{"id":7775,"date":"2015-10-13T21:12:11","date_gmt":"2015-10-14T01:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/hiv-id-observations\/?p=7775"},"modified":"2015-10-14T14:54:19","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T18:54:19","slug":"yes-there-are-important-hiv-studies-at-icaac-and-idweek-heres-one","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.nejm.org\/hiv-id-observations\/index.php\/yes-there-are-important-hiv-studies-at-icaac-and-idweek-heres-one\/2015\/10\/13\/","title":{"rendered":"Yes, There Are Important HIV Studies at ICAAC and IDWeek — Here’s One"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"II\"<\/a>Both ICAAC and IDWeek (formerly IDSA) are now over, IDWeek ending this past\u00a0Sunday.<\/p>\n

These\u00a0are the two large Infectious Diseases scientific meetings that take place each year in the Fall. They’ve been battling it out for years for attendance,\u00a0but\u00a0it looks like finally IDWeek (formerly IDSA) has won the Fall slot — ICAAC is moving next year to the Spring<\/a>, where I assume it will stay.<\/p>\n

Regardless of which meeting one attends, or when they happen, a common complaint\u00a0heard from HIV-specialist types goes like this:<\/p>\n

Well, it’s not like CROI — hardly anything here new and important.<\/p>\n

Well, of course<\/em> it’s not like CROI — that’s a whole meeting devoted to HIV research, both clinical and basic. It’s unreasonable to expect there will be anywhere near the number of oral sessions, posters, and plenaries on HIV at non-CROI meetings because, obviously, ICAAC and IDWeek\u00a0have to represent the full breadth of material in the field.<\/p>\n

But there usually is some<\/em> good stuff, studies that could significantly impact clinical practice. Here’s the most important HIV study from ICAAC,\u00a0and soon\u00a0the notable ones from IDWeek.<\/p>\n

In the STRIIVING<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0study, 551 virologically suppressed patients were randomized to stay on their regimen or to switch to ABC\/3TC\/DTG; it was open label (images thanks to the essential natap.org<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\"striiving<\/a><\/p>\n

Eligibility criteria included being on first or second regimens with no history of treatment failure, and HLA-B*5701 negative.<\/p>\n

At the end of 24 weeks, treatment success (HIV RNA < 50 copies by “snapshot”, meaning also still in study) was observed in 85% and 88% of subjects in the switch vs continue current ART arms respectively:<\/p>\n

\"striiving<\/a><\/p>\n

There were no virologic failures or emergent resistance in either arm. 4%\u00a0(10 total — not 10% as I erroneously wrote) of the ABC\/3TC\/DTG group\u00a0stopped the study due to adverse events (none considered serious) vs. zero in the continued ART arm. Treatment satisfaction at week 24 was\u00a0significantly higher for\u00a0those on ABC\/3TC\/DTG.<\/p>\n

A few comments on these results, which were both reassuring and disappointing at the same time:<\/p>\n