Monotherapy with darunavir/ritonavir is effective and safe in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION Monotherapy against HIV has undoubted theoretical advantages and has good scientific fundaments. However, it is still controversial and here we will analyze the efficacy and safety of MT with darunavir with ritonavir (DRV/r) on patients who have received this treatment in our hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS Observational retrospective study that includes patients from 10 Andalusian hospitals that have received DRV/r in MT and that have been followed over a minimum of 12 months. We carried out a statistical descriptive analysis based on the profile of patients who had been prescribed MT and the efficacy and safety that were observed, paying special attention to treatment failure and virological evolution. RESULTS DRV/r was prescribed to 604 patients, of which 41.1% had a CD4 nadir <200/mmc. 33.1% had chronic hepatitis caused by HCV, had received an average of five lines of previous treatment and had a history of treatment failure to analogues in 33%, to non-analogues 22 and protease inhibitors (PI) in 19.5%. 76.6% proceeded from a previous treatment with PI. The simplification was the main criteria for the instauration of MT in the 81.5% and the adverse effects in the 18.5%. We managed to maintain MT in 84% of cases, with only 4.8% of virological failure (VF) with viral load (VL) >200 c/mL and 3.6% additional losses due to VF with VL between 50 and 200 copies/mL. Thirty three genotypes were performed after failure without findings of resistance mutations to DRV/r or other IPs. Only 23.7% of patients presented some blips during the period of exposition to MT. Eighty seven percent of all determinations of VL had <50 copies/mL, and only 4.99% had >200 copies/mL. Although up to 14.9% registered at some point an AE, only 2.6% abandoned MT because of AE and 1.2% because of voluntary decision. Although the average of total and LDL cholesterol increases 10 mg/dL after 2 years of follow-up, so did HDL cholesterol in 3mg/dL and the values of triglycerides (-14 mg/dL) and GPT (-6 UI/mL) decreased. The average count of CD4 lymphocytes increased from 642 to 714/mm(3) at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS In a very broad series of patients obtained from clinical practice, data from clinical trials was confirmed: MT with DRV as a de-escalation strategy is very safe, it's associated to a negligible rate of adverse effects and maintains a good suppression of HIV replication. VF (with >50 or >200 copies/mL) is always under 10% and in any case without consequences.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of lanreotide in combination with targeted therapies in patients with neuroendocrine tumours in clinical practice: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND Based on the mechanism of action, combining somatostatin analogues (SSAs) with mTOR inhibitors or antiangiogenic agents may provide synergistic effects for the treatment of patients with neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Herein, we investigate the use of these treatment combinations in clinical practice. METHODS This retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients with NETs treated with the SSA lanreotide and targeted therapies at 35 Spanish hospitals evaluated the efficacy and safety of lanreotide treatment combinations in clinical practice. The data of 159 treatment combinations with lanreotide in 133 patients was retrospectively collected. RESULTS Of the 133 patients, with a median age of 59.4 (16-83) years, 70 (52.6 %) patients were male, 64 (48.1 %) had pancreatic NET, 23 (17.3 %) had ECOG PS ≥2, 41 (30.8 %) had functioning tumours, 63 (47.7 %) underwent surgery of the primary tumour, 45 (33.8 %) had received prior chemotherapy, and 115 (86.5 %) had received prior SSAs. 115 patients received 1 lanreotide treatment combination and 18 patients received between 2 and 5 combinations. Lanreotide was mainly administered in combination with everolimus (73 combinations) or sunitinib (61 combinations). The probability of being progression-free was 78.5 % (6 months), 68.6 % (12 months) and 57.0 % (18 months) for patients who only received everolimus plus lanreotide (n = 57) and 89.3 % (6 months), 73.0 % (12 months), and 67.4 % (18 months) for patients who only received sunitinib and lanreotide (n = 50). In patients who only received everolimus plus lanreotide the median time-to-progression from the initiation of lanreotide combination treatment was 25.8 months (95 % CI, 11.3, 40.3) and it had not yet been reached among the subgroup of patients only receiving sunitinib plus lanreotide. The safety profile of the combination treatment was comparable to that of the targeted agent alone. CONCLUSIONS The combination of lanreotide and targeted therapies, mainly everolimus and sunitinib, is widely used in clinical practice without unexpected toxicities and suggests efficacy that should be explored in randomized prospective clinical trials.