An ongoing dialogue on HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases,
May 19th, 2009
Time for a Switch? Room for Debate
With first-line therapy for HIV being so astonishingly successful, much of what we do in practice is tweak regimens that are by virologic and immunologic standards, working just fine: Viral load undetectable, CD4 stable.
But not so fast — while one of my colleagues said that if he didn’t change his patients’ regimens, then he’d have nothing to do, the other said he NEVER changed a regimen that was working unless he absolutely had to.
Who’s right? Both of them, of course. The regimen might improve in convenience, tolerability, safety, etc, but new side effects could also occur, as well as virologic failure.
So consider these virologically suppressed, clinically stable patients (all recently seen) — would you switch?
- 50 year old man on ABC/3TC, EFV since 2000. No renal disease. Hyperlipidemia, on atorvastatin 80 mg a day. Father died of an MI age 48.
- 63 year old man, on EFV + LPV/r for years; past history of neuropathy on d4T and 3TC. Needs to go on inhaled steroids (preferably fluticasone) to help manage increasingly refractory asthma.
- 35 year old woman, on TDF/FTC, FPV/r BID — doing ok but missing some PM doses.
Keep in mind, all are doing fine — would you switch? If so, to what? Thanks in advance* for the consult.
(*ahem.)
Categories: Antiretroviral Rounds, HIV, Infectious Diseases, Patient Care
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
3 Responses to “Time for a Switch? Room for Debate”

Paul E. Sax, MD
Associate Editor
NEJM Clinician
Biography | Disclosures & Summaries
Learn more about HIV and ID Observations.
Search this Blog
Follow HIV and ID Observations Posts via Email
Archives
Most Popular Posts
Sorry. No data so far.
-
From the Blog — Most Recent Articles
- Farewell to This Blog — and Hello to NEJM Voices March 2, 2026
- Some Ruminations on CROI — Still the Best HIV Meeting February 26, 2026
- Two Things Can Be True: The FDA Process Was Inconsistent, and the mRNA Vaccine Data Were Disappointing February 17, 2026
- Sometimes You Just Need to Get Input from a Real Human Being February 12, 2026
- Mystifying Abbreviations — Infectious Diseases Edition February 4, 2026
FROM NEJM — Recent Infectious Disease Articles- The Best of Both Worlds — Using Clinical Trial and Observational Data to Evaluate Vaccine Protection July 18, 2026Well-designed observational studies are critical to advancing understanding of the effects of vaccines. But they are often dismissed as lacking the methodologic rigor necessary to inform policymaking.
- Neurocysticercosis July 18, 2026A 52-year-old woman presented with a 4-month history of headache and visual hallucinations. MRI of the brain showed cystic lesions containing bright nodules.
- National Elimination of Hepatitis C — The Case for Starting in Prisons and Jails July 18, 2026The United States could take meaningful steps toward eliminating hepatitis C by broadly testing and treating people who are involved in the criminal legal system.
- Case 20-2026: A 38-Year-Old Man with Abdominal Pain July 16, 2026A 38-year-old man was evaluated at the hospital because of postprandial abdominal pain. Six weeks earlier, a diarrheal illness had developed while he was working in Madagascar. A diagnosis was made.
- Bundibugyo Virus Disease in 2026 — Clinical and Public Health Responses July 16, 2026This review summarizes the current state of the 2026 filovirus disease outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as the principles and approaches that are informing the response.
- The Best of Both Worlds — Using Clinical Trial and Observational Data to Evaluate Vaccine Protection July 18, 2026
-
Tag Cloud
- Abacavir AIDS antibiotics antiretroviral therapy ART atazanavir baseball Brush with Greatness CDC C diff COVID-19 CROI darunavir dolutegravir elvitegravir etravirine FDA HCV hepatitis C HIV HIV cure HIV testing ID fellowship ID Learning Unit Infectious Diseases influenza Link-o-Rama lyme disease medical education MRSA PEP PrEP prevention primary care raltegravir Really Rapid Review resistance Retrovirus Conference rilpivirine sofosbuvir TDF/FTC tenofovir Thanksgiving vaccines zoster

Assuming no resistance mutations
1. Recommend a switch to tdf/ftc/efv w/ concern for potential for cardiovascular disease (abacavir) and potential for easier dosing w/ daily fixed dose atripla
2. Recommend switch to tdf/ftc/efv again. Not aware of any long term data to support this efv/lpv/r regimen and have concern for possible break through w/ only two drug regimen despite recent success. Doubt tdf/ftc would exacerbate neuropathy. Would avoid ritonavir boosted PI if the inhaled steroids are really needed.
3. Assuming a k103 is the reason for fpv/r would recommend switch to tdf/ftc/Atazanavir/r for ease of daily dosing. Also potential to lose darunavir if resistance occurs to fpv/r. If no k103 then tdf/ftc/efv would be simplest regimen and would potentially eliminate the pm missed doses
CM,
These are all very reasonable (some would say great) recommendations. For the sake of discussion, here are the counter views:
1. He’s over 60, he’s had NO side effects for 9 years on this current regimen, why risk renal/bone issues?
2. Back in the old days, I definitely had pts with bad neuropathy that worsened on 3TC … and it’s known to cause neuropathy in kids.
3. Why risk the EFV CNS side effects, and switching to a new class?
Keep in mind this isn’t necessarily what I believe on these cases … just a countering view.
I’ll let you know what I did in a separate post.
Well, the counter-arguments make some sense, but I would give my listed recommendations to the patients in question, discuss the pros and cons, and make a decision together. Having said that, I would like to get #3 off fpv/r and would feel okay about atazanavir or efv in it’s place.
I look forward to the denouement.