Background: Integrase inhibitors (INSTI) are a newer class of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs that offer additional treatment options for experienced patients. Our aim is to describe treatment durability and virological outcomes in treatment-experienced HIV-positive patients using INSTI-based regimens. Methods: All patients in the Australian HIV Observational Database who had received an INSTI-based regimen ≥ 14 days as well as previous therapy were included in the study. We defined two groups of treatment-experienced patients: (1) those starting a second-line regimen with INSTI; and (2) highly experienced patients, defined as having prior exposure to all three main ARV classes, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors, before commencing INSTI. Survival methods were used to determine time to viral suppression and treatment switch, stratified by patient treatment experience. Covariates of interest included age, gender, hepatitis B and C co-infection, previous antiretroviral treatment time, patient treatment experience and baseline viral load. Results: Time to viral suppression and regimen switching from INSTI initiation was similar for second-line and highly experienced patients. The probability of achieving viral suppression at 6 months was 77.7% for second-line patients and 68.4% for highly experienced patients. There were 60 occurrences of regimen switching away from INSTI observed over 1274.0 person-years, a crude rate of 4.71 (95% CI: 3.66-6.07) per 100 person-years. Patient treatment experience was not a significant factor for regimen switch according to multivariate analysis, adjusting for relevant covariates. Conclusions: We found that INSTI-based regimens were potent and durable in experienced HIV-positive patients receiving treatment outside clinical trials. These results confirm that INSTI-based regimens are a robust treatment option.
Background: Integrase inhibitors (INSTI) are a newer class of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs that offer additional treatment options for experienced patients. Our aim is to describe treatment durability and virological outcomes in treatment-experienced HIV-positivepatients using INSTI-based regimens. Methods: All patients in the Australian HIV Observational Database who had received an INSTI-based regimen ≥ 14 days as well as previous therapy were included in the study. We defined two groups of treatment-experienced patients: (1) those starting a second-line regimen with INSTI; and (2) highly experienced patients, defined as having prior exposure to all three main ARV classes, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors, before commencing INSTI. Survival methods were used to determine time to viral suppression and treatment switch, stratified by patient treatment experience. Covariates of interest included age, gender, hepatitis B and C co-infection, previous antiretroviral treatment time, patient treatment experience and baseline viral load. Results: Time to viral suppression and regimen switching from INSTI initiation was similar for second-line and highly experienced patients. The probability of achieving viral suppression at 6 months was 77.7% for second-line patients and 68.4% for highly experienced patients. There were 60 occurrences of regimen switching away from INSTI observed over 1274.0 person-years, a crude rate of 4.71 (95% CI: 3.66-6.07) per 100 person-years. Patient treatment experience was not a significant factor for regimen switch according to multivariate analysis, adjusting for relevant covariates. Conclusions: We found that INSTI-based regimens were potent and durable in experienced HIV-positivepatients receiving treatment outside clinical trials. These results confirm that INSTI-based regimens are a robust treatment option.
Authors: Bernard Vrijens; Els Goetghebeur; Erik de Klerk; Richard Rode; Steve Mayer; John Urquhart Journal: Stat Med Date: 2005-09-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Pedro Cahn; Anton L Pozniak; Horacio Mingrone; Andrey Shuldyakov; Carlos Brites; Jaime F Andrade-Villanueva; Gary Richmond; Carlos Beltran Buendia; Jan Fourie; Moti Ramgopal; Debbie Hagins; Franco Felizarta; Jose Madruga; Tania Reuter; Tamara Newman; Catherine B Small; John Lombaard; Beatriz Grinsztejn; David Dorey; Mark Underwood; Sandy Griffith; Sherene Min Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Amedeo Capetti; Paola Meraviglia; Simona Landonio; Gaetana Sterrantino; Antonio Di Biagio; Sergio Lo Caputo; Adriana Ammassari; Barbara Menzaghi; Giuseppe Vittorio De Socio; Marco Franzetti; Alessandro Soria; Marianna Meschiari; Lolita Sasset; Giovanni Pellicanò; Elena Mazzotta; Michele Trezzi; Benedetto Maurizio Celesia; Sara Melzi; Laura Carenzi; Elena Ricci; Giuliano Rizzardini Journal: Int J Antimicrob Agents Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 5.283
Authors: Roy T Steigbigel; David A Cooper; Hedy Teppler; Joseph J Eron; Jose M Gatell; Princy N Kumar; Jurgen K Rockstroh; Mauro Schechter; Christine Katlama; Martin Markowitz; Patrick Yeni; Mona R Loutfy; Adriano Lazzarin; Jeffrey L Lennox; Bonaventura Clotet; Jing Zhao; Hong Wan; Rand R Rhodes; Kim M Strohmaier; Richard J Barnard; Robin D Isaacs; Bach-Yen T Nguyen Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2010-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: In Young Jung; David Boettiger; Wing Wai Wong; Man Po Lee; Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul; Romanee Chaiwarith; Anchalee Avihingsanon; Junko Tanuma; Nagalingeswaran Kumarasamy; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Fujie Zhang; Pacharee Kantipong; Oon Tek Ng; Benedict Lim Heng Sim; Matthew Law; Jeremy Ross; Jun Yong Choi Journal: J Int AIDS Soc Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 5.396