KEY FINDINGS: Among ARVs, the most common drugs employed from the class of entry inhibitors are maraviroc (MVC), which is a CCR5 receptor antagonist. Other entry inhibitors like emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir (TFV) are also used. Rilpivirine (RPV) and dapivirine (DPV) are the most common drugs employed from the Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTIs) class, whereas, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is primarily used in the Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTIs) class. Cabotegravir (CAB) is an analog of dolutegravir, and it is an integrase inhibitor. Some of these drugs are also used in combination with other drugs from the same class.
SUMMARY: Some of the most common pre-exposure prophylactic strategies employed currently are the use of inhibitors, namely entry inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, integrase and protease inhibitors. In addition, we have also discussed on the adverse effects caused by ART in PrEP, pharmacoeconomics factors and the use of antiretroviral prophylaxis in serodiscordant couples.
METHODS: Of the 37 sites that participated in the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority SECOND-LINE study, eight sites from five countries (Argentina, India, Malaysia, South Africa, and Thailand) participated in the body composition substudy. All sites had a dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scanner and all participants enrolled in SECOND-LINE were eligible for inclusion in the substudy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir (raltegravir group) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three N(t)RTIs (N[t]RTI group). Randomisation was stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA. Participants and investigators were not masked to group assignment, but allocation was concealed until after interventions were assigned. DXA scans were done at weeks 0, 48, and 96. The primary endpoint was mean percentage and absolute change in peripheral limb fat from baseline to week 96. We did intention-to-treat analyses of available data. This substudy is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01513122.
FINDINGS: Between Aug 1, 2010, and July 10, 2011, we recruited 211 participants into the substudy. The intention-to-treat population comprised 102 participants in the N(t)RTI group and 108 participants in the raltegravir group, of whom 91 and 105 participants, respectively, reached 96 weeks. Mean percentage change in limb fat from baseline to week 96 was 16·8% (SD 32·6) in the N(t)RTI group and 28·0% (37·6) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 10·2%, 95% CI 0·1-20·4; p=0·048). Mean absolute change was 1·04 kg (SD 2·29) in the N(t)RTI group and 1·81 kg (2·50) in the raltegravir group (mean difference 0·6, 95% CI -0·1 to 1·3; p=0·10).
INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that for people with virological failure of a first-line regimen containing efavirenz plus tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine, the WHO-recommended switch to a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor plus zidovudine (a thymidine analogue nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor) and lamivudine might come at the cost of peripheral lipoatrophy. Further study could help to define specific groups of people who might benefit from a switch to an N(t)RTI-sparing second-line ART regimen.
FUNDING: The Kirby Institute and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.