Lipid changes in HIV-patients switching to the coformulated single tablet FTC/RPV/TDF (Eviplera®). Efficacy and safety analysis. GeSida Study 8114.

INTRODUCTION Rilpivirine (RPV) has a better lipid profile than efavirenz (EFV) in naïve patients (1). Switching to RPV may be convenient for many patients, while maintaining a good immunovirological control (2). The aim of this study was to analyze lipid changes in HIV-patients at 24 weeks after switching to Eviplera® (emtricitabine/RPV/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [FTC/RPV/TDF]). MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective, multicentre study of a cohort of asymptomatic HIV-patients who switched from a regimen based on 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI)+protease inhibitor (PI)/non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or ritonavir boosted PI monotherapy to Eviplera® during February-December, 2013; all had undetectable HIV viral load for ≥3 months prior to switching. Patients with previous failures on antiretroviral therapy (ART) including TDF and/or FTC/3TC, with genotype tests showing resistance to components of Eviplera®, or who had changed the third drug of the ART during the study period were excluded. Changes in lipid profile and cardiovascular risk (CVR), and efficacy and safety at 24 weeks were analyzed. RESULTS Among 305 patients included in the study, 298 were analyzed (7 cases were excluded due to lack of data). Men 81.2%, mean age 44.5 years, 75.8% of HIV sexually transmitted. 233 (78.2%) patients switched from a regimen based on 2 NRTI+NNRTI (90.5% EFV/FTC/TDF). The most frequent reasons for switching were central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (31.0%), convenience (27.6%) and metabolic disorders (23.2%). At this time, 293 patients have reached 24 weeks: 281 (95.9%) have continued Eviplera®, 6 stopped it (3 adverse events, 2 virologic failures, 1 discontinuation) and 6 have been lost to follow up. Lipid profiles of 283 cases were available at 24 weeks and mean (mg/dL) baseline vs 24 weeks are: total cholesterol (193 vs 169; p=0.0001), HDL-c (49 vs 45; p=0.0001), LDL-c (114 vs 103; p=0.001), tryglycerides (158 vs 115; p=0.0001), total cholesterol to HDL-c ratio (4.2 vs 4.1; p=0.3). CVR decreased (8.7 vs 7.5%; p= 0.0001). CD4 counts were similar to baseline (653 vs 674 cells/µL; p=0.08), and 274 (96.8%) patients maintained viral suppression. CONCLUSIONS At 24 weeks after switching to Eviplera®, lipid profile and CVR improved while maintaining a good immunovirological control. Most subjects switched to Eviplera® from a regimen based on NNRTI, mainly EFV/FTC/TDF. CNS adverse events, convenience and metabolic disorders were the most frequent reasons for switching.

Management of hepatitis B virus infection after liver transplantation.

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is responsible for up to 30% of cases of liver cirrhosis and up to 53% of cases of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver transplantation (LT) is the best therapeutic option for patients with end-stage liver failure caused by HBV. The success of transplantation, though, depends on receiving prophylactic treatment against post-transplant viral reactivation. In the absence of prophylaxis, liver transplantation due to chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is associated with high rates of viral recurrence and poor survival. The introduction of treatment with hepatitis B immunoglobulins (HBIG) during the 1990s and later the incorporation of oral antiviral drugs have improved the prognosis of these patients. Thus, LT for CHB is now a universally accepted option, with an estimated 5 years survival of around 85% vs the 45% survival seen prior to the introduction of HBIG. The combination of lamivudine plus HBIG has for many years been the most widely used prophylactic regimen. However, with the appearance of new more potent oral antiviral agents associated with less resistance (e.g., entecavir and tenofovir) for the treatment of CHB, new prophylactic strategies are being designed, either in combination with HBIG or alone as a monotherapy. These advances have allowed for more personalized prophylaxis based on the individual risk profile of a given patient. In addition, the small pool of donors has required the use of anti-HBc-positive donors (with the resulting possibility of transmitting HBV from these organs), which has been made possible by suitable prophylactic regimens.