Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
AIDS Rev. 2017 Oct-Dec;19(3):167-172.
The introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the 1990s has fundamentally transformed the landscape of HIV medicine, greatly improved disease morbidity and mortality, and reduced transmission rates across all demographic groups. Central to this success was the idea that to achieve best disease outcomes and minimize the development of drug resistance, at least three antiretroviral agents should be used for HIV treatment. This therapeutic strategy is a core tenet of HIV medicine, backed by incontrovertible scientific evidence, and made easy to deploy by the high compliance levels with once-daily coformulations, which have generally been well tolerated. However, there has been increasing support for a paradigm shift toward dual therapy in recent years, particularly during the maintenance therapy phase of treatment. This concept advocates that once virologic suppression has been achieved with at least three antiretroviral drugs during the treatment initiation phase, a switch to a two-drug regimen should be possible. The results of Phase III of the SWORD trials (Llibre et al., Abstract 44LB) and LAMIDOL trial (Joly et al., Abstract 458) presented at the 2017. Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections earlier this year seemed to lend support this hypothesis. More new evidence was recently presented at the 2107 International HIV/AIDS Society (IAS) meeting in Paris that adds to the growing body of evidence in favor of a two-drug regimen approach in maintenance therapy. The LATTE-2 study (Eron et al., Abstract 5628) was of major interest because of the exciting new therapeutic options that long-acting injectable antiretroviral agents may bring in the near future. However, more than that, the findings of comparable response between a traditional three-drug oral regimen and a novel injectable two-drug regimen at 96 weeks were quite noteworthy. In this Phase II, multicenter open-label study of 286 HIV-infected ARTnaïve patients, once-daily oral cabotegravir/abacavir/lamivudine achieved virologic suppression in 84% of study participants. In comparison, 87% in the injectable cabotegravir/rilpivirine once every 4-weekly group and 94% in injectable cabotegravir/rilpivirine once every 8-weekly group remained suppressed at 96 weeks. Crucially, no drug resistance mutations were seen in study participants who remained on their regimen. While the idea of a two-drug regimen has been entertained for maintenance therapy, there may be little willingness to push this further into the area of antiretroviral treatment initiation, for the justifiable concerns that exist around the emergence of drug resistance. Despite this, new data presented at the IAS 2017 showed that the idea is not without merit. In a proof of concept, the ACTG A5353 single-arm pilot study of 120 treatment naïve HIV-infected participants with high viral load (VL ≥1000 and >500,000 copies/mL), showed that once-daily dolutegravir/lamivudine had virologic efficacy of 90% at 24 weeks, with 96% of the as-treated study population achieving VL >50 copies/mL (Taiwo et al., Abstract MOAB0107LB). The regimen was well tolerated, with no reported drug resistance mutations while on treatment. There are many real-world advantages to a two-drug regimen approach, among them lower costs (crucial in resource-limited settings where affordability may be a limiting factor), fewer adverse effects or drug toxicities, and possibly improved compliance. These are all important considerations, given that improved mortality now means patients are going to stay on ART treatment for much longer than previously seen. But how the two-drug regimen approach will hold up against firmly held norms and tradition is far from clear, and it is almost certain that the understandable nervousness that surrounds this idea will continue to last. Until the case for the two-drug regimen approach is made more convincingly in ongoing and future trials, the "three or more" rule will reign, not only as the orthodoxy but also as the cornerstone of good clinical practice.
抗逆转录病毒疗法(ART)于 20 世纪 90 年代问世,从根本上改变了 HIV 医学的面貌,大大降低了疾病的发病率和死亡率,并降低了所有人群的传播率。这一成功的关键在于,为了获得最佳的疾病结果并最大限度地减少耐药性的发展,至少应使用三种抗逆转录病毒药物进行 HIV 治疗。这一治疗策略是 HIV 医学的核心原则,有不可辩驳的科学证据支持,并且由于每日一次的联合制剂具有较高的顺应性,因此易于实施,通常耐受性良好。然而,近年来,人们越来越支持向双药治疗转变,特别是在治疗的维持治疗阶段。这一概念主张,一旦在治疗启动阶段通过至少三种抗逆转录病毒药物实现病毒学抑制,就可以转为使用两药方案。SWORD 试验的第 3 阶段(Llibre 等人,摘要 44LB)和 LAMIDOL 试验(Joly 等人,摘要 458)的结果于今年早些时候在逆转录病毒和机会性感染会议上公布,似乎支持了这一假设。最近在巴黎举行的 2017 年国际艾滋病协会会议上又提出了更多新证据,进一步支持了维持治疗中采用两药方案的观点。LATTE-2 研究(Eron 等人,摘要 5628)引起了极大的兴趣,因为长效注射型抗逆转录病毒药物可能在不久的将来带来令人兴奋的新治疗选择。然而,更重要的是,在 96 周时,传统的三药口服方案和新型的注射两药方案之间的反应相当,这一发现引人注目。在这项 286 例 HIV 感染、ART 初治的患者的 II 期、多中心、开放性标签研究中,每日一次口服 cabotegravir/abacavir/lamivudine 使 84%的研究参与者实现了病毒学抑制。相比之下,注射用 cabotegravir/rilpivirine 每 4 周一次组的 87%和每 8 周一次组的 94%在 96 周时仍保持抑制。至关重要的是,在继续其治疗方案的研究参与者中没有发现耐药性突变。虽然双药方案的想法已经在维持治疗中被考虑,但由于对耐药性出现的担忧,可能很少有人愿意进一步将其推广到抗逆转录病毒治疗的启动阶段。尽管如此,今年的 IAS 会议上提出的新数据表明,这一想法并非没有价值。在一项概念验证研究中,ACTG A5353 单臂先导研究纳入了 120 例 HIV 初治、病毒载量高(VL≥1000 且>500,000 拷贝/mL)的参与者,结果表明,每日一次的 dolutegravir/lamivudine 在 24 周时具有 90%的病毒学疗效,96%的接受治疗的研究人群的病毒载量>50 拷贝/mL(Taiwo 等人,摘要 MOAB0107LB)。该方案耐受性良好,治疗期间无报告耐药性突变。双药方案具有许多实际优势,包括降低成本(在资源有限的环境中,这一点至关重要,因为可负担性可能是一个限制因素)、减少不良反应或药物毒性,以及可能提高依从性。这些都是重要的考虑因素,因为现在死亡率的提高意味着患者将在 ART 治疗中停留更长时间,比以前预期的时间更长。但是,双药方案的观点如何与既定的规范和传统保持一致,目前还远不清楚,围绕这一观点的担忧也将持续存在。在正在进行和未来的试验中,双药方案的观点更有说服力之前,“三药或更多”的规则将继续占主导地位,不仅是作为传统,也是良好临床实践的基石。