Immunologic Effectiveness of Maraviroc- and Raltegravir-Containing Regimens (R+M+) versus Raltegravir-Based Regimens That Do Not Include Maraviroc (R+M−)

• Published in: Journal of the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care Vol. 11; no. 3; pp. 192 - 197
• Main Authors: Antoniou, Tony, Smith, Graham, Su, DeSheng, Raboud, Janet M., Lee, Derek, Kovacs, Colin, Brunetta, Jason, Fletcher, David, Crouzat, Fred, Loutfy, Mona
• Format: Book Review Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.06.2012; SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
• Subjects: Anti-HIV Agents - immunology; Anti-HIV Agents - therapeutic use; Antiretroviral drugs; Antiretroviral Therapy, Highly Active; CD4 Lymphocyte Count; Cyclohexanes - immunology; Cyclohexanes - therapeutic use; Female; HIV Infections - drug therapy; HIV Infections - immunology; HIV Infections - virology; Human immunodeficiency virus; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patients; Pyrrolidinones - immunology; Pyrrolidinones - therapeutic use; Raltegravir Potassium; Retrospective Studies; Triazoles - immunology; Triazoles - therapeutic use; Viral Load; retrospective studies; raltegravir; maraviroc; highly active; anti-HIV agents; antiretroviral therapy
• ISSN: 1545-1097; 2325-9574; 1557-0886; 2325-9582
• DOI: 10.1177/1545109711424967

Objective: To compare the immunologic effectiveness of raltegravir–maraviroc (R+M+)-based regimens with raltegravir-based regimens that do not include maraviroc (R+M−) in treatment-experienced patients in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of treatment-experienced HIV-infected adults receiving either R+M+- or R+M−-based therapy. Longitudinal CD4 counts were analyzed using a linear mixed model. Results: One hundred and fifty-six patients were included in the analysis, of whom 32 were receiving R+M+ and 124 R+M−. Mean baseline CD4 counts in patients on R+M+ and R+M− were 463.8 and 442.3 cells/mm3, respectively (P = .67). In multivariable mixed models, a baseline viral load ≥50 copies/mL was significantly associated with CD4 change during follow-up (P < .0001). No difference between R+M+ and R+M− was observed during follow-up (P = .81). Conclusion: CD4 cell recovery was similar among patients receiving either R+M+- or R+M−-based therapy during a 24-month period of follow-up.