[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of a maintenance strategy with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in HIV-infected patients]

High quality of life, treatment tolerability, safety and efficacy in HIV patients switching from triple therapy to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy: A randomized clinical trial

Trial design

The QoLKAMON study evaluated quality of life, efficacy and treatment safety in HIV patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir in monotherapy (MT) versus continuing combined antiretroviral triple treatment with a boosted protease inhibitor (TT).

Methods

This was a 24-week, open-label, multicentre study in virologically-suppressed HIV-infected participants (N = 225) with a 2:1 randomization: 146 patients who switched to MT were compared with 79 patients who remained on a TT regimen. The primary endpoint was change in patient-reported outcomes in quality of life as measured by the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D questionnaires. Secondary endpoints included treatment adherence, patient satisfaction, incidence of adverse events and differences in plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) and CD4 cell counts.

Results

Baseline quality of life, measured with the MOS-HIV score, was very good (overall score of 83 ± 10.5 in the MT arm and 82.3 ± 11.3 in the TT arm) and suffered no change during the study in any of the arms (at week 24, 83.5 ± 12.2 in MT arm and 81.9 ± 12.7 in TT arm), without statistically significant differences when compared. In regards to adherence to therapy and patient satisfaction, some aspects (number of doses forgotten in the last week and satisfaction of treatment measured with the CESTA score, dimension 1) improved significantly with MT. There were also no differences in the incidence and severity of adverse events, even though 22.8% of those in the MT arm switched their treatment when they were included in the study. Moreover, there was also no significant difference between the immunological and virological evolution of MT and TT. In the MT arm, the VL was always undetectable in 83% of patients (vs 90.7% in the TT arm) and there were only 6.7% of virological failures with VL > 50 copies/mL (vs 2.3% in the TT arm), without resistance mutations and with resuppression of VL after switching back to TT.

Conclusions

In a new clinical trial, monotherapy as a treatment simplification strategy in HIV-1 infected patients with sustained viral suppression has demonstrated quality of life, safety and efficacy profiles comparable to those of conventional triple therapy regimens.

Economic impact of optimising antiretroviral treatment in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults with suppressed viral load in Spain, by implementing the grade A-1 evidence recommendations of the 2015 GESIDA/National AIDS Plan

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to estimate the economic impact associated with the optimisation of triple antiretroviral treatment (ART) in patients with undetectable viral load according to the recommendations from the GeSIDA/PNS (2015) Consensus and their applicability in the Spanish clinical practice.

METHODS

A pharmacoeconomic model was developed based on data from a National Hospital Prescription Survey on ART (2014) and the A-I evidence recommendations for the optimisation of ART from the GeSIDA/PNS (2015) consensus. The optimisation model took into account the willingness to optimise a particular regimen and other assumptions, and the results were validated by an expert panel in HIV infection (Infectious Disease Specialists and Hospital Pharmacists). The analysis was conducted from the NHS perspective, considering the annual wholesale price and accounting for deductions stated in the RD-Law 8/2010 and the VAT.

RESULTS

The expert panel selected six optimisation strategies, and estimated that 10,863 (13.4%) of the 80,859 patients in Spain currently on triple ART, would be candidates to optimise their ART, leading to savings of €15.9M/year (2.4% of total triple ART drug cost). The most feasible strategies (>40% of patients candidates for optimisation, n=4,556) would be optimisations to ATV/r+3TC therapy. These would produce savings between €653 and €4,797 per patient per year depending on baseline triple ART.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the main optimisation strategies recommended in the GeSIDA/PNS (2015) Consensus into Spanish clinical practice would lead to considerable savings, especially those based in dual therapy with ATV/r+3TC, thus contributing to the control of pharmaceutical expenditure and NHS sustainability.

Short Communication: Efficacy and Safety of Treatment Simplification to Lopinavir/Ritonavir or Darunavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Antiretroviral treatment simplification strategies based on monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) have not been directly compared in clinical trials. We evaluated the 48-week efficacy and safety of DRV/r versus LPV/r monotherapy as a treatment simplification strategy in a multicenter, randomized open-label study. Maintenance of viral suppression in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and semen was also explored. An intention to treat efficacy analysis was performed considering missing equals to failure (ITT:M = F). Virological failure (VF) was defined as a confirmed increase in plasma HIV-1 RNA >50 copies/mL. A total of 75 patients were enrolled: 40 were allocated to DRVr and 33 to LPVr. In the ITT: M = F analysis, 77.5% of patients on DRV/r and 66.6% of patients on LPV/r maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 48 (p = .302, treatment difference 10.8% [95% CI,-12.6 to 34.2]). In the DRV/r arm, no patients developed VF and 15.0% discontinued treatment due to adverse events. In the LPV/r arm, 2 (6.1%) patients developed VF and 18.2% discontinued monotherapy due to adverse events. Gastrointestinal disturbances were experienced by 18.2% and 2.5% of patients in the LPV/r and DRV/r arms, respectively (p = .019). Two patients had detectable HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL in CSF or semen. Monotherapy with LPV/r or DRV/r seems to be virologically effective in selected HIV-1-infected patients with sustained viral suppression. Differences between both regimens seem driven mainly by the better tolerability profile of DRV/r.

Monotherapy with boosted PIs as an ART simplification strategy in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Data on the efficacy of simplifying therapy using darunavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in clinical practice remain limited.

METHODS

A retrospective single-centre study including patients initiating darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with a plasma HIV-1 viral load (pVL) <50 copies/mL and at least one subsequent follow-up visit. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients remaining free of virological failure (VF; defined as a confirmed pVL >50 copies/mL or as any change in the regimen after a single determination with a pVL >50 copies/mL) during the follow-up. We also evaluated the percentage of patients remaining free of treatment failure (TF; defined as VF or the early discontinuation of monotherapy for any reason) and compared the effectiveness of the two regimens. Effectiveness was evaluated using cumulative survival analysis (at Weeks 48 and 96). Factors associated with VF and TF were analysed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

A total of 522 patients were included (309 receiving lopinavir/ritonavir and 213 receiving darunavir/ritonavir). The median follow-up was 64.3 (30.5-143.0) weeks. The percentage of patients free of VF and TF was 94% (95% CI 91%-96%) and 79% (95% CI 75%-82%) at 48 weeks, respectively, and 86% (95% CI 81%-89%) and 62% (95% CI 57%-67%) at 96 weeks, respectively. The risk of VF was similar for the two regimens (HR=1.0, 95% CI 0.6-1.8; P=0.962). Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy was associated with a 1.5-fold greater risk of TF (95% CI 1.1-2.1; P=0.012) and a 2.3-fold greater risk of discontinuation of therapy due to adverse events (95% CI 1.3-3.9; P=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The virological efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy is high in clinical practice. Treatment discontinuation due to safety issues is more frequent with lopinavir/ritonavir.

Virological efficacy in cerebrospinal fluid and neurocognitive status in patients with long-term monotherapy based on lopinavir/ritonavir: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Data on suppression of HIV replication in the CNS and on the subsequent risk of neurocognitive impairment using monotherapy with boosted protease inhibitors are limited.

METHODS

Ours was an exploratory cross-sectional study in patients on lopinavir/ritonavir-based monotherapy (LPV/r-MT) or standard triple therapy (LPV/r-ART) for at least 96 weeks who maintained a plasma viral load <50 copies/mL. HIV-1 RNA in CSF was determined by HIV-1 SuperLow assay (lower limit of detection, 1 copy/mL). Neurocognitive functioning was assessed using a recommended battery of neuropsychological tests covering 7 areas. Neurocognitive impairment (NCI) was determined and also a global deficit score (GDS) for study comparisons.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients on LPV/r-MT and 17 on LPV/r-ART were included. Fourteen (82.4%) patients on LPV/r-MT and 16 (94.1%) on LPV/r-ART had HIV-1 RNA <1 copy/mL in CSF (p = 0.601). NCI was observed in 7 patients on LPV/r-MT and in 10 on LPV/r-ART (41% vs 59%; p = 0.494). Mean (SD) GDS was 0.22 (0.20) in patients on LPV/r-MT and 0.47 (0.34) in those on LPV/r-ART (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Suppression of HIV in CSF is similar in individuals with durable plasma HIV-1 RNA suppression who are receiving LPV/r-MT or LPV/r-ART for at least 96 weeks. Findings for HIV-1 replication in CSF and neurocognitive status indicate that this strategy seems to be safe for CNS functioning.

Long-term lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in HIV-infected children

BACKGROUND

Long-term data are limited on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy (mLPV/r) as a treatment simplification strategy in virologically suppressed children.

METHODS

Children with confirmed plasma HIV viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL while receiving double protease inhibitors (dPI) were switched to mLPV/r therapy. Virologic failure (VF) was defined as 2 consecutive VL ≥ 500 or 3 consecutive VL ≥ 50 copies/mL. dPI was resumed within 4 weeks in children with VF. Primary endpoint was the proportion of children with VL < 50 copies/mL while still receiving mLPV/r at week 144.

RESULTS

Forty children were enrolled; 90% were receiving LPV/r + saquinavir and 10% LPV/r + indinavir before simplifying to mLPV/r. Median age was 11.7 years; 50% were female. Median CD4% was 27%. Four (10%) had VL > 50 copies/mL at entry. At week 144, the proportion of children still receiving mLPV/r who had VL < 50 copies/mL was 22 of 40 (55%). The proportion of all children with VL < 50 copies/mL at week 144 was 33 of 40 (82.5%). Among 16 children who had VF and resumed dPI, 11 (69%) achieved VL < 50 copies/mL at week 144. No children with VF had major LPV/r mutations. Having detectable VL at entry and adherence by pill count <95% for >3 times at any visits during the study period significantly predicted VF on mLPV/r (both P = 0.025). The proportion of children with elevated total cholesterol (>200 mg/dL) decreased from 65% at baseline to 40% at week 144 (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

About half of children maintained virologic suppression on mLPV/r for almost 3 years. VF was common but the majority achieved suppression after resuming dPI and none had major LPV/r mutations. mLPV/r should only be considered for simplified maintenance therapy if frequent VL monitoring to detect VF is available.

Simplification of antiretroviral therapy: a good choice for our patients and the sustainability of our health care system

OBJECTIVE

To describe the efficacy, safety, compliance and cost savings of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy.

METHOD

Observational, descriptive and retrospective study evaluating monotherapy. Adherence was calculated using an objective method. We estimated the direct costs of dispensing non-triple therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 17 patients. Interval adherence was > 95% in 9 patients, 90-95% in 2 patients, 90-85% in 2 patients, and less than 85% in 4 patients. Viral load was undetectable during weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48, except in 2 patients. The CD4 count in most analytical tests remained at > 350 cells/ml, only 1 patient had a lower figure. The average savings was 4819 Euros/patient/year (range 1116 to 8700).

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, monotherapy can be a cost-effective treatment option.

Cost-effectiveness of optimized background therapy plus maraviroc for previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 infection from the perspective of the Spanish health care system

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the Spanish health care system, of optimized background therapy (OBT) plus maraviroc 300 mg BID versus OBT plus placebo in previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 infection.

METHODS

A lifetime cohort model was developed, based on 24- and 48-week pooled results from the Maraviroc Versus Optimized Therapy in Viremic Antiretroviral Treatment-Experienced Patients (MOTIVATE) studies 1 and 2, to reflect the Spanish health care system's perspective. Treatment duration was based on clinical trial follow-up from MOTIVATE 1 and 2. Clinical data, cohort characteristics, success probability, CD4 increase rate, CD4 cell status link to disease states, and adverse-event probability were taken from the MOTIVATE trials and other published literature. Other input parameters were taken from published sources. Antiretroviral (ARV) costs were derived from local sources. Non-ARV drug costs were obtained from published literature and a cost database. All costs were calculated as year-2009 euros. The annual discount rate was set at 3.0%. The main outcomes were cost per life-year gained (LYG) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Uncertainty was assessed with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the model analysis, adding maraviroc to OBT was associated with an increase of 0.952 LYG and 0.909 QALY. Total costs were €275,970 for maraviroc plus OBT and €254,655 for placebo plus OBT (difference: €21,315). The incremental cost per LYG was €22,398 and the incremental cost per QALY gained was €23,457. The model appeared to be robust for variations in key parameters. Results from the probabilistic sensitivity analyses indicated that the probability of the cost per QALY being below €30,000 was 99%.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the model, our analysis suggested that OBT plus maraviroc 300 mg BID is a clinically valuable option, and cost-effective from the perspective of the Spanish health care system, for previously treated patients with R5 HIV-1 infection.

Single-Boosted Protease Inhibitor versus Double-Boosted Protease Inhibitors for the Salvage Therapy in HIV-Infected Patients

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment outcomes between the regimens of single-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) and double-boosted PIs for the salvage therapy in patients who failed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients from 2 cohorts, 40 in twice daily ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) at 400/100 mg plus lamivudine (3TC) and 24 in once daily ritonavir-boosted atazanavir and saquinavir (ATV/SQV/r) at 300/1600/100 mg/d, were studied.

RESULTS

At 48 weeks, 30 (75%) patients in LPV/r group and 20 (83%) patients in ATV/SQV/r group achieved HIV-1 RNA at <400 copies/mL (P = .790). In all, 24 (60%) and 16 (67%) achieved HIV-1 RNA at <50 copies/mL (P = .541). Low-level viral rebound (51-400 copies/mL) was found in 6 (15%) in LPV/r group and 4 (17%) in ATV/SQV/r group (P = 1.000). Medians CD4 counts were 336 cells/mm(3) and 330 cells/mm(3) in the corresponding groups (P = 0.937).

CONCLUSION

No additional benefit is found with double-boosted PIs compared to single-boosted PI in terms of treatment responses in HIV-infected patients failing NNRTI-based regimen.

[Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the strategy of monotherapy with boosted protease inhibitors in HIV+ patients]

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study is to analyse the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of the strategy of induction maintenance with boosted protease inhibitors with ritonavir in adult HIV patients as compared to conventional treatment.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials in HIV patients to compare the efficacy of a monotherapy strategy of boosted protease inhibitors as compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy. The literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE (September 1999-September 2009) and in conference abstracts of the last 5 years. The Odds Ratio of treatment failure and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated. To combine the results of individual studies selected, a fixed effects model based on the Mantel-Haenszel method or random effects was used, depending on whether or not the results were heterogeneous.

RESULTS

Initially a total of 1510 publications were found, of which just 8 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis. The combined Odds Ratio of the 8 studies is 1.39 (95% CI 1.02-1.90) for the treatment group with conventional antiretroviral treatment, but with a confidence interval close to the limits of statistical non-significance.

CONCLUSION

The results of the combined effectiveness analysis in the meta-analysis found no significant differences between the conventional strategy and monotherapy. This strategy is considered recommended (level A evidence) in patients with no history of previous failure of protease inhibitor, with undetectable plasma viral load and signs or symptoms of nucleoside/nucleotide toxicity.

[Pharmacoeconomic aspects of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy]

The present article briefly reviews the main types of pharmacoeconomic analyses that evaluate the costs associated with HIV infection and the efficiency of antiretroviral therapy in general. The results of several pharmacoeconomic analyses applied to the selection of antiretroviral drugs in distinct clinical scenarios are also presented. Finally, we analyze the advantages, in terms of efficiency, of lopinavir/ritonavir as induction-maintenance therapy, both in terms of saving the direct costs of treatment and in possibly reducing the costs due to the management of the adverse effects of nucleoside analogs.

[Monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients]

The development of antiretroviral therapy (ART) with current triple drug combinations has dramatically reduced morbidity and mortality in HIV-infected patients. However, there is a need for less toxic treatments without sacrificing efficacy, as well as for less expensive drugs to facilitate universal access to this therapy. The protease inhibitors (PI) administered with ritonavir have a favorable pharmacokinetic profile and high genetic barrier and consequently are ideal candidates for use in monotherapy, thus avoiding the toxicity and cost associated with nucleoside analogs, as well as preserving drugs for future options. The promising results of studies performed with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in induction-maintenance regimens in patients without prior failure to PIs encourage research into the cost-effectiveness of LPV/r in monotherapy from the beginning of ART. The few studies performed in this context seem to indicate the following: a) LPV/r monotherapy achieves undetectable viral loads in a large proportion of treatment-naïve patients, b) future treatment options are not compromised in patients not achieving undetectable viral loads since the likelihood of resistance mutations is low and treatment intensification achieves suppression of viral replication, and c) strategies for early detection can probably be considered in patients who will not achieve complete suppression with LPV/r monotherapy. Nevertheless, before LPV/r monotherapy can be considered a first-line option, new studies with larger samples and longer follow-up are required. These studies should pay particular attention to viral replication in areas where PI show less penetration.

Risk factors for loss of virological suppression in patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy for maintenance of HIV suppression

Background

Risk factors for loss of virological response in patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy as maintenance treatment have not been determined.

Methods

In 121 patients enrolled in the OK and OK04 clinical trials assigned to receive monotherapy with LPV/r, we attempted to identify factors associated with loss of virological suppression at 48 weeks, defined as confirmed serum HIV type-1 RNA>50 copies/ml, with missing data or changes caused by toxicity censored. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate hazard ratios for the risk of loss of virological suppression.

Results

At week 48, 15 patients experienced loss of virological suppression. Probability of loss of virological suppression was 12.7%. Less than 9 months of maintenance of virological suppression prior to monotherapy, a lower baseline haemoglobin and low adherence measured by self-reported total missed doses in the week prior to study visit were associated with loss of virological suppression in the univariate analyses. Independent factors associated with loss of virological suppression by multivariate analyses were ≥2 visits with self-reported missed doses in the week prior to the study visit, a lower baseline haemoglobin and a nadir CD4+ T-cell count <100 cells/μl

Conclusions

Suboptimal adherence, lower baseline haemoglobin and a nadir CD4+ T-cell count <100 cells/μl were the main risk factors for losing virological suppression in patients randomized to monotherapy with LPV/r.

Lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir and two nucleosides for maintenance therapy of HIV

BACKGROUND

Prior attempts to reduce the number of drugs needed to maintain viral suppression in patients with suppressed HIV replication while receiving three antiretroviral drugs have been unsuccessful.

METHODS

In 205 patients with suppressed HIV replication on lopinavir-ritonavir and two nucleosides, this randomized, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial compared the strategies of continuation of triple therapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy followed by reinduction with two nucleosides if virological rebound occurred without genotypic resistance to lopinavir-ritonavir. The primary endpoint was proportion of patients without therapeutic failure, defined as confirmed HIV RNA higher than 500 copies/mL (with exclusion of patients receiving monotherapy who resuppressed to < 50 copies/mL after resuming baseline nucleosides), or loss to follow-up, or change of randomized therapy other than reinduction.

RESULTS

At week 48, the percentage of patients without therapeutic failure was 94% in the monotherapy group versus 90% in the triple therapy group (difference,-4%; upper limit of 95% confidence interval for difference, 3.4%). The percentage of patients with HIV RNA 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks by intention-to-treat, missing data or reinductions considered as failures, were 85% in the monotherapy group versus 90% in the triple therapy group (P = 0.31; 95% upper limit of 95% confidence interval for difference, 14%).

CONCLUSION

In this trial, 48 weeks of lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy with reintroduction of nucleosides as needed was non-inferior to continuation of two nucleosides and lopinavir-ritonavir in patients with prior stable suppression. However, episodes of low level viremia were more common in patients receiving monotherapy.