Sex differences in the effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine as a switch strategy in people living with HIV

Luis Ramos‐Ruperto,Maria del Mar Arcos‐Rueda,Rosa de Miguel‐Buckley,Carmen Busca‐Arenzana,Rafael Mican,Rocío Montejano,Ana Delgado‐Hierro,María Luisa Montes,María Eulalia Valencia,Lucía Serrano,José Ramon Arribas,Juan González,Jose Ignacio Bernardino,Luz Martín‐Carbonero
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hiv.13617
2024-02-22
HIV Medicine
Abstract:Introduction Dolutegravir + rilpivirine (DTG + RPV) is an effective antiretroviral therapy regimen approved in clinical guidelines as a switch therapy for virologically suppressed people with HIV. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness and tolerability of DTG + RPV in women and men in real‐world clinical practice. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of treatment‐experienced people with HIV from a large HIV unit who switched to DTG + RPV. We analysed treatment effectiveness, rates of adverse events and discontinuation, and metabolic changes after 48 weeks of treatment. HIV‐RNA levels <50 copies/mL were analysed at 48 weeks using both intention‐to treat analysis (where missing data were interpreted as failures) and per‐protocol analysis (excluding those with missing data or changes due to reasons other than virological failure). Outcomes were compared between women and men based on sex at birth. Results A total of 307 patients were selected (71 women and 236 men). No transgender people were included. At baseline, women had lived with HIV infection and received antiretroviral therapy for longer than men (23.2 vs 17.4 years and 18.9 vs 14.2 years, respectively). In the intention‐to‐treat analysis, 74.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.4–83.3%) of women and 83.5% (95% CI 78.2–87.7) of men had HIV‐RNA <50 copies/mL. In the per‐protocol analysis, 96.4% (95% CI 87.7–99) of women and 99% (95% CI 98.9–99.7) of men had HIV‐RNA levels 50 copies/mL at 48 weeks. Discontinuation due to adverse events was more frequent in women than in men: 12.7% vs 7.2% (p
infectious diseases
What problem does this paper attempt to address?