Bictegravir/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Alafenamide in a Multicentre Cohort: Real-Life Experience From Spain.

BIC/FTC/TAF HIV real-life treatment-experienced treatment-naive

Journal

The Annals of pharmacotherapy
ISSN: 1542-6270
Titre abrégé: Ann Pharmacother
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203131

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 May 2023
Historique:
medline: 3 5 2023
pubmed: 3 5 2023
entrez: 3 5 2023
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

The evaluation of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) in clinical trials has shown high rates of virological suppression but information about its use in real-life settings is scarce. To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, durability, and predictive variables of therapeutic failure of BIC/FTC/TAF in a real-life cohort. This observational, retrospective, multicentered cohort study included treatment-naive (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) adult patients living with HIV (PLWH) who started treatment with BIC/FTC/TAF from January 1, 2019, to January 31, 2022. Treatment effectiveness (based on intention-to-treat [ITT], modified ITT [mITT], and on-treatment [OT]), tolerability, and safety were evaluated in all patients who started BIC/FTC/TAF antiretroviral therapy. We included a total of 505 PLWH of whom 79 (16.6%) were TN and 426 (83.4%) were TE. Patients were followed up for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 19.6 (9.6-27.3) months, and 76% and 56% of PLWH reached month 6 and month 12 of treatment, respectively. Rates of TN PLWH with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL in the OT, mITT, and ITT groups were 94%, 80%, and 62%, respectively, after 12 months of BIC/FTC/TAF treatment. Rates of TE PLWH with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL were 91%, 88%, and 75% at month 12. The multivariate analysis revealed that neither age, sex, CD4 cell count <200 cells/μL, or viral load >100 000 copies/mL were associated with therapeutic failure. Our real-life data showed that BIC/FTC/TAF is effective and safe for use in the treatment of both TN and TE patients in clinical practice.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND UNASSIGNED
The evaluation of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) in clinical trials has shown high rates of virological suppression but information about its use in real-life settings is scarce.
OBJECTIVE UNASSIGNED
To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, durability, and predictive variables of therapeutic failure of BIC/FTC/TAF in a real-life cohort.
METHODS METHODS
This observational, retrospective, multicentered cohort study included treatment-naive (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) adult patients living with HIV (PLWH) who started treatment with BIC/FTC/TAF from January 1, 2019, to January 31, 2022. Treatment effectiveness (based on intention-to-treat [ITT], modified ITT [mITT], and on-treatment [OT]), tolerability, and safety were evaluated in all patients who started BIC/FTC/TAF antiretroviral therapy.
RESULTS UNASSIGNED
We included a total of 505 PLWH of whom 79 (16.6%) were TN and 426 (83.4%) were TE. Patients were followed up for a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 19.6 (9.6-27.3) months, and 76% and 56% of PLWH reached month 6 and month 12 of treatment, respectively. Rates of TN PLWH with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL in the OT, mITT, and ITT groups were 94%, 80%, and 62%, respectively, after 12 months of BIC/FTC/TAF treatment. Rates of TE PLWH with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL were 91%, 88%, and 75% at month 12. The multivariate analysis revealed that neither age, sex, CD4 cell count <200 cells/μL, or viral load >100 000 copies/mL were associated with therapeutic failure.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE UNASSIGNED
Our real-life data showed that BIC/FTC/TAF is effective and safe for use in the treatment of both TN and TE patients in clinical practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37131300
doi: 10.1177/10600280231168852
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

10600280231168852

Auteurs

Miguel Torralba (M)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain.
Departamento de Medicina y Especialidades Médicas, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.

Gema Rodríguez (G)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.

Francisco Javier González Gasca (FJ)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Fernando Cuadra (F)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario de Toledo, Toledo, Spain.

José Barberá (J)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General La Mancha-Centro, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Paloma Geijo (P)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Virgen de la Luz, Cuenca, Spain.

Andrea Silva (A)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Nuestra Señora del Prado, Talavera de la Reina, Spain.

María Isabel García (MI)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General de Almansa, Almansa, Spain.

Marcos Alexander Ostaiza (MA)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.

Ana María García Pérez (AM)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Esther Arroyo (E)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General La Mancha-Centro, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Juan Ramón Larrubia (JR)

Servicio de Gastroenterología, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain.

Almudena Gutiérrez (A)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.

María Lourdes Porras (ML)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Ciudad Real, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Henar Calvo Sánchez (H)

Servicio de Gastroenterología, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain.

Julia Peña-Asensio (J)

Departamento de Biología de Sistemas, Universidad de Alcalá, Alcala de Henares, Spain.

Julio Gabriel Arias (JG)

Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital General Universitario de Albacete, Albacete, Spain.

Inés Mendoza (I)

Servicio de Farmacia Hospitalaria, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Spain.

Classifications MeSH