3-Year Efficacy and Durability of Simplification to Single Tablet Regimens: A Comparison between Co-Formulated Efavirenz/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir and Rilpivirine/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir

Background Few data are available about efficacy and durability of simplification from multi-tablet antiretroviral regimens to co-formulated efavirenz (EFV)/emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir (TDF) versus rilpivirine (RPV)/FTC/TDF in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients. Methods We retrospectively analysed HIV-infected patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/ml switching to co-formulated EFV/FTC/TDF or RPV/FTC/TDF at five Italian centres. Patients were followed from time of switch until regimen discontinuation or a maximum of 3-years follow-up. Time to treatment discontinuation (TD) and virological failure (VF; defined as two consecutive HIV RNA >50 copies/ml or a single determination >1,000 copies/ml) and their predictors were investigated. Results 1,560 patients were reviewed of which 1,097 (70%) switched to EFV/FTC/TDF and 463 (30%) to RPV/FTC/TDF. During follow-up, VF and TD occurred in 44 (4%) and 242 (22%) patients in EFV/FTC/TDF and in 29 (6%) and 50 (11%) patients in RPV/FTC/TDF, respectively. The 3-year estimated probability of remaining free from VF was 96.2% with EFV/FTC/TDF versus 92.7% with RPV/FTC/TDF (P=0.003). At multivariate analysis, regimen type (EFV/FTC/TDF versus RPV/FTC/TDF aHR 0.24; P=0.004) and time of virological suppression (aHR 0.85; P=0.048) were the only independent predictors of VF. The estimated 3-year probability of remaining free from TD was 77.4% with EFV/FTC/TDF versus 88.4% with RPV/FTC/TDF (P=0.001). Predictors of TD were female sex, switching from PI-based regimens, older age, shorter time of virological suppression and regimen type (EFV/FTC/TDF versus RPV/FTC/TDF aHR 2.48; P<0.001). RPV/FTC/TDF showed a safer lipid profile and a greater increase in creatinine. Conclusions Both regimens showed good safety and efficacy in this real-life setting, although switch to RPV/ FTC/TDF seemed better tolerated while EFV/FTC/TDF was associated with a lower probability of VF.

[1]  Jennifer F Hoy,et al.  Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2016 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel. , 2016, JAMA.

[2]  G. d’Ettorre,et al.  Reduced risk of Efavirenz Discontinuation in Naïve Patients Starting First‐Line Antiretroviral Therapy with Single Tablet versus dual Tablet Regimen , 2016, HIV medicine.

[3]  J. van Lunzen,et al.  Rilpivirine vs. efavirenz-based single-tablet regimens in treatment-naive adults: week 96 efficacy and safety from a randomized phase 3b study , 2016, AIDS.

[4]  A. Antinori,et al.  Switching to Coformulated Rilpivirine/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir in Virologically Suppressed Patients: Data From a Multicenter Cohort. , 2015, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[5]  P. Clay,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Studies Comparing Single and Multi-Tablet Fixed Dose Combination HIV Treatment Regimens , 2015, Medicine.

[6]  B. Gazzard,et al.  Simplification to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate from ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor antiretroviral therapy in a randomized trial of HIV-1 RNA-suppressed participants , 2014, AIDS.

[7]  M. Prosperi,et al.  Single tablet regimens are associated with reduced Efavirenz withdrawal in antiretroviral therapy naïve or switching for simplification HIV-infected patients , 2014, BMC Infectious Diseases.

[8]  H. Stellbrink,et al.  Week 96 efficacy and safety of rilpivirine in treatment-naive, HIV-1 patients in two Phase III randomized trials , 2013, AIDS.

[9]  B. Gazzard,et al.  Lower Healthcare Costs Associated with the Use of a Single-Pill ARV Regimen in the UK, 2004–2008 , 2012, PloS one.

[10]  D. Bartolozzi,et al.  Self-reported adherence supports patient preference for the single tablet regimen (STR) in the current cART era , 2012, Patient preference and adherence.

[11]  M. Kallen,et al.  Impact of antiretroviral dosing frequency and pill burden on adherence among newly diagnosed, antiretroviral-naïve HIV patients , 2012, International journal of STD & AIDS.

[12]  A. Lazzarin,et al.  Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[13]  B. Clotet,et al.  Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial , 2011, The Lancet.

[14]  D. Bangsberg,et al.  A single tablet regimen is associated with higher adherence and viral suppression than multiple tablet regimens in HIV+ homeless and marginally housed people , 2010, AIDS.

[15]  John T Brooks,et al.  Mortality in the Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Era: Changing Causes of Death and Disease in the HIV Outpatient Study , 2006, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.