Long-term effectiveness of recommended boosted protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy in Europe

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the long-term response to antiretroviral treatment (ART) based on atazanavir/ritonavir (ATZ/r)-, darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r)-, and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-containing regimens.

METHODS

Data were analysed for 5678 EuroSIDA-enrolled patients starting a DRV/r-, ATZ/r- or LPV/r-containing regimen between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2013. Separate analyses were performed for the following subgroups of patients: (1) ART-naïve subjects (8%) at ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) initiation; (2) ART-experienced individuals (44%) initiating the new PI/r with a viral load (VL) ≤500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL; and (3) ART-experienced patients (48%) initiating the new PI/r with a VL >500 copies/mL. Virological failure (VF) was defined as two consecutive VL measurements >200 copies/mL ≥24 weeks after PI/r initiation. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox models were used to compare risks of failure by PI/r-based regimen. The main analysis was performed with intention-to-treat (ITT) ignoring treatment switches.

RESULTS

The time to VF favoured DRV/r over ATZ/r, and both were superior to LPV/r (log-rank test; P < 0.02) in all analyses. Nevertheless, the risk of VF in ART-naïve patients was similar regardless of the PI/r initiated after controlling for potential confounders. The risk of VF in both treatment-experienced groups was lower for DRV/r than for ATZ/r, which, in turn, was lower than for LPV/r-based ART.

CONCLUSIONS

Although confounding by indication and calendar year cannot be completely ruled out, in ART-experienced subjects the long-term effectiveness of DRV/r-containing regimens appears to be greater than that of ATZ/r and LPV/r.

Auditing HIV Testing Rates across Europe: Results from the HIDES 2 Study

European guidelines recommend the routine offer of an HIV test in patients with a number of AIDS-defining and non-AIDS conditions believed to share an association with HIV; so called indicator conditions (IC). Adherence with this guidance across Europe is not known. We audited HIV testing behaviour in patients accessing care for a number of ICs. Participating centres reviewed the case notes of either 100 patients or of all consecutive patients in one year, presenting for each of the following ICs: tuberculosis, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, anal and cervical cancer, hepatitis B and C and oesophageal candidiasis. Observed HIV-positive rates were applied by region and IC to estimate the number of HIV diagnoses potentially missed. Outcomes examined were: HIV test rate (% of total patients with IC), HIV test accepted (% of tests performed/% of tests offered) and new HIV diagnosis rate (%). There were 49 audits from 23 centres, representing 7037 patients. The median test rate across audits was 72% (IQR 32–97), lowest in Northern Europe (median 44%, IQR 22–68%) and highest in Eastern Europe (median 99%, IQR 86–100). Uptake of testing was close to 100% in all regions. The median HIV+ rate was 0.9% (IQR 0.0–4.9), with 29 audits (60.4%) having an HIV+ rate >0.1%. After adjustment, there were no differences between regions of Europe in the proportion with >0.1% testing positive (global p = 0.14). A total of 113 patients tested HIV+. Applying the observed rates of testing HIV+ within individual ICs and regions to all persons presenting with an IC suggested that 105 diagnoses were potentially missed. Testing rates in well-established HIV ICs remained low across Europe, despite high prevalence rates, reflecting missed opportunities for earlier HIV diagnosis and care. Significant numbers may have had an opportunity for HIV diagnosis if all persons included in IC audits had been tested.