Neha Sheth Pandit1, Daniel B Chastain2, Andrea M Pallotta3, Melissa E Badowski4, Emily C Huesgen5, Sarah M Michienzi4. 1. University of Maryland Baltimore School of Pharmacy, 20 North Pine Street, PHN417, Baltimore, MD, 21201, USA. npandit@rx.umaryland.edu. 2. University of Georgia College of Pharmacy, Albany, GA, USA. 3. Department of Pharmacy, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HIV treatment simplification is typically indicated for virologically suppressed patients with no baseline resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) or prior virologic failure (VF) to the simplification regimen. Simplification can occur to minimize pill burden, toxicities, drug-drug interactions, or costs. As most studies for treatment simplification excluded patients with baseline RAMs or prior VF, this review is aimed to critically analyze data regarding treatment simplification in treatment-experienced patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Antiretroviral (ARV) regimens containing three-, two-, and one-drug(s) have been scarcely studied to assess virologic efficacy in treatment-experienced patients. Three-drug regimens with the most data and highest efficacy are with integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Regimens including dolutegravir (DTG) and bictegravir have been shown to maintain efficacy in patients with certain baseline RAMs. Dual therapy regimens include the use of DTG plus either lamivudine (3TC), rilpivirine (RPV), or other ARVs. None of these studies evaluated patients with baseline DTG resistance. Baseline RAMs to 3TC were not a predictor of VF in patients on DTG/3TC. Efficacy was seen with DTG/RPV; however, studies showed high rates of discontinuation. DTG plus boosted-protease inhibitors were studied in smaller but promising studies. Two small studies assessed the use of monotherapy with boosted darunavir or DTG, both showing virologic efficacy. Currently, three- and two-drug ARV regimens may be considered in this population with most studies evaluating the use of DTG and bictegravir without baseline INSTI RAMs. Future studies should include heavily treatment-experienced patients with a variety of baseline RAMs and a larger sample size.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HIV treatment simplification is typically indicated for virologically suppressed patients with no baseline resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) or prior virologic failure (VF) to the simplification regimen. Simplification can occur to minimize pill burden, toxicities, drug-drug interactions, or costs. As most studies for treatment simplification excluded patients with baseline RAMs or prior VF, this review is aimed to critically analyze data regarding treatment simplification in treatment-experienced patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Antiretroviral (ARV) regimens containing three-, two-, and one-drug(s) have been scarcely studied to assess virologic efficacy in treatment-experienced patients. Three-drug regimens with the most data and highest efficacy are with integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). Regimens including dolutegravir (DTG) and bictegravir have been shown to maintain efficacy in patients with certain baseline RAMs. Dual therapy regimens include the use of DTG plus either lamivudine (3TC), rilpivirine (RPV), or other ARVs. None of these studies evaluated patients with baseline DTG resistance. Baseline RAMs to 3TC were not a predictor of VF in patients on DTG/3TC. Efficacy was seen with DTG/RPV; however, studies showed high rates of discontinuation. DTG plus boosted-protease inhibitors were studied in smaller but promising studies. Two small studies assessed the use of monotherapy with boosted darunavir or DTG, both showing virologic efficacy. Currently, three- and two-drug ARV regimens may be considered in this population with most studies evaluating the use of DTG and bictegravir without baseline INSTI RAMs. Future studies should include heavily treatment-experienced patients with a variety of baseline RAMs and a larger sample size.
Authors: Joseph J Eron; Benjamin Young; David A Cooper; Michael Youle; Edwin Dejesus; Jaime Andrade-Villanueva; Cassy Workman; Roberto Zajdenverg; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Daniel S Berger; Princy N Kumar; Anthony J Rodgers; Melissa A Shaughnessy; Monica L Walker; Richard J O Barnard; Michael D Miller; Mark J Dinubile; Bach-Yen Nguyen; Randi Leavitt; Xia Xu; Peter Sklar Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elżbieta Jabłonowska; Ewa Siwak; Monika Bociąga-Jasik; Jacek Gąsiorowski; Anna Kalinowska; Ewa Firląg Burkacka; Kamila Wójcik-Cichy; Anna Piątek; Iwona Cielniak; Andrzej Horban Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gregory D Huhn; Pablo Tebas; Joel Gallant; Timothy Wilkin; Andrew Cheng; Mingjin Yan; Lijie Zhong; Christian Callebaut; Joseph M Custodio; Marshall W Fordyce; Moupali Das; Scott McCallister Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Sang Ah Lee; Shin Woo Kim; Hyun Ha Chang; Hyejin Jung; Yoonjung Kim; Soyoon Hwang; Sujeong Kim; Han Ki Park; Jong Myung Lee Journal: Infect Chemother Date: 2018-09