Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Trends in antiretroviral therapy prescription, durability and modification: new drugs, more changes, but less failure

Eaton, Ellen, F.a; Tamhane, Ashutosha; Davy-Mendez, Thibautb; Mathews, William, C.c; Moore, Richard, D.d; Saag, Michael, S.a; Mugavero, Michael, J.a

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001708
CLINICAL SCIENCE
Free
SDC

Objective: To evaluate the real world durability of contemporary ART for treatment-naïve people living with HIV (PLWH).

Design: A retrospective follow-up study in a multisite cohort.

Methods: This study of the CNICS (CFAR Network of Integrated Clinical Systems) cohort integrates data from eight Center for AIDS Research (CFARs). PLWH initiating ART between 2007 and 2014 were included. Durability was defined as time from the initiation until discontinuation/modification using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Cox Proportional Hazards measured associations with various sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Results: Among 5373 PLWH, the initial regimen was modified in 2285 (43%) patients. Efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (n = 2173, 40%) was the most commonly prescribed initial ART regimen; elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir became more common after 2012. Median durability for all regimens was 48.6 months. There were statistically significant differences in median durability for NNRTI, InSTI, and protease inhibitor-based regimens, which lasted 61, 44, and 32 months, respectively. Female sex (aHR = 1.4; 95% CI 1.2–1.6), intravenous drug use (aHR = 1.6; 95% CI 1.3–1.9), and CD4+ cell count less than 200 cells/μl (aHR = 1.2; 95% CI 1.1–1.3) were significantly associated with regimen modification. Compared with InSTI, those receiving an InSTI/protease inhibitor (aHR = 2.7; 95% CI 2.0–3.7) or protease inhibitor-based ART (aHR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.6–2.2) were significantly more likely to be modified; but those receiving NNRTI (aHR = 1.1; 95% CI 0.9–1.3) were not.

Conclusion: In treatment-naive PLWH, NNRTI and InSTI-based ART were most durable, relative to protease inhibitor and InSTI/protease inhibitor-based ART, and were least likely to be modified/discontinued. A greater understanding of reasons for regimen modification/discontinuation is needed to analyze contemporary regimen durability.

aDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama

bGillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina

cDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of San Diego Health System, San Diego, California

dJohns Hopkins University, Division of Infectious Diseases, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Correspondence to Ellen F. Eaton, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Alabama at Birmingham, BBRB 206-B, 845 19th St South, Birmingham, AL 35294-2170, USA. Tel: +1 205 975 0661; fax: +1 205 934 5600; e-mail: eeaton@uabmc.edu

Received 24 June, 2017

Revised 15 August, 2017

Accepted 17 August, 2017

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 (http://www.AIDSonline.com).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

Currently, HIV treatment is recommended for all persons living with HIV (PLWH) regardless of their immune status in order to prevent HIV-related morbidity, mortality and reduce transmission to others [1,2]. There are multiple first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens recommended for treatment-naïve PLWH based on efficacy and tolerability data obtained in randomized controlled trials [3,4]. Each contains three or more antiretroviral agents, and most contain an Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor (InSTI). A majority of these ART regimens contain an antiretroviral agent that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the last 3 years based on short-term surrogate endpoints including achieving viral suppression [5–7]. Further, these first-line regimens have demonstrated relatively little toxicity, like neurologic disturbances, in select samples and controlled settings [8,9]. As a result of their novelty, many of these contemporary ART regimens have not been studied in observational cohorts.

As participants in a randomized control trial (RCT) may vary greatly from real world populations (race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and adherence rates), and additional supports are afforded by the RCT environment, it is important to study ART outcomes as a part of routine care to demonstrate the comparative effectiveness of novel ART [10,11]. Real world ART durability may reflect more subjective treatment outcomes like quality of life or mild side effects that affect adherence in routine care and are likely of greater importance in clinic-based samples consisting of more diverse and heterogeneous PLWH in routine HIV care [12]. Provider and patient decisions also contribute to real world durability [13].

Recently, two national multisite cohorts have demonstrated improved durability of ART [14,15]. Notably, these studies extended to 2009 and 2011, respectively, precluding the study of novel antiretroviral agents, like elvitegravir, and dolutegravir, which are now included in first-line treatment guidelines [3]. In our single-site clinic population, we found that in treatment-naïve individuals, ART durability was decreasing in recent years (2010–2012 versus 2007–2009); largely because of the availability of newer ART regimens, which afford improved tolerability and dosing convenience [13,16]. This trend emerged whenever patients and providers selected novel ART to replace older ART, abbreviating the durability of older regimens in the current treatment era. Yet, these findings are already dated by the dynamic ART treatment landscape in which several novel regimens have been FDA-approved and increasingly adopted as first-line ART since the conclusion of this study.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the durability, defined as time to regimen modification (including discontinuation), of novel ART regimens, including those released since 2012, as part of routine care in a multisite cohort in the United States. We examined various socio-demographic and clinical characteristics associated with the initial regimen modification. We hypothesized that novel InSTI-based regimens would be more durable than older regimens and that overall durability would decrease in more recent years, reflective of a treatment landscape that now includes multiple well tolerated co-formulated and single tablet ART regimens, based on prior research in our clinic cohort and elsewhere [13,16].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

This was a retrospective follow-up study conducted within the CFAR Network of Integrated Systems (CNICS) Cohort. CNICS is a research network capturing clinical, socio-demographic, and behavioral information in an electronic database including more than 32 000 PLWH in the modern ART era at eight HIV treatment sites in the United States, including University of Alabama at Birmingham; University of Washington; University of California, San Francisco; University of California, San Diego; Case Western Reserve University; University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Johns Hopkins University; and Fenway Health/Harvard University. The CNICS data repository includes social, demographic, pharmacologic, laboratory, and diagnostic data collected through electronic medical records at each of the eight CNICS sites [17]. Quality assessment is performed at all sites individually prior to submission to the CNICS data management core. All data that are transmitted to the central repository undergoes additional quality assessment to ensure accuracy. We included treatment-naïve adult patients (>18 years of age) initiating ART (≥3 drugs) for at least 14 days between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2014 in the CNICS Cohort. Administrative censoring occurred between January 2013 and July 2015, depending on data collection at each CNICS site. We excluded patients with a baseline (at ART initiation) viral load <200 copies/ml to remove elite controllers as well as those potentially misclassified as ART-naive from the sample. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, and each participating CNICS site has Institutional Review Board approval for the cohort.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Outcome variable

The outcome of interest was the durability of the initial regimen. Durability was calculated as the number of months from the regimen initiation until discontinuation/modification or death, whichever occurred earlier (‘Modified’). Regimen modification was defined as any change in the ART composition. Patients who did not experience the event (‘Continued’) were censored at their last contact with the health system (e.g. arrived visit, lab result); 90 days were added to the duration of the ART regimen from that date assuming patients continued their medication for that period. If a patient was switched from individual drugs to a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of the same constituent drugs, the regimen was considered ‘Continued.’

Back to Top | Article Outline

Independent variables

Baseline HIV biomarkers markers (CD4+ cell count, viral load), age, sex, race, HIV transmission risk factor, insurance status, and ART regimens were extracted. ART regimens were categorized according to regimen composition (≥3 antiretroviral agents) and class of the ART anchor drug. Initiation era was categorized as 2007–2009, 2010–2012, and 2013–2015 according to the calendar year of regimen initiation. Drug classes included those receiving a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor (InSTI)-based regimen or an integrase inhibitor combined with a boosted protease inhibitor (InSTI/PI). Those receiving an NNRTI/InSTI-based and NNRTI/PI-based regimens were categorized as InSTI -based and protease inhibitor-based, respectively, according to the most potent component [18,19].

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical analyses

Descriptive evaluation was performed by grouping patients as ‘Modified’ or ‘Continued’ depending upon the regimen modification status as described earlier. Continuous variables were reported as means with standard deviations (SDs). Categorical variables were reported as frequencies (with percentages). Time to modification of the initial regimen (durability) was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Median durability time is reported in months and compared across stratified variables using the log-rank test. Association of various characteristics with time to regimen modification was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models to estimate crude and adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We adjusted for the following clinically important variables: age, race, sex, transmission risk factor [MSM, intravenous drug use (IVDU), heterosexuality], CD4+ cell count, viral load, initiation era (2007–2009, 2010–2012, 2013–2015), and class of ART regimen. Additionally, a multivariable model using individual drug regimen instead of class was also examined. Statistical significance was set at 0.05 (two-tailed). All analyses were performed using SAS statistical software, version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

A total of 5373 patients met study inclusion criteria with a mean age of 38 years (SD 10.9) at ART initiation. The participants were 38% black, 85% men; 64% MSM, 25% uninsured. The baseline mean CD4+ cell count was 332 cells/μl (SD 226), and the mean baseline viral load was 31 162 copies/ml (SD 138 348). Efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (n = 2173, 40%) was the most commonly prescribed initial ART regimen overall (Table 1), but elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir became more common after FDA approval in 2012 (Supplemental Figure, http://links.lww.com/QAD/B196). A majority were receiving an NNRTI-based regimen (n = 2637), and a minority were receiving an NNRTI/InSTI (n = 34) and NNRTI/protease inhibitor based regimen (n = 26), which were categorized as InSTI and protease inhibitor-based, respectively, as described above.

Table 1

Table 1

Back to Top | Article Outline

Regimen durability

Overall, the median durability of initial ART regimens was 49 months (95% CI 45–51). Women, younger patients (<30 years old), black patients (Fig. 1a–c), and IVDU had significantly shorter initial ART regimen durability. The median durability of NNRTI-based regimens was longest (median durability, 61 months), followed by InSTI- based (44 months) and protease inhibitor-based regimens (32 months; Fig. 1d). The relative durability of ART regimens according to class, three-drug composition, and year of initiation is summarized in Table 2. Efavirenz and rilpivirine-based ART were the most durable: 62 and 70 months, respectively. Raltegravir-based ART were the most durable of the InSTI-based regimens, whereas evitegravir and dolutegravir-based ART durability were inestimable because the median had not yet been reached (over half of patients ‘Continued’ on these ART regimens). Reduced median durability of ART regimens was found in regimens initiated in 2010–2012 (44 months) relative to 2007–2009 (56 months). Those initiating in 2013–2015 experienced a median durability that was inestimable (25th percentile: 12 months) (Fig. 1c; P < 0.0001).

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Table 2

Table 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Factors associated with time to regimen modification

The initial ART regimen was modified in 2285 patients (43%). Table 1 compares the baseline clinical and sociodemographic characteristics (obtained prior to ART initiation) of those who modified versus continued their initial regimen. Of those who modified their regimen, 55% (n = 1257) had a detectable viral load at the time of modification. According to ART class ‘backbone,’ the percentage who modified their regimen with a viral load at least 200 copies/ml was 51, 35, 10 and 3% for NNRTI, protease inhibitor, InSTI and InSTI/protease inhibitor-based regimens, respectively. The percentage who modified their regimen in the setting of a viral load at least 200 copies/ml (i.e. virologic failure) was less than 10% for all regimens except the atazanavir/ritonavir/emtricitabine/tenofovir (15%), efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (43%), and regimens classified as other (21%). The percentage who modified with a detectable viral load also decreased each year from 56% (2007) to 12% (2015).

In univariate analysis (Table 3), the following factors were significantly associated with regimen modification: ART backbone class (NNRTI, protease inhibitor, InSTI, InSTI/PI), black race, female sex, public and unknown insurance, IVDU, heterosexual HIV transmission, lower CD4+ cell count and initiation in more recent years (2010–2012 and 2013–2015). In a multivariable model, patients aged 30–45 were less likely to modify their initial ART regimen (aHR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.7–0.9, Table 3) relative to those less than 30 years old. Those with black race (aHR = 1.1; 95% CI 1.0–1.2) relative to white race, female sex (aHR = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.6), IVDU (aHR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.3–1.9) relative to homosexual HIV transmission risks, and CD4+ cell count less than 200 cells/μl (aHR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3) relative to CD4+ cell count at least 200 cells/μl were more likely to have regimen modification. Compared with patients initiating ART during 2007–2009, those initiating ART during 2010–2012 (aHR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.1–1.3) and 2013–2015 (aHR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.3–1.8) era were more likely to modify ART. Relative to InSTI-based regimens, those regimens that were InSTI/PI (aHR = 2.7, 95% CI 2.0–3.7) or protease inhibitor-based (aHR = 1.9, 95% CI 1.6–2.2) were significantly more likely to be modified. NNRTI-based regimens were not significantly more likely to be modified relative to InSTI -based regimens.

Table 3

Table 3

Next, evaluation of individual regimen durability according to three or four-drug composition rather than drug class of the anchor drug were evaluated (Table 2). The results of multivariable analysis were similar to the anchor drug class analyses with regards to socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. Relative to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir, the most commonly prescribed regimen in recent years, all regimens were significantly more likely to be modified with the exception of dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine, which was statistically insignificant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

In this diverse, multisite cohort of treatment-naïve PLWH in the United States, the overall durability of initial ART regimens in our cohort was over 4 years. A majority of treatment-naive PLWH (57%) remained on their initial regimen at the study end date. The dynamic treatment landscape in which an increased number of co-formulated and single tablet ART regimens became available over the study period (2007–2015) is evident in the changing prescribing trends, the increasing number of ART modifications, and the apparent reduction in ART durability (Fig. 1c) in more recent years. Although efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir previously was the most prevalent initial regimen, elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir has eclipsed it as the most commonly prescribed first-line ART in this real-world cohort [20]. Of all drug classes, InSTI and NNRTI-based regimens were the most durable and least likely to be modified. Consistent with our hypothesis, new regimens dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine and elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir were highly durable and least likely to be modified over the study period. Notably, dramatic shifts were observed in virologic failure (>200 copies/ml) at the time of ART modification over the study period. Whereas over 50% of modifications were associated with virologic failure in the earlier period, fewer than 10% of ART changes were in the setting of virologic failure in more recent years. Taken together, these findings suggest that the contemporary ART era affording numerous simple, well tolerated regimens has resulted in treatment changes for convenience and side effects, rather than virologic failure, paradoxically resulting in less durable regimens in more recent years.

Despite current dogma and treatment guideline recommendations, results demonstrate that NNRTI-based regimens are highly durable, even surpassing the InSTI-based regimens, and unlikely to be modified. The relative NNRTI durability is likely because of longer time on the market: most NNRTI-based regimens have been available for more than 7 years, unlike many InSTI-based ART. Moreover, for a long period, the only approved single tablet ART regimen available was NNRTI-based, hence, side effects with this regimen may have been more acceptable to patients and providers in the absence of other simple regimens. Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that NNRTI-based regimens are extremely durable with a median time to modification of 61 months. Whenever comparing ART regimens according to composition, all but one (i.e. dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine) are more likely to be modified relative to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir. This likely reflects changing prescribing practices: InSTI -based regimens, especially single tablet formulations, are more popular, and appear to be usurping older NNRTI and protease inhibitor-based regimens, leading to more regimen modifications (Supplemental Figure, http://links.lww.com/QAD/B196) [13,21].

Our study is unique in that it includes novel ART, like raltegravir, elvitegravir, and dolutegravir which were introduced over the study period in 2007, 2012, and 2013, respectively. It is likely that the increased ART modification and decreased ART durability in more recent years (2010–2012, 2013–2015 versus 2007–2009) results from a preference for newer, convenient single tablet regimens including those containing novel ART anchor drugs, dolutegravir and elvitegravir [13,16]. As older regimens are replaced by newer, once daily regimens, their measured durability is subsequently abbreviated. These findings need further study to analyze if the apparent reduced durability of InSTI -based regimens relative to NNRTIs is because of switching within the class (i.e. raltegravir to dolutegravir; dolutegravir multitablet to FDC). Furthermore, the reduced number of PLWH who modified their initial regimen because of elevated viral load levels (i.e. viral load ≥200 copies/ml) supports the notion that people are switching their regimens for reasons other than virologic failure. Regimen simplification and convenience or convenience only is a leading cause of regimen modification, and virologic failure, resistance and/or treatment-limiting side effects are less likely in the current treatment landscape [16,21].

Although there are inherent challenges in measuring durability (e.g. ART availability, provider preferences), whenever adjusting for ART regimen, year of initiation, and other sociodemographic characteristics, we observed notable differences in vulnerable populations. Youth, women, blacks, and IVDU experienced reduced ART durability. It is likely that those with comorbid IVDU experience reduced adherence, resistance, and virologic failure contributing to this trend [22,23]. Poor durability in women, youth and blacks is more complex. In our study and others, women are more likely to modify their regimen and have significantly shorter time to regimen modification [13,23]. This data suggests there may be ART differences related to pregnancy, pharmacokinetics, and/or health disparities in women with HIV [22,23]. Black experience slightly reduced ART durability relative to white PLWH whenever adjusting for clinical and ART-related differences. ART outcomes experienced by racial and sexual minorities in the contemporary ART treatment era should be further investigated in observational settings to identify and eliminate disparities. Finally, evaluating and optimizing poor ART outcomes in those less than 30 years of age is crucial as this population is disproportionately affected by HIV in the modern era [24,25].

This study is limited by a lack of data on patient-reported reasons for regimen modification, which could include side effects, toxicity, and desire or just desire for more convenient dosing (i.e. single tablet regimen). Likewise, reasons for regimen selection (e.g. opportunistic infection, renal insufficiency) were not available but would shed additional light on prescribing patterns.

In addition, because of a small number and short follow-up time of PLWH receiving some of the most novel regimens (i.e. dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine), it is difficult to interpret durability at the regimen level. Results that categorize by class, on the other hand, are sufficiently powered and have a greater cumulative follow-up time to allow interpretation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study evaluates the durability of novel ART agents and regimens, including InSTI and FDC single tablet ART, in treatment-naïve PLWH in a real world, multisite cohort initiating therapy from 2007 to 2015. We found that new classes and antiretroviral agents are highly durable relative to older, multitablet regimens. In addition, the adoption of these novel regimens has contributed to an overall reduction in durability and increase in regimen modifications over time. Simultaneously, a dramatic temporal reduction in virologic failure at the time of regimen modification was observed. Taken together, these findings suggest that the contemporary ART era affording numerous simple, well tolerated regimens has resulted in treatment changes for convenience and side effects, rather than virologic failure, paradoxically resulting in less durable regimens in more recent years. Finally, minorities, youth, women and IVDU have disparate ART durability outcomes, which suggest ongoing ART challenges in vulnerable populations and deserves further evaluation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge the CFAR Network of Integrated Systems (CNICS) for their assistance with data collection.

Authorship: E.F.E. was primarily responsible for study design, acquisition of data, interpretation of data, drafting and revising manuscript and approving final version. T.D.-M. assisted with data interpretation and manuscript revision. A.T. conducted data analysis and assisted in data interpretation, reviewing, and revising the manuscript. Dr W.C.M., R.D.M., M.S.S. and M.J.M. assisted with study conception, data interpretation, and revising the original manuscript.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

Source of funding: E.F.E. has received support (to UAB) for this project from the Bristol Myers Squibb Virology Fellows Grant. She has also received support from Merck (to UAB) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K12HS023009). This study is also supported by the CNICS cohort (R24A1067039) and the UAB Center for AIDS Research (CFAR; P30-A1027767). A.T. and T.D.-M. have nothing to disclose. W.C.M. has nothing to disclose. R.D.M. has received grant funding (to JHU) from the NIH and from Medscape to develop educational content. M.S.S. has received research grants and support (to UAB) from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Merck, Proteus, and ViiV Healthcare. He has also served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Inc, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare. M.J.M. has received grant support (to UAB) from Bristol Myers Squibb Virology Fellows Research Training Program and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Lundgren JD, Babiker AG, Gordin F, Emery S, Grund B, et al. INSIGHT START Study Group. Initiation of antiretroviral therapy in early asymptomatic HIV infection. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:795–807.
2. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. HPTN 052 Study Team. Antiretroviral therapy for the prevention of HIV-1 transmission. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:830–839.
3. DHHS. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in hiv-1-infected adults and adolescents. Available from: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/guidelines/html/1/adult-and-adolescent-arv-guidelines/0. [Accessed 19 November 2017]
4. Gunthard HF, Saag MS, Benson CA, del Rio C, Eron JJ, Gallant JE, et al. Antiretroviral drugs for treatment and prevention of hiv infection in Adults: 2016 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel. JAMA 2016; 316:191–210.
5. Clotet B, Feinberg J, van Lunzen J, Khuong-Josses MA, Antinori A, Dumitru I, et al. Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 48 week results from the randomised open-label phase 3b study. Lancet 2014; 383:2222–2231.
6. Walmsley SL, Antela A, Clumeck N, Duiculescu D, Eberhard A, Gutiérrez F, et al. Dolutegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1807–1818.
7. Sax PE, Wohl D, Yin MT, Post F, DeJesus E, Saag M, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, noninferiority trials. Lancet 2015; 385:2606–2615.
8. Stellbrink HJ, Orkin C, Arribas JR, Compston J, Gerstoft J, Van Wijngaerden E, et al. Comparison of changes in bone density and turnover with abacavir-lamivudine versus tenofovir-emtricitabine in HIV-infected adults: 48-week results from the ASSERT study. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:963–972.
9. Wohl D, Oka S, Clumeck N, Clarke A, Brinson C, Stephens J, et al. Brief Report: a randomized, double-blind comparison of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, each coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine for initial HIV-1 treatment: week 96 results. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 72:58–64.
10. Castillo-Mancilla JR, Cohn SE, Krishnan S, Cespedes M, Floris-Moore M, Schulte G, et al. Minorities remain underrepresented in HIV/AIDS research despite access to clinical trials. HIV Clin Trials 2014; 15:14–26.
11. Nieuwkerk PT, Sprangers MA, Burger DM, Hoetelmans RM, Hugen PW, Danner SA, et al. Limited patient adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy for hiv-1 infection in an observational cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161:1962–1968.
12. Al-Dakkak I, Patel S, McCann E, Gadkari A, Prajapati G, Maiese EM. The impact of specific HIV treatment-related adverse events on adherence to antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Care 2013; 25:400–414.
13. Eaton EF, Tamhane AR, Burkholder GA, Willig JH, Saag MS, Mugavero MJ. Unanticipated effects of new drug availability on antiretroviral durability: implications for comparative effectiveness research. Open Forum Infect Dis 2016; 3:ofw109.
14. Sheth AN, Ofotokun I, Buchacz K, Armon C, Chmiel JS, et al. Antiretroviral regimen durability and success in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients by year of treatment initiation, United States, 1996–2011. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015; 71:47–56.
15. Slama L, Li X, Brown T, Jacobson LP, Pialoux G, Macatangay B, et al. Increases in duration of first highly active antiretroviral therapy over time (1996–2009) and associated factors in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2014; 65:57–64.
16. Di Biagio A, Cozzi-Lepri A, Prinapori R, Angarano G, Gori A, Quirino T, et al. Discontinuation of initial antiretroviral therapy in clinical practice: moving toward individualized therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2016; 71:263–271.
17. Kitahata MM, Rodriguez B, Haubrich R, Boswell S, Mathews WC, Lederman MM, et al. Cohort profile: the Centers for AIDS Research Network of Integrated Clinical Systems. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37:948–955.
18. Markowitz M, Nguyen BY, Gotuzzo E, Mendo F, Ratanasuwan W, Kovacs C, et al. Rapid and durable antiretroviral effect of the HIV-1 Integrase inhibitor raltegravir as part of combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: results of a 48-week controlled study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007; 46:125–133.
19. Arribas JR, Clumeck N, Nelson M, Hill A, van Delft Y, Moecklinghoff C. The MONET trial: week 144 analysis of the efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) monotherapy versus DRV/r plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, for patients with viral load <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at baseline. HIV Med 2012; 13:398–405.
20. McKinnell JA, Willig JH, Westfall AO, Nevin C, Allison JJ, Raper JL, et al. Antiretroviral prescribing patterns in treatment-naive patients in the United States. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2010; 24:79–85.
21. Cotte L, Ferry T, Pugliese P, Valantin MA, Allavena C, Cabié A, et al. Effectiveness and tolerance of single tablet versus once daily multiple tablet regimens as first-line antiretroviral therapy - Results from a large French multicenter cohort study. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0170661.
22. Robison LS, Westfall AO, Mugavero MJ, Kempf MC, Cole SR, Allison JJ, et al. Short-term discontinuation of HAART regimens more common in vulnerable patient populations. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2008; 24:1347–1355.
23. Hughes AJ, Mattson CL, Scheer S, Beer L, Skarbinski J. Discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy among adults receiving HIV care in the United States. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2014; 66:80–89.
24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reportable STDs in young people 15–24 years of age, by state. 2013; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/by-age/15-24-all-stds/default.htm.
25. The Centers for Disease Control. HIV in the United States: at a glance. July 2015. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html. [Accessed 19 November 2017]
Keywords:

antiretroviral therapy; discontinuation; durability; HIV; persistency

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.