Cargando…

Efficacy of Dolutegravir versus Darunavir in Antiretroviral First-Line Regimens According to Resistance Mutations and Viral Subtype

Background: Dolutegravir (DTG)-based first-line regimens have shown superior efficacy versus darunavir (DRV)-based ones in randomized trials. We compared these two strategies in clinical practice, particularly considering the role of pre-treatment drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and of the HIV-1 su...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salvo, Pierluigi Francesco, Farinacci, Damiano, Ciccullo, Arturo, Borghi, Vanni, Rusconi, Stefano, Saracino, Annalisa, Gennari, William, Bruzzone, Bianca, Vicenti, Ilaria, Callegaro, Annapaola, Di Biagio, Antonio, Zazzi, Maurizio, Di Giambenedetto, Simona, Borghetti, Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10059835/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36992471
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v15030762
Descripción
Sumario:Background: Dolutegravir (DTG)-based first-line regimens have shown superior efficacy versus darunavir (DRV)-based ones in randomized trials. We compared these two strategies in clinical practice, particularly considering the role of pre-treatment drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and of the HIV-1 subtype. Materials and methods: The multicenter Antiretroviral Resistance Cohort Analysis (ARCA) database was queried to identify HIV-1-positive patients starting a first-line therapy with 2NRTIs plus either DTG or DRV between 2013 and 2019. Only adult (≥18 years) patients with a genotypic resistance test (GRT) prior to therapy and with HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/mL were selected. Through multivariable Cox regressions, we compared DTG- versus DRV-based regimens in the time to virological failure (VF) stratifying for pre-treatment DRMs and the viral subtype. Results: A total of 649 patients was enrolled, with 359 (55.3%) and 290 (44.7) starting DRV and DTG, respectively. In 11 months of median follow-up time, there were 41 VFs (8.4 in 100 patient-years follow-up, PYFU) and 15 VFs (5.3 per 100 PYFU) in the DRV and DTG groups, respectively. Compared with a fully active DTG-based regimen, the risk of VF was higher with DRV (aHR 2.33; p = 0.016), and with DTG-based regimens with pre-treatment DRMs to the backbone (aHR 17.27; p = 0.001), after adjusting for age, gender, baseline CD4 count and HIV-RNA, concurrent AIDS-defining event and months since HIV diagnosis. Compared with patients harboring a B viral subtype and treated with a DTG-based regimen, patients on DRV had an increased risk of VF, both in subtype B (aHR 3.35; p = 0.011), C (aHR 8.10; p = 0.005), CRF02-AG (aHR 5.59; p = 0.006) and G (aHR 13.90; p < 0.001); DTG also demonstrated a reduced efficacy in subtypes C (versus B, aHR 10.24; p = 0.035) and CRF01-AE (versus B; aHR 10.65; p = 0.035). Higher baseline HIV-RNA and a longer time since HIV diagnosis also predicted VF. Conclusions: In line with randomized trials, DTG-based first-line regimens showed an overall superior efficacy compared with DRV-based regimens. GRT may still play a role in identifying patients more at risk of VF and in guiding the choice of an antiretroviral backbone.