OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse effects (ie, depression, anxiety, insomnia, dizziness, suicidal behaviour) among patients treated with rilpivirine, dolutegravir and dolutegravir/rilpivirine.
DESIGN: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Quality of evidence was assessed using Jadad scoring system.
DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases were searched for available publications up to 1 May 2020. Searches included relevant studies, trial registers, conference proceeding abstracts and grey literature.
INCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials with data focused on adult participants (ie, 18 years of age or older) receiving dolutegravir 50 mg, rilpivirine 25 mg or combination of dolutegravir 50 mg/rilpivirine 25 mg once daily.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with a minimum duration of 48 weeks and average Jadad score of 4 were included (n=10 998). Primary objective demonstrated a relative risk (RR) synergistic effect on depressive symptoms for dolutegravir/rilpivirine (RR=2.82; 95% CI (1.12 to 7.10)) when compared with dolutegravir (RR=1.10; 95% CI (0.88 to 1.38)) and rilpivirine (RR=1.08; 95% CI (0.80 to 1.48)). Secondary objectives showed no difference between dolutegravir, rilpivirine and dolutegravir/rilpivirine to efavirenz. Additionally, excluding efavirenz studies, dolutegravir and dolutegravir/rilpivirine yielded increased depression (RR=1.34; 95% CI (1.04 to 1.74)).
CONCLUSION: The combination of dolutegravir/rilpivirine appears to increase the risk of depressive symptoms. Despite the increase, the clinical significance is unknown and needs further study. Additionally, neurotoxicity risk appears similar between dolutegravir, rilpivirine and dolutegravir/rilpivirine antiretroviral therapy when compared with efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy.
Introduction: Integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI)-based antiretroviral regimens have become the recommended antiretroviral therapy for people living with HIV (PLWH) who are antiretroviral-naïve or stably antiretroviral-treated. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety of coformulated bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) among PLWH. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included to compare the efficacy and safety between BIC/FTC/TAF and other antiretroviral regimens containing a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, protease inhibitor, or integrase strand transfer inhibitor plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. A Mantel–Haenszel model was used to investigate the combination or interaction of a group of independent studies. I2 was used to determine whether a fixed-effect model or random-effect model was to be used. Results: A total of seven published randomized clinical trials including 3547 participants were analyzed; three studies were conducted in antiretroviral-naïve PLWH and four in stably antiretroviral-treated PLWH. At week 48, the efficacy with BIC/FTC/TAF was not statistically significantly different from that with control regimens [odds ratio (OR) 1.01 (95% CI 0.79, 1.30)]. BIC/FTC/TAF had comparable safety profiles to control regimens: OR for all adverse effects (AEs) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.78, 1.09); OR for any grade 3 or grade 4 AEs was 0.96 (95% CI 0.66, 1.39); and OR for treatment-related AEs was 1.31 (95% CI 0.68, 2.53). Conclusions: This meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of antiretroviral-naïve and stably antiretroviral-treated PLWH suggests that BIC/FTC/TAF is as safe and efficacious as are its comparators at week 48. The interstudy differences in selected populations and control regimens may lead to the high heterogeneity of the meta-analysis.
In this study, we aim to explore the effects on lipids of integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) in naïve and switch randomised controlled trials, and compare them with protease inhibitors (PIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). We reviewed phase 3/4 randomised clinical trials in the Cochrane and PubMed databases that compare an INSTI with a boosted PI, an NNRTI, or another INSTI plus one or two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs) in naïve patients and switching strategies in HIV-infected patients. We reported the baseline plasma concentration of total cholesterol (TC), low and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c, HDL-c), triglycerides (TG), and the TC/HDL-c ratio, as well as the change at weeks 48 and 96, when available. In naïve HIV-infected patients, raltegravir (RAL) and dolutegravir (DTG) have a more favourable lipid profile compared with NNRTI and boosted PI. Elvitegravir (EVG/c) has a superior lipid profile compared with efavirenz and is similar to that observed with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir except in TG, which increases less with EVG/c. In naïve patients, RAL, DTG, and bictegravir (BIC) produce a similar, slight increase in lipids. In switching trials, the regimen change based on a boosted PI or efavirenz to RAL, DTG, or BIC is associated with clinically significant decreases in lipids that are minor when the change is executed on EVG/c. No changes were observed in lipids by switching trials between INSTIs. In summary, RAL, DTG, and BIC have superior lipid profiles compared with boosted-PI, efavirenz, and EVG/c, in studies conducted in naïve participants, and they are associated with a clinically significant decrease in lipoproteins by switching studies.
Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are the most recent class of antiretroviral drugs with potent and durable antiviral activity used to treat human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. However, the development of drug resistance increases the risk of treatment failure, disease progression and mortality. A better understanding of drug efficacy and resistance against INSTIs is crucial for their efficient use and the development of new antiretrovirals. We performed meta-analyses of studies reporting efficacy and resistance data on INSTI use in HIV-infected patients. Odds ratios (ORs) of efficacy outcome data favoring INSTI use in different clinical settings demonstrated that compared with drugs of other classes, INSTIs have higher efficacy. For combination antiretroviral treatment (cART)-naïve patients and viral suppressed patients that switched to INSTI-based therapy, the ORs were 1.484 (95% CI, 1.229-1.790) and 1.341 (95% CI, 0.913-1.971), respectively. ORs of resistance data indicated decreased treatment-emergent resistance development to dolutegravir (DTG) upon virologic failure than to non-INSTIs (OR = 0.081, 95% CI, 0.004-1.849), whereas the opposite was observed for raltegravir (RAL; OR = 3.137, 95% CI, 1.827-5.385) and elvitegravir (EVG; OR = 1.886, 95% CI, 0.569-6.252). Pooled analysis of resistance data indicated that development of resistance to DTG and bictegravir (BIC) was rare, while EVG and RAL had low genetic barriers to resistance and that the intensive cross-resistance between them limits INSTI efficiency. Efficient means of monitoring emergence of resistance to INSTIs and development of drugs with high genetic barriers are clear paths for future research.
To assess the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse effects (ie, depression, anxiety, insomnia, dizziness, suicidal behaviour) among patients treated with rilpivirine, dolutegravir and dolutegravir/rilpivirine.
DESIGN:
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Quality of evidence was assessed using Jadad scoring system.
DATA SOURCES:
Three electronic databases were searched for available publications up to 1 May 2020. Searches included relevant studies, trial registers, conference proceeding abstracts and grey literature.
INCLUSION CRITERIA:
Randomised controlled trials with data focused on adult participants (ie, 18 years of age or older) receiving dolutegravir 50 mg, rilpivirine 25 mg or combination of dolutegravir 50 mg/rilpivirine 25 mg once daily.
RESULTS:
Twenty studies with a minimum duration of 48 weeks and average Jadad score of 4 were included (n=10 998). Primary objective demonstrated a relative risk (RR) synergistic effect on depressive symptoms for dolutegravir/rilpivirine (RR=2.82; 95% CI (1.12 to 7.10)) when compared with dolutegravir (RR=1.10; 95% CI (0.88 to 1.38)) and rilpivirine (RR=1.08; 95% CI (0.80 to 1.48)). Secondary objectives showed no difference between dolutegravir, rilpivirine and dolutegravir/rilpivirine to efavirenz. Additionally, excluding efavirenz studies, dolutegravir and dolutegravir/rilpivirine yielded increased depression (RR=1.34; 95% CI (1.04 to 1.74)).
CONCLUSION:
The combination of dolutegravir/rilpivirine appears to increase the risk of depressive symptoms. Despite the increase, the clinical significance is unknown and needs further study. Additionally, neurotoxicity risk appears similar between dolutegravir, rilpivirine and dolutegravir/rilpivirine antiretroviral therapy when compared with efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy.
