Week 96 efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in virologically suppressed patients with HIV: a randomized non-inferiority trial (ANRS 140 DREAM)

Week 96 efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in virologically suppressed patients with... Abstract Background Sparing of antiretroviral drug classes could reduce the toxicity and cost of maintenance treatment for HIV infection. Objectives To evaluate the non-inferiority of efficacy and the safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (r) monotherapy versus a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) over 2 years. Methods Adults on stable ART with plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load <50 copies/mL for the past 12 months and no documented treatment failure were randomized to receive either lopinavir/r or EFV/FTC/TDF for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 (viral load <50 copies/mL at week 96, confirmed at week 98), without study treatment discontinuation, a new AIDS-defining illness, or death. Results In the ITT analysis, the primary endpoint was reached by, respectively, 64% and 71% of patients in the lopinavir/r (n = 98) and EFV/FTC/TDF arms (n = 97), yielding a difference of –6.8% (lower limit of the 95% two-sided CI: –19.9%). Sanger and UltraDeep sequencing showed the occurrence of PI mutations in the lopinavir/r arm (n = 4) and of NNRTI and/or NRTI mutations in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (n = 2). No unexpected serious clinical events occurred. Conclusions Lopinavir/r monotherapy cannot be considered non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF. PI resistance rarely emerged in the lopinavir/r arm and did not undermine future PI options. Two years of lopinavir/r monotherapy had no deleterious clinical impact when compared with EFV/FTC/TDF. Introduction HIV infection is now a manageable chronic condition, but long-term exposure to antiretroviral drugs raises concerns regarding toxicity.1,2 Several options have been evaluated to limit exposure to ART, including PI/ritonavir (PI/r) monotherapy.3,4 We report the results of the ANRS 140 DREAM trial comparing lopinavir/r with efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) in virologically controlled patients. Patients and methods Study design This was a non-inferiority, open-label, randomized (1:1), Phase II/III trial comparing lopinavir/r versus EFV/FTC/TDF in 36 French university hospitals. Screening and eligibility criteria Adult patients were eligible if they had (i) viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL over the past 12 months and no prior documented virological failure or resistance to ART, and (ii) CD4 cell count >200 cells/mm3 at screening and CD4 nadir >100 cells/mm3. Ethics The protocol was approved by an ethics committee and the competent French health authority. All participants gave their written informed consent. Trial registration name and number: ANRS 140 DREAM trial (ANRS: French Public Agency for HIV and viral hepatitis research). Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595. Randomization Randomization (1:1) was carried out centrally using the e-CRF system (CS software, Ennov-Clinical). Intervention Over a 98 week period, participants received either monotherapy with lopinavir 200 mg boosted by ritonavir 50 mg, two pills twice a day (lopinavir/r arm), or efavirenz 600 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir 245 mg, one pill a day (EFV/FTC/TDF arm). The protocol recommended treatment intensification with emtricitabine and tenofovir in the lopinavir/r arm in the case of two consecutive VL values ≥400 copies/mL within a 2 week period. Study procedures Clinical examinations and laboratory tests were performed at screening (week −5), baseline (week 0), week 4 and every 12 weeks until week 98. Antiretroviral resistance was defined according to the 2014 ANRS HIV-1 genotypic resistance interpretation algorithm.5 Ultrasensitive VL assay was done at week 0, 48 and 96 (detection limit <1 copy/mL). Neurocognitive functions were assessed at week 0 and 96 by standardized neuropsychological tests and questionnaires. Bone mineral density and whole-body composition were measured at week 0, 48 and 96 among men taking part in the core trial at selected sites (DXA substudy). Clinical and biological adverse events were graded with the ANRS Scale for Grading Adult Adverse Events.6 Outcome measures The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 (defined as VL ≥50 copies/mL at week 96 and confirmed at week 98), treatment discontinuation, a new AIDS-defining illness or death. In a robustness analysis, treatment was not considered to have failed in patients who experienced VL <50 copies/mL at week 96 after re-intensification. Secondary virological outcomes were: the proportions of patients with VL <50 copies/mL at all timepoints and <1 copy/mL at week 0, 48 and 96; emergence of resistance-associated mutations; adverse events; changes in the CD4 cell count; and predictors of treatment failure and ancillary studies. Statistical analysis We assumed that the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 would be similar (85%) in the two arms. The non-inferiority margin was set at –10%. The required number of participants was 420 (210 per arm), with a one-sided type I error of 2.5% and a power of 80%.7 The primary outcome and robustness analyses were based on the ITT approach. Differences in proportions and their 95% two-sided CIs were estimated by using the binomial distribution. Predictors of treatment failure based on the primary endpoint were estimated by using a logistic regression model. Secondary outcome analyses were applied to available data. Results Enrolment and follow-up From October 2009 to June 2011, 197 patients were randomized, 98 to lopinavir/r and 99 to EFV/FTC/TDF (Figure 1). Because of slow recruitment, the trial steering committee decided to terminate inclusions after a 7 month extension of the initial 12 month inclusion period. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide CONSORT diagram of the ANRS 140 DREAM Trial. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide CONSORT diagram of the ANRS 140 DREAM Trial. The primary analysis included 195 participants: 98 in the lopinavir/r arm and 97 in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (two exclusions by the trial steering committee for non-fulfilment of regulatory criteria and previous efavirenz toxicity). The patients' baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. Data from the screening visit (5 weeks before baseline) were used when baseline data were recorded only at this visit, unless otherwise specified Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  a The HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL data at week 0 are available in 185 patients: 93 patients in the lopinavir/r group and 92 patients in the EFV/FTC/TDF group. b 3 NRTI (n = 14), 2 NRTI (n = 2) and 2 NRTI + anti-integrase + antagonist CCR5 (n = 1). Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. Data from the screening visit (5 weeks before baseline) were used when baseline data were recorded only at this visit, unless otherwise specified Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  a The HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL data at week 0 are available in 185 patients: 93 patients in the lopinavir/r group and 92 patients in the EFV/FTC/TDF group. b 3 NRTI (n = 14), 2 NRTI (n = 2) and 2 NRTI + anti-integrase + antagonist CCR5 (n = 1). Efficacy The primary outcome was reached by 64% of patients in the lopinavir/r arm and 71% in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm [difference between arms –6.8% (95% CI –19.9; 6.2)]. The main reasons for treatment failure were trial strategy discontinuation (71% with lopinavir/r, 68% with EFV/FTC/TDF) and virological failure (23% versus 32%, respectively) at week 96. The other reasons for failure were AIDS-defining events and death (3% for both in the lopinavir/r arm, no cases in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm). When re-intensification was not considered to represent failure in the lopinavir/r arm, the percentage of patients without treatment failure reached 70% in this arm [difference between arms –0.7% (95% CI –13.5; 12.0)]. The CD4 cell count remained stable from week 0 to 96 in both arms. The proportion of patients with VL <1 copy/mL was significantly higher in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm at both week 48 and 96. The only predictor of success was VL <1 copy/mL at baseline, in both arms. Resistance Sanger and UltraDeep sequencing showed the occurrence of PI mutations in the lopinavir/r arm (n = 4) and of NNRTI and/or NRTI mutations in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (n = 2). Ancillary studies No clinically significant changes were observed in fat distribution and bone mineral density in the DXA substudy (Tables S1 and S2, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online) and the neurocognitive functions explored remained stable (Tables S3–S5) from week 0 to 96. Safety At least one grade 3 or 4 clinical event occurred in 22 participants (22%) in the lopinavir/r arms and 21 patients (22%) in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm. In 10 patients (5 in each arm), these events were considered drug-related (gastrointestinal disorders and asthenia with lopinavir/r, and insomnia/depression, vertigo and hot flush with EFV/FTC/TDF). Discussion As in previous trials of boosted PI-based maintenance monotherapy, we observed more virological failures and episodes of low-level viraemia with lopinavir/r than with EFV/FTC/TDF.4–13 Nevertheless, as in a previous trial, re-intensification was similarly successful in the two arms.4,8 The proportion of participants in whom PI mutations occurred on lopinavir/r was low (4 of 98, 4%; albeit significantly higher than reported elsewhere with darunavir/r monotherapy), but this had no impact on future PI options, as in the PIVOT trial.3,14,15 A recent meta-analysis showed no significant deleterious impact of lopinavir/r or darunavir/r monotherapy in terms of CNS disorders.9 In two trials, with NNRTIs as the control arm, ultrasensitive VL values were similar in the two arms among patients with VL <50 copies/mL, whereas in our study, VL was more frequently <1 copy/mL in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm.16,17 The only predictor of success at week 96 was VL <1 copy/mL at baseline, regardless of the randomization arm, as in the MONOI study.16 Conclusions This study failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of lopinavir/r maintenance monotherapy versus EFV/FTC/TDF. Ultrasensitive VL assay may help to select the best candidates for drug-saving maintenance therapy. Acknowledgements We thank the ANRS 140 DREAM study participants, their partners, families and caregivers, and all the staff of the participating sites. Other members of the ANRS 140 DREAM Study Group Members of the Steering Committee (Prof. Pierre-Marie Girard, Dr Jean-Luc Meynard, Prof. Geneviève Chêne, Dr Sami Kolta, Dr Roland Landman, Prof. Patrick Mercié, Dr Laetitia Moinot, Dr Laurence Morand-Joubert, Dr Isabelle Cohen-Codar, Sandrine Couffin-Cadiergues, Dr Jean-Marie Poirier, Dr Isabelle Poizot, Dr Cécile Rabian, Prof. Bruno Spire, Dr Anne-Marie Taburet and Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah), the Data Safety Monitoring Board (Prof. Eric Bellissant, Dr Isabelle Pellegrin, Sybilla Peron and Prof. Stéphane De Wit), the Event Review Committee (Dr Olivier Patey, Prof. Elisabeth Rouveix and Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah), IMEA (Karine Amat, Aïda Benalycherif and Babacar Sylla) and INSERM U1219 (Valérie Boilet, Vincent Bouteloup, Françoise Couturier, Adélaïde Perrier, Dr Caroline Roussillon and Monique Termote). Funding This study was sponsored and funded by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research–France Recherche Nord&Sud Sida-HIV Hepatites (Inserm-ANRS), Paris, France. Gilead provided efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir and AbbVie provided lopinavir/ritonavir and study funding. Transparency declarations J.-L. M. has received honoraria from Gilead, Abbott, ViiV and BMS. B. S. has received support for seminars from MSD, Gilead and Janssen, honoraria for participation on scientific boards from Gilead and MSD and non-financial support from MSD. O. B. has received participation for employment and logistic of the search team from ANRS, honoraria for participation in training in the field of social sciences from Gilead and MSD, and non-financial support from Janssen. The institution headed by G. C. has received grant support from INSERM-ANRS, Gilead and AbbVie. G. C. has also received grant support for INSERM-ANRS ongoing clinical trials from Gilead, Tibotec-Janssen, Merck laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim and Abbott. P.-M. G. has received grant support from BMS and Janssen, personal fees from BMS and Abbvie, and honoraria for participation on international boards from Gilead and ViiV. The remaining authors have none to declare.  This work was presented at the 20th International AIDS Conference, Melbourne, 23 July 2014 (poster WEPE 088). Supplementary data Tables S1–S5 are available as Supplementary data at JAC Online. References 1 Ryom L, Mocroft A, Kirk O et al.   Association between antiretroviral exposure and renal impairment among HIV-positive persons with normal baseline renal function: the D:A:D Study. J Infect Dis  2013; 207: 1359– 69. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2 Scherzer R, Estrella M, Li Y et al.   Association of tenofovir exposure with kidney disease risk in HIV infection. AIDS  2012; 26: 867– 75. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3 Paton NI, Stöhr W, Arenas-Pinto A et al.   Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet HIV  2015; 2: e417– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  4 Meynard J, Bouteloup V, Landman R et al.   Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus current treatment continuation for maintenance therapy of HIV-1 infection: the KALESOLO trial. J Antimicrob Chemother  2010; 65: 2436– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5 AC11 ANRS. HIV-1 Genotype Drug Resistance Interpretation’s Algorithms. 2016. http://hivfrenchresistance.org. 6 ANRS. Echelle ANRS de Cotation de la Gravité des Evénements Indésirables chez l’adulte. 2003. http://www.anrs.fr/sites/default/files/2017-07/fr_anrs_grade_ei_v6_2003.pdf. 7 Blackwelder WC. ‘ Proving the null hypothesis’ in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials  1982; 3: 345– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8 Arribas JR, Girard P-M, Paton N et al.   Efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy vs. triple therapy: meta-analysis of data from 2303 patients in 13 randomized trials. HIV Med  2016; 17: 358– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9 Mathis S, Khanlari B, Pulido F et al.   Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One  2011; 6: e22003. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10 Valantin MA, Lambert-Niclot S, Flandre P et al.   Long-term efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: week 96 results from the MONOI ANRS 136 study. J Antimicrob Chemother  2012; 67: 691– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11 Katlama C, Valantina MA, Algarte-Genin M et al.   Efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir maintenance monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: a randomized open-label, noninferiority. Aids  2010; 24: 2365– 74. Google Scholar PubMed  12 Pulido F, Arribas JR, Hill A et al.   Analysis of drug resistance during HIV RNA viraemia in the MONET trial of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. Antivir Ther  2011; 16: 59– 65. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13 Arribas JR, Pulido F, Delgado R et al.   Lopinavir/ritonavir as single-drug therapy for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression: 48-week results of a randomized, controlled, open-label, proof-of-concept pilot clinical trial (OK Study). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr  2005; 40: 280– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14 Lambert-Niclot S, Flandre P, Valantin M-A et al.   Resistant minority species are rarely observed in patients on darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother  2012; 67: 1470– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15 El Bouzidi K, Collier D, Nastouli E et al.   Virological efficacy of PI monotherapy for HIV-1 in clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother  2016; 71: 3228– 34. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16 Lambert-Niclot S, Flandre P, Valantin M-A et al.   Factors associated with virological failure in HIV-1-infected patients receiving darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. J Infect Dis  2011; 204: 1211– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17 McKinnon JE, Arribas JR, Pulido et al.   The level of persistent HIV viremia does not increase after successful simplification of maintenance therapy to lopinavir/ritonavir alone. AIDS  2006; 20: 2331– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Oxford University Press

Week 96 efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in virologically suppressed patients with HIV: a randomized non-inferiority trial (ANRS 140 DREAM)

Loading next page...
 
/lp/ou_press/week-96-efficacy-of-lopinavir-ritonavir-monotherapy-in-virologically-qHhtvF9yux
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
ISSN
0305-7453
eISSN
1460-2091
D.O.I.
10.1093/jac/dky055
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Background Sparing of antiretroviral drug classes could reduce the toxicity and cost of maintenance treatment for HIV infection. Objectives To evaluate the non-inferiority of efficacy and the safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (r) monotherapy versus a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) over 2 years. Methods Adults on stable ART with plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load <50 copies/mL for the past 12 months and no documented treatment failure were randomized to receive either lopinavir/r or EFV/FTC/TDF for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 (viral load <50 copies/mL at week 96, confirmed at week 98), without study treatment discontinuation, a new AIDS-defining illness, or death. Results In the ITT analysis, the primary endpoint was reached by, respectively, 64% and 71% of patients in the lopinavir/r (n = 98) and EFV/FTC/TDF arms (n = 97), yielding a difference of –6.8% (lower limit of the 95% two-sided CI: –19.9%). Sanger and UltraDeep sequencing showed the occurrence of PI mutations in the lopinavir/r arm (n = 4) and of NNRTI and/or NRTI mutations in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (n = 2). No unexpected serious clinical events occurred. Conclusions Lopinavir/r monotherapy cannot be considered non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF. PI resistance rarely emerged in the lopinavir/r arm and did not undermine future PI options. Two years of lopinavir/r monotherapy had no deleterious clinical impact when compared with EFV/FTC/TDF. Introduction HIV infection is now a manageable chronic condition, but long-term exposure to antiretroviral drugs raises concerns regarding toxicity.1,2 Several options have been evaluated to limit exposure to ART, including PI/ritonavir (PI/r) monotherapy.3,4 We report the results of the ANRS 140 DREAM trial comparing lopinavir/r with efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) in virologically controlled patients. Patients and methods Study design This was a non-inferiority, open-label, randomized (1:1), Phase II/III trial comparing lopinavir/r versus EFV/FTC/TDF in 36 French university hospitals. Screening and eligibility criteria Adult patients were eligible if they had (i) viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL over the past 12 months and no prior documented virological failure or resistance to ART, and (ii) CD4 cell count >200 cells/mm3 at screening and CD4 nadir >100 cells/mm3. Ethics The protocol was approved by an ethics committee and the competent French health authority. All participants gave their written informed consent. Trial registration name and number: ANRS 140 DREAM trial (ANRS: French Public Agency for HIV and viral hepatitis research). Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00946595. Randomization Randomization (1:1) was carried out centrally using the e-CRF system (CS software, Ennov-Clinical). Intervention Over a 98 week period, participants received either monotherapy with lopinavir 200 mg boosted by ritonavir 50 mg, two pills twice a day (lopinavir/r arm), or efavirenz 600 mg plus emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir 245 mg, one pill a day (EFV/FTC/TDF arm). The protocol recommended treatment intensification with emtricitabine and tenofovir in the lopinavir/r arm in the case of two consecutive VL values ≥400 copies/mL within a 2 week period. Study procedures Clinical examinations and laboratory tests were performed at screening (week −5), baseline (week 0), week 4 and every 12 weeks until week 98. Antiretroviral resistance was defined according to the 2014 ANRS HIV-1 genotypic resistance interpretation algorithm.5 Ultrasensitive VL assay was done at week 0, 48 and 96 (detection limit <1 copy/mL). Neurocognitive functions were assessed at week 0 and 96 by standardized neuropsychological tests and questionnaires. Bone mineral density and whole-body composition were measured at week 0, 48 and 96 among men taking part in the core trial at selected sites (DXA substudy). Clinical and biological adverse events were graded with the ANRS Scale for Grading Adult Adverse Events.6 Outcome measures The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 (defined as VL ≥50 copies/mL at week 96 and confirmed at week 98), treatment discontinuation, a new AIDS-defining illness or death. In a robustness analysis, treatment was not considered to have failed in patients who experienced VL <50 copies/mL at week 96 after re-intensification. Secondary virological outcomes were: the proportions of patients with VL <50 copies/mL at all timepoints and <1 copy/mL at week 0, 48 and 96; emergence of resistance-associated mutations; adverse events; changes in the CD4 cell count; and predictors of treatment failure and ancillary studies. Statistical analysis We assumed that the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 would be similar (85%) in the two arms. The non-inferiority margin was set at –10%. The required number of participants was 420 (210 per arm), with a one-sided type I error of 2.5% and a power of 80%.7 The primary outcome and robustness analyses were based on the ITT approach. Differences in proportions and their 95% two-sided CIs were estimated by using the binomial distribution. Predictors of treatment failure based on the primary endpoint were estimated by using a logistic regression model. Secondary outcome analyses were applied to available data. Results Enrolment and follow-up From October 2009 to June 2011, 197 patients were randomized, 98 to lopinavir/r and 99 to EFV/FTC/TDF (Figure 1). Because of slow recruitment, the trial steering committee decided to terminate inclusions after a 7 month extension of the initial 12 month inclusion period. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide CONSORT diagram of the ANRS 140 DREAM Trial. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide CONSORT diagram of the ANRS 140 DREAM Trial. The primary analysis included 195 participants: 98 in the lopinavir/r arm and 97 in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (two exclusions by the trial steering committee for non-fulfilment of regulatory criteria and previous efavirenz toxicity). The patients' baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. Data from the screening visit (5 weeks before baseline) were used when baseline data were recorded only at this visit, unless otherwise specified Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  a The HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL data at week 0 are available in 185 patients: 93 patients in the lopinavir/r group and 92 patients in the EFV/FTC/TDF group. b 3 NRTI (n = 14), 2 NRTI (n = 2) and 2 NRTI + anti-integrase + antagonist CCR5 (n = 1). Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants in the ANRS 140 DREAM trial. Data from the screening visit (5 weeks before baseline) were used when baseline data were recorded only at this visit, unless otherwise specified Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  Characteristic  Lopinavir/r (N = 98)  EFV/FTC/TDF (N = 97)  Total (N = 195)  Male, n (%)  69 (70)  68 (70)  137 (70)  Age at randomization, years, median (IQR)  44 (38–51)  45 (40–54)  44 (39–53)  Mode of HIV infection, n (%)         MSM  46 (47)  47 (49)  93 (48)   heterosexual  45 (46)  45 (46)  90 (46)   injecting drug use  4 (4)  2 (2)  6 (3)   transfusion  0 (0)  2 (2)  2 (1)   unknown  3 (3)  1 (1)  4 (2)  Time from HIV-1 diagnosis to randomization, years, median (IQR)  9 (5–14)  8 (4–12)  8 (4–13)  HIV clinical stage, n (%)         A  74 (76)  72 (74)  146 (75)   B  12 (12)  16 (17)  28 (14)   C  12 (12)  9 (9)  21 (11)  CD4 cells/mm3, median (IQR)  632 (499–775)  560 (446–671)  597 (463–725)  CD4 nadir, cells/mm3, median (IQR)  247 (180–295)  241 (180–300)  245 (180–300)  CD4 nadir <200 cells/mm3, n patients (%)  31 (32)  36 (37)  67 (34)  HIV-1 RNA, log10 copies/mL, median (IQR)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  1.3 (1.3–1.6)  Duration of HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL before randomization, years, median (IQR)  3.3 (1.6–5.2)  2.8 (1.6–4.7)  3 (1.6–4.9)  HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL at week 0, n (%)a  55 (59)  55 (60)  110 (60)  Treatment assigned by the randomization already ongoing at screening, n (%)  40 (41)  15 (16)  55 (28)  ART ongoing at screening, n (%)        PI/r + 2 NRTI  63 (64)  62 (64)  125 (64)  2 NRTI + NNRTI  25 (26)  25 (26)  50 (26)  PI/r + NNRTI  2 (2)  0 (0)  2 (1)  PI + 2 NRTI + NNRTI  0 (0)  1 (1)  1 (0.5)  Othersb  8 (8)  9 (9)  17 (9)  a The HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL data at week 0 are available in 185 patients: 93 patients in the lopinavir/r group and 92 patients in the EFV/FTC/TDF group. b 3 NRTI (n = 14), 2 NRTI (n = 2) and 2 NRTI + anti-integrase + antagonist CCR5 (n = 1). Efficacy The primary outcome was reached by 64% of patients in the lopinavir/r arm and 71% in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm [difference between arms –6.8% (95% CI –19.9; 6.2)]. The main reasons for treatment failure were trial strategy discontinuation (71% with lopinavir/r, 68% with EFV/FTC/TDF) and virological failure (23% versus 32%, respectively) at week 96. The other reasons for failure were AIDS-defining events and death (3% for both in the lopinavir/r arm, no cases in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm). When re-intensification was not considered to represent failure in the lopinavir/r arm, the percentage of patients without treatment failure reached 70% in this arm [difference between arms –0.7% (95% CI –13.5; 12.0)]. The CD4 cell count remained stable from week 0 to 96 in both arms. The proportion of patients with VL <1 copy/mL was significantly higher in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm at both week 48 and 96. The only predictor of success was VL <1 copy/mL at baseline, in both arms. Resistance Sanger and UltraDeep sequencing showed the occurrence of PI mutations in the lopinavir/r arm (n = 4) and of NNRTI and/or NRTI mutations in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (n = 2). Ancillary studies No clinically significant changes were observed in fat distribution and bone mineral density in the DXA substudy (Tables S1 and S2, available as Supplementary data at JAC Online) and the neurocognitive functions explored remained stable (Tables S3–S5) from week 0 to 96. Safety At least one grade 3 or 4 clinical event occurred in 22 participants (22%) in the lopinavir/r arms and 21 patients (22%) in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm. In 10 patients (5 in each arm), these events were considered drug-related (gastrointestinal disorders and asthenia with lopinavir/r, and insomnia/depression, vertigo and hot flush with EFV/FTC/TDF). Discussion As in previous trials of boosted PI-based maintenance monotherapy, we observed more virological failures and episodes of low-level viraemia with lopinavir/r than with EFV/FTC/TDF.4–13 Nevertheless, as in a previous trial, re-intensification was similarly successful in the two arms.4,8 The proportion of participants in whom PI mutations occurred on lopinavir/r was low (4 of 98, 4%; albeit significantly higher than reported elsewhere with darunavir/r monotherapy), but this had no impact on future PI options, as in the PIVOT trial.3,14,15 A recent meta-analysis showed no significant deleterious impact of lopinavir/r or darunavir/r monotherapy in terms of CNS disorders.9 In two trials, with NNRTIs as the control arm, ultrasensitive VL values were similar in the two arms among patients with VL <50 copies/mL, whereas in our study, VL was more frequently <1 copy/mL in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm.16,17 The only predictor of success at week 96 was VL <1 copy/mL at baseline, regardless of the randomization arm, as in the MONOI study.16 Conclusions This study failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of lopinavir/r maintenance monotherapy versus EFV/FTC/TDF. Ultrasensitive VL assay may help to select the best candidates for drug-saving maintenance therapy. Acknowledgements We thank the ANRS 140 DREAM study participants, their partners, families and caregivers, and all the staff of the participating sites. Other members of the ANRS 140 DREAM Study Group Members of the Steering Committee (Prof. Pierre-Marie Girard, Dr Jean-Luc Meynard, Prof. Geneviève Chêne, Dr Sami Kolta, Dr Roland Landman, Prof. Patrick Mercié, Dr Laetitia Moinot, Dr Laurence Morand-Joubert, Dr Isabelle Cohen-Codar, Sandrine Couffin-Cadiergues, Dr Jean-Marie Poirier, Dr Isabelle Poizot, Dr Cécile Rabian, Prof. Bruno Spire, Dr Anne-Marie Taburet and Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah), the Data Safety Monitoring Board (Prof. Eric Bellissant, Dr Isabelle Pellegrin, Sybilla Peron and Prof. Stéphane De Wit), the Event Review Committee (Dr Olivier Patey, Prof. Elisabeth Rouveix and Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah), IMEA (Karine Amat, Aïda Benalycherif and Babacar Sylla) and INSERM U1219 (Valérie Boilet, Vincent Bouteloup, Françoise Couturier, Adélaïde Perrier, Dr Caroline Roussillon and Monique Termote). Funding This study was sponsored and funded by the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research–France Recherche Nord&Sud Sida-HIV Hepatites (Inserm-ANRS), Paris, France. Gilead provided efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir and AbbVie provided lopinavir/ritonavir and study funding. Transparency declarations J.-L. M. has received honoraria from Gilead, Abbott, ViiV and BMS. B. S. has received support for seminars from MSD, Gilead and Janssen, honoraria for participation on scientific boards from Gilead and MSD and non-financial support from MSD. O. B. has received participation for employment and logistic of the search team from ANRS, honoraria for participation in training in the field of social sciences from Gilead and MSD, and non-financial support from Janssen. The institution headed by G. C. has received grant support from INSERM-ANRS, Gilead and AbbVie. G. C. has also received grant support for INSERM-ANRS ongoing clinical trials from Gilead, Tibotec-Janssen, Merck laboratories, Boehringer Ingelheim and Abbott. P.-M. G. has received grant support from BMS and Janssen, personal fees from BMS and Abbvie, and honoraria for participation on international boards from Gilead and ViiV. The remaining authors have none to declare.  This work was presented at the 20th International AIDS Conference, Melbourne, 23 July 2014 (poster WEPE 088). Supplementary data Tables S1–S5 are available as Supplementary data at JAC Online. References 1 Ryom L, Mocroft A, Kirk O et al.   Association between antiretroviral exposure and renal impairment among HIV-positive persons with normal baseline renal function: the D:A:D Study. J Infect Dis  2013; 207: 1359– 69. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  2 Scherzer R, Estrella M, Li Y et al.   Association of tenofovir exposure with kidney disease risk in HIV infection. AIDS  2012; 26: 867– 75. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  3 Paton NI, Stöhr W, Arenas-Pinto A et al.   Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet HIV  2015; 2: e417– 26. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  4 Meynard J, Bouteloup V, Landman R et al.   Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy versus current treatment continuation for maintenance therapy of HIV-1 infection: the KALESOLO trial. J Antimicrob Chemother  2010; 65: 2436– 44. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  5 AC11 ANRS. HIV-1 Genotype Drug Resistance Interpretation’s Algorithms. 2016. http://hivfrenchresistance.org. 6 ANRS. Echelle ANRS de Cotation de la Gravité des Evénements Indésirables chez l’adulte. 2003. http://www.anrs.fr/sites/default/files/2017-07/fr_anrs_grade_ei_v6_2003.pdf. 7 Blackwelder WC. ‘ Proving the null hypothesis’ in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials  1982; 3: 345– 53. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  8 Arribas JR, Girard P-M, Paton N et al.   Efficacy of protease inhibitor monotherapy vs. triple therapy: meta-analysis of data from 2303 patients in 13 randomized trials. HIV Med  2016; 17: 358– 67. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  9 Mathis S, Khanlari B, Pulido F et al.   Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One  2011; 6: e22003. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  10 Valantin MA, Lambert-Niclot S, Flandre P et al.   Long-term efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: week 96 results from the MONOI ANRS 136 study. J Antimicrob Chemother  2012; 67: 691– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  11 Katlama C, Valantina MA, Algarte-Genin M et al.   Efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir maintenance monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: a randomized open-label, noninferiority. Aids  2010; 24: 2365– 74. Google Scholar PubMed  12 Pulido F, Arribas JR, Hill A et al.   Analysis of drug resistance during HIV RNA viraemia in the MONET trial of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. Antivir Ther  2011; 16: 59– 65. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  13 Arribas JR, Pulido F, Delgado R et al.   Lopinavir/ritonavir as single-drug therapy for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression: 48-week results of a randomized, controlled, open-label, proof-of-concept pilot clinical trial (OK Study). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr  2005; 40: 280– 7. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  14 Lambert-Niclot S, Flandre P, Valantin M-A et al.   Resistant minority species are rarely observed in patients on darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. J Antimicrob Chemother  2012; 67: 1470– 4. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  15 El Bouzidi K, Collier D, Nastouli E et al.   Virological efficacy of PI monotherapy for HIV-1 in clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother  2016; 71: 3228– 34. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  16 Lambert-Niclot S, Flandre P, Valantin M-A et al.   Factors associated with virological failure in HIV-1-infected patients receiving darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy. J Infect Dis  2011; 204: 1211– 6. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  17 McKinnon JE, Arribas JR, Pulido et al.   The level of persistent HIV viremia does not increase after successful simplification of maintenance therapy to lopinavir/ritonavir alone. AIDS  2006; 20: 2331– 5. Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS PubMed  © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/about_us/legal/notices)

Journal

Journal of Antimicrobial ChemotherapyOxford University Press

Published: Mar 23, 2018

There are no references for this article.

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off