Growing data for recycling tenofovir and lamivudine with dolutegravir as empiric second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings : AIDS

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Editorial Comments

Growing data for recycling tenofovir and lamivudine with dolutegravir as empiric second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings

Marukutira, Tafireyia,b; Wood, Brian R.c

Author Information
AIDS 35(9):p 1505-1507, July 15, 2021. | DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000002958
  • Free

The WHO now recommends dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimens as the preferred option for first-line and second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for all persons with HIV [1,2]. For initial ART, this represents a major shift away from nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based first-line ART and widespread efforts to implement options such as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/lamivudine/dolutegravir (TLD) as routine first-line ART are ongoing. As a part of first-line ART, DTG has superior virologic efficacy and durability compared with NNRTIs and compared with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/RTV), in addition to the TLD combination reducing pill burden while offering significant cost savings [1,3]. As part of second-line therapy, DTG was superior to LPV/RTV in trials and similarly offers reduced pill burden, better tolerability and improved cost effectiveness [4]. For second-line ART, the WHO guidelines recommend DTG ‘in combination with an optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI] backbone’ [1]. This is where questions and controversy persist. What constitutes an effective optimized NRTI backbone? Is recycling TDF/3TC (in other words, offering the fixed-dose TLD) effective as second-line ART?

Traditionally, the options for an optimised NRTI backbone have been limited for patients failing a first or second-line drug regimen. The recommended options for a second-line regimen depend on what was used in the first-line regimen. If TDF and 3TC (or FTC) was used, the preferred option becomes AZT and 3TC because the AZT is presumed to be fully active [1]. Clearly, AZT adds pill burden, toxicity risk, laboratory monitoring and cost, and clinicians are wary of it. Recycling TDF/FTC (or 3TC) does not currently qualify as an optimized NRTI backbone for a second-line regimen, is not in line with WHO guidance (which state that insufficient evidence exists for recycling TDF/3TC), and efficacy as an empiric switch along with DTG has not been proven. However, previous studies have examined recycling NRTIs with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors and demonstrated efficacy, suggesting that recycling NRTIs with DTG may also be reasonable [5–7]. Furthermore, the DAWNING study made significant impact by demonstrating that DTG and at least one active NRTI was effective and was superior to LPV/RTV and at least one active NRTI following NNRTI-based first-line ART failure [4]. So, can TLD be implemented as routine second-line ART in real world clinical practice? Can it be prescribed as second-line therapy without a viral load or genotype check for clinics without access or with long delays obtaining those test results? What if there is resistance to both TDF and 3TC, which may occur following failure of NNRTI with TDF/3TC (or FTC)? Will TLD remain effective in this situation?

In this issue of AIDS, Keen et al.[8] present an option to recycle TDF/FTC (or 3TC) in second-line regimens, including a proportion of individuals with resistance to both TDF and FTC/3TC. The findings have significant implications for answering the above questions. The researchers evaluated virologic suppression at 24 weeks in a single-arm, prospective, interventional cohort study of patients failing a first-line regimen containing TDF/3TC (or FTC) with EFV (or NVP) at two clinics in Khayelitsha, South Africa. To achieve 82% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 72–92] viral suppression, the researchers needed a sample size of 57. They successfully enrolled 60 study participants who completed 24 weeks and, notably, 85% remained virologically suppressed on TLD. Most (89%) had resistance to TDF and FTC/3TC, yet high viral suppression rates were achieved. Remarkably, there was no significant difference in virologic suppression between participants with resistance to FTC/3TC alone compared to those with resistance to TDF and FTC/3TC. In addition, the few nonsuppressed participants at 24 weeks mostly had low-level viremia, and the one person with viral loads above 500 copies/ml had no evidence of emergent integrase inhibitor resistance.

Although this was a relatively small, single-arm study with no comparator group, the implications are substantial. The findings corroborate those of other studies while also adding additional insights. For example, the results suggest that TLD remains effective even in the setting of resistance-associated mutations to both the TDF and 3TC components. Ostensibly, this seems like DTG monotherapy, but actually the effectiveness of TLD in this setting is biologically plausible, as noted by the authors, because recycling NRTIs with resistance-associated mutations and maintaining circulating HIV populations with mutations such as M184 V/I or K65R substantially impairs viral fitness [9–11]. Also, NRTI resistance may prevent the emergence of DTG resistance [12]. Other trials and observational studies have also found DTG, or the similar drug bictegravir, combined with fewer than one active NRTI, to be effective, though typically as a switch strategy in the setting of virologic suppression, which makes the current study findings even more notable [13–15].

To demonstrate noninferiority of the recycled TDF and 3TC (or FTC), the researchers could have compared with a AZT and 3TC (or FTC) or ABC and 3TC backbone as standard of care (WHO recommended options). They also could have included cost, tolerability and adverse events comparisons. These will be important outcomes to evaluate in future work. The research protocol also included extra DTG dose in addition to TLD for the initial 2 weeks to overcome lingering induction effects of EFV, but it is unclear whether this is necessary. It will be important to prove whether this is required or not, because avoiding the extra DTG would reduce pill burden and cost further.

We are glad that the investigators will be following participants to 96 weeks and eagerly await follow-up data from this study, as well as larger studies that are examining similar questions. If longer-term data from this study and related controlled trials demonstrate similarly favourable outcomes on the merits of recycling TDF with 3TC (or FTC) in second-line regimens, supporting an empiric switch to TLD for individuals failing first-line NNRTI therapy, the effect on guidelines and clinical practice will be significant.

Acknowledgements

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1. World Health Organization. Updated recommendations on first-line and second-line antiretroviral regimens and postexposure prophylaxis and recommendations on early infant diagnosis of HIV: interim guidelines: supplement to the 2016 consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2018.
2. World Health Organisation. Transition to new antiretroviral drugs in HIV programmes: clinical and programatic considerations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation; 2017.
3. Snedecor SJ, Radford M, Kratochvil D, Grove R, Punekar YS. Comparative efficacy and safety of dolutegravir relative to common core agents in treatment-naïve patients infected with HIV-1: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis 2019; 19:484.
4. Aboud M, Kaplan R, Lombaard J, Zhang F, Hidalgo JA, Mamedova E, et al. Dolutegravir versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir both with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection in whom first-line therapy has failed (DAWNING): an open-label, noninferiority, phase 3b trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2019; 19:253–264.
5. Hill AM, Venter F. The unexpected success of NRTIs in second-line treatment. Lancet Infect Dis 2018; 18:3–5.
6. Hakim JG, Thompson J, Kityo C, Hoppe A, Kambugu A, van Oosterhout JJ, et al. Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infec Dis 2018; 18:47–57.
7. Boyd M, Kumarasamy N, Moore C, Nwizu C, Losso M, et al. SECOND-LINE Study Group. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse trasnscriptase inhibitors versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults with virological failure of a standard first-line ART regimen. Lancet 2013; 381:2091–2099.
8. Keene CM, Griesel R, Zhao Y, Gcwabe Z, Sayed K, Hill A, et al. Virologic efficacy of tenofovir, lamivudine and dolutegravir as second-line antiretroviral therapy in adults failing a tenofovir-based first-line regimen. AIDS 2021; 35:1423–1432.
9. Ross L, Parkin N, Lanier R. The number of HIV major NRTI mutations correlates directly with other antiretroviral-associated mutations and indirectly with replicative capacity and reduced drug susceptibility. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2008; 24:617–620.
10. Deval J, White KL, Miller MD, Parkin NT, Courcambeck J, Halfon P, et al. Mechanistic basis for reduced viral and enzymatic fitness of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase containing both K65R and M184 V mutations. J Biol Chem 2004; 279:509–516.
11. White KL, Margot NA, Wrin T, Petropoulous CJ, Miller MD, Naeger LK. Molecular mechanisms of resistance to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with reverse transcriptaase mutations K65R and K65R + M184 V and their effects on enzyme function and viral replication capacity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2002; 46:3437–3446.
12. Acosta RK, Willkom M, Andreatta K, Liu H, Martin R, Parvangada A, et al. Switching to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) from dolutegravir (DTG) + F/TAF or DTG + F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in the presence of preexisting NRTI resistance. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2020; 85:363–371.
13. De Miguel R, Rial-Crestelo D, Dominguez-Dominguez L, Montejano R, Esteban-Cantos A, Aranguren-Rivas P, et al. Dolutegravir plus lamivudine for maintenance of HIV viral suppression in adults with and without historical resistance to lamivudine: 48-week results of a nonrandomized, pilot clinical trial (ART-PRO). EBioMedicine 2020; 55:102779.
14. Charpentier C, Peytavin G, Lê MP, Joly V, Cabras O, Perrier M, et al. High virologic suppression regardless of the genotypic susceptibility score after switching to a dolutegravir-based regimen: week 48 results in an observational cohort. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018; 73:1665–1671.
15. Sangaré MN, Baril J-G, de Pokomandy A, Ferreira Guerra S, Carabali M, Laprise C, Thomas R, et al. Treatment switch to dolutegravir with 2 nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) in comparison to continuation with protease inhibitor/ritonavir among patients with human immunodeficiency virus at risk for prior NRTI resistance: a cohort analysis of real-world data. Open Forum Infect Dis 2020; 7:ofaa404.
Keywords:

antiretroviral therapy; HIV; reverse transcriptase inhibitors

Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.