Suchergebnisse

IntroductionPI/r monotherapy has been suggested as an attainable maintenance strategy in patients achieving stable HIV suppression in plasma. The objective of trial was to compare the virological outcome of two different PI/r QD monotherapy strategies (LPV/r or DRV/r) with maintaining a triple PI/r‐based ARV regimen.Material and MethodsPhase III, open‐label, non‐inferiority (−12% margin), randomized trial of HIV adults with HIV‐RNA <50 cp/mL for at least 48 weeks while on PI/r‐based cART, CD4 nadir >100 cell/mm3, without previous PIs virological failure. Eligible patients were randomized to continue PI/r+2NRTIs (Arm A), to switch to LPV/r 800/200 mg QD monotherapy (Arm B), or to switch to DRV/r 800/100 mg QD monotherapy (Arm C). Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with plasma HIV‐1 RNA <50 cp/mL (TLOVR) at 48w by intent to treat (ITT) analysis (missing/re‐induction=failure). FDA snapshot and ITT switch‐included analysis (ITT‐SI) were also used. In ITT‐SI, patients who had <50 copies/mL at 96w were counted as successes even if they had confirmed HIV‐RNA elevations and had subsequently successfully intensified by NRTI.ResultsDue to slow recruitment, only 103 patients were included. No differences were observed between the three arms with respect to gender, age, HIV transmission, CD4 nadir and at screening. At randomization, 61 patients were receiving TDF/FTC (60%), 19 ZDV/3TC (18%), 8 ABV/3TC (8%), 75 LPV/r (73%), 13 ATV/r (13%), 4 DRV/r (4%). Differences in proportion of virological success by groups using Arm A as comparator according to FDA TLOVR were reported in Figure 1. Similar results were obtained by Snapshot analysis. Of 14 patients with virological failure, 8 patients restarted triple therapy with 2NRTI and 7/8 regained a VL <50 cp/mL over time. According to ITT‐SI analysis, 96 week differences [95% CI] were −5.7 [−29.6; +18.2] in Arm B, and +19.6 [−1.6; +40.8] in Arm C. A GRT was performed in 6/14 patients (one not amplifiable; four without mutations; one showed E138A).ConclusionsCompared to maintaining a PI/r‐based triple ARV regimen, LPV/r QD monotherapy tended to have higher rate of virological failure and of discontinuation due to adverse event. In contrast, the response rate at week 96 during DRV/r QD mono‐therapy was non‐inferior to that of triple PI/r‐based ARV therapy. A re‐induction with 2NRTI was adequate to obtain an undetectable viremia in most of patients with virological failure.

IntroductionDiagnosis of HIV infection during early stages is mandatory to catch up with the challenge of limiting HIV viral replication and reservoirs formation, as well as decreasing HIV transmissions by immediate cART initiation.ObjectivesAims were to describe (a) virological characteristics of AHI identified, (b) epidemiological and clinical factors associated with being diagnosed with AHI.MethodsCross‐sectional, retrospective study. All individuals diagnosed with AHI according to Fiebig's staging between Jan 2013 and Mar 2014 at the INMI "L. Spallanzani" were included. Serum samples reactive to a fourth generation HIV‐1/2 assay (Architect HIV Ag/Ab Combo, Abbott) were retested with another fourth generation assay (VIDAS DUO HIV Ultra, Biomérieux) and underwent confirmation with HIV‐1 WB (New Lav I Bio‐Rad) and/or with Geenius confirmatory assay (Bio‐Rad). WHO criteria (two env products reactivity) were used to establish positivity of confirmatory assays. In case of clinically suspected AHI, HIV‐1 RNA (Real time, Abbott) and p24 assay (VIDAS HIV P24 Bio‐Rad) were also performed. Avidity test was carried out, on confirmed positive samples lacking p31 reactivity, to discriminate between recent (true Fiebig V phase) and late infections; to avoid possible misclassifications, clinical data were also used. Demographic, epidemiological, clinical and laboratory data are routinely, and anonymously recorded in the SENDIH and SIREA studies.ResultsDuring the study period, we observed 483 newly HIV diagnosed individuals, of whom 40 were identified as AHI (8.3%). Fiebig classification showed: 7 stage II/III, 13 stage IV, 20 stage V. Demographic, epidemiological, and clinical characteristics of patients are shown in the Table. Overall, the study population had a median S/Co ratio at fourth generation EIA (Architect) of 49.50 (IQR, 23.54–98.05): values were significantly lower in Fiebig II‐IV than in Fiebig V (38.68 [IQR, 20.08–54.84] vs 75.72 [IQR, 42.66–249.80], p=0.01). Overall, median HIV‐1 RNA was 5.44 log copies/mL (IQR, 4.29–6.18) and the value observed in Fiebig phase II‐IV was higher than that found in Fiebig stage V (6.10 [IQR, 5.49–7.00] vs 4.69 [3.71–5.44], p<0.001). Median CD4+ cell count was 596/mmc (IQR, 410–737). cART was started in 26 patients: TDF/FTC/DRV/r/RAL=18; TDF/FTC/DRV/r=2; TDF/FTC/ATV/r=2; TDF+FTC+EFV=2; TDF/FTC/RAL=1; DRV/r+RAL=1.ConclusionsIntegration of careful epidemiological investigation, partner notification, and technical advances in virological testing are key elements in AHI case‐finding. Significant differences were found between Fiebig stages II–IV and Fiebig V with regard to virological exams.