1. Introduction
In recent years, several strategies have been explored to reduce the exposure of people living with HIV (PLWH) to antiretroviral drugs and to improve their adherence and quality of life, while maintaining safety and virological suppression. Examples of this strategies are dual therapies (for example, dolutegravir and lamivudine or rilpivirine) and the recent introduction in clinical practice of long-acting injectable regimens (rilpivirine and cabotegravir). In a not-too-distant future, ultra-long-acting regimens, antiretroviral nano-formulations, microarray patches and broadly neutralizing antibodies will be available [
1]. Meanwhile, the “intermittent” or “short cycle” therapy (SCT) has received considerable attention, especially in France [
2]. This strategy allows PLWH to take their antiretroviral drugs at standard doses and in combination for a limited number of consecutive days (generally four or five) per week and to interrupt the treatment during the weekend (Friday to Sunday or Saturday to Sunday); non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, integrase strand transfer inhibitors, and boosted protease inhibitors have been used in this approach [
3]. Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs), due to their favourable forgiveness [
4], are preferred.
Dolutegravir and bictegravir dissociate slowly from the INSTIs-DNA complex and their half-lives are approximatively 12 hours and 17 hours, respectively, and therefore longer than raltegravir and elvitegravir [
5]. Thus, dolutegravir and bictegravir are the preferred antiretroviral drugs for intermittent dosing.
Here, we report the long-term virological outcome in 12 virally suppressed patients on short cycle therapy with bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, administered five days a week (Monday to Friday).
3. Discussion
In our small cohort all people, on a stable bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide antiretroviral daily regimen and in virological suppression, have maintained a plasma viral load of less than 20 copies/mL for over 24 months and their CD4+ T cell count rose during follow-up.
Various studies have shown the virological safety of a short cycle therapy, starting with the FOTO study in 2007 [
6]. Subsequently, the BREATHER study (“BREaks in Adolescent and child THerapy using Efavirenz and two nRtis”), a multicentric, randomized, controlled, open-label phase 2/3 trial, demonstrated the non-inferiority of a 5-days-per-week SCT compared to standard 7-days-per-week schemes in 199 adolescents taking efavirenz-based ART [
7]. More recently, the ANRS 170 QUATUOR, a randomized, open-label, multicentric, non-inferiority trial, demonstrated the non-inferiority of the 4days-on/3days-off strategy in a large cohort of virologically suppressed PLWH on different ART regimens over a 96- weeks follow-up period [
3]. Small observational studies using as third agent bictegravir, doravirine or rilpivirine have confirmed the efficacy and safety of this strategy [
8,
9,
10]. Some of the above studies have reported also the plasma concentrations of antiretrovirals [
3,
8,
10]. In particular, in the ANRS 170 QUATUOR trial, the median concentrations of antiretroviral drugs were much lower in the intermittent arm than in continuous treatment [
3]. Sellem and colleagues evaluated 85 virally suppressed PLWH switched to intermittent bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide treatment, administered 4 or 5 days a week [
8]. Notwithstanding its limitations (observational nature and small number of people included), the study found a high level of virological success (100% at week 48 and 97.6% at week 96). Two people with poor adherence had a virological failure, without the development of resistance mutations at HIV genotypic testing [
8]. Virological re-suppression was obtained after resuming daily bictegravir/ emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide treatment.
The authors performed a pharmacokinetics analysis in a subset of individuals; in 22 out of 38, the C trough of bictegravir was below the protein-adjusted EC
95 (162 ng/mL for the wild-type) [
8].
Similarly, in 115 samples obtained after the three days off-treatment, to identify the lowest possible quantifiable concentration, we reported a plasma concentration of rilpivirine below the efficacy threshold of 50 ng/mL in 71.3% of the samples and below the 90% inhibitory concentration (IC90) of 12 ng/mL in 37.4% [
10].
However, in all the above studies intracellular concentrations of antiretroviral drugs were not measured, hence not excluding the hypothesis of effective concentrations of the drugs inside PBMCs. Another possible explanation for the success of an intermittent strategy was put forward by Leibowitch and colleagues in the ICCARRE project; HIV rebound is observed after an eclipse phase of 1– 7 days or even more following the interruption of an effective therapy, this being particularly evident in PLWH with a long history of virological suppression, who have a reduced viral load, and whose lymphoid system is less activated and less favorable for HIV replication. In these conditions, lower concentrations of antiretroviral drugs are effective in controlling viral replication [
11]. A 2010 study showed that the longer the viral suppression, the higher was the number of missed drug doses allowed without virological failure ensuing [
12]. The proposed explanation was that lower levels of drug exposure are sufficient to prevent virological failure because the overall viral burden declines over time [
12].
From a pharmacological point of view, bictegravir seems the most suitable INSTI for use in an intermittent antiretroviral therapy. The forgiveness of bictegravir and of other INSTI-containing regimens has been evaluated
in vivo [
13] and
in vitro [
14]. Maggiolo and Colleagues, in a retrospective study including 281 PLWH treated with bictegravir/emtricitabine/ tenofovir alafenamide, showed, through adherence measurement, an elevated forgiveness associated to a high rate of virological suppression [
13].
Acosta and colleagues studied
in vitro four INSTI-containing regimens (bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, dolutegravir with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, dolutegravir/lamivudine, and dolutegravir/rilpivirine) [
14], evaluating the time to
in vitro virological breakthrough and emergence of resistance mutations (resistance barrier) at full or suboptimal treatment adherence levels. Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, when suboptimal treatment adherence level was tested, was the combination with the highest forgiveness and barrier to resistance [
14].
In the same study dual therapy (dolutegravir/lamivudine and dolutegravir/rilpivirine combinations), was weaker, in terms of viral breakthrough and emergence of resistance mutations, than triple antiretroviral combinations for drug concentrations corresponding to having missed two or more consecutive doses (14).
Recently, a randomized, open-label, multicentric study (“ANRS 177 DUETTO”), evaluating a twodrug antiretroviral therapy (65.6% of participants were on a dolutegravir/lamivudine combination) taken four days a week rather than daily, found a similar rate of suppression but higher rates of treatment failure in the intermittent arm [
15]. Six patients of the eight on virological failure were on dolutegravir/ lamivudine; interestingly, only two of the eight patients had a low plasma drug concentration.