: Switching from PI/r to RAL induced significant changes in several cardiovascular biomarkers that were not completely explained by lipid changes.

There are few clinical data on the combination abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir. We compared the outcomes of patients from the SPIRAL trial receiving either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine at baseline who had taken at least one dose of either raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. For the purpose of this analysis, treatment failure was defined as virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ‡ 50 copies/ ml) or discontinuation of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events, consent withdrawal, or lost to follow-up. There were 143 (72.59%) patients with tenofovir/emtricitabine and 54 (27.41%) with abacavir/lamivudine. In the raltegravir group, there were three (11.11%) treatment failures with abacavir/ lamivudine and eight (10.96%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference 0.15%; 95% CI -17.90 to 11.6). In the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group, there were four (14.81%) treatment failures with abacavir/ lamivudine and 12 (17.14%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference -2.33%; 95% CI -16.10 to 16.70). Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased through the study more pronouncedly with abacavir/lamivudine than with tenofovir/emtricitabine and differences in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio between both combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tended to be higher in the raltegravir group, although differences at 48 weeks were not significant. While no patient discontinued abacavir/lamivudine due to adverse events, four (2.80%) patients (all in the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group) discontinued tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events ( p = 0.2744). The results of this analysis do not suggest that outcomes of abacavir/lamivudine are worse than those of tenofovir/emtricitabine when combined with raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults.

The aim of this study was to compare 4 different ARV regimens in a clinical cohort in Brazil, with regard to the virologic and immunologic responses, clinical failure and reasons for changing. To compare the virologic response and clinical failure between groups we used the Cox and Kaplan Meier proportional hazard models. To analyze the immunologic outcome, we used multilevel GLLAMM and mixed effect linear regression models. To compare regimen change outcomes we used the Pearson's chi-square test. We included 840 participants distributed across the groups according to the initial ART regimen. The mean followup period was 27.8 months. Almost half the sample initiated ART with AIDS-related signs/ symptoms. Virologic response was effective in 79.6% of participants within 12 months. The tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz group presented a higher proportion of virologic response (VL<50 at 6 months) when compared to the zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz group. There was no difference between the regimens regarding the immunologic response. A total of 17.3% of individuals changed regimen because of failure and 46.5% due to adverse events. Changes due to adverse events were more frequent in the group using zidovudine/lamivudine/efavirenz. The proportion of hospitalizations at 1 year was higher in the zidovudine/ lamivudine/efavirenz group when compared to the tenofovir/lamivudine/efavirenz group. The effectiveness outcomes between the regimens were similar. Some differences may be due to the individual characteristics of patients, toxicity and acceptability of drugs. Studies are needed that compare similarly effective regimens and their respective treatment costs and financial impacts on SUS (Integrated Healthcare System).