1081. Comparison of the Safety and Efficacy of Single and Multiple Tablet Regimens for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
Session: Poster Abstract Session: HIV: Switching Antiretrovirals
Friday, October 9, 2015
Room: Poster Hall
Posters
  • IDSA STR MTR.pdf (451.6 kB)
  • Background: It is unknown whether a single tablet regimen (STR) is more efficacious and achieves higher rates of virologic suppression compared to multiple tablet regimens (MTRs).  The primary goal of this study was to determine whether STRs were associated with increased virologic suppression compared to MTRs. Secondary outcomes were to (1) determine whether STR or MTR were associated with increased side effects requiring change in therapy; (2) evaluate development of resistance in STR compared to MTR; and (3) evaluate sustained virologic suppression in those with a history of incarceration.

    Methods: This was a retrospective, non-inferiority, chart review conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) comparing patients receiving STR to MTR (n=80 per group). Patients were included if they were HIV positive, greater than 18 years of age, taking antiretrovirals (ARV) between 7/1/10 to 8/1/14, and had at least one recorded CD4 and viral load during the study period. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years of age, pregnant, or not on ARVs during the study period. 

    Results: Median baseline CD4 was similar between groups, 437 cells/mm3 in STR and 417 cells/mm3 in the MTR. Median number of previous regimens was 0 in the STR and 2 in the MTR. The most common STR was EFV/TDF/FTC (86%). There was no difference between overall mean viral load of the STR and MTR groups (4.1 and 4.6 log10IU/mL, p=0.095). At baseline, 60% of STR and 52.5% of MTR were virologically suppressed (<48 copies/mL)(p=0.132). There was no difference in virologic suppression at the final documented visit, 80% of STR and 74% of MTR (p=0.454). There was no difference in need to switch ARVs (p=0.850) or development of resistance (p=0.682). There was no difference in mean viral load between patients formerly incarcerated and those who were not (p=0.849). 

    Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that outside of a controlled clinical trial setting, there was no difference in viral suppression between STR and MTR. Both STR and MTR were well-tolerated and infrequently required a change in therapy. This data provides evidence that both STR and MTR can be selected with confidence they will both be efficacious and safe.

    Whitney Dickson, PharmD1, Andrew Merker, PharmD1, Tommy Chiampas, PharmD1, Rodrigo Burgos, PharmD1, Renata Smith, PharmD1 and Melissa Badowski, PharmD2, (1)University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, (2)Pharmacy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL

    Disclosures:

    W. Dickson, None

    A. Merker, None

    T. Chiampas, None

    R. Burgos, None

    R. Smith, None

    M. Badowski, None

    Findings in the abstracts are embargoed until 12:01 a.m. PDT, Wednesday Oct. 7th with the exception of research findings presented at the IDWeek press conferences.