Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mona Loutfy

Publications and source records attributed to Mona Loutfy.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Can structured treatment interruptions (STIs) be used as a strategy to decrease total drug requirements and toxicity in HIV infection?

Structured treatment interruptions (STIs) are a new strategy under investigation in clinical trials involving a number of different HIV-infected populations. These populations include patients with prolonged HIV RNA suppression who were treated in either seroconversion or later in disease, and patients with virologic failure despite HAART, prior to the initiation of a salvage regimen. The goals of STI vary in each of these groups. Until the results of clinical trials are available, the use of STIs must be considered experimental. There are a number of potential risks, including the loss of a significant number of CD4 cells with the development of opportunistic infections, rebound of HIV RNA, emergence of drug resistance, and reseeding of viral reservoirs. However, STIs also hold the promise for decreasing antiretroviral drug burden and toxicity, and improving quality of life. Given that much of the world's population infected with HIV does not have access to continuous HAART, the development of strategies that could decrease overall drug burden and cost is important. This paper provides an update of the recently published and presented studies on the use of STIs in various populations of HIV-infected patients. In particular, it discusses what is known and unknown about the relative risks and benefits of this approach, and what studies are ongoing. Lastly, it identifies how the use of STIs could decrease drug burden and toxicity in patients receiving therapy.

Anti-HIV Agents↗

Clinical impact of double protease inhibitor boosting with lopinavir/ritonavir and amprenavir as part of salvage antiretroviral therapy.

PURPOSE: Double protease inhibitor (PI) boosting is being explored as a new strategy in salvage antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. However, if a negative drug interaction leads to decreased drug levels of either or both PIs, double PI boosting could lead to decreased virologic response. A negative drug interaction has been described between amprenavir (APV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). This observational cohort study assessed the virologic impact of the addition of APV to a salvage ARV regimen, which also contains LPV/r, compared to a regimen containing LPV/r alone. METHOD: Patients initiated on a salvage ARV regimen that included LPV/r obtained from the expanded access program in Toronto, Canada, were evaluated. APV (600-1,200 mg bid) was added at the discretion of the treating physician. RESULTS: Using multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, we found that the addition of APV to a LPV/r-containing salvage regimen was not significantly associated with time to virologic suppression (< 50 copies/mL; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, p =.12) or with time to virologic rebound (adjusted HR = 1.46, p =.34). Those patients who received higher doses of APV had an increased chance of virologic suppression (p =.03). In a subset of 27 patients, the median LPV C(trough) was significantly lower in patients receiving APV (p =.04), and the median APV C(trough) was reduced compared to reported controls. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support an additional benefit in virologic reduction of double boosting with APV and LPV/r relative to LPV/r alone in salvage ARV therapy. Our study's limitations include its retrospective nature and the imbalance between the two groups potentially confounding the results. Although these factors were adjusted for in the multivariate analysis, a prospective randomized controlled trial is warranted to confirm our findings.

Adult↗