Dataset Information

Real world effectiveness of standard of care triple therapy versus two-drug combinations for treatment of people living with HIV.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Since 1996, the standard of care (SOC) therapy for HIV treatment has consisted of a backbone of two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) paired with a third agent. Use of two-drug combinations (2DC) has been considered for selected patients to avoid toxicities associated with the use of NRTIs. This study aimed to compare the real-world outcomes of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-containing triple therapy (TT) to dolutegravir- (DTG) and/or boosted protease inhibitor (bPI)-based 2DC in a large Spanish cohort of HIV patients.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed using data from the VACH cohort, a prospective multicentre Spanish cohort of adult HIV patients. All treatment experienced patients initiating a TT of an INSTI combined with two NRTIs or a 2DC-containing DTG and/or a bPI between 01/01/2012 and 01/06/2017 were included. The unit of analysis was patient-regimens. The overall sample analysis was complemented with two sub-analyses. The first sub-analysis focused on patients treated with a backbone plus DTG compared to those treated with DTG+ one other antiretroviral. The second sub-analysis focused on patients with HIV RNA<50 copies/mL at baseline, irrespective of the regimen used. The following endpoints were assessed: time to discontinuation for any reason, time to switch due to virologic failure, and time to switch due to toxicity (reasons for discontinuation according to clinician report in the database). Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox regression models.

Results

Overall 7,481 patients were included in the analysis, contributing to 9,243 patient-regimens. Patient characteristics at baseline differed among groups, with the 2DC group being significantly older and having a higher proportion of women, a longer time on ART and a higher number of previous virologic failures. Median (95% Confidence Interval [C.I.]) time to switch was 2.5 years (2.3, 2.7) in 2DC group versus 2.9 years (2.7, 3.0) in TT. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% C.I.) for discontinuation due to any reason, virologic failure and toxicity in the 2DC vs TT group were 1.29 (1.15; 1.44), 2.06 (1.54; 2.77) and 1.18 (0.94; 1.48), respectively. Results were consistent in the two sub-analyses.

Conclusion

In this analysis, time to discontinuation and probability of remaining free of virologic failure were significantly higher in patients on INSTI-based TT compared to DTG- and/or bPI-containing 2DC, with no differences in toxicity.

SUBMITTER: Teira R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8031389 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTeclistamab is the first approved B cell maturation antigen × CD3 bispecific antibody with precision dosing for the treatment of triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We compared the effectiveness of teclistamab in MajesTEC-1 versus real-world physician's choice of therapy (RWPC) in patients from the prospective, non-interventional LocoMMotion and MoMMent studies.MethodsPatients treated with teclistamab from MajesTEC-1 (N = 165) were compared with an external control arm from LocoMMotion (N = 248) or LocoMMotion + MoMMent pooled (N = 302). Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted for imbalances in prognostic baseline characteristics. The relative effect of teclistamab versus RWPC for overall response rate (ORR), very good partial response or better (≥ VGPR) rate, and complete response or better (≥ CR) rate was estimated with an odds ratio using weighted logistic regression transformed into a response-rate ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Weighted proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).ResultsBaseline characteristics were well balanced between treatment cohorts after reweighting. Patients treated with teclistamab had significantly improved outcomes versus RWPC in LocoMMotion: ORR (RR [95% CI], 2.44 [1.79-3.33]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.78 [3.74-8.93]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 113.73 [15.68-825.13]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.39 [0.24-0.64]; p = 0.0002), PFS (HR 0.48 [0.35-0.64]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.64 [0.46-0.88]; p = 0.0055). Teclistamab versus RWPC in LocoMMotion + MoMMent also had significantly improved outcomes: ORR (RR 2.41 [1.80-3.23]; p < 0.0001), ≥ VGPR (RR 5.91 [3.93-8.88]; p < 0.0001), ≥ CR (RR 132.32 [19.06-918.47]; p < 0.0001), DOR (HR 0.43 [0.26-0.71]; p = 0.0011), PFS (HR 0.49 [0.37-0.66]; p < 0.0001), and OS (HR 0.69 [0.50-0.95]; p = 0.0247).ConclusionTeclistamab demonstrated significantly improved effectiveness over RWPC in LocoMMotion ± MoMMent, emphasizing its clinical benefit as a highly effective treatment for patients with TCE RRMM.Trial registrationMajesTEC-1, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145181 (phase 1) and NCT04557098 (phase 2); LocoMMotion, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04035226; MoMMent, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160584.