Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 17, 2017, 08:32:08 PM

Login with username, password and session length

  • Total Posts: 722383
  • Total Topics: 58698
  • Online Today: 331
  • Online Ever: 1421
  • (August 13, 2016, 05:18:44 AM)
Users Online
Users: 4
Guests: 256
Total: 260


Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Good News On Viral Resurgence  (Read 2967 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MitchMiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 564
Good News On Viral Resurgence
« on: July 31, 2009, 11:24:21 PM »
After 6 years at undetectable, looks like if you're 100% adherent the possibility of a viral rebound is virtually nill.


Duration of Viral Suppression Strongly Modifies the
Adherence-Viral Rebound Relationship
     Reported by Jules Levin
5th IAS Capetown July 19-22 2009
Viviane Lima1, D Bangsberg2, PR Harrigan1, M Rosenblum3, S Deeks3, B Yip1, RS Hogg1, JS Montaner1
1 British Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS; 2 Harvard Medical School;
3 University of California, San Francisco (vlima@cfenet.ubc.ca)
"Viral rebound was less likely to occur among those with long duration of suppression This translates in an odds of viral rebound decrease of 8% per each month of continuous viral suppression across all adherence levels. Individuals with high levels of adherence (≥95%), the probability of failure was 0.12 (IQR: 0.08-0.45) after being suppressed for 12 months and 0.04 (IQR 0.03-0.07) after being suppressed for 72 months". Sustained & near perfect adherence increases probability of long-term viral suppression, this is particularly critical at the earliest stages after starting HAART. From Jules: High levels (95%) of adherence required during first year on HART to achieve best chances for long-term viral suppression.

Offline GNYC09

  • Member
  • Posts: 702
Re: Good News On Viral Resurgence
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2009, 11:47:07 PM »
"Lower levels of drug exposure are required to prevent viral rebound because the overall viral burden declines over time."  -- so doesn't this imply that we (hypothetically) can take lower doses of our meds after x years since there is less virus to fight?  

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,120
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Good News On Viral Resurgence
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2009, 01:00:39 AM »
"Lower levels of drug exposure are required to prevent viral rebound because the overall viral burden declines over time."  -- so doesn't this imply that we (hypothetically) can take lower doses of our meds after x years since there is less virus to fight?  

That's a very good point but the thing is it would take many clinical trials to prove before they could set it into practice with actual recommendations.

There was a small study in which people were given Isentress and unboosted Reyataz after they were already suppressed with a triple combo and it worked at continuing suppression. The study was not large enough and was non-randomized but at least it showed that this kind of thing needs to be explored further.

Since all it takes to become resistant to some of the drugs is sometimes just one mutation (as with Isentress and Reyataz) it's best to have more hard data. Needless to say, it would be great to take fewer drugs or lower doses of the same drugs.

Offline MitchMiller

  • Member
  • Posts: 564
Re: Good News On Viral Resurgence
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2009, 02:44:38 AM »
GNY:  If you follow the original link that I posted, you'll see the correlation that the study determined between rates of viral resurgence vs adherence.

However, your idea is partially correct for some drugs.  More studies would probably be needed to demonstrate which drugs.  However, to be honest, I'm a bit afraid to skip my Sustiva doses because it has got a low threshold to resistance.  Here's a study that showed good results when some drugs were skipped on the weekends.  Other studies where patients took them every other day didn't perform so well (a couple years back).

Sorry, because a lot of the content is in an image, you'll need to follow the link to get all the details, then search the page for the article's title.
48 week Results to assess durability of the strategy of taking Efavirenz, Tenofovir and Emtricitabine Five-days-On, Two-days-Off each week in virologically suppressed patients
     Reported by Jules Levin
IAS Capetown July 19-22 2009
C. Cohen1, A. Colson1, G. Pierone2, E. Dejesus3, F. Kinder4, R. Elion5, D. Skiest6, A. Habel1, J. Jensen1, J. Garb7, H. Schrager1, D. Back81CRI New England, Boston, United States, 2AIDS Research and Treatment Center of the Treasure Coast, Fort Pierce, United States, 3Orlando Immunology Center, Orlando, United States, 4Kinder Medical Group, Miami, United States, 5Whitman-Walker Clinic, District of Columbia, United States, 6CRI New England, Springfield, United States, 7Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, United States, 8University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom Community Research Initiative of New England, Boston USA
From Jules: One concern raised is regarding adherence, that patients get into a routine and stopping & starting ARTs as in this study might be difficult to maintain. Forgetting Monday's dose might be just enough to cause virologic failures. The study does not report if higher rates of AEs in the FOTO arm were due to stopping & starting and study doesn't report the types of AEs reported. In a clinical study like this it is easier to control patients while in the clinic it is much easier for patients to be non-adherent or not stick to such a strict protocol as in the FOTO arm.
In response Dr Cal Cohen sent me an email -
As you know - adherence can be difficult for some people to maintain when given meds every day - challenges to maintaining adherence are not unique to the FOTO strategy of course. We found a very strong pt preference for the FOTO and preference in general correlates with adherence (see poster pix). While I agree that adherence to FOTO was likely optimal in our study population - it is also possible that there might be other non-study pts who might similarly do better on this schedule than they now do on daily medication. If daily med adherence was perfect for everyone our study would only be addressing cost savings - but we did see strong pt preference for this indicating this has additional merit. He also said that on the poster they reported that about 10% of pts did occasionally miss a Monday dose (e.g. took three days off) and there was no failure even with a 3-day holiday in the small number who did so. Agreed it could happen but we did not see any, and referred to Dybul/Fauci study a few years ago where they did a week on/week off and did not see viral rebound so a third day off may not lead to failure based on their study. We did report all AEs in the poster - anything that was considered at least mild related to the study procedure was reported. These were all patients in the study who were tolerating Atripla - so the control arm had no AEs in 24 weeks as they were all OK to start with. And you summarized the few events that occurred all on the FOTO arm - 3 people reported some sleep insomnia and 2 resolved by the next study visit without any Rx - one person started on a med Rx. There were only 2 other AEs noted - one night sweats, and one feeling intoxicated both of which were mild/transient. The cost saving issue - which is not trivial - if Atripla is 20000 per year and as FOTO saves about 5500 per year - for every 100 people who did FOTO instead of daily - there would be a savings of 550,000 - and I am pretty convinced that more than one hundred people would do well on this schedule. Indeed, if just 200 people do it successfully - over one million dollars now spent on drug could be spent on something else.
From Jules:
- 60 patients on Atripla with HIV RNA <75 for at least 90 days, <50 at screening were randomized equally to FOTO regimen 5 days on ART, 2 days off or to daily regimen. This poster reported adherence data (self-reported) and there appeared to be no difference between the 2 groups.
- Authors report at week 24 100% (n=25) As -Treated analysis <50 c/ml in FOTO, 86% (n=28) <50 c/ml on DAILY. No subject on either arm who continued experienced virologic failure during the entire 48 week study. Extension Phase 48 wks: week 36 90% on FOTO, week 48 90% on FOTO <50 c/ml.
- The EFV drug concentrations were higher in the daily vs FOTO: EFV >1000 ng/ml on FOTO (mean 60 hrs post last dose) 48%, while 90% on daily (mean 12 hrs post last dose) had >1000 ng/ml. Authors reported - PK: while nearly half of the trough concentrations were below the standard MEC used for EFV, there was no virologic rebound observed.
- In slide 12 authors report missed 1 or more doses in 5 day period on FOTO: 3/29 (1%) at week 4, 4/26 (15%) at week 12, and 2/25 (8%) at week 24; on DAILY: 5/30 (17%) at week 4, 2/28 (7%) at week 12, 3/28 (11%) at week 24
- At week 24 25/30 on FOTO completed (5 discontinued), while on daily 28/30 completed week 24 (2 discontinued): that's 17% vs 8% discontinued, although this is a small study. Of those 25 continuing to week 48 on FOTO 23 completed and on daily 27/28 completed.
- Reasons for discontinuation (n=10): 5 lost to follow-up, 4 withdrew consent, 1 pregnancy (n=5 on FOTO, n=4 on daily).
- ADVERSE EVENTS judged at least possibly related to study intervention: no AEs on daily through week 24; on FOTO: n=5 through 48 weeks, 'all mild in severity', n=3 with sleep related AEs: all resolved with one month (1 additional Rx), 1 night sweats, 1 with intoxicated feeling for 1 day. (from Jules: the higher number of AEs reported on FOTO could be due to stopping & starting).
- % who took 1 extra day dose during 2 days off: 3/29 at week 4 (10%) , 1/26 at week 12 (4%), 2/24 (8%) at week 24
- COST SAVINGS: the authors concluded: This strategy has the potential to conserve 28% of the cost of this three-drug regimen












« Last Edit: August 02, 2009, 02:46:13 AM by MitchMiller »

Offline GNYC09

  • Member
  • Posts: 702
Re: Good News On Viral Resurgence
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2009, 06:14:44 PM »
You're right.  I had skimmed the article and missed a few key statements.


Terms of Membership for these forums

© 2017 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.