Efficacy, tolerability and risk factors for virological failure of darunavir-based therapy for treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Abstract

Objectives Darunavir was designed for activity against HIV resistant to other protease inhibitors (PIs). We assessed the efficacy, tolerability and risk factors for virological failure of darunavir for treatment-experienced patients seen in clinical practice. Methods We included all patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study starting darunavir after recording a viral load above 1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL given prior exposure to both PIs and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We followed these patients for up to 72 weeks, assessed virological failure using different loss of virological response algorithms and evaluated risk factors for virological failure using a Bayesian method to fit discrete Cox proportional hazard models. Results Among 130 treatment-experienced patients starting darunavir, the median age was 47 years, the median duration of HIV infection was 16 years, and 82% received mono or dual antiretroviral therapy before starting highly active antiretroviral therapy. During a median patient follow-up period of 45 weeks, 17% of patients stopped taking darunavir after a median exposure of 20 weeks. In patients followed beyond 48 weeks, the rate of virological failure at 48 weeks was at most 20%. Virological failure was more likely where patients had previously failed on both amprenavir and saquinavir and as the number of previously failed PI regimens increased. Conclusions As a component of therapy for treatment-experienced patients, darunavir can achieve a similar efficacy and tolerability in clinical practice to that seen in clinical trials. Clinicians should consider whether a patient has failed on both amprenavir and saquinavir and the number of failed PI regimens before prescribing darunavir.

Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Virus Reinfection After Sustained Virologic Response in Patients Coinfected With HIV

“…We then assigned wide log-normal distributions to each category such that these distributions reduced the probability of extreme hazard ratios (HRs; Supplementary Table 2). We used a prior HR of 1.5 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.38–6.0) for possibly harmful risk factors, 2.0 (95% CrI, 0.5–8.0) for probably harmful risk factors, 1.0 (95% CrI, 0.25–4.0) for factors of uncertain direction, and 0.69 (95% CrI, 0.17–2.7) for possibly protective risk factors [20, 23]. We used R 3.1.0, R2WinBUGS 2.1–20 and WinBUGS 1.4.3 for our analysis.…”

The effectiveness of daclatasvir based therapy in European patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced liver disease

“…Weakly informative priors restrict covariate effects to a range of values that is clinically sensible, ruling out extreme values that no knowledgeable clinician would find plausible [15]. The effects of genotype 3 and of genotypes other than 1 or 3 were both assumed to be of ‘uncertain direction’ (prior odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.25 to 4.0); no prior treatment was assumed to be ‘possibly beneficial’ (prior OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.38 to 6.0); and no or stable cirrhosis was assumed to be ‘probably beneficial’ (prior OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 8.0) [16, 17]. There is clinical interest in the value of including ribavirin in treatment combinations but limited information [18, 19].…”

Effectiveness and risk factors for virological outcome of darunavir-based therapy for treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients

“…Thus, the Swiss Cohort Study reported that as a component of therapy for treatment-experienced patients, DRV/r could achieve a similar efficacy and tolerability in clinical practice to those seen in clinical trials. Clinicians should consider whether a patient has failed treatment with both lopinavir and saquinavir and the number of failed PI regimens before prescribing darunavir [ 7 ]. In Brazil, a cohort study was conducted with DRV/r plus an OBR and found that it was a highly effective salvage regimen under clinical routine conditions [ 8 ].…”