Comparative Effectiveness of Switching to Bictegravir From Dolutegravir-, Efavirenz-, or Raltegravir-Based Antiretroviral Therapy Among Individuals With HIV Who are Virologically Suppressed

Abstract

Abstract Background We aimed to determine the effectiveness of switching to bictegravir in maintaining an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL) among people with HIV (PWH) as compared with continuing dolutegravir-, efavirenz-, or raltegravir-based antiretroviral therapy using nationwide observational data from Mexico. Methods We emulated 3 target trials comparing switching to bictegravir vs continuing with dolutegravir, efavirenz, or raltegravir. Eligibility criteria were PWH aged ≥16 years with a viral load <50 copies/mL and at least 3 months of current antiretroviral therapy (dolutegravir, efavirenz, or raltegravir) between July 2019 and September 2021. Weekly target trials were emulated during the study period, and individuals were included in every emulation if they continued to be eligible. The main outcome was the probability of an undetectable viral load at 3 months, which was estimated via an adjusted logistic regression model. Estimated probabilities were compared via differences, and 95% CIs were calculated via bootstrap. Outcomes were also ascertained at 12 months, and sensitivity analyses were performed to test our analytic choices. Results We analyzed data from 3 028 619 PWH (63 581 unique individuals). The probability of an undetectable viral load at 3 months was 2.9% (95% CI, 1.9%–3.8%), 1.3% (95% CI, .9%–1.6%), and 1.2% (95% CI, .8%–1.7%) higher when switching to bictegravir vs continuing with dolutegravir, efavirenz, and raltegravir, respectively. Similar results were observed at 12 months and in other sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Our findings suggest that switching to bictegravir could be more effective in maintaining viral suppression than continuing with dolutegravir, efavirenz, or raltegravir.