G Baldin1, A Ciccullo1, A Capetti2, S Rusconi3, G Sterrantino4, M V Cossu2, A Giacomelli3, F Lagi4, A Latini5, P Bagella6, A De Luca7, S Di Giambenedetto1, G Madeddu6. 1. Institute of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Infectious Diseases, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy. 3. Infectious Diseases Unit, DIBIC Luigi Sacco, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 4. Division of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, 'Careggi' Hospital, Florence, Italy. 5. Infectious Dermatology and Allergology Unit, IFO S. Gallicano Institute (IRCCS), Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy. 7. University Division of Infectious Diseases, Siena University Hospital, Siena, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of switching antiretroviral therapy to dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) with those of switching to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF in clinical practice. METHODS: In a multicentre real-life observational study, we analysed data for HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral treatment with viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL switching to dolutegravir + emtricitabine/TDF (dolutegravir group) or elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF (elvitegravir group). Follow-up was censored at 48 weeks. RESULTS: The 48-week estimated proportion maintaining virological efficacy was 96.1% with dolutegravir (n = 123) and 95.4% with elvitegravir (n = 186; P = 0.941). Patients in the dolutegravir group showed more treatment discontinuations, but these were mainly as a result of simplification. The elvitegravir group showed more discontinuations because of renal adverse events (2.7% versus 0% with dolutegravir). Interestingly, no difference was observed between the two regimens in central nervous system toxicity-related discontinuations. Switching to dolutegravir was associated with a better blood lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to dolutegravir + emtricitabine/TDF was associated with similar efficacy and tolerability to switching to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF in virologically suppressed patients in clinical practice, although reasons for discontinuation showed differences between regimens. These results should be interpreted with caution, as this is a nonrandomized comparison.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of switching antiretroviral therapy to dolutegravir + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) with those of switching to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF in clinical practice. METHODS: In a multicentre real-life observational study, we analysed data for HIV-infectedpatients on antiretroviral treatment with viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL switching to dolutegravir + emtricitabine/TDF (dolutegravir group) or elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF (elvitegravir group). Follow-up was censored at 48 weeks. RESULTS: The 48-week estimated proportion maintaining virological efficacy was 96.1% with dolutegravir (n = 123) and 95.4% with elvitegravir (n = 186; P = 0.941). Patients in the dolutegravir group showed more treatment discontinuations, but these were mainly as a result of simplification. The elvitegravir group showed more discontinuations because of renal adverse events (2.7% versus 0% with dolutegravir). Interestingly, no difference was observed between the two regimens in central nervous system toxicity-related discontinuations. Switching to dolutegravir was associated with a better blood lipid profile. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to dolutegravir + emtricitabine/TDF was associated with similar efficacy and tolerability to switching to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF in virologically suppressed patients in clinical practice, although reasons for discontinuation showed differences between regimens. These results should be interpreted with caution, as this is a nonrandomized comparison.
Authors: Mohamed N'dongo Sangaré; Jean-Guy Baril; Alexandra de Pokomandy; Steve Ferreira Guerra; Mabel Carabali; Claudie Laprise; Réjean Thomas; Marina Klein; Cécile Tremblay; Michel Roger; Costa Pexos; Zoë R Greenwald; Nima Machouf; Madeleine Durand; Isabelle Hardy; Mamadou Dakouo; Andrea Trevisan; Louise Laporte; Mireille E Schnitzer; Helen Trottier Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Neha Sheth Pandit; Daniel B Chastain; Andrea M Pallotta; Melissa E Badowski; Emily C Huesgen; Sarah M Michienzi Journal: Curr Infect Dis Rep Date: 2019-09-07 Impact factor: 3.725
Authors: Michael Wohlfeiler; Karam Mounzer; Laurence Brunet; Jennifer Fusco; Vani Vannappagari; Lloyd Curtis; Nassrin Payvandi; Michael Aboud; Ricky Hsu; Philip Lackey; Gregory Fusco Journal: Ther Adv Drug Saf Date: 2020-12-08
Authors: Ashutosh Tripathi; Annadurai Thangaraj; Ernest T Chivero; Palsamy Periyasamy; Maria E Burkovetskaya; Fang Niu; Ming-Lei Guo; Shilpa Buch Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Andrea Giacomelli; Alice Ranzani; Letizia Oreni; Elena Gervasi; Angelica Lupo; Anna Lisa Ridolfo; Massimo Galli; Stefano Rusconi Journal: Drug Des Devel Ther Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 4.162