co-administration of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with an ergotamine derivate) was deemed related to study drug. Two participants in the monotherapy group and one in the dual therapy group died, all from causes not related to study drugs or procedures (one from complications from gastric cancer surgery, one in a work accident, and one from a lung disease of unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: After viral suppression with boosted protease inhibitor plus NRTI in second-line ART, maintenance therapy with boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine was associated with a high rate of success, despite the presence of M184V mutations at first-line treatment failure. Results indicated that boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy cannot be recommended for these patients. FUNDING: Agence National de Recherche sur le Sida et les hépatites and Janssen Pharmaceutica.

Switch from unboosted protease inhibitor to a single-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine improves cholesterol and triglycerides.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability and potential savings of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) simplification from an unboosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimen with atazanavir or fosamprenavir to a single-tablet regimen (STR) based on rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) among HIV-1-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL. This was a retrospective, multicentre, open-label, 12-week trial. Plasma HIV-1-RNA levels, CD4+ cell counts, cholesterol, triglycerides, bilirubin, glycaemia, creatinine and physical examination were performed at baseline and at scheduled follow-up. All patient costs were calculated and were estimated for 52 weeks of therapy. Fifty-one patients were enrolled [28 male (54.9%)]. At baseline, 30 patients (58.8%) were treated with FTC/TDF, 20 (39.2%) with abacavir/lamivudine and 1 (2.0%) with lamivudine/zidovudine. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) received atazanavir. All patients maintained HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL; the median CD4+ cell count remained stable. Mean triglycerides decreased from 124 mg/dL (range, 39-625) at enrolment to 108.7 mg/dL (range, 39-561) at study end (P = 0.25). At baseline, mean cholesterol was 172.8 ± 38.1 mg/dL and decreased to 161.9 ± 38.6 mg/dL (P = 0.038); likewise, median total bilirubin decreased from 1.07 mg/dL (range, 0.2-4.7) to 0.6 mg/dL (range, 0.13-3.1) (P <0.001). cART-related annual cost reduction with a STR was €3155.47 per patient (-24%). Non-cART patient management expenses were €402.68 vs. €299.10 for atazanavir or fosamprenavir and STR regimens, respectively. Switching to RPV/FTC/TDF from an unboosted PI in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients is safe and is associated with a reduction in triglycerides, cholesterol and cART-related costs.

Cost Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Standard Triple Therapy in the Long-Term Management of HIV Patients: Analysis Using Evidence from the PIVOT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy can maintain virological suppression in the majority of patients once it has been established on triple therapy and may also have the potential for substantial cost savings arising from the use of fewer drugs. However, the cost effectiveness of PI monotherapy has yet to be demonstrated. OBJECTIVES: In this study we examine the cost effectiveness of PI monotherapy with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of viral load rebound compared with ongoing triple therapy (OT) in patients with suppressed viral load on combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the UK. METHODS: The analysis used data from the PIVOT trial in which HIV-positive adults with suppressed viral load for ≥24 weeks on combination ART were randomised to maintain OT or to a strategy of PI monotherapy with prompt return to combination therapy if viral load rebounded. A cost-effectiveness analysis including long-term modelling was conducted. Main outcomes included UK National Health Service (NHS) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with comparative results presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: PI monotherapy was cost saving as a result of large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of QALYs in the within-trial analysis and marginally less effective with lifetime modelling. In the base-case analysis over 3 years, the incremental total cost per patient was -£6424.11 (95 % confidence interval -7418.84 to -5429.38) and incremental QALYs were 0.0051 (95 % CI -0.0479 to 0.0582), resulting in PI monotherapy 'dominating' OT. Multiple scenario analyses found that PI monotherapy was cost saving with no marked differences in QALYs. Modelling of lifetime costs and QALYs showed that PI monotherapy was associated with significant cost savings and was marginally less effective; PI monotherapy was cost effective at accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds in all but one scenario analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Under most assumptions, PI monotherapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with OT for HIV-infected patients who have achieved sustained virological suppression.

Nuke-Sparing Regimens for the Long-Term Care of HIV Infection.

With the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy already guaranteed for all practical purposes, the main objective in the management of HIV-positive patients has moved to reduce and prevent potential long-term toxicities. Nucleos(t)ide-sparing regimens could enable the best to address this issue, with a wide range of current options that may allow adaptation to distinct patient populations. Monotherapy with boosted darunavir and lopinavir has been safely prescribed as maintenance therapy to stable patients on stable antiretroviral therapy without nadir CD4 count < 200/mm³, low-level baseline viremia, prolonged viral suppression, and without prior virologic failure. In the presence of all these requirements, dual therapy with lamivudine plus boosted lopinavir or atazanavir has been shown to be equivalent to standard triple therapy. Other nucleoside-sparing dual therapies, especially using raltegravir combined with boosted darunavir or lopinavir and etravirine or rilpivirine in combination with boosted darunavir, have performed well as simplification strategies or rescue interventions in a wide spectrum of patients as long as drug resistance was absent. With current economical constrains, nuke-sparing regimens have attained a degree of maturity that makes it possible to anticipate that they will play an important role in the optimization of antiretroviral therapy in the near future.

Resistance at virological failure using boosted protease inhibitors versus nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as first-line antiretroviral therapy--implications for sustained efficacy of ART in resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: Increases in the prevalence of resistance to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) have been observed among previously untreated individuals in all areas of sub-Saharan Africa. We aimed to examine whether first-line use of 2 NRTIs plus a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) could protect against emergence of NRTI resistance mutations, compared to the use of 2 NRTIs plus 1 NNRTI. METHODS: We carried out a weighted meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing bPI- with NNRTI-based first-line antiretroviral therapy regimens using random effects modeling. RESULTS: In intention to treat analyses, there was no difference in the risk of viral failure at week 48 between NNRTI and bPI (P = .19). At week 48, the overall difference between NNRTI- and PI-based regimens in selection of any major NRTI resistance mutation (crude unweighted prevalence 3.3% vs 1.6%) was 1.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], .4-3.0; P = .00927). There was a statistically significant difference in prevalence of K65R when comparing NNRTI (1.3%) with PI (0.67%); absolute weighted difference 1.0% (95% CI, .3-1.7; P = .00447). There was also a significant difference in prevalence of M184V/I between NNRTI and PI (crude unweighted prevalence 3.2% vs 1.4%); difference 1.6% (95% CI 0.1-3.1; P = .0368). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the equivalent efficacy and more favorable resistance implications of PI- versus NNRTI-based first line therapy, widespread use of PI-based first-line therapy is not warranted at this time, due to resource limitations and predicted increased risk of resistance-related failure of NNRTI/NRTI second-line regimens. PI-based first-line therapy could be reconsidered when antiretroviral agents from other classes become available for second-line regimens in resource-limited settings.

External validation of the bilirubin-atazanavir nomogram for assessment of atazanavir plasma exposure in HIV-1-infected patients.

Atazanavir increases plasma bilirubin levels in a concentration-dependent manner. Due to less costly and readily available assays, bilirubin has been proposed as a marker of atazanavir exposure. In this work, a previously developed nomogram for detection of suboptimal atazanavir exposure is validated against external patient populations. The bilirubin nomogram was validated against 311 matching bilirubin and atazanavir samples from 166 HIV-1-infected Norwegian, French, and Italian patients on a ritonavir-boosted regimen. In addition, the nomogram was evaluated in 56 Italian patients on an unboosted regimen. The predictive properties of the nomogram were validated against observed atazanavir plasma concentrations. The use of the nomogram to detect non-adherence was also investigated by simulation. The bilirubin nomogram predicted suboptimal exposure in the patient populations on a ritonavir-boosted regimen with a negative predictive value of 97% (95% CI 95-100). The bilirubin nomogram and monitoring of atazanavir concentrations had similar predictive properties for detecting non-adherence based on simulations. Although both methods performed adequately during a period of non-adherence, they had lower predictive power to detect past non-adherence episodes. Using the bilirubin nomogram for detection of suboptimal atazanavir exposure in patients on a ritonavir-boosted regimen is a rapid and cost-effective alternative to routine measurements of the actual atazanavir exposure in plasma. Its application may be useful in clinical settings if atazanavir concentrations are not available.

A population pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic analysis of atazanavir.

Atazanavir is a first-line HIV protease inhibitor commonly co-dosed with ritonavir. Ritonavir inhibits atazanavir metabolism, decreasing variability and increasing plasma concentrations. However, ritonavir use results in higher costs and increased drug-related adverse events. Elucidating atazanavir pharmacokinetics might allow for individualized ritonavir boosting. We previously demonstrated that genetically determined CYP3A5 nonexpression was associated with slower atazanavir clearance CL/F and higher trough concentrations. This effect was prominent in non-African-American men but absent in African-Americans. The present study considers additional genetic predictors of atazanavir CL/F with a focus on race differences. Nine polymorphisms in CYP3A4, ABCG2, NR1I2 (PXR), and SLCO1B1 were evaluated; 330 plasma samples from 30 HIV-negative volunteers, balanced by sex, race, and CYP3A5 expressor status, were available. Analyses were performed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM). The following factors were univariately associated with atazanavir CL/F (% effect) : African-American race (decreased 35%), female sex (decreased 25%), older age (decreased 1.7%/year), CYP3A5 nonexpressors (decreased 26%), ABCB1 CGC haplotype carriers (1236C/2677G/3435C) (decreased 33%), and CYP3A4*1B carriers (decreased 31%). However, an independent genetic explanation for the differential race effect could not be identified. An interaction was observed with PXR 63396 C>T and CYP3A5 expressor status (p=0.0002). CYP3A5 nonexpressors with a PXR 63396 CC genotype had 37% slower CL/F versus those with CT or TT genotypes. For CYP3A5 expressors, those with a PXR 63396 CC genotype had 63% faster CL/F versus those with CT or TT genotypes. Although this study has as its main limitation a small overall sample size, these results nonetheless provide new leads and impetus to evaluate ways to individualize the need for ritonavir boosting using demographic and genetic predictors of atazanavir pharmacokinetics.

A retrospective study of HIV antiretroviral treatment persistence in a commercially insured population in the United States.

This study examined factors associated with persistence (time from initiation to discontinuation of treatment) on initial antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in commercially insured HIV patients in the United States, a population not well researched. This retrospective analysis of US health insurance claims data from 1 January 2003 to 30 June 2008 included treatment-naive patients aged 18-65 years with an HIV diagnosis receiving ARV therapy consisting of at least two individual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) or one fixed-dose combination NRTI, plus at least one nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or one protease inhibitor (PI), with or without ritonavir. Descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier survival estimation, and Cox proportional hazards regression models were completed. Patients were considered persistent until any component of the regimen was modified or there was a gap in treatment >90 days. A total of 2460 patients met full inclusion criteria (1388 NNRTI and 1072 PI). Mean (SD) time to discontinuation for NNRTI- vs PI-based regimens was 370 (346) vs 295 (338) days (p<0.001). Female sex, substance use, low comorbidity score, index year before 2007, geographical region, and taking a lopinavir/ritonavir regimen predicted discontinuation. Relative to NNRTI-based regimens, PI-based regimens demonstrated a greater risk of discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; p<0.001). The fixed-dose efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir combination yielded the lowest risk of discontinuation (HR, 0.39; p<0.001). HIV treatment persistence was longer with NNRTI-based regimens than PI-based regimens. The fixed-dose regimen of once-daily efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir had the lowest risk of discontinuation.

Pharmacoeconomics of darunavir.

Darunavir boosted with ritonavir (DRV/r) in combination with other antiretrovirals (ARVs) was initially approved in 2006 for the treatment of HIV infection in ARV treatment-experienced adults and has subsequently been approved for use in treatment-naive adults in 2008. Clinical studies have shown that DRV/r in combination with other ARVs achieves superior levels of undetectable plasma HIV RNA and generates significant CD4 increases, which reduce the risk of HIV disease progression. Economic evaluations, based on data from controlled clinical trials, found DRV/r combination therapy to generate savings in hospital costs and other non-ARV costs of care in treatment-experienced patients, to maximize the number of patients reaching undetectable plasma HIV RNA, to improve health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and to be cost effective across different patient populations.

A review of economic evaluations of darunavir boosted by low-dose ritonavir in treatment-experienced persons living with HIV infection.

Darunavir boosted by low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r), at a daily dose of 600/100 mg twice a day (bid), has been shown to be superior to alternative highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens for the management of treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults in the phase IIb POWER trials and the phase III TITAN trial. Economic analyses of different types that have been performed for several countries to investigate the cost effectiveness and budgetary impact of DRV/r 600/100 mg bid for treatment-experienced people living with HIV (PLHIV) based on the clinical data gathered in the POWER and TITAN trials are reviewed for consistency and their value to different decision-makers is assessed. Cost-utility analyses for the USA and several European countries indicate that DRV/r-based HAART is cost effective compared with other standard of care protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens in PLHIV with evidence of PI resistance. For all of these countries, the estimated cost-utility ratio is well below typical benchmark values and these ratios are robust, as demonstrated by one-way sensitivity and variability analyses and multi-way probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Studies using other metrics including the average 1-year drug cost per patient with a plasma HIV-RNA level less than 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, the incremental drug cost per additional patient with a plasma HIV-RNA level less than 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks, the total (antiretroviral and non-antiretroviral) costs during the first year of treatment, and the total healthcare budget impact during the first 5 years of treatment provided further evidence of the positive economic outcomes with the use of DRV/r in treatment-experienced PLHIV. Different measures of economic outcomes are useful for different types of decision-makers and different types of decisions. In general, the results of these different types of analyses will be consistent with each other. For darunavir, the economic analyses reviewed in this paper demonstrate that the use of DRV/r 600/100 mg bid in the management of HIV-infected, treatment-experienced adults who have failed at least one of the other currently available PIs is cost effective and may be cost saving.

US cost effectiveness of darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected adults with evidence of protease inhibitor resistance included in the TITAN Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The phase III TITAN trial evaluated the use of darunavir with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) 600/100 mg twice daily (bid) compared with lopinavir with low-dose ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-experienced, lopinavir-naive patients. This study estimates the cost effectiveness of DRV/r from a US societal perspective when compared with LPV/r in treatment-experienced patients with a profile similar to those TITAN patients who had one or more International AIDS Society - USA (IAS-USA) primary protease inhibitor (PI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) at baseline. This population had less advanced HIV disease and a broader range of previous PI exposure/failure (0 - ≥ 2 PIs) at enrollment than those in the darunavir phase IIb POWER trials. METHODS: An existing Markov model containing six health states defined by CD4 cell count range (>500, 351-500, 201-350, 101-200, 51-100 and 0-50 cells/mm³) and an absorbing state of death was adapted. Baseline demographics, CD4 cell count distribution and antiretroviral drug usage, virological response (at week 24), and immunological response estimates and matching transition probabilities were based on data collected directly from the one or more IAS-USA PI mutation subpopulation during the first 48 weeks of the TITAN trial, as well as from published literature. Patients were assumed to switch to a regimen containing tipranavir plus an optimized background regimen after treatment failure. For each CD4 cell count range or health state, the utility values, HIV and non-HIV-related mortality rates, and non-antiretroviral-related cost of HIV care estimates were derived from published literature. Unit costs were derived from official local sources. A lifetime horizon was taken in the base-case analysis. RESULTS: The base-case analysis predicted discounted quality-adjusted survival gains of 0.493 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for DRV/r compared with LPV/r, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$23,057 per QALY gained over a lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 0.754 probability of an ICER below the threshold of US$50,000 per QALY gained. DRV/r remained cost effective over all parameter ranges tested in extensive one-way sensitivity analyses and variability analyses, which examined the impact of input parameter uncertainty and changes in model assumptions and treatment patterns, respectively. Shortening the model time horizon had the largest impact on the ICER, reducing it most notably to US$4919 with a 10-year time horizon. CONCLUSION: From a US societal perspective and based on an analysis of the patients with primary IAS-USA PI RAMs enrolled in the darunavir phase III TITAN trial, a highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen containing DRV/r 600/100 mg bid is estimated to be a cost-effective therapy when compared with a HAART regimen containing LPV/r, for the management of treatment-experienced, PI-resistant, HIV-infected adults with a broad range of previous PI use/failure.

Broadening the perspective when assessing evidence on boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens for initial antiretroviral therapy.

Several national and international guidelines recommend the use of antiretroviral therapy containing a protease inhibitor (PI) with ritonavir (RTV) boosting for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected treatment-naïve patients. RTV-boosted PIs such as lopinavir (LPV/r), atazanavir (ATV + RTV), darunavir (DRV + RTV), fosamprenavir (FPV + RTV), and saquinavir (SQV + RTV) are usually recommended in regimens for initial therapy. The guideline recommendations are generally based on the clinical efficacy of the regimens. A broadened perspective of assessing the evidence related to selection of a PI for optimal first-line therapy might consider additional factors for evaluation, such as effectiveness in actual clinical practice and cost-effectiveness of individual drugs in formulating recommendations. Among the guideline-recommended PIs, LPV/r is one of the earliest PIs approved, has been a well-recognized boosted PI for treatment-naïve patients in all guidelines, and demonstrates the most evidence on long-term clinical and economic effectiveness. Studies have shown its efficacy in various controlled and real-world settings in different populations, the relationship of adherence to virologic efficacy, and the implications of resistance when used in sequence with other PI regimens. In the absence of published evidence for other guideline-recommended PIs that will greatly facilitate a fully transparent, comparative effectiveness evaluation, the cumulative evidence from this broader perspective indicates all PIs should not be viewed as equally safe and effective across all patients for initial therapy, nor should any single PI within the class be considered preferred for all treatment-naïve patients.

Simplification strategies to reduce antiretroviral drug exposure: progress and prospects.

Current U.S. guidelines for initial therapy of HIV type-1 (HIV-1) infection recommend daily, lifelong treatment with a combination of three antiretroviral drugs consisting of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors and a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or a protease inhibitor. Although this approach has been successful in reducing morbidity and mortality from HIV-1 infection, concerns remain about adverse events from chronic drug exposure, the requirement for daily medication adherence, the risk of HIV-1 drug resistance and high treatment costs. The availability of antiretrovirals that are coformulated and dosed once daily have reduced pill burden and have simplified dosing schedules, but have not lowered drug exposure or cost. These limitations have stimulated research into drug-sparing strategies including intermittent therapy and simplified maintenance regimens. Randomized clinical trials have shown greater mortality with intermittent therapy compared with continuous therapy leading to rejection of this strategy. Pilot studies of simplified maintenance therapy with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor alone have shown more promise, although concerns remain. This article reviews progress in the simplification of antiretroviral therapy, recent clinical trial results and prospects for the future.

Assessment of ultrasound for use in detecting lipoatrophy in HIV-infected patients taking combination antiretroviral therapy.

The aim of this study was evaluation of ultrasound (US) as a tool for the assessment of lipoatrophy in a population of HIV-infected patients. We enrolled a convenience sample of 151 HIV-infected Caucasian participants (males, 79%) who were treated for at least 1 year with combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) in Zagreb, Croatia. US measurements of subcutaneous fat thickness were done over the malar, brachial, and crural region. We determined sensitivity and specificity of US as a diagnostic tool for lipoatrophy using receiver-operating curves and concordant patient and clinician assessment as our reference for the presence of lipoatrophy. HIV was acquired through heterosexual contact in 50% of participants and by sex between men in 42%. The mean current CD4 cell count was 503.1 cells=mm3 (standard deviation [SD] = 250.8). Seventy-seven (51%) participants were treated with stavudine and 91 (64%) with a protease inhibitor for at least 6 months. Nineteen (13%)participants had lipoatrophy in at least one anatomic site. Sensitivity of US ranged from 67%-71%, specificity from 65%-71%, positive and negative predictive values ranged from 11%-20% and 96-97%, respectively. US diagnosed lipoatrophy was more frequently found in patients with a history of stavudine treatment and in females. Patients with lipoatrophy had a longer duration of CART than those without lipoatrophy. US is a useful tool in ruling out the presence of clinical lipoatrophy in patients on CART. Using this objective measure of subcutaneous fat may be useful in helping clinicians make decisions about changing therapy.

Monotherapy with Lopinavir/Ritonavir as maintenance after HIV-1 viral suppression: results of a 96-week randomized, controlled, open-label, pilot trial (KalMo study).

BACKGROUND: Long-term adverse events and expenses associated with HAART have led to an interest in simplified therapy. Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy is attractive due to its potency and high genetic barrier. METHODS: This is a 96-week, open-label, randomized study to assess the feasibility of using LPV/r monotherapy in patients with undetectable viral load after being on successful HAART for at least 6 months. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to either switch from HAART to LPV/r monotherapy or to maintain their previous regimen. RESULTS: 60 patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. At Week 96, by intention-to-treat analysis, 24/30 (80.0%) subjects in monotherapy group and 26/30(86.6%) in the control group had a plasma viral load of <80 copies/mL. There was one virologic failure (defined as VL not greater-than 500 copies/mL) in each arm. Genotyping testing identified no resistance-associated mutations. The patient on the monotherapy arm was successfully resuppressed to <80 copies/mL after intensification with tenofovir and lamivudine. No statistically significant differences were found with regard to changes in CD4 counts. One subject in the monotherapy group discontinued due to diarrhea. Five subjects in the control group underwent regimen changes due to drug-related toxicities. Viral load from semen samples collected at the end of follow-up was undetectable on 14/15 patients randomized to monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from various HAART regimens to LPV/r monotherapy in patients who were virologically suppressed and without a history of previous virologic failure was effective, safe, and well tolerated through 96 weeks.