Antiviral therapy · 2014
Darunavir minimum plasma concentration and ritonavir-boosted darunavir monotherapy outcome in HIV-infected patients.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gutierrez-Valencia Alicia, Torres-Cornejo Almudena, BenMarzouk-Hidalgo Omar J, Ruiz-Valderas Rosa, Lluch Amparo, Viciana Pompeyo, López-Cortés Luis F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate whether low darunavir (DRV) minimum plasma concentration (Cmin) values contribute to virological outcomes during DRV/ritonavir monotherapy (mtDRV/rtv).
METHODS: This was a prospective observational single-arm 96-week efficacy study in virologically suppressed subjects on triple therapy switched to mtDRV/rtv (800/100 mg every 24 h). Previous virological failures (VF) on protease-inhibitor-based regimens were allowed if the historical resistance tests showed no major resistance mutation to DRV/rtv. VF was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA measurements of >200 copies/ml. Efficacy was analysed by per-protocol and by intention-to-treat analyses. Plasma DRV Cmin values were measured by LC-MS/MS.
RESULTS: A total of 150 subjects were included. At week 96, the efficacy rate on treatment was 83.6% (95% CI 77.2%, 90.0%) by per-protocol analysis and 67.6% (95% CI 60.0%, 75.2%) by intention-to-treat. In the whole cohort the median (IQR) DRV Cmin was significantly higher during the periods of undetectable than of detectable viraemia (1.82 µg/ml [1.47-2.46] versus 1.56 µg/ml [0.93-2.32]; P=0.006) as well as in the subjects with blips and VF. However, a cutoff point sufficiently sensitive and specific could not be found.
CONCLUSIONS: The DRV Cmin values are related to viral control during mtDRV/rtv, but therapeutic drug monitoring cannot be recommended routinely as a precise cutoff point is unknown. Adherence is a key success factor on this regimen.
METHODS: This was a prospective observational single-arm 96-week efficacy study in virologically suppressed subjects on triple therapy switched to mtDRV/rtv (800/100 mg every 24 h). Previous virological failures (VF) on protease-inhibitor-based regimens were allowed if the historical resistance tests showed no major resistance mutation to DRV/rtv. VF was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA measurements of >200 copies/ml. Efficacy was analysed by per-protocol and by intention-to-treat analyses. Plasma DRV Cmin values were measured by LC-MS/MS.
RESULTS: A total of 150 subjects were included. At week 96, the efficacy rate on treatment was 83.6% (95% CI 77.2%, 90.0%) by per-protocol analysis and 67.6% (95% CI 60.0%, 75.2%) by intention-to-treat. In the whole cohort the median (IQR) DRV Cmin was significantly higher during the periods of undetectable than of detectable viraemia (1.82 µg/ml [1.47-2.46] versus 1.56 µg/ml [0.93-2.32]; P=0.006) as well as in the subjects with blips and VF. However, a cutoff point sufficiently sensitive and specific could not be found.
CONCLUSIONS: The DRV Cmin values are related to viral control during mtDRV/rtv, but therapeutic drug monitoring cannot be recommended routinely as a precise cutoff point is unknown. Adherence is a key success factor on this regimen.