• J. Antimicrob. Chemother. · Jul 2016

    Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial

    A randomized clinical trial comparing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir versus raltegravir each with tenofovir plus emtricitabine for post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV infection.

    • Lorna Leal, Agathe León, Berta Torres, Alexy Inciarte, Constanza Lucero, Josep Mallolas, Montserrat Laguno, María Martínez-Rebollar, Ana González-Cordón, Christian Manzardo, Jhon Rojas, Judit Pich, Joan A Arnaiz, Josep M Gatell, Felipe García, and RALPEP Study Group.
    • Infectious Diseases Unit, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi I Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
    • J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2016 Jul 1; 71 (7): 1987-93.

    ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) non-completion at day 28, comparing two regimens.MethodsA prospective, open, randomized clinical trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Individuals attending the emergency room because of potential sexual exposure to HIV were randomized to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine (245/200 mg) plus either ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (400/100 mg) or raltegravir (400 mg). The primary endpoint was PEP non-completion at day 28. Secondary endpoints were adherence, adverse events and rate of seroconversions. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01576731.ResultsOne-hundred-and-twenty-one individuals were randomized to receive ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and 122 to raltegravir (n = 243). PEP non-completion at day 28 was 43% with no significant difference between arms. We performed a modified ITT analysis including only those patients who attended on day 1 (n = 191). PEP non-completion in this subgroup was higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm than in the raltegravir arm (34.6% versus 20.4%, P = 0.04), as was the number of patients lost to follow-up at day 28 (32.6% versus 21.6%, P = 0.08) and the proportion of patients with low adherence (49.2% versus 30.8%, P = 0.03). Adverse events were significantly more common in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir arm (73.4% versus 60.2%, P = 0.007). There was an HIV seroconversion at day 90 in the raltegravir arm in a patient who had multiple potential sexual risk exposures before and after receiving PEP.ConclusionsAlthough we found no differences between arms regarding PEP non-completion, poor adherence and adverse events were significantly higher in patients allocated to tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. These data support the use of raltegravir as the preferred third drug in current PEP recommendations.© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…