Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Gilles Wandeler; Marta Buzzi; Nanina Anderegg; Delphine Sculier; Charles Béguelin; Matthias Egger; Alexandra Calmy

doi:10.12688/f1000research.15995.1

Home Browse Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

[version 1; peer review: 3 approved]

Gilles Wandeler ^1,2^*, Marta Buzzi³^*, Nanina Anderegg², [...] Delphine Sculier³, Charles Béguelin¹, Matthias Egger², Alexandra Calmy³

Gilles Wandeler ^1,2^*, Marta Buzzi³^*, [...] Nanina Anderegg², Delphine Sculier³, Charles Béguelin¹, Matthias Egger², Alexandra Calmy³

^* Equal contributors

PUBLISHED 30 Aug 2018

Author details Author details

¹ Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland
² Department of Infectious Diseases, Bern University Hospital, Bern, 3010, Switzerland
³ Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, 1205, Switzerland

Gilles Wandeler
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Marta Buzzi
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nanina Anderegg
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Delphine Sculier
Roles: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Charles Béguelin
Roles: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Matthias Egger
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Alexandra Calmy
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Background: Dolutegravir-containing maintenance therapy is a promising simplification strategy for virologically suppressed HIV-infected individuals. However, most of the available data to inform this strategy come from small, uncontrolled studies. We estimated the proportion of HIV-infected patients experiencing virological failure (VF) and developing drug resistance on dolutegravir (DTG)-based maintenance therapy.
Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and conference abstracts for studies assessing VF on DTG-based maintenance therapy. Studies including ≥5 adults with an undetectable viral load on antiretroviral therapy (ART) who switched to a DTG-based mono- or dual therapy were included. Pooled proportions of VF were estimated using random-intercept logistic meta-regression and acquired drug resistance mutations described for each strategy.
Results: Of 1719 studies considered, 21 met our selection criteria, including seven interventional and 14 observational studies. Eight studies including 251 patients assessed VF on DTG monotherapy and fourteen studies including 1670 participants VF on dual therapy. The participant’s median age ranged from 43 to 63 years, their median nadir CD4 count from 90 to 399 cells/µl, and 27.6% were female. The proportion of participants experiencing VF on DTG-monotherapy was 3.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9-6.7) at 24 weeks and 8.9% (95% CI 4.7-16.2) at 48 weeks. Resistance mutations developed in seven (3.6%) participants on DTG-monotherapy. Among patients on dual therapy, ten (0.7%, 95% CI 0.4-1.3) experienced VF by 48 weeks and none developed resistance to DTG. In adjusted analyses, VF at 24 weeks was less likely on dual therapy than on monotherapy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.30).
Conclusions: Whereas VF is relatively common on DTG maintenance monotherapy, DTG-based dual therapy appears to be a promising simplification strategy for individuals with a suppressed HIV viral load on triple-ART.

Keywords

Dolutegravir, simplified therapy, HIV, meta-analysis

Corresponding author: Gilles Wandeler

Competing interests: We declare no competing interests. AC received unrestricted educational grants (to her Institution) in 2016 and 2017 from ViiV (DTG originator manufacturer).

Grant information: This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione-PROSPER fellowship PZ00P3_154730 to GW, grant 32FP30-174281 to ME, and grant 33IC30_166819 to AC).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2018 Wandeler G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

How to cite: Wandeler G, Buzzi M, Anderegg N et al. Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]. F1000Research 2018, 7:1359 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15995.1) First published: 30 Aug 2018, 7:1359 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15995.1) Latest published: 03 Apr 2019, 7:1359 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15995.2)

Introduction

The concept of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) for the treatment of HIV infection was established twenty years ago, when the results of the first studies evaluating protease inhibitor-based regimens were published¹. In recent years, several strategies of treatment optimization and simplification gained interest, with the objectives of improving quality of life, minimizing ART-related toxicity and drug-drug interactions (DDI), as well as reducing health-related costs. So far, ART de-escalation from three to one (mono-) or two drugs (dual-) therapies has mainly been evaluated in virologically suppressed patients. The first simplified maintenance strategy studied included a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI), with the hope that the high genetic barrier to resistance would help achieve durable virological suppression. In a meta-analysis including ten studies, bPI monotherapy was found to be inferior to triple ART for the maintenance of viral suppression², but non-inferior with regards to loss of future treatment options³. In contrast, dual therapy with bPI and lamivudine (3TC) was found to be non-inferior to triple ART^4–6 and is now recognized as a valid switch strategy by current HIV treatment guidelines in selected situations⁷. However, bPI-based maintenance strategies are not widely applicable because of cost, toxicity and DDI.

Due to its interesting pharmacokinetic profile, good tolerability and high barrier to resistance, dolutegravir (DTG), a new integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI), has attracted much interest for its use in simplified treatment regimens. While preliminary analyses of a Dutch DTG monotherapy simplification trial seemed encouraging at 24 weeks, rates of virological failures increased significantly by week 48, suggesting a sub-optimal potency of this regimen⁸. On the other hand, several studies evaluating DTG-based dual therapy with either 3TC or rilpivirine (RPV), showed a high virological efficacy^9–12. However, most reports were from small, observational cohort studies, with the exception of one DTG-RPV industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial (RCT)¹¹.

We performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to provide precise estimates of the rate of virological failure (VF) and drug resistance in patients switched to a DTG-based maintenance mono- or dual therapy, and to clarify which drugs or combinations should be evaluated in further studies and implemented in clinical practice.

Methods

The protocol for this systematic review was written and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registration number CRD42017070045)¹³. The reporting of the review followed the PRISMA guidelines¹⁴ (Supplementary File 1).

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central and Web of Science, as well as abstracts of major HIV conferences (CROI, AIDS, HIV Glasgow, AFRAVIH, IAS and EACS between 2013 and 2017) on 4. January 2018 for studies assessing the proportion of individuals developing VF on DTG-based maintenance therapy. In Medline we combined free text words and medical subject headings (MESH) describing the study population and the outcome (Supplementary File 2). This search strategy was adapted for the other databases. We considered RCTs, single-arm clinical trials, cohort studies, and case-series that included at least five HIV-infected adults (≥18 years) on DTG-based simplified therapy. No language restrictions were applied. Studies had to report on virological outcomes of patients who switched to a DTG monotherapy or dual therapy after having an undetectable VL on triple ART. We excluded studies that only reported in vitro data and those selecting participants based on the outcome during DTG-based maintenance therapy. Two investigators (MB and GW) independently selected studies based on titles and abstracts, and, in a second step, based on the full text of potentially eligible articles. Discrepancies in study selection were resolved through discussions with a third investigator (AC).

Data extraction

The following data were extracted independently for each study by two reviewers (GW and MB), using a standardized spreadsheet: bibliographic details, study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, definitions of outcomes, country, number of participants and their main demographic and clinical characteristics, including duration since HIV diagnosis, ART history, immunological status (CD4 cell count at switch and nadir) and virological parameters (HIV RNA peak and at baseline, HIV-DNA at baseline and changes during the study, VF as defined by the study, and the presence at drug resistance at switch). Again, discrepancies in data extracted were resolved through discussions with a third investigator (AC).

Assessment of risk of bias

A checklist for the assessment of risk of bias was designed to ensure data quality assessment for each study was included. The form for RCTs included information on the sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (participants, personnel and outcome assessor), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and other sources of bias. The methodological components of the randomized trials were assessed by two independent authors and classified as high, low or unclear risk of bias, as recommended by the Cochrane collaboration¹⁵. For observational studies it was not appropriate to use the ROBINS-I tool¹⁶, as we only considered data from the group of patients on simplified, maintenance therapy. Thus, we assessed the population characteristics and missing outcome data for each study.

Data analysis

We described the study design as well as the demographic and clinical characteristics of the population from each study by type of maintenance therapy (DTG-based monotherapy or dual therapy). Pooled proportions of VF and treatment failure (VF or departure from simplified strategy due to toxicity, loss to follow-up, patient’s or physician’s decision), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using random intercept logistic meta-regression. These analyses were performed separately at 24 weeks and 48 weeks after the switch from triple ART to maintenance therapy. For all models, statistical evidence for heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the tau-squared statistics¹⁷. We evaluated the association between type of maintenance strategy and VF using random intercept logistic meta-regression (binomial-normal) models. All models were adjusted for potential confounders, including age (median or mean), sex (proportion of female participants) and study type (interventional or observational). Furthermore, the proportion of participants acquiring new drug resistance mutations was assessed for each treatment strategy and the mutations described in detail. Statistical analyses were conducted in STATA version 14.1 (StataCorp, Texas, USA) and R version 3.2.3 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria).

Role of the funding source

The funder of the study had no role in the design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation of the results or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Results

Study and participant characteristics

Of 1719 single studies identified, 63 remained potentially eligible after the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, 21 studies, including four RCTs, three single-arm clinical trials and 14 observational studies met our inclusion criteria^{8,11,12,18–35} (Figure 1). A description of the main study characteristics by type of maintenance strategy is given in Table 1. Eight studies (two from France, two from The Netherlands, one from Germany, one from Switzerland and two from Spain) including 251 patients assessed the switch to DTG monotherapy and 14 (five from Italy, four from France, three for Spain, one from US, and one multi-country study), including 1670 participants, the switch to DTG-based dual therapy. Dual therapy consisted of DTG + 3TC (seven studies) or RPV (four studies) or atazanavir (ATV, two studies) or darunavir (DRV, one study). Overall, 14 studies allowed the inclusion of patients with previous virological failure, including five monotherapy studies^{18–20,22–24}. In one study, patients with previous InSTI failure were also included¹². Nineteen studies assessed virological outcomes at six months of maintenance therapy, whereas ten of them additionally showed outcomes at one year^{8,11,12,24,27,29–33,35}. Two studies assessed virological outcomes only at 48 weeks^25,27. Median (or mean) age of participants included in the studies varied from 43 years¹¹ to 63 years²⁴ and 27.6% of them were female. 16 studies reported on the median nadir CD4 cell count, which ranged from 90 cells/µl¹² to 399 cells/µl²⁹.

Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection process.

Table 1. Study characteristics, by treatment group.

Study	Country	Patients included (N)	Median/ mean age (years)	Female (%)	VF definition	Study type	Eligibility criteria
Study	Country	Patients included (N)	Median/ mean age (years)	Female (%)	VF definition	Study type	Previous VF allowed	Previous resistances allowed	Months of stable ART	Months with HIV VL<50	CD4 nadir (cells/ µl)	Other
DTG-Mono
Katlama et al. JAC 2016	F	28	48	46.4	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml or 1× > 200 cp/ml	O	Yes	-	-	≥ 12	-	-
Wijting et al. Lancet HIV	NL	96	45.5	8.5	2× ≥ 200 cp/ml	I	No	No	-	≥ 6	>200	VL zenith <100.000
Gubavu et al. JAC 2016	F	21	47	38	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	-	-	-	-	-
Oldenbüttel et al. AVT 2016	D	31	44.5	32	2× ≥ 20 cp/ml	O	Yes	Not to InSTI	-	≥ 6	-	no AIDS history
Rokx et al. JAC 2016	NL	5	63	0	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	I	Yes	-	-	≥ 12	-	-
Rojas et al. JAC 2016	E	31	56	55	2× ≥ 37 cp/ml	O	Yes	-	-	-	-	-
Lecompte et al. IAS 2017	CH	8	44.5	28.5	1× ≥ 200cp/ml	I	No	No	≥ 24	-	-	-
Blanco et al. JAC 2018	E	31	47	10	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml or 1× > 1000 cp/ml	I	Yes	-	-	≥ 12	>200	-
DTG-3TC
Borghetti et al. JAC 2016	I	36	53	19.4	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	-	-		-	-
Maggiolo et al. BMC ID 2017	I	94	52	32.3	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	Not to 3TC or InSTI	> 6	≥ 6	-	-
Joly et al. CROI 2017	F	104	45	14.4	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	I	No	No	-	≥ 24	>200	no HIV encephalitis^£
Reynes et al. HIV Glasgow 2016	F	27	59	25.9	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	Not to InSTI	> 12	-	-	-
Blanco et al. JAC 2018	E	29	44	21		I	Yes	-	-	≥ 12	>200	-
Maggiolo et al. EACS 2017	I	203	52	24.6	-	O	Yes	No M184V	-	≥ 6	-	-
Taiwo et al. CID 2017	US	44	46	17	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	I	No	No	≥ 12	≥ 12
DTG-RPV
Llibre et al. Lancet 2018	Multi- country	513	43	23	1× ≥ 50 cp/ml	I	No	-	> 6	≥ 12	-	-
Gantner et al. HIV Med 2017	F	116	55	44	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml or 1× ≥ 1,000 cp/ml	O	Yes	-	-	-	-	-
Bonijoly et al. EACS 2017	F	268	55	44	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	-	-	≥ 6	-	On ART for ≥ 12 months
Revuelta et al. Ann pharmacol 2018	E	32	49	37	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	Not to InSTI or RPV	-	-	-	-
DTG-ATV
Riva et al. HIV Glasgow 2016	I	61	52.1	39	-	O	-	-	-	-	-	-
Castagna et al. EACS 2017	I	116	53	13	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	-	-	-	≥ 12	-	-
DTG-DRV
Navarro et al. EACS 2017	E	27	52	30	2× ≥ 50 cp/ml	O	Yes	Only to one ART class	-	≥ 6	-	-

Abbreviations: VF: virologic failure, ART: antiretroviral therapy, DTG: dolutegravir, 3TC: lamivudine, FTC: emtricitabine, RPV: rilpivirine, ATV: atazanavir, InSTI: integrase stand transfert inhibitor, F: France, NL: The Netherlands, D: Germany, E: Spain, CH: Switzerland, I: Italy, USA: United States of America, O: observational study; I: interventional study

£: no abnormal standard biological parameter

Risk of bias

All RCTs were open-label non-inferiority trials^8,18,35, of which one was a single center trial¹⁸ and three were multicenter trials^8,11,35. They reported adequate generation of random allocation sequences and allocation concealment. Three single-arm trials were included, of which two included less than 10 patients^21,24,29. All interventional studies adequately addressed incomplete outcome data: proportions of drop-outs were low and outcome data were missing for less than 20% of participants in all studies. Five of seven trials reported on virological outcomes at both time-points of interest for this study (24 and 48 weeks)^{8,11,24,29,35}. There was no evidence of selective reporting in any of the studies. In each of the 14 observational studies included in this review, the main demographic and clinical characteristics of the study populations were similar and patients were followed for 24 weeks in most studies. Among the observational studies, the majority did not report detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five observational studies reported virological outcomes at both time-points^12,30–33. Amplification for drug resistance testing was successful for 19 of the 27 (70%) patients with VF. Finally, patient retention was over 90% in all 14 cohort studies.

Virological and treatment failure

The pooled estimate of the proportion of participants who experienced a VF on DTG-based monotherapy was 3.6% (95% CI 1.9-6.7) at 24 weeks and 8.9% (95% CI 4.7-16.2) at 48 weeks (Figure 2). The high proportion of treatment failures among patients on monotherapy at 48 weeks was driven by the two studies from the Netherlands, which observed between 8 and 20% of VF^8,24. Among patients on dual therapy, an estimated 0.4% (95% CI 0.2-0.9) experienced a VF at 24 weeks and 0.7% (95% CI 0.4-1.3) at 48 weeks. Independently of the combination used (DTG/3TC, DTG/RPV, DTG/ATV or DTG/DRV), 11 of 14 studies evaluating the effectiveness of dual therapy had less than 1% of patients developing VF. Compared to patients on monotherapy, those on dual therapy were less likely to experience VF by 24 weeks (odds ratio [OR] 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.32, p<0.001) and 48 weeks (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.18, p<0.001). In analyses adjusted for study type (interventional or observational), age (median or mean) and sex (proportion of female participants), the OR for VF at 24 weeks and 48 weeks were very similar to the unadjusted estimates (aOR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.30 for 24 weeks and aOR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.30 for 48 weeks, respectively). The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of virological failure among patients on single or dual DTG-based simplification therapy.

Treatment failure occurred in 5.2% (2.0–12.9) of patients at 24 weeks and 12.3% (4.5–29.4) at 48 weeks on DTG-monotherapy, whereas this outcome was observed in 2.8% (1.4–5.7) of patients at 24 weeks and 6.5% (4.3–9.6) at 48 weeks on DTG-based dual therapy. At 24 weeks, patients on dual therapy tended to be less likely to experience treatment failure compared to those on monotherapy (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.15-1.85). Due to multi-collinearity in the model, we were not able to report on multivariable analyses comparing treatment failure between mono and dual therapy at 48 weeks.

Drug resistance

Acquired resistance mutations to InSTI developed in 9/251 (3.6%) participants on DTG-based monotherapy, which corresponded to 56% of the cases of VF (Table 2). Three individuals developed the Q148R or Q148H mutation in combination with other resistance mutations, conferring high-level resistance to DTG^20,22. These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy. No InSTI resistance mutations developed in patients on dual therapy. Of 962 patients on RPV/DTG, only one developed a major drug resistance mutation to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (K101E). No resistance was observed in plasma among 237 individuals on DTG/3TC.

Table 2. Virological outcomes and drug resistance, by study.

Study	Follow-up (weeks)	N° patients	N° treatment failures (%)		N° virological failures (%)		N° amplified	N° patients with resistance	Resistance patterns (one line per patient)*
Study	Follow-up (weeks)	N° patients	24 weeks	48 weeks	24 weeks	48 weeks	N° amplified	N° patients with resistance	Resistance patterns (one line per patient)*
DTG-Mono
Katlama et al.	24	28	4 (14.3)	-	3 (10.7)	-	3	3	E138K,G140A, Q148R E92Q N155H
Wijting et al.	48	96	-	11 (11.5)	2 (2.1)	8 (8.3)	6	3	S230R R263K N155H
Gubavu et al.	24	21	0	-	0	-	-	-
Oldenbüttel et al.	24	31	2 (6.5)	-	1 (3.2)	-	1	1	Q148H, G140S
Rokx et al.	48	5	0	1 (20)	0	1 (20.0)	1	0
Rojas et al.	24	31	1 (3.2)	-	1 (3.2)	-	1	0	118R**
Lecompte et al.	24	8	1 (12.5)	-	0	-	-	-
Blanco et al.	24	31	2 (6.5)	-	2 (6.4)	-	2	2	E138A, S147G, N155H, Q148R 138K, 155H, 140S
DTG-3TC
Borghetti et al.	24	36	3 (8.3)	-	0	-	-	-
Maggiolo et al.	48	94	0	3 (3.2)	0	0	-	-
Joly et al.	48	104	1 (1.0)	3 (2.9)	1 (1.0)	1 (1.0)	0	-
Reynes et al.	48	27	3 (11.1)	3 (11.1)	0	0	-	-
Blanco et al.	24	29	1 (3.5)	-	1 (3.4)	-	1	0	K70E*, K219E*, G190R^$, M230I^$
Maggiolo et al.	48	203	0	12 (6.0)	0	0	-	-
Taiwo et al.	48	44	1 (2.3)	3 (6.9)	1	1	1	0
DTG-RPV
Llibre et al.	48	513	-	27 (5.3)	1 (0.2)	2 (0.4)	2	1	K101K/E
Gantner et al.	24	116	11 (9.5)	-	1 (0.9)	-	0	-
Bonijoly et al.	24	268	-	51 (19.0)	-	4 (1.5)	-	-
Revuelta et al.	48	32	-	2 (6.5)	0	0	-	-
DTG-ATV
Riva et al.	24	61	3 (4.9)	-	0	-	-	-
Castagna et al.	48	116	5 (4.3)	6 (5.2)	-	1 (0.9)	-	-
DTG-DRV
Navarro et al.	48	27	-	2 (7.4)	0	1 (3.7)	1	0

*bold: InSTI resistance

**in 7% of integrated DNA in PBMC

*** in ≤1.5% of integrated DNA in PBMC

^£ in integrated DNA in PBMC

Dataset 1.Dolutegravir meta-analysis summary data.

This table shows summary measures, including the number of virological and treatment failures in each study.

Discussion

We performed a comprehensive systematic review of studies that reported on VF among patients switched to DTG-based maintenance therapy. Our meta-analysis shows that DTG-based dual therapy is successful in sustaining virological control in ART-experienced HIV-infected patients: only 12 of 1670 (0.7%) experienced a VF and none of them developed resistance mutations to DTG. On the contrary, 16 of 251 (6.4%) individuals switched to DTG monotherapy had a VF, of which more than one-half developed resistance to DTG. Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy³. Overall, our findings suggest that DTG-based monotherapy is not an appropriate simplification strategy and that further studies are urgently needed to confirm the long-term efficacy of DTG-based dual therapy.

DTG-based dual therapy is a promising simplification strategy, especially when combined with 3TC or emtricitabine (FTC, both compounds referred to as XTC), as the likelihood of developing toxicity events and DDI on such regimens is very low. No drug resistance mutations to DTG developed among more than 1600 patients on dual therapy followed for 24 to 48 weeks and only one had a resistance mutation to another drug class. Although based on very few patients, the results seemed to be independent of previous virological failures. For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies. The impact of the latter mutation on viral fitness has been extensively described and could also potentially explain the improved treatment outcomes in these patients compared to those switched to DTG-monotherapy without any previous failures. Interestingly, similar observations were made for bPI-based regimens, for which efficacy was improved when 3TC was added, despite the presence of the 184V mutation³⁶. Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials

We also report on estimates of treatment failure, which includes other reasons for treatment interruptions, such as toxicity or loss to follow-up. In our meta-analysis, the proportion of patients experiencing this combined outcome was more than twice as high among patients on monotherapy compared to those on DTG-based dual therapy. Although this outcome is important in evaluating the clinical efficacy of a novel ART strategy, our capacity to analyze this outcome in detail was limited by the missing information on the specific reasons for treatment interruptions in many studies and by the small number of events, especially at 48 weeks of therapy.

Of all simplification strategies evaluated to date, the DTG/XTC combination could be the one most readily accessible for patients in low- and middle-income countries: both DTG and XTC are available and prequalified by stringent regulatory authorities in generic formulations. In order to be widely implemented, the efficacy of this dual combination should first be evaluated in large studies among different patient populations. The results from the studies included in our meta-analysis are mainly based on selected populations of HIV-infected individuals from European cohorts, and are not generalizable. Furthermore, long-term data are needed, as most treatment failures occurred after the first 24 weeks in several monotherapy studies. Recently, results from the only study which assessed 96-week outcomes with this regimen to date were reported: among 27 ART-experienced individuals with previous VF, DTG/3TC was 100% efficacious virologically¹². However, despite these encouraging results, data from larger studies are needed. In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed. Letendre et al. showed that DTG achieved therapeutic concentrations in the central nervous system (CNS), with a CNS penetration effectiveness score of four³⁷. However, these results were based on a very small sample of patients and data from individuals on simplified, DTG-based therapies are lacking.

As a wealth of data on the efficacy of DTG-maintenance strategies from small studies are being disseminated at a fast pace, this systematic review is the first analysis to provide comparative estimates of virological failure between DTG-based monotherapy and dual therapy. More than 1700 studies were screened, including abstracts from all important HIV conferences in the past years. As our meta-analysis included studies with diverse study designs and populations, it could be argued that the comparison of studies with such differences might be problematic. However, the estimates of VF were very similar across studies, especially in the DTG-based dual therapy arm. This finding highlights the potency of this combination, even in the presence of previous drug resistance mutations or multiple co-morbidities. Unfortunately, only studies including low numbers of patients reported outcomes from individuals on DTG-monotherapy, and data on dual therapy was dominated by one large study that assessed the efficacy of the DTG/RPV combination. As a consequence, the comparison of DTG-monotherapy vs. DTG/XTC, which would have been the most interesting one, was not possible. Furthermore, the lack of availability of individual data from the different studies precluded the analysis of risk factors of VF in the different simplification regimens. As most studies were observational, it is possible that the investigators mainly included patients with good adherence, which may have limited the generalizability of their findings. Finally, our results might have slightly under-estimated the proportion of patients with VF as individuals who were lost to follow-up might have experienced this outcome without them being accounted for. However, our treatment failure estimates showed that even when other reasons of treatment failure were considered, DTG-based dual therapy was superior to monotherapy.

In summary, DTG-based dual maintenance therapy seems to be a promising simplification strategy with high virological efficacy and low potential for DDI and toxicity. Such a treatment regimen could be an interesting alternative to classical triple-ART in selected patients. Furthermore, dual therapy might be a cost-effective global ART strategy³⁸. A number of large prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of DTG-based dual therapy are under way and will inform its potential implementation at a large scale. In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy^39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients⁴¹. Furthermore, it will be critical to evaluate the efficacy of DTG-XTC dual therapy in specific sub-groups such as pregnant and breast-feeding women, adolescents, patients with previous failure to standard triple regimens and harboring the M184V resistance mutation, as well as in patients with HIV associated neurocognitive disorder and tuberculosis coinfection.

Data availability

F1000Research: Dataset 1. Dolutegravir meta-analysis summary data., 10.5256/f1000research.15995.d215724⁴²

Grant information

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione-PROSPER fellowship PZ00P3_154730 to GW, grant 32FP30-174281 to ME, and grant 33IC30_166819 to AC).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplementary File 1: Completed PRISMA checklist.

Click here to access the data.

Supplementary File 2: Search strategy for Medline.

Click here to access the data.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Gulick RM, Mellors JW, Havlir D, et al.: Treatment with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection and prior antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337(11): 734–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
2. Mathis S, Khanlari B, Pulido F, et al.: Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2011; 6(7): e22003. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Paton NI, Stöhr W, Arenas-Pinto A, et al.: Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet HIV. 2015; 2(10): e417–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Pulido F, Ribera E, Lagarde M, et al.: Non-inferiority of dual-therapy (DT) with darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) plus 3TC versus triple-therapy (TT) with DRV/r plus TDF/FTC or ABC/3TC for maintenance of viral suppression: 48-week results of the DUAL-GESIDA 8014 trial - abstract n°: 0331. HIV Glasgow Conference. Glasgow, 23–26 October 2016. 2016. Reference Source
5. Arribas JR, Girard PM, Landman R, et al.: Dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression (OLE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015; 15(7): 785–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
6. Perez-Molina JA, Rubio R, Rivero A, et al.: Dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides in virologically stable patients with HIV-1 (SALT): 48 week results from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015; 15(7): 775–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
7. EACS Guidelines version 9.0. 2017. Reference Source
8. Wijting I, Rokx C, Boucher C, et al.: Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy for HIV (DOMONO): a phase 2, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet HIV. 2017; 4(12): e547–e554. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Cahn P, Rolón MJ, Figueroa MI, et al.: Dolutegravir-lamivudine as initial therapy in HIV-1 infected, ARV-naive patients, 48-week results of the PADDLE (Pilot Antiretroviral Design with Dolutegravir LamivudinE) study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017; 20(1): 21678. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Charpentier C, Peytavin G, Lê M, et al.: High virological suppression rates regardless to the genotypic susceptibility score after switching to a dolutegravir-based regimen: W48 results in a prospective cohor. Abstract number: MOPEB0316. International AIDS Society (IAS) conference. Paris, 23–26 July 2017. 2017. Reference Source
11. Llibre JM, Hung CC, Brinson C, et al.: Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dolutegravir-rilpivirine for the maintenance of virological suppression in adults with HIV-1: phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 studies. Lancet. 2018; 391(10123): 839–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Reynes J, Meftah N, Tuaillon E, et al.: Dual regimen with dolutegravir and lamivudine maintains virologic suppression even in heavily treatment experienced HIV-infected patients: 96 weeks results from maintenance DOLULAM study. Abstract n°: MOPEB0322. International AIDS Society (IAS) conference. Paris, 23–26 July 2017. 2017. Reference Source
13. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al.: The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7): e1000100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al.: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
16. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al.: ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al.: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414): 557–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Blanco JL, Rojas J, Paredes R, et al.: Dolutegravir-based maintenance monotherapy versus dual therapy with lamivudine: a planned 24 week analysis of the DOLAM randomized clinical trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018; 73(7): 1965–1971. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
19. Gubavu C, Prazuck T, Niang M, et al.: Dolutegravir-based monotherapy or dual therapy maintains a high proportion of viral suppression even in highly experienced HIV-1-infected patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(4): 1046–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Katlama C, Soulié C, Caby F, et al.: Dolutegravir as monotherapy in HIV-1-infected individuals with suppressed HIV viraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(9): 2646–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Sculier D, Doco-Lecompte T, Yerly S, et al.: Stable HIV-1 reservoirs on dolutegravir maintenance monotherapy: the MONODO study. HIV Med. 2018; 19(8): 572–577. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Oldenbuettel C, Wolf E, Ritter A, et al.: Dolutegravir monotherapy as treatment de-escalation in HIV-infected adults with virological control: DoluMono cohort results. Antivir Ther. 2017; 22(2): 169–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Rojas J, Blanco JL, Marcos MA, et al.: Dolutegravir monotherapy in HIV-infected patients with sustained viral suppression. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(7): 1975–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
24. Rokx C, Schurink CA, Boucher CA, et al.: Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy: first experiences in HIV-1 patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(6): 1632–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
25. Bonijoly T CA, Cheret A, Cotte L, et al.: Week-48 efficacy and safety of dolutegravir + rilpivirine dual therapy as switch strategy in a real-life cohort study. Abstract n°: PE9/15 European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.
26. Borghetti A, Baldin G, Ciccullo A, et al.: Virological control and metabolic improvement in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed patients switching to lamivudine/dolutegravir dual therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(8): 2359–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
27. Castagna AGR, Rusconi S, Riva A, et al.: Durability and Safety of a Dual Antiretroviral Regimen with Dolutegravir and Unboosted Atazanavir in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Virological Suppression. Abstract n°: PE9/63. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.
28. Gantner P, Cuzin L, Allavena C, et al.: Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir and rilpivirine dual therapy as a simplification strategy: a cohort study. HIV Med. 2017; 18(9): 704–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Joly V, Burdet C, Landman R, et al.: Promising Results of Lamivudine + DolutegravirMaintenance Therapy in ANRS 167 Lamidol Trial. Abstract number: 458. Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Seattle, 13–16 February 2017. 2017. Reference Source
30. Maggiolo F, Gulminetti R, Pagnucco L, et al.: Lamivudine/dolutegravir dual therapy in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2017; 17(1): 215. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Maggiolo FGR, Pagnucco L, Digaetano M, et al.: Durability of dolutegravir + lamivudine as simplification cART in patients with suppressed HIV-RNA. Abstract number: PE9/49. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.
32. Navarro JSJ, Silva A, Burgos J, et al.: Efficacy of Once-daily Dolutegravir Plus Boosted-Darunavir as a Switch Strategy in HIV-infected Heavily-treated Patients. Abstract n°: PE9/93. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.
33. Revuelta-Herrero JL, Chamorro-de-Vega E, Rodríguez-González CG, et al.: Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of a Treatment Switch to Dolutegravir Plus Rilpivirine Dual Therapy in Treatment-Experienced HIV Patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2018; 52(1): 11–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
34. Riva AP RS, Bonora S, Cattelan M, et al.: Dolutegravir and unboosted atazanavir: a dual NRTI‐ and booster‐free antiretroviral regimen simplification in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression. Abstract number: P090. HIV Glasgow Conference, Glasgow, 23–26 October 2016. 2016.
35. Taiwo BO, Marconi VC, Berzins B, et al.: Dolutegravir Plus Lamivudine Maintains Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Suppression Through Week 48 in a Pilot Randomized Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(11): 1794–1797. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
36. Ciaffi L, Koulla-Shiro S, Sawadogo AB, et al.: Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine dual therapy as second-line maintenance treatment for HIV-1-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa (ANRS12 286/MOBIDIP): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet HIV. 2017; 4(9): e384–e92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Letendre SL, Mills AM, Tashima KT, et al.: ING116070: a study of the pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of dolutegravir in cerebrospinal fluid in HIV-1-infected, antiretroviral therapy-naive subjects. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59(7): 1032–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Girouard MP, Sax PE, Parker RA, et al.: The Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of 2-Drug Dolutegravir-Lamivudine Regimens for the Treatment of HIV Infection in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62(6): 784–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
39. Camly A BM, Sculier D, Wandeler G: Evaluation of a simplified strategy for the long-term management of HIV infection: a non-inferiority, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial: The Simpl'HIV Trial. NCT03160105.
40. E. M. Dolutegravir-based Simplification Strategies: DOLAM. EudraCT 2015-000274-35.
41. Taiwo BO, Zheng L, Stefanescu A, et al.: ACTG A5353: A Pilot Study of Dolutegravir Plus Lamivudine for Initial Treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1)-infected Participants With HIV-1 RNA <500000 Copies/mL. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(11): 1689–1697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Wandeler G, Buzzi M, Anderegg N, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Research. 2018. http://www.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.15995.d215724

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 30 Aug 2018

Author details Author details

Marta Buzzi
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Nanina Anderegg
Roles: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Delphine Sculier
Roles: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Charles Béguelin
Roles: Conceptualization, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Matthias Egger
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Alexandra Calmy
Roles: Conceptualization, Project Administration, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

We declare no competing interests. AC received unrestricted educational grants (to her Institution) in 2016 and 2017 from ViiV (DTG originator manufacturer).

Grant information

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Ambizione-PROSPER fellowship PZ00P3_154730 to GW, grant 32FP30-174281 to ME, and grant 33IC30_166819 to AC).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 03 Apr 2019, 7:1359

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15995.2

version 1

Published: 30 Aug 2018, 7:1359

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15995.1

© 2018 Wandeler G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Wandeler G, Buzzi M, Anderegg N et al. Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 3 approved] F1000Research 2018, 7:1359 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15995.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 30 Aug 2018

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2018

Omar Sued, Fundación Huésped, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17470.r37756

The topic is extremely important, the conclusion is very relevant for informing the clinical practice and the timing is perfect.
Please see below some comments to improve this excellent systematic review

Note that reference 9

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
Regarding the phrase "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
In the discussion, these phrases look similar:

First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy^39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro). Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests: I received an Investigator Research Grants from ViiV and travel grants from Richmond.

Reviewer Expertise: HIV clinical trials

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

03 Apr 2019

Author Response

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in ... Continue reading Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in a generic sentence.

REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
We used the Cochrane Collaboration list to assess risk of bias among the two RCT included in the meta-analysis. For observational studies, it was not appropriate to use the ROBINS-I tool, as we only considered data from the group of patients maintenance therapy. Thus, we assessed the population characteristics and missing outcome data for each study. This is explained in detail in the methods section of the published manuscript.

The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
We explained this in the text (see data analysis section).

Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
The reference is indicated differently in the text and we decided to keep the figure 2 unchanged.

Regarding the phrase (page 9) "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
We included this information in the new version of the paper (see drug resistance section).

Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
We adapted the table 2 in the new version of the paper.

In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
As this information was missing from most studies, we described cases where reported but could not formally evaluate the association between specific mutations and treatment failure.

In the discussion, these phrases look similar:
First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"
Adapted in the text (doubled sentence cancelled from the 2nd paragraph of the discussion section).

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section): XTC canceled and FTC used in reference to study using FTC.

The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section)

It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro).
This is an important comment. However, available data within these studies did not allow us to make specific conclusions.
Blanco dual: 3.45% VF at W24.
Bonijoly: 1.49% VF at W48.
Navarro: 3.70% of VF at W48.
Taiwo: 2.27% VF at W 24 and W48
All others dual < 1% of VF both at 24 and 48 weeks.

Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).
We checked again data and did not find any error in the figure.
Only one of the 44 patients exposed to dual therapy had a rel VF (1/44 0 2.7%). with the FDA snapshot algorithm 2 other patients (one lost to FUP and one switching therapy because AE) were considered as failure by authors at W24.

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in a generic sentence.

REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
We used the Cochrane Collaboration list to assess risk of bias among the two RCT included in the meta-analysis. For observational studies, it was not appropriate to use the ROBINS-I tool, as we only considered data from the group of patients maintenance therapy. Thus, we assessed the population characteristics and missing outcome data for each study. This is explained in detail in the methods section of the published manuscript.

The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
We explained this in the text (see data analysis section).

Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
The reference is indicated differently in the text and we decided to keep the figure 2 unchanged.

Regarding the phrase (page 9) "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
We included this information in the new version of the paper (see drug resistance section).

Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
We adapted the table 2 in the new version of the paper.

In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
As this information was missing from most studies, we described cases where reported but could not formally evaluate the association between specific mutations and treatment failure.

In the discussion, these phrases look similar:
First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"
Adapted in the text (doubled sentence cancelled from the 2nd paragraph of the discussion section).

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section): XTC canceled and FTC used in reference to study using FTC.

The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section)

It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro).
This is an important comment. However, available data within these studies did not allow us to make specific conclusions.
Blanco dual: 3.45% VF at W24.
Bonijoly: 1.49% VF at W48.
Navarro: 3.70% of VF at W48.
Taiwo: 2.27% VF at W 24 and W48
All others dual < 1% of VF both at 24 and 48 weeks.

Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).
We checked again data and did not find any error in the figure.
Only one of the 44 patients exposed to dual therapy had a rel VF (1/44 0 2.7%). with the FDA snapshot algorithm 2 other patients (one lost to FUP and one switching therapy because AE) were considered as failure by authors at W24.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

03 Apr 2019

Author Response

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in ... Continue reading Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in a generic sentence.

REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
We used the Cochrane Collaboration list to assess risk of bias among the two RCT included in the meta-analysis. For observational studies, it was not appropriate to use the ROBINS-I tool, as we only considered data from the group of patients maintenance therapy. Thus, we assessed the population characteristics and missing outcome data for each study. This is explained in detail in the methods section of the published manuscript.

The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
We explained this in the text (see data analysis section).

Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
The reference is indicated differently in the text and we decided to keep the figure 2 unchanged.

Regarding the phrase (page 9) "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
We included this information in the new version of the paper (see drug resistance section).

Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
We adapted the table 2 in the new version of the paper.

In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
As this information was missing from most studies, we described cases where reported but could not formally evaluate the association between specific mutations and treatment failure.

In the discussion, these phrases look similar:
First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"
Adapted in the text (doubled sentence cancelled from the 2nd paragraph of the discussion section).

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section): XTC canceled and FTC used in reference to study using FTC.

The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section)

It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro).
This is an important comment. However, available data within these studies did not allow us to make specific conclusions.
Blanco dual: 3.45% VF at W24.
Bonijoly: 1.49% VF at W48.
Navarro: 3.70% of VF at W48.
Taiwo: 2.27% VF at W 24 and W48
All others dual < 1% of VF both at 24 and 48 weeks.

Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).
We checked again data and did not find any error in the figure.
Only one of the 44 patients exposed to dual therapy had a rel VF (1/44 0 2.7%). with the FDA snapshot algorithm 2 other patients (one lost to FUP and one switching therapy because AE) were considered as failure by authors at W24.

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in a generic sentence.

REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
We used the Cochrane Collaboration list to assess risk of bias among the two RCT included in the meta-analysis. For observational studies, it was not appropriate to use the ROBINS-I tool, as we only considered data from the group of patients maintenance therapy. Thus, we assessed the population characteristics and missing outcome data for each study. This is explained in detail in the methods section of the published manuscript.

The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
We explained this in the text (see data analysis section).

Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
The reference is indicated differently in the text and we decided to keep the figure 2 unchanged.

Regarding the phrase (page 9) "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
We included this information in the new version of the paper (see drug resistance section).

Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
We adapted the table 2 in the new version of the paper.

In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
As this information was missing from most studies, we described cases where reported but could not formally evaluate the association between specific mutations and treatment failure.

In the discussion, these phrases look similar:
First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"
Adapted in the text (doubled sentence cancelled from the 2nd paragraph of the discussion section).

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section): XTC canceled and FTC used in reference to study using FTC.

The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section)

It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro).
This is an important comment. However, available data within these studies did not allow us to make specific conclusions.
Blanco dual: 3.45% VF at W24.
Bonijoly: 1.49% VF at W48.
Navarro: 3.70% of VF at W48.
Taiwo: 2.27% VF at W 24 and W48
All others dual < 1% of VF both at 24 and 48 weeks.

Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).
We checked again data and did not find any error in the figure.
Only one of the 44 patients exposed to dual therapy had a rel VF (1/44 0 2.7%). with the FDA snapshot algorithm 2 other patients (one lost to FUP and one switching therapy because AE) were considered as failure by authors at W24.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 10 Sep 2018

Laurent Hocqueloux, Orleans Regional Hospital Centre (CHR Orléans), Orléans, France

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17470.r37757

Wandeler and colleagues provide here an excellent and comprehensive review on DTG-based maintenance therapy, even though this review will lack the latest communications on the topic (at IAS 2018). Nevertheless, the conclusions they make are in accordance with what is currently admitted by experts in the field and worldwide guidelines: DTG monotherapy lead to an unacceptable virologic failure (VF) rate (because of >50% of emerging mutations to the class) whereas dual therapy has an excellent efficacy and no VF with mutations to the class.

I only have minor comments or questions:
Results:

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”

Discussion:

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
(page 10, “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.”) There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.¹ and Gianella et al.²)and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.³)
(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.⁴ and Hocqueloux et al.⁵), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.⁶) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.⁷ ).

References:

(references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Hocqueloux C, Gubavu S, De Dieuleveult B, Buret J, et al.: HIV-1-infected patients under successful less-drug regimens have similar genital shedding and residual viremia than those under triple therapy. IAS Conference on HIV Science. 2017. Reference Source
2. Gianella S, Wilkin T, Berzins B, Sax P.E, et al.: Genital HIV-1 shedding with Dolutegravir (DTG) plus Lamivudine (3TC) dual therapy. 2018. Reference Source
3. Doco Lecompte T, Sculier D, yerly S, Decosterd L, et al.: MONODO: peripheral blood and cerebrospinal fluid viremia of 24-weeks MONOtherapy of DOlutegravir in HIV-1 virologically suppressed patients. 2017. Reference Source
4. Braun D.L, Turk T, Hample B, Grube C, et al.: Simplification to dolutegravir monotherapy is non-inferior compared to continuation of combination antiretroviral therapy in patients who initiated combination antiretroviral therapy during primary HIV infection: A randomized, controlled, non-inferiority trial. 2018. Reference Source
5. Hocqueloux L, Allavena C, Prazuck T, Bernard L, et al.: Dolutegravir monotherapy versus dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine for HIV-1-infected virologically suppressed patients: Results from the randomized non-inferiority MONCAY trial. 2018. Reference Source
6. Durable suppression 2 years after switch to DTG RPV 2-drug regimen: SWORD 1.
7. Cahn P, Sierra Madero J, Arribas J, Antinori A, et al.: Non-inferior efficacy of dolutegravir (DTG) plus lamivudine (3TC) versus DTG plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) fixed-dose combination in antiretroviral treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 infection - 48-week results from the GEMINI studies. 2018. Reference Source

Competing Interests: I have received personal fees from Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, MSD and ViiV Healthcare for advisory boards and travels.

Reviewer Expertise: Monotherapy and dual therapy, HIV reservoirs, primary-infection, post-treatment control.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

03 Apr 2019

Author Response

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not ... Continue reading (page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not have these data from most of the studies.

(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”
The first sentence says explicitly that only the treatment strategy was found to contribute to heterogeneity, and we are not sure how to make the conclusion more explicit.
The second sentence quantifies the statement.

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
We included references in the new version of the paper (see 2^nd paragraph in the discussion section).

(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
We added a comment in the 1st paragraph of the discussion section.
« We performed a comprehensive systematic review of studies that reported on VF among patients switched to DTG-based maintenance therapy. Our meta-analysis shows that DTG-based dual therapy is successful in sustaining virological control in ART-experienced HIV-infected patients: only 12 of 1670 (0.7%) experienced a VF and none of them developed resistance mutations to DTG. For comparison, recent trials testing InSTI-based triple maintenance combinations showed a similar virological failure rate (ref ci dessous 1-4). On the contrary, 16 of 251 (6.4%) individuals switched to DTG monotherapy had a VF, of which more than one-half developed resistance to DTG. »

(page 10) “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.” There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.1 and Gianella et al.2) and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.3)
We modified the text in the new version of the paper (see 4^th paragraph of the discussion section).
« In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed. Letendre et al. Showed that DTG achieved therapeutic concentrations in the central nervous system (CNS), with a CNS penetration effectiveness
score of four. In the MONODO study, all patients had an undetectable plasma HIV viral load at week 24 on DTG maintenance monotherapy, whereas only one had a detectable viral load in the cerebrospinal fluid (ref 21 by Sculier et al). Moreover, levels of HIV-1 RNA in the genital tract on DTG-monotherapy (nouvelle ref 1 ) and under DTG-3TC (nouvelle ref 2) were comparable to those under standard cART. However, these results were based on a very small sample of patients and data from individuals on simplified, DTG-based therapies are lacking. »

(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.4 and Hocqueloux et al.5), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.6) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.7).
In accordance with the pre-specified analysis plan described in our study protocol, we decided not to include these results as they had not been presented at the time of the last version of our analyses.

References: (references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).
We agree with the reviewer. However, as one study reported 24 weeks and the other 48 weeks outcomes, we decided to keep both estimates. Furthermore, we did not combine them as the study populations were not exactly the same.

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not have these data from most of the studies.

(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”
The first sentence says explicitly that only the treatment strategy was found to contribute to heterogeneity, and we are not sure how to make the conclusion more explicit.
The second sentence quantifies the statement.

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
We included references in the new version of the paper (see 2^nd paragraph in the discussion section).

(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
We added a comment in the 1st paragraph of the discussion section.
« We performed a comprehensive systematic review of studies that reported on VF among patients switched to DTG-based maintenance therapy. Our meta-analysis shows that DTG-based dual therapy is successful in sustaining virological control in ART-experienced HIV-infected patients: only 12 of 1670 (0.7%) experienced a VF and none of them developed resistance mutations to DTG. For comparison, recent trials testing InSTI-based triple maintenance combinations showed a similar virological failure rate (ref ci dessous 1-4). On the contrary, 16 of 251 (6.4%) individuals switched to DTG monotherapy had a VF, of which more than one-half developed resistance to DTG. »

(page 10) “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.” There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.1 and Gianella et al.2) and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.3)
We modified the text in the new version of the paper (see 4^th paragraph of the discussion section).
« In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed. Letendre et al. Showed that DTG achieved therapeutic concentrations in the central nervous system (CNS), with a CNS penetration effectiveness
score of four. In the MONODO study, all patients had an undetectable plasma HIV viral load at week 24 on DTG maintenance monotherapy, whereas only one had a detectable viral load in the cerebrospinal fluid (ref 21 by Sculier et al). Moreover, levels of HIV-1 RNA in the genital tract on DTG-monotherapy (nouvelle ref 1 ) and under DTG-3TC (nouvelle ref 2) were comparable to those under standard cART. However, these results were based on a very small sample of patients and data from individuals on simplified, DTG-based therapies are lacking. »

(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.4 and Hocqueloux et al.5), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.6) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.7).
In accordance with the pre-specified analysis plan described in our study protocol, we decided not to include these results as they had not been presented at the time of the last version of our analyses.

References: (references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).
We agree with the reviewer. However, as one study reported 24 weeks and the other 48 weeks outcomes, we decided to keep both estimates. Furthermore, we did not combine them as the study populations were not exactly the same.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

03 Apr 2019

Author Response

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not ... Continue reading (page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not have these data from most of the studies.

(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”
The first sentence says explicitly that only the treatment strategy was found to contribute to heterogeneity, and we are not sure how to make the conclusion more explicit.
The second sentence quantifies the statement.

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
We included references in the new version of the paper (see 2^nd paragraph in the discussion section).

(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
We added a comment in the 1st paragraph of the discussion section.
« We performed a comprehensive systematic review of studies that reported on VF among patients switched to DTG-based maintenance therapy. Our meta-analysis shows that DTG-based dual therapy is successful in sustaining virological control in ART-experienced HIV-infected patients: only 12 of 1670 (0.7%) experienced a VF and none of them developed resistance mutations to DTG. For comparison, recent trials testing InSTI-based triple maintenance combinations showed a similar virological failure rate (ref ci dessous 1-4). On the contrary, 16 of 251 (6.4%) individuals switched to DTG monotherapy had a VF, of which more than one-half developed resistance to DTG. »

(page 10) “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.” There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.1 and Gianella et al.2) and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.3)
We modified the text in the new version of the paper (see 4^th paragraph of the discussion section).
« In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed. Letendre et al. Showed that DTG achieved therapeutic concentrations in the central nervous system (CNS), with a CNS penetration effectiveness
score of four. In the MONODO study, all patients had an undetectable plasma HIV viral load at week 24 on DTG maintenance monotherapy, whereas only one had a detectable viral load in the cerebrospinal fluid (ref 21 by Sculier et al). Moreover, levels of HIV-1 RNA in the genital tract on DTG-monotherapy (nouvelle ref 1 ) and under DTG-3TC (nouvelle ref 2) were comparable to those under standard cART. However, these results were based on a very small sample of patients and data from individuals on simplified, DTG-based therapies are lacking. »

(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.4 and Hocqueloux et al.5), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.6) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.7).
In accordance with the pre-specified analysis plan described in our study protocol, we decided not to include these results as they had not been presented at the time of the last version of our analyses.

References: (references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).
We agree with the reviewer. However, as one study reported 24 weeks and the other 48 weeks outcomes, we decided to keep both estimates. Furthermore, we did not combine them as the study populations were not exactly the same.

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not have these data from most of the studies.

(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”
The first sentence says explicitly that only the treatment strategy was found to contribute to heterogeneity, and we are not sure how to make the conclusion more explicit.
The second sentence quantifies the statement.

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
We included references in the new version of the paper (see 2^nd paragraph in the discussion section).

(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
We added a comment in the 1st paragraph of the discussion section.
« We performed a comprehensive systematic review of studies that reported on VF among patients switched to DTG-based maintenance therapy. Our meta-analysis shows that DTG-based dual therapy is successful in sustaining virological control in ART-experienced HIV-infected patients: only 12 of 1670 (0.7%) experienced a VF and none of them developed resistance mutations to DTG. For comparison, recent trials testing InSTI-based triple maintenance combinations showed a similar virological failure rate (ref ci dessous 1-4). On the contrary, 16 of 251 (6.4%) individuals switched to DTG monotherapy had a VF, of which more than one-half developed resistance to DTG. »

(page 10) “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.” There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.1 and Gianella et al.2) and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.3)
We modified the text in the new version of the paper (see 4^th paragraph of the discussion section).
« In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed. Letendre et al. Showed that DTG achieved therapeutic concentrations in the central nervous system (CNS), with a CNS penetration effectiveness
score of four. In the MONODO study, all patients had an undetectable plasma HIV viral load at week 24 on DTG maintenance monotherapy, whereas only one had a detectable viral load in the cerebrospinal fluid (ref 21 by Sculier et al). Moreover, levels of HIV-1 RNA in the genital tract on DTG-monotherapy (nouvelle ref 1 ) and under DTG-3TC (nouvelle ref 2) were comparable to those under standard cART. However, these results were based on a very small sample of patients and data from individuals on simplified, DTG-based therapies are lacking. »

(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.4 and Hocqueloux et al.5), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.6) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.7).
In accordance with the pre-specified analysis plan described in our study protocol, we decided not to include these results as they had not been presented at the time of the last version of our analyses.

References: (references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).
We agree with the reviewer. However, as one study reported 24 weeks and the other 48 weeks outcomes, we decided to keep both estimates. Furthermore, we did not combine them as the study populations were not exactly the same.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Views

113

Reviewer Report 03 Sep 2018

Esteban Martinez, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.17470.r37755

This paper compared the efficacy of dolutegravir-based monotherapy vs dual therapy using the methodology of systematic review and meta-analysis. The topic is of great interest as many different studies with these simplication strategies have been done. Although dolutegravir monotherapy is not recommended at present due to the risk of virological failure with development of resistance mutations and dolutegravir dual therapy seems a promising strategy with recent evidence from large clinical trials, this systematic review and meta-analysis is timely because there are almost no direct comparisons between dolutegravir-based monotherapy vs dual therapy. The design and the methods (including PRISMA reporting) are adequate, as they are the interpretation of results. It is interesting that not only monotherapy was inferior to dual therapy but the difference resulted highly increased from 24 weeks to 48 weeks of follow-up, thus indicating that the risk of failure with the monotherapy strategy may greatly increase after the initial 24 weeks of follow-up. This is remarkable as many exploratory studies had 24-week results only.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: I have received grants and honoraria for lectures or advisory boards from Gilead, Janssen, MSD, and ViiV.

Reviewer Expertise: Antiretroviral therapy strategies, complications of HIV infection and its therapy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

03 Apr 2019

Author Response

No comments needing to be addressed
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
No comments needing to be addressed
No comments needing to be addressed
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

03 Apr 2019

Author Response

No comments needing to be addressed
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
No comments needing to be addressed
No comments needing to be addressed
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 30 Aug 2018

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3
Version 2 (revision) 03 Apr 19
Version 1 30 Aug 18	read	read	read

Esteban Martinez, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
Laurent Hocqueloux, Orleans Regional Hospital Centre (CHR Orléans), Orléans, France
Omar Sued, Fundación Huésped, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

20 Views

10 Sep 2018 | for Version 1

Omar Sued, Fundación Huésped, Buenos Aires, Argentina

20 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
Regarding the phrase "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
In the discussion, these phrases look similar:

First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy^39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro). Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Partly

Competing Interests

I received an Investigator Research Grants from ViiV and travel grants from Richmond.

Reviewer Expertise

HIV clinical trials

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

Note that reference 9 is for naive patients, and not for switching.
We agree with the comment. However, we prefer to keep this unchanged as we used the reference in a generic sentence.

REPRODUCIBILITY: Risk of bias checklist is not available. It could be good idea to include as supplementary material a sample of the checklist of assessment of bias.
We used the Cochrane Collaboration list to assess risk of bias among the two RCT included in the meta-analysis. For observational studies, it was not appropriate to use the ROBINS-I tool, as we only considered data from the group of patients maintenance therapy. Thus, we assessed the population characteristics and missing outcome data for each study. This is explained in detail in the methods section of the published manuscript.

The number of reviewed studies is 21, but the authors reported 8 for monotherapy and 14 for dual therapy without clarifying that some are focused on both strategies.
We explained this in the text (see data analysis section).

Similarly, in figure 2, the name of the author is followed by the (n) of participants. This makes the reader think this is the reference. Please consider to add the reference number in this place, and an additional column for "n"
The reference is indicated differently in the text and we decided to keep the figure 2 unchanged.

Regarding the phrase (page 9) "These three patients did not have a history of previous VF and had a suppressed HIV viral load for several years before switching to DTG-monotherapy". Please comment if patients experiencing INSTI resistance in monotherapy were previously exposed to INSTI.
We included this information in the new version of the paper (see drug resistance section).

Please review Table 2, because some INSTI mutations are not in bold, and the $ symbol is not explained in notes
We adapted the table 2 in the new version of the paper.

In discussion you mention "For instance, no virological failures were noted among patients on DTG/3TC despite the presence of a 184V mutation at the time of simplification in several studies." but you are not showing this result. Given the potential clinical importance of this issue, consider show how many participants had this mutation and show the outcomes.
As this information was missing from most studies, we described cases where reported but could not formally evaluate the association between specific mutations and treatment failure.

In the discussion, these phrases look similar:
First Paragraph: "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, the risk of losing future treatment options is higher with DTG-monotherapy"
Second Paragraph "Although the proportion of patients experiencing a confirmed viral rebound on DTG-monotherapy does not seem to be higher than in patients on PI-monotherapy, their chances of losing future treatment options is higher than reported in most PI-monotherapy trials"
Adapted in the text (doubled sentence cancelled from the 2nd paragraph of the discussion section).

Why to mention DTG-XTC if no study was presented with FTC?. I would suggest to stick to the presented data, therefore to discuss about 3TC.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section): XTC canceled and FTC used in reference to study using FTC.

The phrase "In addition to the studies on maintenance therapy39,40, clinical trials are also assessing the efficacy of DTG/XTC in treatment-naïve patients" should be updated based on the results of GEMINI1&2.
Adapted in the new version of the paper (see discussion section)

It could be good to try to explain the higher rate of failure in those three trials in dual therapy (Blanco, and Navarro).
This is an important comment. However, available data within these studies did not allow us to make specific conclusions.
Blanco dual: 3.45% VF at W24.
Bonijoly: 1.49% VF at W48.
Navarro: 3.70% of VF at W48.
Taiwo: 2.27% VF at W 24 and W48
All others dual < 1% of VF both at 24 and 48 weeks.

Please check the failure rate in figure 2 for Taiwo (44 patients with failure 2.7%).
We checked again data and did not find any error in the figure.
Only one of the 44 patients exposed to dual therapy had a rel VF (1/44 0 2.7%). with the FDA snapshot algorithm 2 other patients (one lost to FUP and one switching therapy because AE) were considered as failure by authors at W24.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

29 Views

10 Sep 2018 | for Version 1

Laurent Hocqueloux, Orleans Regional Hospital Centre (CHR Orléans), Orléans, France

29 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”

Discussion:

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
(page 10, “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.”) There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.¹ and Gianella et al.²)and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.³)
(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.⁴ and Hocqueloux et al.⁵), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.⁶) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.⁷ ).

References:

(references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required.
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

I have received personal fees from Abbvie, Gilead, Janssen, MSD and ViiV Healthcare for advisory boards and travels.

Reviewer Expertise

Monotherapy and dual therapy, HIV reservoirs, primary-infection, post-treatment control.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

(page 4) Can the authors provide any data on the impact of CD4 nadir on VF during monotherapy (as described by Wijting in the DOMONO trial)?
Unfortunately, we do not have these data from most of the studies.

(page 8) Authors should give more explicit conclusion on this paragraph “The only variable that contributed to explaining the between-study heterogeneity in both the 24 and 48-week analyses was treatment strategy. When including this variable, the tau-squared were reduced from 1.17 (95% CI 0.33-2.19) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.11) in the 24 week analysis and from 1.37 (95% CI 0.54-2.15) to 0.00 (95% CI 0.00-1.00) in the 48 week analysis. The inclusion of other variables did not impact the estimates of tau-squared.”
The first sentence says explicitly that only the treatment strategy was found to contribute to heterogeneity, and we are not sure how to make the conclusion more explicit.
The second sentence quantifies the statement.

(page 9) Please provide some references (at least one) for the impact of M184V on viral fitness (this one is of interest for DTG-based regimen: doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001191)
We included references in the new version of the paper (see 2^nd paragraph in the discussion section).

(page 9) I think authors should provide some data on VF (%, emerging mutations) during switch from a triple therapy to another one (in order to have an “historical comparator” for dual therapy)
We added a comment in the 1st paragraph of the discussion section.
« We performed a comprehensive systematic review of studies that reported on VF among patients switched to DTG-based maintenance therapy. Our meta-analysis shows that DTG-based dual therapy is successful in sustaining virological control in ART-experienced HIV-infected patients: only 12 of 1670 (0.7%) experienced a VF and none of them developed resistance mutations to DTG. For comparison, recent trials testing InSTI-based triple maintenance combinations showed a similar virological failure rate (ref ci dessous 1-4). On the contrary, 16 of 251 (6.4%) individuals switched to DTG monotherapy had a VF, of which more than one-half developed resistance to DTG. »

(page 10) “In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed.” There are some references for mono- or dual-therapy in the genital tract (Hocqueloux et al.1 and Gianella et al.2) and CNS (Doco Lecompte et al.3)
We modified the text in the new version of the paper (see 4^th paragraph of the discussion section).
« In addition, more data on the activity of DTG-based simplified regimens in compartments other than blood are needed. Letendre et al. Showed that DTG achieved therapeutic concentrations in the central nervous system (CNS), with a CNS penetration effectiveness
score of four. In the MONODO study, all patients had an undetectable plasma HIV viral load at week 24 on DTG maintenance monotherapy, whereas only one had a detectable viral load in the cerebrospinal fluid (ref 21 by Sculier et al). Moreover, levels of HIV-1 RNA in the genital tract on DTG-monotherapy (nouvelle ref 1 ) and under DTG-3TC (nouvelle ref 2) were comparable to those under standard cART. However, these results were based on a very small sample of patients and data from individuals on simplified, DTG-based therapies are lacking. »

(page 10) Authors should cite recent reports (all communicated at the IAS 2018 in Amsterdam) confirming their conclusions, even though they cannot include them in the analyses: two randomized-controlled clinical trials on DTG monotherapy (Braun et al.4 and Hocqueloux et al.5), the extended follow-up of the SWORD trials at week 100 (Aboud et al.6) and results of the GEMINI trials (Cahn et al.7).
In accordance with the pre-specified analysis plan described in our study protocol, we decided not to include these results as they had not been presented at the time of the last version of our analyses.

References: (references 25 and 28) I think two references (Gantner and Bonijoly) are duplicates (as they are based on the analyze of the same database; Bonijoly et al. have included more patients / with longer duration of follow-up than Gantner).
We agree with the reviewer. However, as one study reported 24 weeks and the other 48 weeks outcomes, we decided to keep both estimates. Furthermore, we did not combine them as the study populations were not exactly the same.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

113 Views

03 Sep 2018 | for Version 1

Esteban Martinez, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

113 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

I have received grants and honoraria for lectures or advisory boards from Gilead, Janssen, MSD, and ViiV.

Reviewer Expertise

Antiretroviral therapy strategies, complications of HIV infection and its therapy

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

03 Apr 2019

Gilles Wandeler, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland

No comments needing to be addressed

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Click here to access the data.

Downloaded data do not display as expected? Download the data

[1] 1. Gulick RM, Mellors JW, Havlir D, et al.: Treatment with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection and prior antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337(11): 734–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Mathis S, Khanlari B, Pulido F, et al.: Effectiveness of protease inhibitor monotherapy versus combination antiretroviral maintenance therapy: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2011; 6(7): e22003. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Paton NI, Stöhr W, Arenas-Pinto A, et al.: Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet HIV. 2015; 2(10): e417–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Pulido F, Ribera E, Lagarde M, et al.: Non-inferiority of dual-therapy (DT) with darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) plus 3TC versus triple-therapy (TT) with DRV/r plus TDF/FTC or ABC/3TC for maintenance of viral suppression: 48-week results of the DUAL-GESIDA 8014 trial - abstract n°: 0331. HIV Glasgow Conference. Glasgow, 23–26 October 2016. 2016. Reference Source

[5] 5. Arribas JR, Girard PM, Landman R, et al.: Dual treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression (OLE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015; 15(7): 785–92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[6] 6. Perez-Molina JA, Rubio R, Rivero A, et al.: Dual treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus lamivudine versus triple treatment with atazanavir-ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides in virologically stable patients with HIV-1 (SALT): 48 week results from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015; 15(7): 775–84. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. EACS Guidelines version 9.0. 2017. Reference Source

[8] 8. Wijting I, Rokx C, Boucher C, et al.: Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy for HIV (DOMONO): a phase 2, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet HIV. 2017; 4(12): e547–e554. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Cahn P, Rolón MJ, Figueroa MI, et al.: Dolutegravir-lamivudine as initial therapy in HIV-1 infected, ARV-naive patients, 48-week results of the PADDLE (Pilot Antiretroviral Design with Dolutegravir LamivudinE) study. J Int AIDS Soc. 2017; 20(1): 21678. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Charpentier C, Peytavin G, Lê M, et al.: High virological suppression rates regardless to the genotypic susceptibility score after switching to a dolutegravir-based regimen: W48 results in a prospective cohor. Abstract number: MOPEB0316. International AIDS Society (IAS) conference. Paris, 23–26 July 2017. 2017. Reference Source

[11] 11. Llibre JM, Hung CC, Brinson C, et al.: Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dolutegravir-rilpivirine for the maintenance of virological suppression in adults with HIV-1: phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority SWORD-1 and SWORD-2 studies. Lancet. 2018; 391(10123): 839–49. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Reynes J, Meftah N, Tuaillon E, et al.: Dual regimen with dolutegravir and lamivudine maintains virologic suppression even in heavily treatment experienced HIV-infected patients: 96 weeks results from maintenance DOLULAM study. Abstract n°: MOPEB0322. International AIDS Society (IAS) conference. Paris, 23–26 July 2017. 2017. Reference Source

[13] 13. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al.: The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al.: The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7): e1000100. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al.: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[16] 16. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al.: ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al.: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327(7414): 557–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Blanco JL, Rojas J, Paredes R, et al.: Dolutegravir-based maintenance monotherapy versus dual therapy with lamivudine: a planned 24 week analysis of the DOLAM randomized clinical trial. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2018; 73(7): 1965–1971. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Gubavu C, Prazuck T, Niang M, et al.: Dolutegravir-based monotherapy or dual therapy maintains a high proportion of viral suppression even in highly experienced HIV-1-infected patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(4): 1046–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Katlama C, Soulié C, Caby F, et al.: Dolutegravir as monotherapy in HIV-1-infected individuals with suppressed HIV viraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(9): 2646–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Sculier D, Doco-Lecompte T, Yerly S, et al.: Stable HIV-1 reservoirs on dolutegravir maintenance monotherapy: the MONODO study. HIV Med. 2018; 19(8): 572–577. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Oldenbuettel C, Wolf E, Ritter A, et al.: Dolutegravir monotherapy as treatment de-escalation in HIV-infected adults with virological control: DoluMono cohort results. Antivir Ther. 2017; 22(2): 169–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Rojas J, Blanco JL, Marcos MA, et al.: Dolutegravir monotherapy in HIV-infected patients with sustained viral suppression. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(7): 1975–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Rokx C, Schurink CA, Boucher CA, et al.: Dolutegravir as maintenance monotherapy: first experiences in HIV-1 patients. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(6): 1632–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Bonijoly T CA, Cheret A, Cotte L, et al.: Week-48 efficacy and safety of dolutegravir + rilpivirine dual therapy as switch strategy in a real-life cohort study. Abstract n°: PE9/15 European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.

[26] 26. Borghetti A, Baldin G, Ciccullo A, et al.: Virological control and metabolic improvement in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed patients switching to lamivudine/dolutegravir dual therapy. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016; 71(8): 2359–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Castagna AGR, Rusconi S, Riva A, et al.: Durability and Safety of a Dual Antiretroviral Regimen with Dolutegravir and Unboosted Atazanavir in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Virological Suppression. Abstract n°: PE9/63. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.

[28] 28. Gantner P, Cuzin L, Allavena C, et al.: Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir and rilpivirine dual therapy as a simplification strategy: a cohort study. HIV Med. 2017; 18(9): 704–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Joly V, Burdet C, Landman R, et al.: Promising Results of Lamivudine + DolutegravirMaintenance Therapy in ANRS 167 Lamidol Trial. Abstract number: 458. Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Seattle, 13–16 February 2017. 2017. Reference Source

[30] 30. Maggiolo F, Gulminetti R, Pagnucco L, et al.: Lamivudine/dolutegravir dual therapy in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed patients. BMC Infect Dis. 2017; 17(1): 215. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Maggiolo FGR, Pagnucco L, Digaetano M, et al.: Durability of dolutegravir + lamivudine as simplification cART in patients with suppressed HIV-RNA. Abstract number: PE9/49. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.

[32] 32. Navarro JSJ, Silva A, Burgos J, et al.: Efficacy of Once-daily Dolutegravir Plus Boosted-Darunavir as a Switch Strategy in HIV-infected Heavily-treated Patients. Abstract n°: PE9/93. European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) conference, Milano, 25–27 October 2017. 2017.

[33] 33. Revuelta-Herrero JL, Chamorro-de-Vega E, Rodríguez-González CG, et al.: Effectiveness, Safety, and Costs of a Treatment Switch to Dolutegravir Plus Rilpivirine Dual Therapy in Treatment-Experienced HIV Patients. Ann Pharmacother. 2018; 52(1): 11–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Riva AP RS, Bonora S, Cattelan M, et al.: Dolutegravir and unboosted atazanavir: a dual NRTI‐ and booster‐free antiretroviral regimen simplification in HIV-1 infected patients with viral suppression. Abstract number: P090. HIV Glasgow Conference, Glasgow, 23–26 October 2016. 2016.

[35] 35. Taiwo BO, Marconi VC, Berzins B, et al.: Dolutegravir Plus Lamivudine Maintains Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Suppression Through Week 48 in a Pilot Randomized Trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(11): 1794–1797. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[36] 36. Ciaffi L, Koulla-Shiro S, Sawadogo AB, et al.: Boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy versus boosted protease inhibitor plus lamivudine dual therapy as second-line maintenance treatment for HIV-1-infected patients in sub-Saharan Africa (ANRS12 286/MOBIDIP): a multicentre, randomised, parallel, open-label, superiority trial. Lancet HIV. 2017; 4(9): e384–e92. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Letendre SL, Mills AM, Tashima KT, et al.: ING116070: a study of the pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of dolutegravir in cerebrospinal fluid in HIV-1-infected, antiretroviral therapy-naive subjects. Clin Infect Dis. 2014; 59(7): 1032–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Girouard MP, Sax PE, Parker RA, et al.: The Cost-effectiveness and Budget Impact of 2-Drug Dolutegravir-Lamivudine Regimens for the Treatment of HIV Infection in the United States. Clin Infect Dis. 2016; 62(6): 784–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[39] 39. Camly A BM, Sculier D, Wandeler G: Evaluation of a simplified strategy for the long-term management of HIV infection: a non-inferiority, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial: The Simpl'HIV Trial. NCT03160105.

[40] 40. E. M. Dolutegravir-based Simplification Strategies: DOLAM. EudraCT 2015-000274-35.

[41] 41. Taiwo BO, Zheng L, Stefanescu A, et al.: ACTG A5353: A Pilot Study of Dolutegravir Plus Lamivudine for Initial Treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (HIV-1)-infected Participants With HIV-1 RNA <500000 Copies/mL. Clin Infect Dis. 2018; 66(11): 1689–1697. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Wandeler G, Buzzi M, Anderegg N, et al.: Dataset 1 in: Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Research. 2018. http://www.doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.15995.d215724

Virologic failure and HIV drug resistance on simplified, dolutegravir-based maintenance therapy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Search strategy and selection criteria

Data extraction

Assessment of risk of bias

Data analysis

Role of the funding source

Results

Study and participant characteristics

Figure 1. Flow chart of study selection process.

Table 1. Study characteristics, by treatment group.

Risk of bias

Virological and treatment failure

Figure 2. Meta-analysis of virological failure among patients on single or dual DTG-based simplification therapy.

Drug resistance

Table 2. Virological outcomes and drug resistance, by study.

Discussion

Data availability

Grant information

Supplementary material

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

The problem

How to fix it

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated