Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results of the randomise

Daily oral triple therapy is effective at halting HIV disease progression, but can have toxic effects and is costly. We investigated whether dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine is non-inferior to standard triple therapy. The GARDEL study (Global AntiRetroviral Design Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard therapy) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults (age ≥18 years) with documented HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL. The study was done at 19 centres in six countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dual therapy or triple therapy by sealed envelopes, in blocks of four, stratified by baseline viral load (<100,000 vs ≥100,000 copies per mL). Dual therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg plus lamivudine 150 mg, both twice daily. Triple therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily and lamivudine or emtricitabine plus another nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in fixed-dose combination. Efficacy was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was virological response rate, defined as the proportion of patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Dual therapy was classed as non-inferior to triple therapy if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between groups was no lower than -12%. Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01237444. Between Dec 10, 2010, and May 15, 2012, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the dual-therapy group and 209 to the triple-therapy group. 198 patients in the dual-therapy group and 175 in the triple-therapy group completed 48 weeks of treatment. At week 48, 189 patients (88·3%) in the dual-therapy group and 169 (83·7%) in the triple-therapy group had viral response (difference 4·6%, 95% CI -2·2 to 11·8; p=0·171). Patients with baseline viral load of at least 100,000 copies per mL showed similar results (87·2% vs 77·9%, respectively; difference 9·3%, 95% CI -2·8 to 21·5; p=0·145). Toxicity-related or tolerability-related discontinuations were more common in the triple-therapy group (n=10 [4·9%]) than in the dual-therapy group (n=1 [0·4%]; difference 4·5%, 95% CI -8·1 to -0·9; p=0·011). 65 adverse events in the dual-therapy group and 88 in the triple-therapy group were possibly or probably drug related (p=0·007). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the dual-therapy arm, one of which (a case of gastritis) was reported as possibly or probably related to drug treatment. Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine regimen warrants further clinical research and consideration as a potential therapeutic option for antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients. Fundación Huésped and AbbVie.

Cahn P ，Andrade-Villanueva J ，Arribas JR ，Gatell JM ，Lama JR ，Norton M ，Patterson P ，Sierra Madero J ，Sued O ，Figueroa MI ，Rolon MJ ，GARDEL Study Group ... -  《-》

Dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression (OLE): a random

Arribas JR ，Girard PM ，Landman R ，Pich J ，Mallolas J ，Martínez-Rebollar M ，Zamora FX ，Estrada V ，Crespo M ，Podzamczer D ，Portilla J ，Dronda F ，Iribarren JA ，Domingo P ，Pulido F ，Montero M ，Knobel H ，Cabié A ，Weiss L ，Gatell JM ，OLE/RIS-EST13 Study Group ... -  《-》

Dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides in virologically stable patients with HIV-1 (SALT): 48 week results from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

Problems associated with lifelong antiretroviral therapy, such as need for strict adherence, drug-related toxic effects, difficulties with treatment schedules, and cost, mean that simplification strategies should be sought. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine as an option to switch to from standard combination antiretroviral therapy in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed. In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with chronic HIV-1 infection and no previous treatment failure or resistance, and with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL for at least 6 months, negative hepatitis B virus surface antigen, and good general health, from 30 hospitals in Spain. Exclusion criteria were switch in antiretroviral therapy during the previous 4 months, previous virological failure, pregnancy or breastfeeding, Gilbert's syndrome, use of contraindicated drugs, grade 4 laboratory abnormalities, and previous intolerance to any of the study drugs. We randomly assigned patients (1:1; stratified by active hepatitis C virus infection and previous treatment; computer-generated random number sequence) to dual treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or triple treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at the discretion of the investigators. The primary endpoint was virological response, defined as HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, in the per-protocol population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug in the safety analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307488. Between Sept 29, 2011, and May 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 286 patients (143 [50%] to each group). At week 48 in the per-protocol population, 112 (84%) of 133 patients had virological response in the dual-treatment group versus 105 (78%) of 135 in the triple-treatment group (difference 6% [95% CI -5 to 16%), showing non-inferiority at the prespecified level. 14 (5%) patients developed severe adverse events (dual treatment six [4%]; triple treatment eight [6%]), none of which we deemed related to the study drug. Grade 3-4 adverse events were similar between groups (dual treatment 77 [55%] of 140; triple treatment 78 [55%] of 141). Treatment discontinuations were less frequent in the dual-treatment group (three [2%]) than in the triple-treatment group (ten [7%]; p=0·047). In our trial, dual treatment was effective, safe, and non-inferior to triple treatment in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed who switch antiretroviral therapy because of toxic effects, intolerance, or simplification. This combination has the potential to suppress some of the long-term toxic effects associated with nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, preserve future treatment options, and reduce the cost of antiretroviral therapy. Bristol Myers-Squibb and Fundación SEIMC-GESIDA.

Perez-Molina JA ，Rubio R ，Rivero A ，Pasquau J ，Suárez-Lozano I ，Riera M ，Estébanez M ，Santos J ，Sanz-Moreno J ，Troya J ，Mariño A ，Antela A ，Navarro J ，Esteban H ，Moreno S ，GESIDA 7011 Study Group ... -  《-》

Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine dual therapy as second-line maintenance treatment for HIV-1-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa (ANRS12 286/MOBIDIP): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-la

Despite satisfactory efficacy of WHO-recommended second-line antiretroviral treatment for patients with HIV in low-income countries, the need for simplified, low-cost, and less-toxic maintenance strategies remains high. We compared boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy with dual therapy with boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine in patients on second-line antiretrovial therapy (ART). We did a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority, trial in the HIV services of five hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa (Yaoundé, Cameroon; Dakar, Senegal; and Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso). We recruited patients from the long-term, post-trial cohort of the ANRS 12169/2LADY study that compared the efficacy of three second-line combinations based on boosted protease inhibitors. Participants for our study were HIV-1 infected with multiple mutations including M184V, at first-line failure, aged 18 years and older, on boosted protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) for at least 48 weeks with at least 48 weeks follow-up in the 2LADY trial, with two viral load measurements of less than 200 copies per mL in the previous 6 months, CD4 counts of more than 100 cells per μL, adherence of at least 90%, and no change to ART in the past 3 months. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive either monotherapy with their boosted protease inhibitor (once-daily darunavir 800 mg [two 400 mg tablets] boosted with ritonavir 100 mg [one tablet] or coformulation of lopinavir 200 mg with ritonavir 50 mg [two tablets taken twice per day]) or to boosted protease inhibitor plus once-daily lamivudine 300 mg (one 300 mg tablet or two 150 mg tablets). Computer-generated randomisation was stratified by study site and viral load at screening (< 50 copies per mL, and 50-200 copies per mL), and concealed from study personnel throughout the inclusion period. After randomisation, treatment allocation was not masked from clinicians or patients]. Patients had follow-up visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 3 months until 96 weeks; if viral load exceeded 500 copies per mL at any visit, NRTI (tenofovir and lamivudine) were reintroduced into treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who had treatment failure at 96 weeks in the intention-to-treat analysis, where treatment failure was defined as one of the following: a confirmed viral load of more than 500 copies per mL, reintroduction of NRTI, or interruption of boosted protease inhibitor. We designed the study to detect a difference of 12% between groups in the primary outcome, with an expected 20% of patients having treatment failure in the monotherapy group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01905059. Between March 5, 2014, and Jan 26, 2015, 265 participants were assigned to receive monotherapy (133) or boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine (132). At week 48, an independent data safety monitoring board reviewed data, and advised discontinuation of the monotherapy group because the number of failures had exceeded the expected 20%; therefore results here are for week 48. At this point, treatment failure occurred in four (3·0%; 95% CI 0·8-7·6) of 132 participants on dual therapy and 33 (24·8%; 17·7-33·0) of 133 participants on monotherapy (relative risk 8·2, 95% CI 3·0-22·5; odds ratio 10·6, 95% CI 3·6-42·1). The difference between groups (21·8%, 95% CI 13·9-29·7; p<0·0001) showed superiority of dual therapy compared with monotherapy. We recorded 46 severe adverse events of grade 3 or 4 (29 in the monotherapy group, 17 in the boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine group); one event in the montherapy group (intoxication resulting from co-administration of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir with an ergotamine derivate) was deemed related to study drug. Two participants in the monotherapy group and one in the dual therapy group died, all from causes not related to study drugs or procedures (one from complications from gastric cancer surgery, one in a work accident, and one from a lung disease of unknown cause). After viral suppression with boosted protease inhibitor plus NRTI in second-line ART, maintenance therapy with boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine was associated with a high rate of success, despite the presence of M184V mutations at first-line treatment failure. Results indicated that boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy cannot be recommended for these patients. Agence National de Recherche sur le Sida et les hépatites and Janssen Pharmaceutica.

Ciaffi L ，Koulla-Shiro S ，Sawadogo AB ，Ndour CT ，Eymard-Duvernay S ，Mbouyap PR ，Ayangma L ，Zoungrana J ，Gueye NFN ，Diallo M ，Izard S ，Bado G ，Kane CT ，Aghokeng AF ，Peeters M ，Girard PM ，Le Moing V ，Reynes J ，Delaporte E ，MOBIDIP study group ... -  《Lancet HIV》

Body composition and metabolic outcomes after 96 weeks of treatment with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus either nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors or raltegravir in patients with HIV with virological failure of a standard first-lin

Lipoatrophy is one of the most feared complications associated with the use of nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We aimed to assess soft-tissue changes in participants with HIV who had virological failure of a first-line antiretroviral (ART) regimen containing a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor plus two N(t)RTIs and were randomly assigned to receive a second-line regimen containing a boosted protease inhibitor given with either N(t)RTIs or raltegravir. Of the 37 sites that participated in the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study, eight sites from five countries (Argentina, India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand) participated in the body composition substudy. All sites had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and all participants enrolled in SECOND-LINE were eligible for inclusion in the substudy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three N(t)RTIs (N[t]RTI group). Randomisation was stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA. Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment, but allocation was concealed until after interventions were assigned. DXA scans were done at weeks 0, 48, and 96. The primary endpoint was mean percentage and absolute change in peripheral limb fat from baseline to week 96. We did intention-to-treat analyses of available data. This substudy is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01513122. Between Aug 1, 2010, and July 10, 2011, we recruited 211 participants into the substudy. The intention-to-treat population comprised 102 participants in the N(t)RTI group and 108 participants in the raltegravir group, of whom 91 and 105 participants, respectively, reached 96 weeks. Mean percentage change in limb fat from baseline to week 96 was 16·8% (SD 32·6) in the N(t)RTI group and 28·0% (37·6) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 10·2%, 95% CI 0·1-20·4; p=0·048). Mean absolute change was 1·04 kg (SD 2·29) in the N(t)RTI group and 1·81 kg (2·50) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 0·6, 95% CI -0·1 to 1·3; p=0·10). Our findings suggest that for people with virological failure of a first-line regimen containing efavirenz plus tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine, the WHO-recommended switch to a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus zidovudine (a thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) and lamivudine might come at the cost of peripheral lipoatrophy. Further study could help to define specific groups of people who might benefit from a switch to an N(t)RTI-sparing second-line ART regimen. The Kirby Institute and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Boyd MA ，Amin J ，Mallon PW ，Kumarasamy N ，Lombaard J ，Wood R ，Chetchotisakd P ，Phanuphak P ，Mohapi L ，Azwa I ，Belloso WH ，Molina JM ，Hoy J ，Moore CL ，Emery S ，Cooper DA ，SECOND-LINE Study Group ... -  《Lancet HIV》