Cargando…

Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy has been analyzed with different endpoints: initial HIV-1 RNA rebound, long-term HIV-1 RNA suppression after re-intensification, treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive testing and HIV-1 RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). MET...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arribas, Jose, Girard, Pierre-Marie, Paton, Nicholas, Winston, Alan, Marcelin, Anne-Genevieve, Elbirt, Daniel, Hill, Andrew, Blanca Hadacek, Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International AIDS Society 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225292/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25397532
http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19788
_version_ 1782343476086571008
author Arribas, Jose
Girard, Pierre-Marie
Paton, Nicholas
Winston, Alan
Marcelin, Anne-Genevieve
Elbirt, Daniel
Hill, Andrew
Blanca Hadacek, Maria
author_facet Arribas, Jose
Girard, Pierre-Marie
Paton, Nicholas
Winston, Alan
Marcelin, Anne-Genevieve
Elbirt, Daniel
Hill, Andrew
Blanca Hadacek, Maria
author_sort Arribas, Jose
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy has been analyzed with different endpoints: initial HIV-1 RNA rebound, long-term HIV-1 RNA suppression after re-intensification, treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive testing and HIV-1 RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). METHODS: A PUBMED search identified nine randomised trials of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy in patients with HIV RNA<50 copies/mL at baseline. Results from the recently completed PROTEA trial were also included. The percentage of patients with HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL was analyzed using switch equals failure and intensification included endpoints (ITT). The number of patients with new drug resistance mutations, HIV RNA in the CSF or change in neurocognitive function was analyzed by treatment arm. RESULTS: Four trials evaluated darunavir/r monotherapy (n=785: MONET, MONOI, MONARCH, PROTEA), five evaluated lopinavir/r monotherapy (n=592: OK-04, KalMo, KALESOLO, KRETA, MOST) and one evaluated both (MRC PIVOT, n=587). HIV-1 RNA suppression rates tended to be lower on PI monotherapy than triple therapy in “switch equals failure” analysis (76% vs 82%), but not when the outcome of intensification was included (87% vs 85%). There were small numbers of patients taking PI monotherapy with detectable HIV-1 RNA in the CSF, in three trials: PROTEA (n=2), MONOI (n=2) and MOST (n=5), but only two cases of CSF viral escape (MONOI). In two trials, there was no difference in neurocognitive test results between PI monotherapy and triple therapy, based on z-scores from five domains (in PROTEA, mean change in NPZ-5 score=0.0 for DRV/r monotherapy vs −0.10 for triple therapy); similar results were observed in the MRC PIVOT trial. The risk of treatment emergent NRTI or PI resistance (Table 1) was 11/973 (1.1%) for patients on PI monotherapy, versus 7/991 (0.7%) for patients on triple therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In 10 randomised trials of 1964 patients with HIV-1 RNA suppression at baseline, PI monotherapy showed a higher risk of HIV RNA elevations, and small numbers with HIV RNA detectable in CSF and concomitantly in the plasma. However there was no increased risk of treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive endpoints were not different between the arms and HIV-1 RNA suppression rates after intensification were similar between PI monotherapy and triple therapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4225292
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher International AIDS Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42252922014-11-12 Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials Arribas, Jose Girard, Pierre-Marie Paton, Nicholas Winston, Alan Marcelin, Anne-Genevieve Elbirt, Daniel Hill, Andrew Blanca Hadacek, Maria J Int AIDS Soc Poster Sessions – Abstract P256 INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy has been analyzed with different endpoints: initial HIV-1 RNA rebound, long-term HIV-1 RNA suppression after re-intensification, treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive testing and HIV-1 RNA in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). METHODS: A PUBMED search identified nine randomised trials of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy in patients with HIV RNA<50 copies/mL at baseline. Results from the recently completed PROTEA trial were also included. The percentage of patients with HIV RNA suppression <50 copies/mL was analyzed using switch equals failure and intensification included endpoints (ITT). The number of patients with new drug resistance mutations, HIV RNA in the CSF or change in neurocognitive function was analyzed by treatment arm. RESULTS: Four trials evaluated darunavir/r monotherapy (n=785: MONET, MONOI, MONARCH, PROTEA), five evaluated lopinavir/r monotherapy (n=592: OK-04, KalMo, KALESOLO, KRETA, MOST) and one evaluated both (MRC PIVOT, n=587). HIV-1 RNA suppression rates tended to be lower on PI monotherapy than triple therapy in “switch equals failure” analysis (76% vs 82%), but not when the outcome of intensification was included (87% vs 85%). There were small numbers of patients taking PI monotherapy with detectable HIV-1 RNA in the CSF, in three trials: PROTEA (n=2), MONOI (n=2) and MOST (n=5), but only two cases of CSF viral escape (MONOI). In two trials, there was no difference in neurocognitive test results between PI monotherapy and triple therapy, based on z-scores from five domains (in PROTEA, mean change in NPZ-5 score=0.0 for DRV/r monotherapy vs −0.10 for triple therapy); similar results were observed in the MRC PIVOT trial. The risk of treatment emergent NRTI or PI resistance (Table 1) was 11/973 (1.1%) for patients on PI monotherapy, versus 7/991 (0.7%) for patients on triple therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In 10 randomised trials of 1964 patients with HIV-1 RNA suppression at baseline, PI monotherapy showed a higher risk of HIV RNA elevations, and small numbers with HIV RNA detectable in CSF and concomitantly in the plasma. However there was no increased risk of treatment-emergent drug resistance, neurocognitive endpoints were not different between the arms and HIV-1 RNA suppression rates after intensification were similar between PI monotherapy and triple therapy. International AIDS Society 2014-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4225292/ /pubmed/25397532 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19788 Text en © 2014 Arribas J et al; licensee International AIDS Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Poster Sessions – Abstract P256
Arribas, Jose
Girard, Pierre-Marie
Paton, Nicholas
Winston, Alan
Marcelin, Anne-Genevieve
Elbirt, Daniel
Hill, Andrew
Blanca Hadacek, Maria
Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
title Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
title_full Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
title_fullStr Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
title_short Efficacy of PI monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
title_sort efficacy of pi monotherapy versus triple therapy for 1964 patients in 10 randomised trials
topic Poster Sessions – Abstract P256
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225292/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25397532
http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19788
work_keys_str_mv AT arribasjose efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT girardpierremarie efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT patonnicholas efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT winstonalan efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT marcelinannegenevieve efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT elbirtdaniel efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT hillandrew efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials
AT blancahadacekmaria efficacyofpimonotherapyversustripletherapyfor1964patientsin10randomisedtrials