Suppr超能文献

拉米夫定联合度鲁特韦与拉米夫定联合增效蛋白酶抑制剂治疗病毒学抑制的 HIV-1 阳性个体的疗效和耐受性:一项来自临床实践的回顾性研究。

Efficacy and tolerability of lamivudine plus dolutegravir compared with lamivudine plus boosted PIs in HIV-1 positive individuals with virologic suppression: a retrospective study from the clinical practice.

机构信息

Institute of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Policlinico Gemelli, Rome, Italy.

Infectious Diseases Unit, Siena University Hospital, Viale Mario Bracci, 53100, Siena, Italy.

出版信息

BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Jan 17;19(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12879-018-3666-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Direct comparisons between lamivudine plus bPIs and lamivudine plus dolutegravir as maintenance strategies in virologically-suppressed HIV positive patients are lacking.

METHODS

Time to treatment discontinuation (TD) and virological failure (VF) were compared in a cohort of HIV+ patients on a virologically-effective ART starting lamivudine with either darunavir/r, atazanavir/r or dolutegravir. Changes in laboratory parameters were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Four-hundred-ninety-four patients were analyzed (170 switching to darunavir/r, 141 to atazanavir/r, 183 to dolutegravir): median age was 49 years, with 8 years since ART start. Groups differed for age, HIV-risk factor, time since HIV-diagnosis and on ART, previous therapy and reasons for switching. Estimated proportions free from TD at week 48 and 96 were 79.8 and 48.3% of patients with darunavir/r, 87.0 and 70.9% with atazanavir/r, and 88.2 and 82.6% with dolutegravir, respectively (p < 0.001). Calendar years, HIV-risk factor, higher baseline cholesterol and an InSTI-based previous regimen predicted TD, whereas lamivudine+dolutegravir therapy and previous tenofovir use were protective. VF was the cause of TD in 6/123 cases with darunavir/r, 4/97 with atazanavir/r and 3/21 with dolutegravir. Other main reasons for TD were: toxicity (43.1% with darunavir/r, 39.2% with atazanavir/r, 52.4% with dolutegravir), further simplification (36.6% with darunavir/r, 30.9% with atazanavir/r, 14.3% with dolutegravir). Incidence of VF did not differ among study groups (p = 0.747). No factor could predict VF. Lipid profile improved in the dolutegravir group, whereas renal function improved in the bPIs groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In real practice, a switch to lamivudine+dolutegravir showed similar efficacy but longer durability than a switch to lamivudine+bPIs.

摘要

背景

缺乏拉米夫定联合 BPI 与拉米夫定联合多替拉韦作为病毒学抑制的 HIV 阳性患者维持治疗策略的直接比较。

方法

对开始接受拉米夫定治疗且病毒学有效的 ART 的 HIV 阳性患者队列,比较了接受达芦那韦/利托那韦、阿扎那韦/利托那韦或多替拉韦治疗的患者的治疗终止时间(TD)和病毒学失败(VF)。还评估了实验室参数的变化。

结果

共分析了 494 名患者(170 名转换为达芦那韦/利托那韦,141 名转换为阿扎那韦/利托那韦,183 名转换为多替拉韦):中位年龄为 49 岁,ART 开始后 8 年。各组在年龄、HIV 风险因素、HIV 诊断后时间、ART 时间、既往治疗和转换原因方面存在差异。达芦那韦/利托那韦组第 48 和 96 周无 TD 的估计比例分别为 79.8%和 48.3%,阿扎那韦/利托那韦组分别为 87.0%和 70.9%,多替拉韦组分别为 88.2%和 82.6%(p<0.001)。日历年份、HIV 风险因素、较高的基线胆固醇和基于 INSTI 的既往方案预测 TD,而拉米夫定+多替拉韦治疗和既往使用替诺福韦是保护性的。达芦那韦/利托那韦组 6/123 例、阿扎那韦/利托那韦组 4/97 例和多替拉韦组 3/21 例的 VF 是 TD 的原因。TD 的其他主要原因包括:毒性(达芦那韦/利托那韦组 43.1%,阿扎那韦/利托那韦组 39.2%,多替拉韦组 52.4%),进一步简化(达芦那韦/利托那韦组 36.6%,阿扎那韦/利托那韦组 30.9%,多替拉韦组 14.3%)。各组间 VF 的发生率无差异(p=0.747)。没有因素可以预测 VF。多替拉韦组的血脂谱改善,而 BPI 组的肾功能改善。

结论

在实际实践中,与转换为拉米夫定联合 BPI 相比,转换为拉米夫定联合多替拉韦显示出相似的疗效,但持久性更长。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5fc0/6335713/83565920e599/12879_2018_3666_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验