Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This retrospective cohort study describes clinical features and treatment outcomes for people with HIV on 2-drug regimens, suggesting varying needs between treatment groups.
ObjectiveTo describe the clinical features and real-world treatment of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) using fixed-dose or free combinations of 2-drug regimens (2DR) of antiretroviral therapy (ART). DesignItalian retrospective cohort study. MethodsData were extracted from PLHIV who initiated or switched to 2DR: Group 1 (fixed dose), Group 2 (free combination). ResultsGroup 1 was younger and more predominantly male, and had shorter time from AIDS-defining diagnosis to 2DR-ART and from diagnosis to baseline, a lower prevalence of resistance, and fewer comorbidities than Group 2. Median baseline viral load was <50 copies/mL in both groups, but Group 1 had a higher mean due to outliers.The most common ART classes before switching to 2DR were Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor (INSTI)-based (48.97%),Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NNRTI)-based (22.73%), and Protease Inhibitor (PI)-based (16.53%).Distribution varied: Group 1: INSTI-based (53.13%),NNRTI-based (24.31%), and PI-based (15.04%);Group 2: INSTI-based (29.41%),PI-based (23.53%), and NNRTI-based (15.29%).After switching, Group 1 was on dolutegravir/lamivudine (79,33%) and dolutegravir/rilpivirine (20,67%); Group 2 mostly on INSTI-PI (52.81%), followed by NNRTI combinations, mainly with doravirine (19.10%).Duration of ART after switching was shorter in Group 1. ConclusionItalian PLHIV on 2DR fixed-dose combinations were younger, virologically suppressed individuals at baseline, with a shorter lead time from diagnosis, lower prevalence of resistance and lower comorbidity rate compared to those on free combinations.These findings underscore an unmet need for 2DR fixed-dose combinations, as the free combinations were predominantly utilized for more challenging populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrea et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: