Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Institutional members access full text with Ovid®

Uptake and effectiveness of two-drug compared to three-drug antiretroviral Regimens among HIV-positive Individuals in Europe

Neesgaard, Bastiana; Pelchen-Matthews, Annegretb; Ryom, Lenea; Florence, Ericc; Peters, Larsa; Roen, Ashleyb; Svedhem, Veronikad; Clarke, Amandae; Benfield, Thomasf; Mitsura, Viktarg; Moreno, Santiagoh; Beniowski, Mareki; Begovac, Josipj; Matulionyte, Raimondak; Trofimova, Tatyanal; Elbirt, Danielm; Kundro, Marianan; Vullo, Vincenzoo; Behrens, Georgp; Staub, Thereseq; Ragone, Leighr; Vannappagari, Vanir; Lundgren, Jensa; Mocroft, Amandab on behalf of the EuroSIDA study

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002320

Objective: To assess the use of two-drug antiretroviral regimens (2DR) and virologic and immunologic outcomes compared to three-drug regimens (3DR) in the EuroSIDA cohort.

Design: Multicentre, prospective cohort study.

Methods: Logistic regression was used to analyse the uptake and outcomes among HIV-positive individuals who started or switched to a 2DR compared to those on a 3DR. Virologic outcomes were assessed on-treatment as the proportion of individuals with controlled viral load (VL, <400 copies/mL), or with a composite modified FDA snapshot endpoint (mFDA), with mFDA success defined as controlled VL at 6- or 12-months for individuals with a known VL, no regimen changes, AIDS or death. Immunologic response was defined as a 100 cells/μL or a 25% increase in CD4 counts from baseline.

Results: Between 1/7/2010-31/12/2016, 423 individuals started or switched to a 2DR (8 antiretroviral-naïve) and 4347 started a 3DR (566 naïve). Individuals on 2DR tended to have suppressed VL, higher CD4 cell counts and more comorbidities at baseline compared to those on 3DR. There were no differences in the proportions of individuals who obtained on-treatment or mFDA success, and no significant differences in the adjusted odds ratios for mFDA success or immunologic responses between the 2DR and 3DR groups at 6- or 12-months.

Conclusion: In routine clinical practice, 2DR were largely used for virologically suppressed individuals with higher cumulative exposure to ARVs and comorbidities. Virologic and immunologic outcomes were similar among those on 2DR or 3DR, although confounding by indication cannot be fully excluded due to the observational nature of the study.

aCHIP, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

bUniversity College London, UK

cInstitute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium

dDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden

eRoyal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton, UK

fHvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

gGomel State Medical University, Belarus

hHospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain

iSzpital Specjalistyczny, Chorzów Poland

jUniversity Hospital of Infectious Diseases, Zagreb, Croatia

kVilnius University, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos

lNovgorod Centre for AIDS Prevention and Control, Russia

mKaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

nHospital JM Ramos Mejia, Buenos Aires, Argentina

oSapienza University of Rome, Italy

pMedizinische Hochschule Hannover, Germany

qCentre Hospitalier de Luxembourg

rViiV Healthcare, RTP, North Carolina, USA.

Correspondence to Bastian Neesgaard, MD, CHIP, Department of Infectious Diseases, Section 2100, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. Tel: +45 35 45 57 70; fax: +45 35 45 57 58; e-mail:

Received 15 March, 2019

Revised 9 June, 2019

Accepted 16 June, 2019

Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal's Website (

Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.