INTRODUCTION: Although both tipranavir (TPV) and darunavir (DRV) represent important options for the management of patients with multi-protease inhibitor (PI)-resistant human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), currently there are no studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of these two drugs in the Mexican population. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TPV versus DRV as a salvage therapy in HIV-1 treatment-experienced patients.METHODOLOGY: This was a comparative, prospective, cohort study. Patients with HIV and triple-class drug resistance evaluated at the Hospital de Infectolog?a "La Raza", National Medical Center, were included. All patients had the protease and retrotranscriptase genotype; resistance mutation interpretation was done using the Stanford database.RESULTS: A total of 35 HIV-1 triple-class drug-resistant patients were analyzed. All of them received tenofovir and raltegravir, 22 received darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), and 13 received tipranavir/ritonavir (TPV/r) therapies. The median baseline RNA HIV-1 viral load and CD4+ cell count were 4.34 log (interquartile range [IQR], 4.15-4.72) and 267 cells/mm3 (IQR, 177-320) for the DRV/r group, and 4.14 log (IQR, 3.51-4.85) and 445 cells/mm3 (IQR, 252-558) for the TPV/r group. At week 24 of treatment, 91% of patients receiving DRV/r and 100% of patients receiving TPV/r had an RNA HIV-1 viral load < 50 copies/mL and a CD4+ cell count of 339 cells/mm3 (IQR, 252-447) and 556 cells/mm3 (IQR, 364-659), respectively.CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference was observed between DRV/r and TPV/r in terms of virological suppression in HIV-1 patients who were highly experienced in antiretroviral therapy.
Adult Anti-HIV Agents