Category Archives: 6.8. How to Switch ART

6.8. How to Switch ART

– Christian Hoffmann –

Changing a regimen that is successful but intolerable due to side effects is usually easy. The suspected drug is replaced with another drug of the same class. It becomes more difficult if alternate drugs are contraindicated because of potential toxicity or if resistance mutations to these drugs are suspected. In such cases, changes need to be individualized.

This is particularly true in those subjects with a treatment history of 10 or 15 years, who probably harbor multiresistant viruses. Even physicians with lots of experience in treatment should discuss these complex individual cases with their colleagues. In many large centers, so called weekly ART meetings have been established. At these meetings, both virologists (to translate resistance testing) and clinicians (with personal experience of the individual patient’s situation) can discuss these complex cases.

This chapter discusses two important reasons for switching where certain principles should apply: changing due to virologic failure, and changing to simplify the regimen. Switching due to possible side effects has been discussed in previous chapters.

Switching due to virologic failure

The same principles apply as when initiating therapy: compliance, dosing issues, concurrent diseases, co-medications and drug interactions. It is also essential to consider treatment history and possible existing resistance mutations. Although desirable before any change in treatment, resistance tests in cases of virologic failure are not always practical. It is therefore useful to become familiar with the most important resistance mutations, particularly for nucleoside analogs:

Table 8.1. Expected resistance mutations with different nuke backbones.
Failing nuke backbone Mutations
AZT/d4T+3TCAZT+3TC+ABC M184V and then successive TAMs, the longer one waits
TDF+3TC/FTC K65R and/or M184V
ABC+3TC L74V, less frequently  K65R and/or M184V
AZT/d4T+ddI TAMs, Q151M, T69ins
TDF+ABC/ddI K65R

The basic principles for changing therapy in cases of virologic failure apply: the faster the change, the better; the virus should be given as little time as possible to generate more resistance mutations. Resistance patterns become more complex the longer one waits (Wallis 2010). In addition, the more drugs that are changed, the higher the likelihood of success for the new regimen.

The situation with NNRTIs is more straightforward. There is usually complete cross-resistance. Continuation in the presence of these resistance mutations is of no use as they have no impact on the replicative fitness of the virus. Moreover, accumulation of further resistance mutations may compromise the efficacy of second generation NNRTIs such as etravirine. The NNRTI should be stopped as soon as possible if there is evidence of resistance.

There are also relevant cross-resistance mutations for PIs. For switching and sequencing PIs refer to the salvage section of the next chapter. Table 8.2 provides a rough guide on how to proceed without knowledge of resistance mutations. One must note that data is not sufficiently available for all options. On account of the promising monotherapy studies with lopinavir/r and darunavir/r, which usually are sufficient on their own, the regimen need not be totally changed in cases of limited resistance mutations and accordingly rapid switch to these boosted PIs. One study showed that if the frequent NRTI mutation M184V is detected alone, cytidine analogs 3TC or FTC can be continued, provided a boosted PI is initiated. The effect of the boosted PI is enough to achieve virlogical success – 3TC seems to be able to conserve M184V that in turn lowers viral fitness (Hull 2009). Presently there are ideas about developing a fixed combination of a boosted PI and 3TC.

Table 8.2. Changing first-line therapy without knowledge of resistance mutations*.
Failing initial therapy Potentially successful change
3 NRTI Instead of 3rd NRTI one PI/r (rapid switch) or 1-2 new NRTIs plus NNRTI or RAL
2 NRTI + NNRTI Instead of NNRTI, one PI/r (rapid switch) or 1-2 new NRTIs plus RAL or MVC*
2 NRTI+ 1 PI/r 1-2 new NRTIs plus NNRTI plus new PI/r or RAL or MVC**
*In individual cases, other modifications or simply waiting may be advisable. All PIs should be boosted = PI/r. ** Maraviroc only with tropism test. For complex cases, see the chapter on Salvage Therapy.

In some cases of virologic failure, the addition of one agent alone can make sense. Whether this applies to abacavir is being discussed. In contrast to a placebo-controlled study (Katlama 2001), in clinical practice there was no sustained virologic effect with the addition of abacavir alone to a failing regimen (Cabrera 2004). Addition of tenofovir also seems possible in certain cases (Khanlou 2005, Schooley 2002). Our experience with this approach has been good in cases with minimal increases in the viral load (up to 500 copies/ml) and in the absence of TAMs.

In patients who have been treated exclusively (and over a prolonged period) with NNRTIs, the above strategy has mostly not been successful. Extensive resistance mutations usually exist and a complete change of ART is necessary. In all patients previously treated with NRTIs or NNRTIs over a longer period, a boosted PI must be used. In the presence of a failing PI regimen, a new NNRTI alone is often not sufficient (Abgrall 2007, Khaykin 2008). With respect to resistance mutations and prior ART exposure, the addition of a new drug such as raltegravir and maraviroc should be considered. For complex resistance situations see the next chapter.

Simplification – do maintenance therapies work?

Can HIV infection be treated in a similar fashion to microbacterias, with a sequence of intense induction therapy followed by less toxic (and less expensive) maintenance therapy? The idea is appealing, and has circulated almost since the existence of combination ART. Between 1998 and 2003, the answer was clearly that maintenance therapies do not work. Three randomized studies (Trilège, ADAM, ACTG 343) destroyed any hope that ART might be reduced to two or even one drug. By today’s standards, one could object that outdated substances, such as saquinavir, indinavir or nelfinavir were used (Havlir 1998, Reijers 1998, Flander 2002).

In the last few years, better drugs have been licensed. In particular, lopinavir and darunavir with high resistance barriers cast a different light on the negative image of maintenance therapies. Randomized studies already exist for lopinavir/r and darunavir/r, but other boosted PIs have also been investigated as PI/r monotherapy (see Table 8.3).

The studies show that in most cases virologic suppression remains when simplifying to a PI/r monotherapy. In the OK04 study with lopinavir/r, a reduction of lipoatrophy rates was achieved. The observation period has now been extended to four years (Cameron 2007, Pulido 2008). However, some patients on lopinavir/r show low levels of viremia, especially in combination with low CD4 T cells and as expected, they show poor compliance (Campo 2007, Pulido 2008, Gutman 2010). The same was observed with therapy-naïve patients (see above).

For darunavir, the results of two large randomized studies MONET and MONOI with identical design are published (Katlama 2010, Arribas 2010). In MONET, non-inferiority of the monotherapy could not completely be shown after 96 weeks, at least regarding primary endpoints. 81% of patients were below detection in the standard-arm at week 96, compared to 75% in this on darunavir monotherapy. When virologically successful therapies were not evaluated as a failure, a difference was not observed. The results can be explained by a possibly low adherence in the mono-arm (with significantly more HCV-coinfected patients). In MONOI, lipoatrophy improved (Valantin 2010). At week 48, no significant difference in efficacy was found. However, there were isolated cases of virologic failure. At week 96, transient viremia was more frequent on monotherapy and a permanent control under 50 copies/ml without blips was observed in 59% versus 70% of patients (Valantin 2011). Darunavir resistance mutations were not observed either in MONET or in MONOI. Possibly, darunavir levels are lower without NRTIs (Garvey 2010).

Less data is available for other PIs. For atazanavir/r there is a one-arm pilot study, in which the agent showed weak results in monotherapy. Another pilot study on atazanavir/r was prematurely interrupted after virologic failure occurred in 5/15 patients (Karlstrom 2006). The Ataritmo study observed an elevated viral load in cerebrospinal fluid within some patients on atazanavir with otherwise well suppressed viral loads. In the OREY study, 9/63 patients developed virlological failure (Pulido 2009). There is also a pilot study for saquinavir (Patricia 2010).

Conclusion: Monotherapies with boosted PIs such as lopinavir/r and darunavir/r are slightly less effective than classic therapies. Often lower viremia without resistances appears that disappears upon intensification. Risk factors for a failure of monotherapy are poor compliance and low CD4 T cell nadir. Monotherapies as a theoretical strategy can not be justified at this time. In some individual cases, however, they can reduce adverse events.

Table 8.3. Newer studies on maintenance therapies (PI/r monotherapy).
Source

n

Maintenance

Wks

Less than 50 copies/ml?
Randomized        
Nunes 2009 (KalMo)

60

LPV/r versus       2 NRTIs+LPV/r

96

80% vs 87% (ITT, VL < 80)
Campo 2009 (M03-613)

155

LPV/r versus CBV+EFV

96

60% vs 63% (ITT), but low-level viremia more frequently
Pulido 2008   (OK04 Study)

205

LPV/r versus
2 NRTIs+LPV/r

48

85% vs 90% (ITT), Non-inferiority shown, but more frequent low level viremia
Meynard 2010

(KALESOLO)

186

LPV/r vs ART-continuation

48

84 vs 88% (ITT), Non-inferiority not shown, more frequent low viremia
Gutman 2010

60

LPV/r vs ART-continuation

24

21% VF on Mono. Especially those with low CD4-Nadir, study discontinued.
Arribas 2010

(MONET)

256

DRV/r versus 2 NRTIs+DRV/r

48

84% vs 85% (ITT), Non-inferiority shown

 

Katlama 2009

(MONOI)

225

DRV/r versus 2 NRTIs+DRV/r

48

VF 0 vs 3%, Non-inferiority shown
Others

 

 
Kahlert 2004

12

IDV/r

48

92%, 1 discontinuation, no failure
Patricia 2010

17

SQV/r

48

94%, 1 case of VF
Karlstrom 2006

15

ATV/r

16

VF 33%, study discontinued prematurely
Vernazza 2007 (ATARITMO)

28

ATV/r

24

92%, no resistance or VF
Wilkin 2009 (ACTG 5201)

36

ATV/r

48

88%, no resistance
Pulido 2009

(OREY)

63

ATV/r

48

79% under 400 copies/ml, however at least 14% VF
All patients had less than 50 (75) copies/ml for at least six months. VF = Virologic failure,ITT = Intention-to-treat

Switching to simplify – triple-nukes revisited

Triple nuke therapy, though now fairly obsolete for first-line therapy, may be justifiable for maintenance therapy. Several randomized studies have not detected any virologic disadvantage (Katlama 2003, Bonjoch 2005, Markowitz 2005, Sprengler 2010).

In the ESS40013 Study, a total of 448 patients were treated with AZT+3TC+ABC plus efavirenz. After 36 or 44 weeks, 282 patients with undetectable viral load were randomized to continue with the same therapy or to stop efavirenz. After 96 weeks, 79% versus 77% of patients were still below 50 copies/ml, proving that triple nuke was not inferior (Markowitz 2005). In a Spanish study, 134 patients with an undetectable viral load for at least 24 weeks were randomized to receive either Trizivir® or Combivir® plus nevirapine (Bonjoch 2005). At 48 weeks, the percentage of patients with an undetectable viral load was comparable across arms (71% versus 73%, ITT). Similar results were also seen in the TRIZAL and FREE study, in which 209 patients were randomized (Katlama 2003, Sprenger 2010). In the Swiss Cohort, the failure rate was low in 495 patients with suppressed viral load and switch to Trizivir®. Patients with earlier exposure to mono- or dual-NRTI therapy, low CD4 T cell count at time of switch, or AIDS were at increased risk of treatment failure, limiting the use of Trizivir® in these patient groups (Wolbers 2007). Some long-term data for the quadruple nuke strategy with Trizivir® plus tenofovir (d’Ettore 2007, Llibre 2008) also exist.

The approach taken in the French COOL Study failed. In this trial, 140 patients were randomized to TDF+3TC+efavirenz or TDF+efavirenz for 48 weeks. Inclusion criterion was ART with a viral load below 50 copies/ml for at least three months; patients with prior treatment failure were excluded. There were no restrictions on CD4 T cell counts. An analysis showed a significantly worse outcome for patients on the dual therapy. Moreover, there were no differences in the toxicity rates between arms. Thus, 3TC seems to be important in maintaining viral suppression. Its discontinuation, however, has no effect on tolerability (Girard 2006).

Maintenance therapy using Trizivir® seems feasible. However, the benefit remains questionable. Three or four NRTIs are possibly more toxic than other strategies. Strategies such as monotherapy with boosted PIs are not yet justifiable outside clinical trials.

References

Abgrall S, Yeni PG, Bouchaud O, et al. Comparative biological and clinical outcomes after a switch from a virologically unsuccessful first protease inhibitor-containing antiretroviral combination to a 3-drug regimen containing efavirenz, nevirapine, or abacavir. Clin Infect Dis 2007, 44:120-7.

Allavena C, Mounoury O, Rodallec A, et al. Efficacy and safety of an NRTI-sparing dual regimen of raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor in a triple antiretroviral class-experienced population. HIV Clin Trials 2009, 10:337-40.

Arranz Caso JA, Lopez JC, Santos I, et al. A randomized controlled trial investigating the efficacy and safety of switching from a protease inhibitor to nevirapine in patients with undetectable viral load. HIV Med 2005, 6:353-9.

Arribas JR, Horban A, Gerstoft J, et al. The MONET trial: darunavir/ritonavir with or without nucleoside analogues, for patients with HIV RNA below 50 copies/ml. AIDS 2010, 24:223-30.

Barreiro P, Soriano V, Blanco F, et al. Risks and benefits of replacing protease inhibitors by nevirapine in HIV-infected subjects under long-term successful triple combination therapy. AIDS 2000, 14: 807-12.

Becker S, Rachlis A, Gill J, et al. Successful Substitution of Protease Inhibitors with Efavirenz in patients with undetectable viral loads – A prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label study (DMP 049). Abstract 20, 8th CROI 2001, Chicago.

Bonjoch A, Paredes R, Galvez J, et al. Antiretroviral treatment simplification with 3 NRTIs or 2 NRTIs plus nevirapine in HIV-1-infected patients treated with successful first-line HAART. J AIDS 2005, 39:313-6.

Boyd MA, Siangphoe U, Ruxrungtham K, et al. Indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg bid and efavirenz 600 mg qd in patients failing treatment with combination nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: 96-week outcomes of HIV-NAT 009. HIV Med 2005;6:410-20.

Cabrera C, Cozzi-Lepri A, Phillips AN, et al. Baseline resistance and virological outcome in patients with virological failure who start a regimen containing abacavir: EuroSIDA study. Antivir Ther 2004;9:787-800.

Calza L, Manfredi R, Colangeli V, et al. Substitution of nevirapine or efavirenz for protease inhibitor versus lipid-lowering therapy for the management of dyslipidaemia. AIDS 2005, 19:1051-8.

Cameron DW, da Silva B, Arribas J, et al. Significant sparing of peripheral lipoatrophy by HIV treatment with LPV/r + ZDV/3TC induction followed by LPV/r monotherapy compared with EFV + ZDV/3TC. Abstract 44, 14th CROI 2007, Los Angeles.

Campo RE, Cohen C, Grimm K, et al. Switch from protease inhibitor- to efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy improves quality of life, treatment satisfaction and adherence with low rates of  virological failure in virologically suppressed patients. Int J STD AIDS 2010, 21:166-71.

Campo RE, Da Silva BA, Cotte L, et al. Predictors of loss of virologic response in subjects who simplified to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy from lopinavir/ritonavir plus zidovudine/lamivudine. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2009, 25:269-75.

Carr A, Workman C, Smith DE, Hoy J, Abacavir substitution for nucleoside analogs in patients with HIV lipoatrophy: a randomized trial. JAMA 2002;288:207-15.

Cherry CL, Lal L, Thompson KA, et al. increased adipocyte apoptosis in lipoatrophy improves within 48 weeks of switching patient therapy from stavudine to abacavir or zidovudine. J AIDS 2005, 38:263-267.

Clumeck N, Goebel F, Rozenbaum W, et al. Simplification with abacavir-based triple nucleoside therapy versus continued protease inhibitor-based HAART in HIV-1-infected patients with undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA. AIDS 2001, 15: 1517-26.

Curran A, Ribera E. From old to new nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: changes in body fat composition, metabolic parameters and mitochondrial toxicity after the switch from thymidine analogs to tenofovir or abacavir. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2011, 10:389-406.

DeJesus E, Ruane P, McDonald C, et al. Impact oft switching virologically suppressed, HIV-1-infected patients from twice-daily fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine to once-daily fixed-dose tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. HIV Clin Trials 2008, 9: 103-114

d´Ettorre G, Zaffiri L, Ceccarelli G, et al. Simplified maintenance therapy with abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine plus tenofovir after sustained HIV load suppression: four years of follow-up. HIV Clin Trials 2007;8:182-8.

Elion R, Berger D, Richmond G, et al. Simplified maintenance therapy with abacavir/lamivudine and atazanavir after discontinuation of ritonavir. HIV Clin Trials 2010, 11:170-3.

Elzi L, Marzolini C, Furrer H, et al. Treatment modification in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals starting combination antiretroviral therapy between 2005 and 2008. Arch Intern Med. 2010, 170:57-65.

Eron JJ, Young B, Cooper DA, et al. Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2010, 375:396-407.

Fischl MA, Collier AC, Mukherjee AL, et al. Randomized open-label trial of two simplified, class-sparing regimens following a first suppressive three or four-drug regimen. AIDS 2007; 21: 325-333.

Fisher M, Moyle GJ, Shahmanesh M, et al. A randomized comparative trial of continued zidovudine/lamivudine or replacement with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine in efavirenz-treated HIV-1-infected individuals. J AIDS 2009, 51:562-8.

Flammer AJ, Vo NT, Ledergerber B, et al. Effect of atazanavir versus other protease inhibitor-containing antiretroviral therapy on endothelial function in HIV-infected persons: randomised controlled trial. Heart 2009, 95:385-90.

Flander P, Raffi F, Descamps D, et al. Final analysis of the Trilege induction-maintenance trial: results at 18 months. AIDS 2002, 16:561-8.

Gallant JE, DeJesus E, Arribas JR, et al. Tenofovir DF, emtricitabine, and efavirenz vs. zidovudine, lamivudine, and efavirenz for HIV. N Engl J Med 2006, 354:251-60.

Gallant JE, Staszewski S, Pozniak AL, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2004, 292: 191-201.

Garvey L, Latch N, Erlwein OW, et al. The effects of a nucleoside-sparing antiretroviral regimen on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted darunavir in HIV type-1-infected patients. Antivir Ther 2010, 15:213-8.

Gatell J, Salmon-Ceron D, Lazzarin A, et al. Efficacy and safety of atazanavir-based HAART in pts with virologic suppression switched from a stable, boosted or unboosted PI treatment regimen: the SWAN Study. CID 2007;44:1484-92.

Ghosn J, Carosi G, Moreno S, et al. Unboosted atazanavir-based therapy maintains control of HIV type-1 replication as effectively as a ritonavir-boosted regimen. Antivir Ther 2010, 15:993-1002.

Girard PM, Cabié A, Michelet C, et al. TenofovirDF + efavirenz (TDF+EFV) vs tenofovirDF+ efavirenz + lamivudine (TDF+EFV+3TC) maintenance regimen in virologically controlled patients (pts): COOL Trial. Abstract H-1383, 46th ICAAC 2006, San Francisco.

Gutmann C, Cusini A, Günthard HF, et al. Randomized controlled study demonstrating failure of LPV/r monotherapy in HIV: the role of compartment and CD4-nadir. AIDS 2010, 24:2347-54.

Havlir DV, Marschner IC, Hirsch MS, et al. Maintenance antiretroviral therapies in HIV infected patients with undetectable plasma HIV RNA after triple-drug therapy. ACTG 343 Team. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:1261-8.

Hoogewerf M, Regez RM, Schouten WE, et al. Change to abacavir-lamivudine-tenofovir combination treatment in patients with HIV-1 who had complete virological suppression. Lancet 2003; 362:1979-80.

Hull M, Moore D, Harris M, et al. A lamivudine (3TC)-based backbone in conjunction with a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) is sufficient to achieve virologic suppression in the presence of M184V mutations. Abstract H-916, 49th ICAAC 2009, San Francisco.

John M, McKinnon EJ, James IR, et al. Randomized, controlled, 48 week study of switching stavudine and/or protease inhibitors to Combivir/abacavir to prevent or reverse lipoatrophy in HIV-infected patients. JAIDS 2003, 33: 29-33.

Kahlert C, Hupfer M, Wagels T, et al. Ritonavir boosted indinavir treatment as a simplified maintenance „mono“-therapy for HIV infection. AIDS 2004, 18:955-7.

Karlstrom O, Josephson F, Sonnerborg A. Early Virologic Rebound in a Pilot Trial of Ritonavir-Boosted. J AIDS 2006.

Katlama C, Clotet B, Plettenberg A, et al. Intensification of stable background therapy with abacavir in antiretroviral therapy experienced patients: 48-week data from a randomized, double-blind trial. HIV Med 2001;2:27-34.

Katlama C, Fenske S, Gazzard B, et al. TRIZAL study: switching from successful HAART to Trizivir (abacavir lamivudine-zidovudine combination tablet): 48 weeks efficacy, safety and adherence results. HIV Med 2003;4:79-86.

Katlama C, Valantin MA, Algarte-Genin M, et al. Efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir maintenance monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: a randomized open-label, noninferiority trial, MONOI-ANRS 136. AIDS 2010, 24:2365-74.

Keiser PH, Sension MG, DeJesus E, et al. Substituting abacavir for hyperlipidemia-associated protease inhibitors in HAART regimens improves fasting lipid profiles, maintains virologic suppression, and simplifies treatment. BMC Infect Dis 2005, 5:2.

Khanlou H, Guyer B, Farthing C. Efficacy of tenofovir as intensification of zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir fixed-dose combination in the treatment of HIV-positive patients. J AIDS 2005;38:627-628.

Khaykin P, Postel N, Reeb I, Staszewski S. Switch to efavirenz (EFV) after protease-inhibitor (PI)-failure: explorative analysis of outcome by baseline viral VS tolerability failure. Eur J Med Res 2008, 13:169-72.

Llibre JM, Bonjoch A, Iribarren J, et al. Targeting only reverse transcriptase with zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir plus tenofovir in HIV-1-infected patients with multidrug-resistant virus: a multicentre pilot study. HIV Med 2008. 9:508-513

Lopez-Cortes LF, Ruiz-Valderas R, Viciana P, et al. Once-daily saquinavir-sgc plus low-dose ritonavir (1200/100 mg) in combination with efavirenz: pharmacokinetics and efficacy in HIV-infected patients with prior antiretroviral therapy. J AIDS 2003, 32:240-2.

Madruga RJ, Cassetti I, Suleiman JM, et al. The safety and efficacy of switching stavudine to tenofovir df in combination with lamivudine and efavirenz in hiv-1-infected patients: three-year follow-up after switching therapy. HIV Clin Trials 2007;8:381-90.

Mallolas J, Podzamczer D, Milinkovic A, et al. Efficacy and safety of switching from boosted lopinavir to boosted atazanavir in patients with virological suppression receiving a LPV/r-containing HAART: the ATAZIP study. J AIDS 2009, 51:29-36

Marcelin AG, Lambert-Niclot S, Peytavin G, et al. Baseline HIV RNA ultrasensitive assay and viral DNA predict rise in plasma viral load in patients of MONOI-ANRS 136 Trial. Abstract 533, 18th CROI 2011, Boston.

Markowitz M, Hill-Zabala C, Lang J, et al. Induction with abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine plus efavirenz for 48 weeks followed by 48-week maintenance with abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine alone in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients. J AIDS 2005, 39:257-64. 15980684

Martin A, Bloch M, Amin J, et al. Simplification of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir-emtricitabine or abacavir-lamivudine: a randomized, 96-week trial. Clin Infect Dis 2009, 49:1591-601.

Martin A, Smith DE, Carr A, et al. Reversibility of lipoatrophy in HIV-infected patients 2 years after switching from a thymidine analogue to abacavir: the MITOX Extension Study. AIDS 2004, 18:1029-36.

Martinez E, Arnaiz JA, Podzamczer D, et al. Substitution of nevirapine, efavirenz, or abacavir for protease inhibitors in patients with HIV infection. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:1036-46.

Martínez E, Larrousse M, Llibre JM, et al. Substitution of raltegravir for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients: the SPIRAL study. AIDS 2010, 24:1697-707.

McComsey GA, Lo Re V 3rd, O’Riordan M, et al. Effect of reducing the dose of stavudine on body composition, bone density, and markers of mitochondrial toxicity in HIV-infected subjects: a randomized, controlled study. Clin Infect Dis 2008, 46:1290-6.

McComsey GA, Paulsen DM, Lonergan JT, et al. Improvements in lipoatrophy, mitochondrial DNA levels and fat apoptosis after replacing stavudine with abacavir or zidovudine. AIDS 2005, 19:15-23.

McComsey GA, Ward DJ, Hessenthaler SM, et al. Improvement in lipoatrophy associated with HAART in HIV-infected patients switched from stavudine to abacavir or zidovudine: the results of the TARHEEL study. CID 2004, 38:263-270.

Meynard JL, 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.

Milinkovic A, Martinez E, Lopez S, et al. The impact of reducing stavudine dose versus switching to tenofovir on plasma lipids, body composition and mitochondrial function in HIV-infected patients. Antivir Ther 2007;12:407-15.

Mocroft A, Phillips AN, Soriano V, et al. Reasons for stopping antiretrovirals used in an initial highly active antiretroviral regimen: increased incidence of stopping due to toxicity or patient/physician choice in patients with hepatitis C coinfection. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2005;21:527-36.

Molina JM, Journot V, Morand-Joubert L, et al. Simplification therapy with once-daily emtricitabine, didanosine, and efavirenz in HIV-1-infected adults with viral suppression receiving a PI-based regimen: a randomized trial. JID 2005, 191:830-9.

Moyle G, Baldwin C, Langroudi B, Mandalia S, Gazzard BG. A 48 week, randomized, open label comparison of three abacavir-based substitution approaches in the management of dyslipidemia and peripheral lipoatrophy. J AIDS 2003, 33: 22-28.

Moyle GJ, Sabin CA, Cartledge J, et al. A randomized comparative trial of tenofovir DF or abacavir as replacement for a thymidine analogue in persons with lipoatrophy. AIDS 2006; 20: 2043-50.

Murphy RL, Berzins B, Zala C, et al. Change to atazanavir/ritonavir treatment improves lipids but not endothelial function in patients on stable antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2010, 24:885-90.

Nasta P, Matti A, Cocca G, et al. Early vs deferred HAART switch in heavily pre-treated HIV patients with low viral load level and stable CD4 cell count. Abstract 523, 13th CROI 2006, Denver.

Negredo E, Cruz L, Paredes R, et al. Virological, immunological, and clinical impact of switching from protease inhibitors to nevirapine or to efavirenz in patients with HIV infection and long-lasting viral suppression. Clin Infect Dis 2002, 34:504-10.

Negredo E, Molto J, Burger D, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir plus nevirapine as a nucleoside-sparing approach in antiretroviral-experienced patients (NEKA study). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2005; 38:47-52.

Nunes EP, Oliveira MS, Almeida MMTB, et al. 48-week efficacy and safety results of simplification to single agent lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) regimen in patients suppressed below 80 copies/mL on HAART — the KalMo study. Abstract TUAB0103, XVI IAC 2006, Toronto.

Opravil M, Hirschel B, Lazzarin A, et al. A randomized trial of simplified maintenance therapy with abacavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine in HIV infection. J Infect Dis 2002, 185: 1251-60.

Patricia E, Domingo P, Gutierrez M, et al. Saquinavir/ritonavir monotherapy as a new nucleoside-sparing maintenance strategy in long-term virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients. Curr HIV Res 2010, 8:467-70.

Perez-Elias MJ, Moreno S, Gutierrez C, et al.High virological failure rate in HIV patients after switching to a regimen with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus tenofovir. AIDS 2005;19:695-8.

Pulido F, Arribas JR, Delgado R, et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir monotherapy versus lopinavir-ritonavir and two nucleosides for maintenance therapy of HIV. AIDS 2008;22:

Pulido F, Delgado R, Pérez-Valero I, et al. Long-term (4 years) efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy for maintenance of HIV suppression. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008, 61:1359-61.

Pulido F, Serrano O, Rivero A. Atazanavir/ritonavir monotherapy for maintenance of virologic suppression: 48-week primary analysis of the 96-week multicentre, open-label, single-arm, pilot OREY study. Abstract PS4/6, 12th EACS 2009, Cologne.

Reijers MH, Weverling GJ, Jurriaans S, et al. Maintenance therapy after quadruple induction therapy in HIV-1 infected individuals: ADAM study. Lancet 1998, 352: 185-90.

Ribera E, Paradiñeiro JC, Curran A, et al. Improvements in subcutaneous fat, lipid profile, and parameters of mitochondrial toxicity in patients with peripheral lipoatrophy when stavudine is switched to tenofovir (LIPOTEST study). HIV Clin Trials 2008, 9:407-17.

Riddler SA, Haubrich R, DiRienzo AG, et al. Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2008, 358:2095-106.

Riddler SA, Jiang H, Tenorio A, et al. A randomized study of antiviral medication switch at lower- versus higher-switch thresholds: ACTG A5115. Antivir Ther 2007;12:531-41.

Ripamonti D, Maggiolo F, Bombana E, et al. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of dual therapy with raltegravir and atazanavir in antiretroviral experienced patients. Abstract MOPEB067, 5th IAS 2009, Cape Town.

Ruane PJ, Alas B, Wolf PR. Dual maintenance therapy with raltegravir BID with atazanavir qD (RAL/ATV) in patients with no prior PI resistance and intolerance to other ARV regimens: preliminary report. Abstract H-914, 49th ICAAC 2009, San Francisco.

Ruiz L, Negredo E, Domingo P, et al. ART simplification with nevirapine in PI-experienced patients with HIV-associated lipodystrophy: 1-year prospective follow-up of a multicenter, randomized, controlled study. J AIDS 2001, 27: 229-36.

Schewe CK, Maserati R, Wassmer G, Adam A, Weitner L. Improved lipid profiles and maintenance of virologic control in heavily pretreated HIV-infected patients who switched from stavudine to tenofovir treatment. Clin Infect Dis 2006, 42:145-7.

Schooley RT, Ruane P, Myers RA, Tenofovir DF in antiretroviral-experienced patients: results from a 48-week, randomized, double-blind study. AIDS 2002, 16:1257-63.

Sension M, Neto JL, Grinsztejn B, et al. Improvement in lipid profiles in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive patients with hyperlipidemia after a switch to unboosted atazanavir. J AIDS 2009, Apr 2.

Soriano V, Garcia-Gasco P, Vispo E, et al. Efficacy and safety of replacing lopinavir with atazanavir in HIV-infected patients with undetectable plasma viraemia: final results of the SLOAT trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 61:200-5.

Sprenger HG, Langebeek N, Mulder PG, et al. Abacavir/lamivudine/zidovudine maintenance after standard induction in antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients: FREE randomized trial interim results. AIDS Patient Care STD 2010, 24:361-6.

Stanley TL, Joy T, Hadigan CM, et al. Effects of switching from lopinavir/ritonavir to atazanavir/ritonavir on muscle glucose uptake and visceral fat in HIV-infected patients. AIDS 2009, 23:1349-57.

Stellbrink HJ, Moyle G, Orkin C, et al. Assessment of Safety and Efficacy of Abacavir/Lamivudine and tenofovir/Emtricitabine in Treatment-Naive HIV-1 Infected Subjects. ASSERT: 48-Week Result. Abstract PS10/01, 12th EACS 2009, Cologne

Tebas P, Zhang J, Hafner R, et al. Peripheral and visceral fat changes following a treatment switch to a non-thymidine analogue or a nucleoside-sparing regimen in HIV-infected subjects with peripheral lipoatrophy: results of ACTG A5110. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2009 Mar 19.

Tebas P, Zhang J, Yarasheski K, et al. Switching to a PI-containing, nucleoside-sparing regimen increases limb fat but raises serum lipid levels: results of a prospective randomized trial (ACTG 5125s). J AIDS 2007;45:193-200.

Tenorio AR, Jiang H, Zheng Y, et al. Delaying a treatment switch in antiretroviral-treated HIV type 1-infected patients with detectable drug-resistant viremia does not have a profound effect on immune parameters: ACTG A5115. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2009, 25:135-9.

Torti C, d’Arminio-Monforte A, Pozniak AL, et al. Long-term CD4+ T-cell count evolution after switching from regimens including HIV nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) plus protease inhibitors to regimens containing NRTI plus non-NRTI or only NRTI. BMC Infect Dis 2011, 11:23.

Tungsiripat M, Kitch D, Glesby MJ, et al. A pilot study to determine the impact on dyslipidemia of adding tenofovir to stable background antiretroviral therapy: ACTG 5206. AIDS 2010, 24:1781-4.

Valantin MA, Bittar R, de Truchis P, et al. TOTEM trial group. Switching the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine promptly improves triglycerides and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in dyslipidaemic patients. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010, 65:556-61.

Valantin MA, Flandre P, Kolta S, et al. Fat tissue distribution changes in HIV-infected patients with viral suppression treated with darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy versus 2 NRTI + DRV/r in the MONOI –ANRS 136 randomized trial : results at 48 weeks. Abstract 721, 17th CROI 2010, San Francisco.

Valantin MA, Duvivier C, Lambert-Niclot S, et al. Long-term Efficacy of DVR/r Monotherapy in Patients with HIV-1 Viral Suppression in the MONOI-ANRS 136 Study: Results at 96 Weeks. Abstract 534, 18th CROI 2011, Boston.

Vernazza P, Daneel S, Schiffer V, et al. The role of compartment penetration in PI-monotherapy: the Atazanavir-Ritonavir Monomaintenance (ATARITMO) Trial. AIDS 2007;21:1309-15.

Wallis C, Papathanasopoulos M, Conradie F. Early switch based on virological failure reduces complexity of HIV-1 drug resistance. Abstract 594, 17th CROI 2010, San Francisco.

Wilkin TJ, McKinnon JE, Dirienzo AG, et al. Regimen simplification to atazanavir-ritonavir alone as maintenance antiretroviral therapy: final 48-week clinical and virologic outcomes. J Infect Dis. 2009 Feb 1.

Wolbers M, Opravil M, von Wyl V, et al. Predictors of optimal viral suppression in patients switched to abacavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. AIDS 2007;21:2201-7.


Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under 6. ART 2011, 6.8. How to Switch ART, Part 2 - Antiretroviral Therapy