Genital Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 RNA and DNA Shedding in Virologically Suppressed Individuals Switching From Triple- to Dual- or Monotherapy: Pooled Results From 2 Randomized, Controlled Trials

Comparison of the design and methodology of Phase 3 clinical trials of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) and dolutegravir-based dual therapy (DTG) in HIV: a systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Current recommended antiretroviral regimens include a combination of two (dual; DT) or three (triple; TT) antiretroviral drugs. This study aims to determine whether the quality of evidence from clinical trials of dolutegravir (dolutegravir/lamivudine [DTG/3TC] or dolutegravir/rilpivirine [DTG/RPV]) is methodologically comparable to that of clinical trials conducted with bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF).

AREAS COVERED

A systematic review of the medical literature was carried out in PubMed without date or language restrictions, following the PRISMA guidelines. All aspects of the methodological design of phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of DT and TT, evaluated by the European Medicines Agency (registration trials), were reviewed. The quality of clinical trials was assessed using the Jadad scale.

EXPERT OPINION

The search identified 5, 3 and 2 phase 3 RCTs with BIC/FTC/TAF, DTG/3TC and DTG/RPV, respectively, that met the inclusion criteria. The designs would not be comparable due to differences in pre-randomization losses, blinding, patient recruitment, as well as differences in methodological quality, with the average score of the RCTs conducted with BIC/FTC/TAF, DTG/3TC and DTG/RPV being 4.2 (high quality), 3.0 (medium quality) and 3.0 (medium quality), respectively. Due to methodological differences between the BIC/FTC/TAF, DTG/3TC and DTG/RPV RCTs, the results of these are not comparable.

Risks and benefits of reducing the number of drugs to treat HIV-1 infection

Introduction: Despite the efficacy and safety of antiretroviral therapy, new treatment options are needed to address the concerns of patients and physicians regarding long-term toxicities, costs, and convenience of lifelong antiretroviral therapy. To achieve this goal, one strategy is to reduce the number of drugs in the antiretroviral regimen.Areas covered: We review the recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of reduced drug regimens and their potential risks and benefits. There is currently strong evidence showing that some two-drug regimens have a comparable efficacy and short-term safety compared to standard three-drug regimens. The fixed-dose combination of dolutegravir/lamivudine is already an alternative for many treatment-naïve and virologically suppressed HIV-1 infected adults supported by large randomized clinical trials. The co-formulation dolutegravir plus rilpivirine is also a switch strategy for maintenance therapy. Long-acting injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine has already regulatory approval, and islatravir plus doravirine is an expected option in the near future. Some two-drug regimens have not been as successful.Expert opinion: Long-term safety issues of these two-drug regimens remain to be determined, but with the overwhelming evidence available in virological control and short-term safety, the potential benefits of some of these two-drug regimens appear to outweigh the risks.