Skip to main content
Journal of the International AIDS Society logoLink to Journal of the International AIDS Society
. 2024 Aug 18;27(8):e26349. doi: 10.1002/jia2.26349

The impact of analytical treatment interruptions and trial interventions on time to viral re‐suppression in people living with HIV restarting ART in cure‐related clinical studies: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Ming Jie Lee 1,2,#,, Miles Eason 3,#, Antonella Castagna 4, Galli Laura 5, Marie‐Angelique De Scheerder 6, James Riley 7, Pablo Tebas 7, Jesper Gunst 8,9, Ole Søgaard 8, Eric Florence 10,11, Eugene Kroon 12, Mark De Souza 12, Beatriz Mothe 13, Marina Caskey 14, Sarah Fidler 1
PMCID: PMC11330850  PMID: 39155436

Abstract

Introduction

To assess the effectiveness of novel HIV curative strategies, “cure” trials require periods of closely monitored antiretroviral therapy (ART) analytical treatment interruptions (ATIs). We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to identify the impact of ATI with or without novel therapeutics in cure‐related studies on the time to viral re‐suppression following ART restart.

Methods

Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched for human studies involving ATIs from 1 January 2015 till 22 April 2024. The primary outcome was time to first viral re‐suppression (plasma HIV viral load [VL] <50 copies/ml) stratified by receipt of interventional drug with ATI (IA) or ATI‐only groups. Random‐effects proportional meta‐analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis were performed using R.

Results

Of 1073 studies screened, 13 were included that met the inclusion criteria with VL data available after restarting ART (n = 213 participants). There was no difference between time to viral suppression in IA or ATI‐only cohorts (p = 0.22). For 87% of participants, viral suppression within 12 weeks of ART restart was achieved, and all eventually had at least one VL <50 copies/ml during follow‐up. After adjusting for covariables, while participants in the IA cohort were associated with less rapid suppression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.40–0.94, p = 0.026), other factors include greater log VL at ART restart (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46–0.68, p<0.001), duration since HIV diagnosis (aHR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89–0.96) and longer intervals between HIV VL monitoring (aHR 0.66, 95% CI 0.59–0.74, p<0.001). However, the use of integrase inhibitors was associated with more rapid viral suppression (aHR 1.74, 95% CI 1.16–2.59).

Discussion

When designing studies involving ATIs, information on time to viral re‐suppression after restarting ART is important to share with participants, and should be regularly monitored and reported, to assess the impact and safety of specific trial interventions in ATI studies.

Conclusions

The majority of participants achieved viral suppression after restarting ART in ATI studies. ART regimens containing integrase inhibitors and frequent VL monitoring should be offered for people restarting ART after ATI studies to ensure rapid re‐suppression.

Keywords: antiretroviral therapy, ATI, HIV, HIV cure, treatment interruption, viral suppression

1. INTRODUCTION

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has dramatically improved survival for the 40 million people living with HIV globally; however, ART alone cannot cure HIV infection. Drawbacks to current ART still include adherence requirements, uncertain long‐term safety profiles, treatment fatigue, drug resistance, cost and challenges to sustained delivery through healthcare systems [1]. Therefore, the search for safe, effective longer‐acting treatment, or long‐term remission strategies for HIV remains a priority.

Without a validated marker available for predicting the effectiveness of HIV remission and cure strategies, analytical treatment interruption (ATI) of ART remains the only method to do so. ATIs are defined as closely monitored and usually temporary interruptions of ART during a study to assess markers of immunological and viral reservoir control. While recommendations are available for conducting studies involving ATIs [2], there is often considerable heterogeneity in the criteria used to re‐start ART; however, recent studies involving ATIs were often of shorter duration, more intensely monitored and had more conservative viral load (VL) thresholds to restart ART [3]. A systematic review and meta‐analysis reported that studies with more frequent VL monitoring, high baseline CD4 counts and undetectable VLs were safe with negligible risk of adverse events (0%, 95% CI 0–1%) or development of ART drug resistance (0%, 95% CI 0–1%) [4].

Although safety data are routinely available during the period of ATI in clinical trials, there is often limited data or recommendations on viral re‐suppression rates following ART reinitiation after ATI. Studies have reported that the reservoir containing total and replication‐competent HIV remains stable following short periods of ATI [5, 6, 7], but the small sample sizes and short duration of ATI may limit the generalizability of their findings to larger studies with longer periods of treatment interruption. It also remains unclear what effect novel immunotherapeutics such as broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs) have on the HIV reservoir following ATI [6], one study suggests that bNAbs were associated with a modest reduction in the intact proviral reservoir [8]. For participants living with HIV and their healthcare providers, the concerns of onward HIV transmission remain the greatest concern when considering participating in clinical trials involving ATIs [9], and data to demonstrate the safety and ability to achieve viral suppression after restarting ART in ATI studies are paramount to addressing these concerns.

In this systematic review and meta‐analysis, we analysed recent studies to determine the proportion of people living with HIV participating in ATI cure‐related clinical studies, who achieve viral suppression following ART re‐initiation. We assessed the impact of receiving any trial interventions on viral re‐suppression rates compared to undertaking ATI without interventions (ATI only), as well as other participant characteristics and trial‐design factors associated with the time to viral re‐suppression.

2. METHODS

2.1. Search strategy and selection process

A structured systematic literature search of the Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases was performed, an initial search on 2 March 2023, and an updated literature search on 22 April 2024. Two reviewers (ME and MJL) read and ascertained the relevance of the studies independently. Discordant results were adjudicated by a third reviewer (SF). The full protocol was registered on Prospero registry (Registration Number CRD42023403809) and followed the recommendations from the PRISMA statement (Table S1). Full search terms and results from the final literature search are available in Tables S2–S5.

2.1.1. Inclusion criteria

Clinical studies with an ATI were included. An ATI was defined as a protocol‐determined temporary pause in ART with a viral rebound and regular VL measurements. Only studies with viral suppression data after ART restart were included, defined as studies with plasma VL measurements for participants until at least one VL <50 copies/ml. Frequency of VL monitoring, originally defined as at least fortnightly in the original inclusion criteria on the Prospero registry, was dropped to increase the number of studies available and allow analysis of the association of frequency of VL monitoring on the time to VL suppression and all studies with at least one VL measurement post‐ART were included.

2.1.2. Exclusion criteria

Any studies prior to 2015, pre‐prints, abstracts, letters, reviews, commentary articles, opinion articles, animal studies and in vitro studies were excluded. This timeframe was selected to include studies that included integrase inhibitors. Studies with children and adolescent participants (<18 years old) were excluded, and stem cell transplant recipients were also excluded due to the unique characteristics of participants and distinct mechanism of action featuring potentially fatal toxicities, their inclusion potentially impacting on the generalizability of the study findings. Studies where VL measurements were not available after restarting ART were not included.

2.2. Primary outcome

The time taken to viral suppression <50 copies/ml following ART restart after ATI, stratified by cohorts receiving intervention and undertaking ATI, or undertaking ATI only.

2.3. Secondary outcomes

Proportion of participants who experienced viral suppression <50 copies/ml by week 12 after ART restart. Other factors associated with time to viral suppression were analysed using both a univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model. Covariables include plasma HIV VL at ART restart, nadir CD4 count, CD4 count at study enrolment, duration since HIV diagnosis, ART regimens, duration of ATI and frequency of HIV VL monitoring after restarting ART.

2.4. Data extraction

Extracted data included VL measurements during ATI and after ART restart, participant demographics, HIV‐associated disease characteristics (nadir and baseline CD4 counts, duration since HIV diagnosis, virus clade, presence of ART resistance‐associated mutations), ART regimens restarted, ART restart criteria, interventions received during study and any adverse events including development of drug resistance during and after ATI.

2.5. Data collection process and synthesis strategy

ME extracted the data and MJL was responsible for verification of the extracted data. If data were not available from published manuscripts or associated supplementary material, these data were requested from the corresponding study author.

2.6. Assessment of quality and bias

As viral re‐suppression rates were not included in the primary or secondary outcomes of these studies included, they were unlikely to drive publication bias on the basis of whether participants achieve viral re‐suppression after restarting ART. Thus, a formal publication bias assessment was not performed beyond a funnel plot assessment presented in Figure S2.

The modified Newcastle Ottawa scale [10] and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB2) tool [11] were used to assess the quality and bias of non‐randomized studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [12] classification was used to evaluate the overall quality of evidence. Two reviewers (ME and MJL) independently assessed bias within each study. Differences were adjudicated by a third reviewer (SF).

2.7. Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed using (R version 4.2.2 (2022‐10‐31)) [13]. A Kaplan−Meier curve was plotted stratified by IA or ATI‐alone subgroups to display time‐to‐viral‐suppression results of all study participants. Multivariable time‐to‐event analysis was undertaken using the Cox proportional‐hazards model to examine the effects of different demographics, HIV‐related and study‐related characteristics on the hazard risk (HR) of achieving viral suppression over time. A forward stepwise model approach for variable selection was performed, and variables were included in the multivariable model if there was a univariable association below the threshold of p = 0.3. The variables included in the univariate and the final multivariate models are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Multivariable Cox proportional‐hazards regression model

Univariable Multivariable
N (%)/Mean (SD) HR 95% CI p‐value HR 95% CI p‐value
Patient characteristics
Age (years) (per 10‐year increase) 41.7 (10.7) 0.80 0.70–0.91 0.001 0.97 0.81–1.15 0.719
Sex a
Female (Ref) 17 (8.5%)
Male 182 (91.5%) 0.70 0.43–1.16 0.171 0.72 0.40–1.31 0.282
HIV‐related characteristics
Plasma HIV viral load at ART restart (log copies/ml) 4.4 (0.9) 0.56 0.48–0.66 <0.001 0.56 0.46–0.68 <0.001*
Nadir CD4 (per 100 cells/µl increase) 544.6 (287.5) 1.00 0.94−1.06 0.914
CD4 at study enrolment (per 100 cells/µl increase) 777.3 (299.8) 0.95 0.91−1.00 0.039 0.96 0.91–1.01 0.155
Duration since HIV diagnosis (years) 7.4 (7.4) 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.008 0.93 0.89–0.96 <0.001*
ART regimen containing integrase inhibitors
No (Ref) 52 (24.5%)
Yes 161 (75.5%) 1.19 0.86–1.63 0.286 1.74 1.16–2.59 0.007*
Study characteristics
Duration of ATI in weeks 9.9 (8.1) 1.00 0.99 – 1.02 0.830
Frequency of HIV VL monitoring between ART restart and viral suppression (weeks between visits) 3.4 (2.1) 0.73 0.67–0.79 <0.001 0.59 0.52–0.68 <0.001*
Study type
ATI only (Ref) 63 (29.6)
IA 150 (70.4) 1.18 0.88–1.58 0.279 0.61 0.40–0.94 0.026*

Note: Significant results are marked by *.

Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; ATI, analytical treatment interruption; HR, hazard ratio; IA, intervention with ATI protocol; Ref, reference category.

a

A transgender participant was not included in the multivariable analysis due to n <5.

A random effects meta‐analysis was performed using the R package “meta” [13, 14], and the Higgins I2 test was used to calculate study heterogeneity. Participants from studies with multiple arms were pooled within cohorts undertaking IA or ATI‐only protocols and treated as separate cohorts for the proportional meta‐analysis. A stratified meta‐analysis of proportion effect estimates (ES) compared participants in the IA subgroup with participants in the ATI‐alone subgroups, and results were presented in forest plots and pooled ES with 95% confidence intervals, using χ2‐squared test to assess for subgroup differences.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the weight of the effect of bNAbs alone compared to all interventions received. Participants who received any other interventional therapies apart from bNAbs were excluded, and the Cox proportional‐hazards model was repeated.

3. RESULTS

Of 1073 papers screened under the search terms, the initial search resulted in 22 studies involving ATIs in their study design which met all inclusion and exclusion criteria [8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35], and the updated literature search revealed a further study [36], resulting in 23 studies in total. Of these studies, 13 studies published or communicated sufficient data for inclusion in this systematic review (Figure 1). Authors from the remaining 10 studies were contacted but were unable to provide the necessary VL data following ART restart within the timeframe requested, and these studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis as per the exclusion criteria. Characteristics and study design of the 23 studies are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Flow chart of the study selection process.

Table 1.

Summary of studies

First author Publication year and journal Number of participants who underwent ATI Intervention with ATI or ATI only Details of study VL criteria to restart ART Monitoring frequency of VL after ART restart Sex Median age (years) Median ART duration prior to study entry (years) Median CD4+ count at baseline (cells/µl) Post‐ART restart data status
Castagna J Antimicrob Chemother 2019 9 ATI only Observational ATI study Two consecutive HIV VL >50 copies/ml (14 days apart) Not stated in manuscript 9 M 50.7 16.9 737 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Mendoza

Nature

2018

15 Intervention with ATI Open‐label single‐arm. Participants included in this study received three infusions of 30 mg/kg 10–1074 + 3BNC117 antibodies. They then had an ATI. Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml Fortnightly until <50 copies/ml. Every 2 weeks thereafter.

1 F

14 M

40 5 654 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Scheid

Nature

2016

13 Intervention with ATI

Non‐randomized dose finding study

Arm 1: Two doses of 3BNC117 + ATI Arm 2: Four doses of 3BNC117 + ATI

Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml (weekly measurements) Weekly

1 F

12 M

31 6 720 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Gaebler

Nature

2022

26 Intervention with ATI

Open‐labelled RCT. Arm 1: Received bNAbs 3BNC117 and 10–1074 during ATI.

Arm 2: Took ART while receiving 3BNC117 and 10–1074 and then underwent ATI.

Weeks 0–26:

Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml (weekly measurements)

Weeks 26–38:

Four weekly HIV VL >1000 copies/ml;

Weeks 38–48:

Two consecutive pVL >1000 measured every other week

Monthly

3 F

23 M

49.5 10 675 Available included in meta‐analysis
Gruell

Lancet Microbe

2022

20 Intervention with ATI Group 1 underwent two treatment cycles of antibody each consisting of 3BNC117 infusions (30 mg/kg) + three romidepsin infusions (5 mg/m2). Group 2 Two treatment cycles each consisting of three romidepsin infusions (5 mg/m2). Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml Fortnightly until <20 copies/ml

3 F

17 M

Arm 1: 40

Arm 2: 51

Arm 1: 5 years

Arm 2: 10 years

Arm 1: 716

Arm 2: 600

Available included in the meta‐analysis
Cohen

J Exp Med

2018

15 Intervention with ATI Open label. Received 3BNC117 infusions and then had an ATI. Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml Weekly

1 F

14 M

43 11 688 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Gunst Nat Med 2022 20 Intervention with ATI

Open‐labelled RCT. Arm 1: ATI only

Arm 2: ART+3BNC117 then ATI

Arm 3: ART + romidepsin then ATI

Arm 4: ART + 3BNC117 + romidepsin then ATI

Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥5000 copies/ml (weekly measurements) Every fourth week until VL were undetectable on two consecutive measurements.

2 F

18 M

37 0 529 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Tebas J Clin Invest 2021 14 Intervention with ATI Open‐labelled study. Arm 1: Gene modified CCR5 CD4+ T cells. Arm 2: Gene modified CCR5 CD4+ T cells + CTX and then ATI. Consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥100,000 copies/ml over 3 weeks Monthly

1 F

13 M

44 N/A 693 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Kroon

J Virus Erad

2020

15 Intervention with ATI

Open‐labelled RCT. Arm 1: Vorinostat/Hydroxychloroquine/Maraviroc + ART followed by ATI

Arm 2: ART followed by ATI only.

Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml Fortnightly until 34 weeks after

2 F

13 M

Group 1: 28

Group 2: 26

3.4

Group 1: 634

Group 2: 1079

Available included in the meta‐analysis
De Scheerder

Cell Host Microbe

2022

11 ATI only Observational ATI study Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml (3 days apart) or a single HIV VL ≥1000 copies/ml Post‐ART restart at 4 weeks and at 12 weeks. If detectable at 4 weeks, VL repeated monthly until undetectable.

1 F

10 M

40 3.5 688 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Pannus J Int AIDS Soc 2020 16 ATI only Observational ATI study Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥1000 copies/ml (3 days apart) or a single HIV VL ≥10,000 copies/ml Post‐ART restart at 4 weeks and at 12 weeks.

15 M

1 F

N/A 4 N/A Available included in the meta‐analysis
Bailón

Nat Med

2022

45 Intervention with ATI

Double‐blinded RCT. Arm 1: Received a combination of DNA.HTI, MVA.HTI and ChAdOx1.HTI l vaccines and then an ATI.

Arm 2 Received ATI + placebo

Eight consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥10,000 copies/ml or a single HIV VL ≥100,000 copies/ml Post‐ART restart HIV VL was monitored at weeks 4 and 12. 44 M 1 F 36 N/A 745 Available included in the meta‐analysis
Gunst Nat Med 2023 46 Intervention with ATI

Double‐blinded RCT

Arm 1: Placebo/placebo (P/P)

Arm 2: Lefitolimiod/placebo (L/P)

Arm 3: Placebo/bNAb (P/B)

Arm 4: Lefitolimod/bNAb (L/B)

Sustained HIV VL ≥1000 copies/ml for ≥4 weeks or confirmed VL ≥ 100,000 copies/ml Monthly

39 M

7 F

Age by arm:

P/P 54

L/P 44

P/B 51

L/B 48

Time on ART by arm (years):

P/P 8

L/P 9

P/B 8

L/B 8

CD4 count by arm

P/P 743

L/P 694

P/B 1027

L/B 832

Available for 33 of 46 participants, included in the meta‐analysis
Leal Front Immunol 2021 29 Intervention with ATI

RCT. Testing Intranodal vaccine.

Arm 1: DCV3

Arm 2: DCV3 with PEG‐INF

Arm 3: Placebo

Arm 4: Placebo + PEG‐INF

A single HIV VL

≥100,000 copies/ml

Every 4 weeks until 12 weeks after ART restart. 29 M 46 N/A 752

Not available.

Not included in meta‐analysis.

Bar

NEJM

2016

24 Intervention with ATI Combination of two open‐label studies (ACTG 5340 + NIH trial 15‐I‐0140) of VCR01.  A sustained (≥2 weeks) HIV VL >1000 copies/ml; HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml followed by a confirmation level of 1000 copies/ml or three consecutive measurements of >200 copies/ml Monthly

22 M

2 F

A530 cohort 38

NIH trial

51

A530

cohort

4.7

NIH

trial

10.0

A530

cohort

896

NIH trial

724

Not available.

Not included in meta‐analysis

Sneller

J Infect Dis

2020

22 ATI only Observational ATI study HIV VL >1000 copies/ml for ≥ 4 weeks HIV VL measured weekly for the first 4 weeks then monthly thereafter for up to 52 weeks

20 M

2 F

51 7.7 767

Not available

Not included in the meta‐analysis

Crowell

Lancet HIV

2019

18 Intervention with ATI Double‐blinded RCT. Participants either received VRC01 or a placebo and ATI. Confirmed HIV VL >1000 copies/ml Not stated in manuscript 18 M 29 3 717 Not available. Not included in the meta‐analysis.
Colby

Nat Med

2020

26 Intervention with ATI RCT. Receive vaccine or placebo. Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml (weekly measurements) Not stated in manuscript 26 M 25 1.9 625

Not available.

Not included in the meta‐analysis.

SenGupta

Science Transl Med

2021

25 Intervention with ATI RCT. Participants received either vestolimod or placebo and then had ATI. Not stated in manuscript Not stated in manuscript

21 M

4 F

52 Vestilamod

41 Placebo

2.7 Vestilamod

3.2 Placebo

752 Vestilamod

952 Placebo

Not available.

Not included in the meta‐analysis.

Liu

J Clin Invest

2021

6 Intervention with ATI Open‐labelled CAR T cells study Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥200 copies/ml Every 3 weeks 6 M 30 3.9 530 Not available. Not included in the meta‐analysis.
Rutsaert

J Virus Erad

2019

30 Intervention with ATI

RCT

Arm 1: 50 mg ABX464 and ATI

Arm 2:

150 mg ABX464 and ATI

Arm 3:

Placebo and ATI

Not available in the manuscript Every 14 days until viral suppression

29 M

1 F

Arm 1

45.2

Arm 2

38.4

Arm 3

48.3

N/A

Arm 1: 1004

Arm 2:

926

Arm 3:

698

Not available. Not included in the meta‐analysis.
Vibholm

AIDS

2019

9 Intervention with ATI

Arm 1: MGN1703 with ART and then ATI

Arm 2: ART with MGN1703 and ATI with MGN1703

Two consecutive measurements of HIV VL ≥5000 copies/ml Not stated in manuscript. Only states they were followed until suppression.

11 M

1 F

51.5 6.3 635

Not available.

Not included in the meta‐analysis.

Colby

Nat Med

2018

8 ATI only Observational ATI study

Confirmed HIV VL >1000 copies/ml

HIV VL rise of ≥0.5 log10 copies/ml per day provided that the last VL was >1000 copies/ml, a single HIV VL >10,000 copies/ml

Not stated in the manuscript

7 M

1 F

29 2.8 577 Not available. Not included in the meta‐analysis.

3.1. Characteristics of the studies included in the meta‐analysis

This meta‐analysis included three observational studies and 10 interventional studies, of which six were RCTs and four were non‐randomized trials. The interventions studied include bNAb in seven studies [8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 36], and individual studies involving HIV vaccines [33], latency reversal agents only [22] and CCR5 gene‐edited T‐cell infusions [21]. The three observational studies were of participants undertaking ATIs only without any intervention [15, 23, 24].

The exact criteria to restart ART differed between studies; however, it was determined by plasma HIV VL in all studies (Table 1), with additional criteria based on CD4 thresholds, safety concerns or participant/investigator preferences. Notably, two studies had a much higher VL threshold (>100,000 copies/ml over 1 and 3 weeks, respectively) for ART restart than the other included studies [21, 36]. After the resumption of ART, six studies monitored the VL either weekly or fortnightly, two studies monitored participants’ VL monthly, and two measured VL at weeks 4 and 12 post‐ART restart. There were two studies which did not state in their manuscripts how often VL would be monitored after ART was resumed [15, 20].

3.2. Study participant demographics

A total of 213 participants underwent ATI from the 13 included studies in this meta‐analysis. The median age at enrolment was 41 years (range 19−68) and of those studies with sex demographics available, 182 (91.5%) were male, 17 (8.5%) female and 1 (0.5%) transgender female. Median time from HIV diagnosis to enrolment was 5.5 years (range 0–37). Median CD4 count at study enrolment was 706 cells/µl (range 320−2156). Characteristics of study participants undergoing ATI by studies are presented in Table 1.

There were 27/213 (12.7%) participants who did not experience an undetectable VL by week 12 after restarting ART. Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of participants who did not experience viral suppression by week 12. Of these participants, 20 had received an interventional study drug (eight bNAbs, three bNAbs with TLR‐9 agonist, four TLR‐9 agonist, five CCR5‐edited CD4 T cells with or without cyclophosphamide and one who received romidepsin only) and seven underwent ATI‐only protocols. They were almost all male (26/27), and the median age was 51 years old (range 31–62). Due to the frequency of VL monitoring after restarting ART, it is possible that nine participants may have achieved undetectable VL results within 12 weeks of restarting ART if monitored more frequently. Of the remaining 19 participants with detectable VL results >50 copies/ml beyond 12 weeks, they often had higher plasma VL at the time of ART restart (median 74,900 copies/ml, range 12,251–5,610,000 copies/ml), and 7/19 restarted on ART regimens not containing integrase inhibitors (Table 2). There was one individual (807) who did not demonstrate persistent viral re‐suppression and experienced ongoing low‐level viraemia (VL range 44–710 copies/ml) beyond 12 weeks, with only one VL result <50 copies/ml at day 471 after restarting ART.

Table 2.

Individual characteristics of participants who did not suppress by week 12

Study Participant ID ATI with intervention or ATI only Intervention received Age Sex Clade Nadir CD4 (cells/µl) CD4 count at study baseline (cells/µl) Duration of ATI (weeks) ART regimen restarted Mean interval between visits post‐ART restart (weeks) Viral load at ART restart (copies/ml) Time taken from ART restart to first undetectable VL (weeks)
Castagna et al. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019 3371 ATI only ATI only 48 M F 360 814 3 ABC/3TC/ATV/r 4.2 180,634 12.6
4844 ATI only ATI only 51 M F 402 1512 3 ATV/r 12 12,251 24.0
5220 ATI only ATI only 62 M F 212 586 5 TDF/FTC/EFV 4.7 209,265 28.0
6127 ATI only ATI only 50 M B 386 552 5 TDF/FTC/RPV 6.1 50,396 18.2
Gaebler et al. Nature 2022 5101 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 52 M B Not available 671 8 TDF/FTC/DTG 3.3 639,760 20.0
5125 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 34 M B 450 1006 33 TDF/FTC/DTG 3 19,300 15.0
Gruell et al. Lancet Microb 2022 03‐16‐B Intervention + ATI Romidepsin 62 M B Not available Not available 6 TAF/FTC/EVG/c 4.7 57,070 14.0
Mendoza et al. Nature 2018 9248 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 52 M B 310 620 13 TAF/FTC/DRV/r 1.9 18,200 13.0
9249 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 49 M B 426 1070 4 ABC/3TC/DRV/r 2.2 60,000 20.0
Tebas et al. J Clin Invest 2021 101 Intervention + ATI CCR5‐edited CD4+ T cells 32 M Not available Not available 563 16 TDF/FTC/EFV 4.275 9637 17.1
102 Intervention + ATI CCR5‐edited CD4+ T cells 49 M Not available Not available 870 16 TDF/FTC/ATV/r 4 28,435 16.0
202 Intervention + ATI CCR5‐edited CD4+ T cells + CTX 60 M Not available Not available 512 17 TDF/FTC/RPV 4.5 56,198 18.0
205 Intervention + ATI CCR5‐edited CD4+ T cells + CTX 45 M Not available Not available 456 16 TDF/FTC/ATV/r 5.3 35,910 15.8
De Scheerder et al. Cell Host Microbe 2019 STAR 002 ATI only ATI only 38 M B 438 2000 8 TAF/FTC/EVG/c 8.6 59,900 25.7
Gunst et al. Nat Med 2023 109 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 57 M B Not available 1410 10 ABC/3TC/DTG Not available (monthly in protocol) 43,600 14.9
114 Intervention + ATI Lefitolimod + 3BNC117 + 10–1074 31 M B Not available 610 26 TDF/FTC/DRV/c 40,100 18.4
115 Intervention + ATI Leftolimod 53 M Not available Not available 840 4 TAF/FTC/DTG 1,150,000 31
119 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 50 M B Not available 780 12 TAF/FTC/BIC 74,900 18.1
134 Intervention + ATI Leftolimod 58 M B Not available 600 6 TAF/FTC/BIC 32,200 17.1
601 Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 52 M B Not available Not available 30 TDF/FTC/DTG 173,000 17.0
801 Intervention + ATI Leftolimod + 3BNC117 + 10–1074 52 M B Not available 1076 11 ABC/3TC/DTG 2,100,000 18.4
822 Intervention + ATI Leftolimod + 3BNC117 + 10–1074 54 M B Not available 703 8 ABC/3TC/DTG 400,000 15.3
301‐13 Intervention + ATI Leftolimod 31 F C Not available 750 6 ABC/3TC/DTG 328,000 15
301‐4 Intervention + ATI Leftolimod 44 M Not available Not available 630 3 TDF/FTC/DTG 5,610,000 23.0
807 a Intervention + ATI 3BNC117 + 10–1074 40 M C Not available 1561 14 ABC/3TC/DTG 370,000 67.3
205 ATI only ATI only 54 M B Not available Not available 12 TAF/FTC/DRV 18,000 13.3
502 ATI only ATI only 61 M B Not available 930 5 ABC/3TC/DRV/r 333,000 20.1
a

This participant continued to experience low‐level viraemia during the follow‐up period 2 years after restarting ART.

There were no adverse events reported in the included studies related to restarting ART after the ATI.

3.3. Multivariable time‐to‐event analysis

There was no difference in time to viral suppression between participants in the IA group compared to those who underwent ATI alone (p = 0.22) (Figure 2). When additional variables were adjusted for in a Cox proportional‐hazards model (Table 3), participants in the IA group were less likely to achieve viral suppression compared to those undergoing ATI alone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.61, 95% CI 0.40–0.94, p = 0.026). A greater plasma HIV VL at ART restart (log copies/ml) (aHR 0.47, 95% CI 0.38–0.59, p<0.001), a longer interval between VL measurements after restarting ART (aHR 0.60, 95% CI 0.52–0.68, p<0.001) were associated with less likelihood of achieving viral re‐suppression over time, and the use of integrase inhibitors containing regimens was associated with greater likelihood of achieving viral suppression over time (aHR 1.88, 95% CI 1.25–2.82, p = 0.002). There was also a small effect associated with the duration since HIV diagnosis (aHR 0.93, 95% CI 0.90–0.97, p <0.001). All participants in the included studies eventually achieved at least one VL reading <50 copies/ml after restarting ART (range 12.6−67.3 weeks).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Kaplan−Meier plot of the proportion of participants with undetectable plasma viral loads (<50 copies/ml) following ART restart after ATI (weeks). Kaplan−Meier survival plot of the proportion of participants with suppressed plasma viral load <50 copies/ml against time in weeks. The red line represents participants undergoing ATI‐only protocols, and the blue line represents participants who received an interventional study drug with ATI as part of their study protocol. The red and blue shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals of their respective lines. Large changes in proportions at weeks 4 and 12 reflect study protocols where monitoring was undertaken only at these times after restarting ART. The table below shows the numbers at risk at 4‐weekly intervals stratified by receipt of interventional study drug with ATI or ATI‐only protocols. Datapoints are censored past week 32. Abbreviations: ART, antiretroviral therapy; ATI, analytical treatment interruption; VL, viral load.

In the sensitivity analysis, there was a non‐significant trend towards more rapid time to viral suppression for participants who receive bNAbs without any other interventions compared to those undergoing ATI alone (p = 0.055) (Figure S1). However, this trend was reversed once adjusted for covariables (aHR 0.0.28, 95% CI 0.16–0.51, p = <0.001). Other covariables associated with time to viral suppression were consistent with the primary outcome analysis. (Table S4).

3.4. Meta‐analysis

The pooled proportion of participants who experienced viral suppression <50 copies/ml within 12 weeks of restarting ART after an ATI was 86% (95% CI 77−92%) (Figure 3). There was a moderate degree of heterogeneity present across all studies (I2 = 45%, p = 0.02). There was no difference between participants who underwent IA compared to ATI‐alone (87% vs. 84%, p = 0.68).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Forest plots of primary outcome events stratified by receipt of intervention with ATI or undergoing ATI‐only protocols. Studies are identified by the name of the first author, journal and year of publication. Primary outcome events were defined as participants who experienced viral suppression with plasma HIV viral load <50 copies/ml) by week 12 after restarting ART. Study weights (%) are from the random‐effects analysis and represented by individual box sizes. The dashed line represents the overall proportion of primary outcome events across all participants. Abbreviations: ATI, analytical treatment interruption; CI, confidence interval.

3.5. Assessment of study quality and bias

The modified Newcastle Ottawa scale [10] was used to assess for bias in the single‐arm cohort and observational studies (Table 4). All studies had a predominantly male population, with strict co‐morbidities exclusion criteria. Three studies with longer follow‐up intervals (monthly or greater) were considered likely to introduce a bias for obtaining the primary outcome (Table 4). Bias was assessed for RCTs using the Cochrane ROB2 tool [11] and four studies assessed raised some concerns for bias raised in domain 3 (missing outcomes data) and domain 4 (measurement of the outcome) due to the limited VL monitoring following ART restart likely contributing to bias in the time to achieving viral suppression, due to the knowledge of intervention arms that may influence the frequency of monitoring following ART restart, respectively (Table 4).

Table 4.

Quality and risk of bias assessment

Non‐randomized studies
Modified Newcastle‐Ottawa Score Representativeness of the cohort Ascertainment of exposure Outcome was not present at the start Assessment of outcome Adequate follow‐up duration Loss‐to follow‐up accounted for Total

Mendoza et al.

Nature 2018

0 1 1 1 1 1 5

Scheid et al.

Nature 2016

0 1 1 1 1 1 5

Cohen et al.

J Exp Med 2018

0 1 1 1 1 1 5

Castagna et al.

J Antimicrob Chemother 2019

0 1 1 1 0 1 4

Tebas et al.

J Clin Invest 2021

0 1 1 1 0 1 4

De Scheerder et al.

Cell Host Microbe 2022

0 1 1 1 1 1 5

Pannus et al.

J Int AIDS Soc 2020

0 1 1 1 0 1 4
Randomized studies
Risk of Bias 2 score domains 1. Randomization process 2. Deviations from intended interventions 3. Missing outcome data 4. Measurement of the outcome 5. Selection of the reported result Overall

Bailón et al.

Nat Med 2022

Low risk Low risk Some concerns Some concerns Low risk Some concerns

Gaebler et al.

Nature 2022

Low risk Low risk Some concerns Some concerns Low risk Some concerns

Gruell et al.

Lancet Microbe 2022

Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk

Gunst et al.

Nat Med 2022

Low risk Low risk Some concerns Some concerns Low risk Some concerns

Gunst et al.

Nat Med 2023

Low risk Low risk Some concerns Some concerns Low risk Some concerns

Kroon et al.

J Virus Erad 2020

Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk Low risk

Note: Modified Newcastle‐Ottawa Score: Each score represents the number of stars given per category, to a maximum NOS score of 6 for a well‐designed study with minimal or no bias and 0 for a flawed study with substantial bias across all domains. Green cells highlights the domains or overall scores with low risk of bias, and yellow cells highlights domains or overal scores with some concerns of bias.

Although the funnel plot showed asymmetry in the publications (Figure S2), this is unlikely to be due to publication bias as discussed earlier. Alternative explanations may include participants demonstrating late viral suppression associated with high VLs prior to restarting ART, lower rates of integrase inhibitor use and infrequent VL monitoring which led to their outlier positions with low standard error rates.

4. DISCUSSION

This is the first systematic review and meta‐analysis to evaluate the impact of ATIs and interventional therapeutics on the time to viral suppression for participants living with HIV enrolled in cure‐related ATI studies. Overall, there was no difference in time to viral suppression after ATI with or without the receipt of interventional drugs. All participants achieved at least one VL <50 copies/ml, and 87% of participants did so by 12 weeks following ART restart. With current evidence indisputably demonstrating zero risk of sexual transmission when the plasma HIV VL is below 200 copies/ml, and near‐zero risk below 1000 copies/ml [37, 38, 39], the findings of this systematic review provide important reassurance for people considering participation in ATI studies and the impact on subsequent viral suppression.

After adjustment for covariables that impact viral suppression, the receipt of interventional therapeutics appeared to be associated with a longer time to viral re‐suppression, which comprised of bNAbs in the majority of studies included. However, this difference appeared to be negated by the use of integrase inhibitors resulting in no overall difference between IA and ATI‐only cohorts. Other factors that were associated with longer time to viral suppressions were identified in this study, including a greater plasma VL at the time of ART restart, supporting the inclusion of integrase inhibitors when restarting ART at high VL for rapid re‐suppression [40], particularly if they were previously taking ART regimens with a lower barrier to ART resistance.

To explain these findings, there may be hypothetical concerns of novel immunotherapeutics that might stimulate clonal expansion of T cells and active replication of their associated HIV reservoir, leading to persistent viraemia. Latency reversal agents such as romidepsin have been shown to induce detectable viraemia in people living with chronic HIV with previously suppressed VLs, through the activation of replication‐competent proviral reservoir [41]. Immune checkpoint inhibitors may also increase HIV‐specific CD8 T cell activity and concurrently activate HIV transcription leading to transient increases in plasma HIV viraemia [42]. A similar vaccine‐like or “vaccinal” effect may be elicited by bNAbs or their immune complexes through the priming of HIV‐specific cellular responses, which may result in activation of HIV transcription within the expanded clonal T cell populations within this “vaccinal effect.” [43] However, a recent systematic review [4] reported that studies involving ATIs were not associated with the development of ART resistance, nor did the administration of immunotherapeutics, such as bNAbs, identify any safety concerns. The proportion of participants experiencing viral suppression by week 12 also reflect data from people living with HIV who are treatment‐naïve and starting integrase‐based ART for the first time [44, 45]. bNAbs were administered during ART‐mediated viral suppression in most of the included studies in this analysis, and were unlikely to explain the trend to a more rapid viral re‐suppression rate in the bNAb sensitivity analysis.

The strength of this meta‐analysis includes a robust systematic search strategy, completeness of the dataset to allow multivariable Cox proportional‐hazards analysis at an individual level and minimizing heterogeneity of the study data by tightening the search criteria to only studies after 2015, where ART regimen choices, in particular the use of integrase inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to result in more rapid viral suppression [44, 45], are likely to be similar across ATI studies. Furthermore, since 2019, recommendations from a consensus meeting on the conduct of ATI studies have been published [2], which may influence greater homogeneity across study designs involving ATIs in the future. Most ATI studies now recommend that participants who are on a non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)‐based ART regimen should be switched to either a protease inhibitor or integrase inhibitor, to avoid selection for NNRTI drug resistance due to their low barrier to resistance and long pharmacokinetic tail.

There are limitations to the generalizability of these results to address. Not all studies were randomized in this meta‐analysis, and adjusted differences seen between participants who received IA and those who underwent ATI alone may be due to unmeasured confounding variables not removed through a prospective randomization study design. The most common intervention therapeutic assessed within the meta‐analyses were bNAbs. Due to the small number of studies using other interventions available for inclusion in this systematic review, we were unable to rule out the individual effect of other non‐bNAb classes of therapeutics on time to viral suppression.

There was a lack of data on ART adherence, duration of ART use prior to ATI, and history of ART drug resistance at baseline or at the time of rebound were not available from some studies, thus we were unable to assess the contribution of these confounding variables to the primary outcome. The finding that a longer interval between HIV VL monitoring between ART restart and viral suppression was associated with longer times to viral suppression may represent a methodological bias where participants who suppress earlier after restarting ART may not be measured until their next VL measurement. Due to the limited availability of datapoints, only time to first undetectable VL was considered as the primary outcome, participants with persistent low‐level viraemia may be missed. At least one person (807) continued to experience low‐level viraemia throughout the study follow‐up period more than 2 years after restarting ART. The duration between HIV diagnosis and ART initiation was not consistently available across studies, and this may have also impacted on the size and diversity of the reservoir and subsequent time to viral re‐suppression in ATI studies.

We suggest future ATI studies should consider frequently monitoring plasma VL, at least monthly, until participants achieve undetectable readings after restarting ART. The development and implementation of validated point‐of‐care VL tests for participants to use at home or in the workplace may ease the burden of repeated clinic visits during these trials. Reporting the rates of sustained viral suppression (which may be defined as two or more undetectable readings after restarting ART, already in used in some studies [20]) for subsequent analyses, and routine genotyping of HIV sequences for ART‐resistance mutations at the time of VL rebound or ART restart if resources allows, should be considered in study protocols involving ATIs. Throughout the ATI studies and subsequent time to viral re‐suppression after restarting ART, participants and their partners should be offered access to HIV prevention strategies such as HIV pre‐exposure prophylaxis and condoms use to mitigate the risks of onward transmission. We would be cautious in extrapolating our findings to people who experience unstructured treatment interruptions, as this is a very different population with distinct characteristics, facing different barriers to adherence, ART regimens and HIV characteristics, and thus would be outside the scope of this paper.

5. CONCLUSIONS

In ATI studies included in this systematic review, the majority of participants achieved viral suppression to < 50 copies RNA/ml within 12 weeks of restarting ART. The receipt of interventional immune‐modulatory treatments appeared to be associated with a longer time to re‐suppression after adjustment for covariables compared to participants who underwent ATI alone. Integrase inhibitors were associated with more rapid re‐suppression rates and appeared to reverse the differences observed in time to viral re‐suppression. When designing studies involving ATIs, ART regimens containing integrase inhibitors should be considered on completion of ATIs, and the time to viral re‐suppression after restarting ART should be frequently monitored and reported, to ensure the safety of specific trial interventions in ATI studies.

COMPETING INTERESTS

MJL is supported by the UK Medical Research Council Clinical Research Training Fellowship (MR/W024454/1), and has received speakers’ fees, conference from Viiv Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, and consultancy fees from Thriva Limited, external to the submitted work. EF has received grants and support for attending meetings from Viiv Healthcare and Gilead. BM has received stock options and consulting fees from AELIX Therapeutics SL, consulting fees from AbbviE, and speakers’ fees from Gilead, Janssen and Viiv Healthcare, outside the submitted work; and also participates on the data safety monitoring board for Leyden Labs. JLR is funded by the following NIH grants (NIH U19AI117950, NIH UM1AI164570) and has received stock options, royalties or licenses from Kite Pharma, BlueWhale Bio, and consulting fees from Scietemex Consulting, all external to the submitted work. JDG is supported by the Lundbeck Foundation (R381–2021–1405). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interests.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

MJL, ME and SF conceived the study. MJL and ME did the literature search, data extraction, statistical analysis and drafted the primary draft of the manuscript. AC, LG, MADS, JLR, PT, JDG, OSS, EF, EK, MDS, BM and MC contributed data from individual studies included in the analyses. MJL, ME and SF wrote the initial manuscript draft. All authors contributed critically to the manuscript and revisions, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

FUNDING

This work is supported by the UK Medical Research Council, Imperial College NIHR BRC, MR/W024454/1..

Supporting information

Figure S1. Sensitivity analysis: Kaplan Meier for people in bNAbs + ATI vs ATI only

Figure S2. Funnel plot of included studies

Table S1. Prisma checklist (separate file)

Table S2. Search strategies for systematic review on the Medline database till 22 Apr 2024

Table S3. Search strategies for systematic review on the Embase database till 22 Apr 2024

Table S4. Multivariable analysis for people in bNAbs + ATI only vs ATI only

Table S5. Search strategies for systematic review on the Web of Science database till 22 Apr 2024

JIA2-27-e26349-s001.docx (169.6KB, docx)

PRISMA 2020 Checklist

JIA2-27-e26349-s002.docx (30.9KB, docx)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the participants in these studies and study teams who have contributed to this systematic review and meta‐analyses.

PROSPERO Number: CRD42023403809

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The template data collection form, data extracted from included studies and used for analyses, analytic code, and other material used in the review are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

REFERENCES

  • 1. Katz IT, Ryu AE, Onuegbu AG, Psaros C, Weiser SD, Bangsberg DR, et al. Impact of HIV‐related stigma on treatment adherence: systematic review and meta‐synthesis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2013;16:18640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Julg B, Dee L, Ananworanich J, Barouch DH, Bar K, Caskey M, et al. Recommendations for analytical antiretroviral treatment interruptions in HIV research trials—report of a consensus meeting. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(4):e259–e268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Lau JSY, Smith MZ, Lewin SR, McMahon JH. Clinical trials of antiretroviral treatment interruption in HIV‐infected individuals. AIDS. 2019;33(5):773–791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Stecher M, Claßen A, Klein F, Lehmann C, Gruell H, Platten M, et al. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of treatment interruptions in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1‐infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy: implications for future HIV cure trials. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(7):1406–1417. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Clarridge KE, Blazkova J, Einkauf K, Petrone M, Refsland EW, Justement JS, et al. Effect of analytical treatment interruption and reinitiation of antiretroviral therapy on HIV reservoirs and immunologic parameters in infected individuals. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(1):e1006792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Salantes DB, Zheng Y, Mampe F, Srivastava T, Beg S, Lai J, et al. HIV‐1 latent reservoir size and diversity are stable following brief treatment interruption. J Clin Invest. 2018;128(7):3102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Huiting ED, Gittens K, Justement JS, Shi V, Blazkova J, Benko E, et al. Impact of treatment interruption on HIV reservoirs and lymphocyte subsets in individuals who initiated antiretroviral therapy during the early phase of infection. J Infect Dis. 2019;220(2):270–274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Gaebler C, Nogueira L, Stoffel E, Oliveira TY, Breton G, Millard KG, et al. Prolonged viral suppression with anti‐HIV‐1 antibody therapy. Nature. 2022;606(7913):368–374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Lau JSY, Smith MZ, Allan B, Martinez C, Power J, Lewin SR, et al. Perspectives on analytical treatment interruptions in people living with HIV and their health care providers in the landscape of HIV cure‐focused studies. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2020;36(4):260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta‐analyses [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2023 Aug 5]. Available from: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
  • 11. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:4898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck‐Ytter Y, Schünemann HJ. What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336(7651):995–998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. R Core Team . R: The R Project for Statistical Computing [Internet]. 2023. [cited 2023 Aug 5]. Available from: https://www.r‐project.org/
  • 14. Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Rücker G. Meta‐Analysis with R. 2015. [cited 2023 Aug 5]. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐21416‐0
  • 15. Castagna A, Muccini C, Galli L, Bigoloni A, Poli A, Spagnuolo V, et al. Analytical treatment interruption in chronic HIV‐1 infection: time and magnitude of viral rebound in adults with 10 years of undetectable viral load and low HIV‐DNA (APACHE study). J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(7):2039–2046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Mendoza P, Gruell H, Nogueira L, Pai JA, Butler AL, Millard K, et al. Combination therapy with anti‐HIV‐1 antibodies maintains viral suppression. Nature. 2018;561(7724):479–484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Scheid JF, Horwitz JA, Bar‐On Y, Kreider EF, Lu CL, Lorenzi JCC, et al. HIV‐1 antibody 3BNC117 suppresses viral rebound in humans during treatment interruption. Nature. 2016;535(7613):556–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Gruell H, Gunst JD, Cohen YZ, Pahus MH, Malin JJ, Platten M, et al. Effect of 3BNC117 and romidepsin on the HIV‐1 reservoir in people taking suppressive antiretroviral therapy (ROADMAP): a randomised, open‐label, phase 2A trial. Lancet Microbe. 2022;3(3):e203–e214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Cohen YZ, Lorenzi JCC, Krassnig L, Barton JP, Burke L, Pai J, et al. Relationship between latent and rebound viruses in a clinical trial of anti‐HIV‐1 antibody 3BNC117. J Exp Med. 2018;215(9):2311–2324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Gunst JD, Pahus MH, Rosás‐Umbert M, Lu IN, Benfield T, Nielsen H, et al. Early intervention with 3BNC117 and romidepsin at antiretroviral treatment initiation in people with HIV‐1: a phase 1b/2a, randomized trial. Nat Med. 2022;28(11):2424–2435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Tebas P, Jadlowsky JK, Shaw PA, Tian L, Esparza E, Brennan AL, et al. CCR5‐edited CD4+ T cells augment HIV‐specific immunity to enable post‐rebound control of HIV replication. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(7):e144486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Kroon EDMB, Ananworanich J, Pagliuzza A, Rhodes A, Phanuphak N, Trautmann L, et al. A randomized trial of vorinostat with treatment interruption after initiating antiretroviral therapy during acute HIV‐1 infection. J Virus Erad. 2020;6(3):100004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. De Scheerder MA, Vrancken B, Dellicour S, Schlub T, Lee E, Shao W, et al. HIV rebound is predominantly fueled by genetically identical viral expansions from diverse reservoirs. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26(3):347–358. e7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Pannus P, Rutsaert S, De Wit S, Allard SD, Vanham G, Cole B, et al. Rapid viral rebound after analytical treatment interruption in patients with very small HIV reservoir and minimal on‐going viral transcription. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020;23(2):e25453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Bar KJ, Sneller MC, Harrison LJ, Justement JS, Overton ET, Petrone ME, et al. Effect of HIV antibody VRC01 on viral rebound after treatment interruption. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(21):2037–2050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Sneller MC, Huiting ED, Clarridge KE, Seamon C, Blazkova J, Justement JS, et al. Kinetics of plasma HIV rebound in the era of modern antiretroviral therapy. J Infect Dis. 2020;222(10):1655–1659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Crowell TA, Colby DJ, Pinyakorn S, Sacdalan C, Pagliuzza A, Intasan J, et al. Safety and efficacy of VRC01 broadly neutralising antibodies in adults with acutely treated HIV (RV397): a phase 2, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet HIV. 2019;6(5):e297–e306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Colby DJ, Sarnecki M, Barouch DH, Tipsuk S, Stieh DJ, Kroon E, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of Ad26 and MVA vaccines in acutely treated HIV and effect on viral rebound after antiretroviral therapy interruption. Nat Med. 2020;26(4):498–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. SenGupta D, Brinson C, DeJesus E, Mills A, Shalit P, Guo S, et al. The TLR7 agonist vesatolimod induced a modest delay in viral rebound in HIV controllers after cessation of antiretroviral therapy. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13(599):eabg3071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Rutsaert S, Steens JM, Gineste P, Cole B, Kint S, Barrett PN, et al. Safety, tolerability and impact on viral reservoirs of the addition to antiretroviral therapy of ABX464, an investigational antiviral drug, in individuals living with HIV‐1: a Phase IIa randomised controlled study. J Virus Erad. 2019;5(1):10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Vibholm LK, Konrad CV, Schleimann MH, Frattari G, Winckelmann A, Klastrup V, et al. Effects of 24‐week Toll‐like receptor 9 agonist treatment in HIV type 1+ individuals. AIDS. 2019;33(8):1315–1325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Colby DJ, Trautmann L, Pinyakorn S, Leyre L, Pagliuzza A, Kroon E, et al. Rapid HIV RNA rebound after antiretroviral treatment interruption in persons durably suppressed in Fiebig I acute HIV infection. Nat Med. 2018;24(7):923–926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Bailón L, Llano A, Cedeño S, Escribà T, Rosás‐Umbert M, Parera M, et al. Safety, immunogenicity and effect on viral rebound of HTI vaccines in early treated HIV‐1 infection: a randomized, placebo‐controlled phase 1 trial. Nat Med. 2022;28(12):2611–2621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Leal L, Couto E, Sánchez‐Palomino S, Climent N, Fernández I, Miralles L, et al. Effect of intranodally administered dendritic cell‐based HIV vaccine in combination with pegylated interferon α‐2a on viral control following ART discontinuation: a phase 2A randomized clinical trial. Front Immunol. 2021;12:767370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Liu B, Zhang W, Xia B, Jing S, Du Y, Zou F, et al. Broadly neutralizing antibody‐derived CAR T cells reduce viral reservoir in individuals infected with HIV‐1. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(19):e150211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Gunst JD, Højen JF, Pahus MH, Rosás‐Umbert M, Stiksrud B, McMahon JH, et al. Impact of a TLR9 agonist and broadly neutralizing antibodies on HIV‐1 persistence: the randomized phase 2a TITAN trial. Nat Med. 2023;29(10):2547–2558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Rodger AJ, Cambiano V, Phillips AN, Bruun T, Raben D, Lundgren J, et al. Risk of HIV transmission through condomless sex in serodifferent gay couples with the HIV‐positive partner taking suppressive antiretroviral therapy (PARTNER): final results of a multicentre, prospective, observational study. Lancet. 2019;393(10189):2428–2438. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Rodger AJ, Cambiano V, Bruun T, Vernazza P, Collins S, Van Lunzen J, et al. Sexual activity without condoms and risk of HIV transmission in serodifferent couples when the HIV‐positive partner is using suppressive antiretroviral therapy. JAMA. 2016;316(2):171–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Broyles LN, Luo R, Boeras D, Vojnov L. The risk of sexual transmission of HIV in individuals with low‐level HIV viraemia: a systematic review. Lancet. 2023;402(10400):464–471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Jacobson K, Ogbuagu O. Integrase inhibitor‐based regimens result in more rapid virologic suppression rates among treatment‐naïve human immunodeficiency virus–infected patients compared to non‐nucleoside and protease inhibitor–based regimens in a real‐world clinical setting: a retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(43):e13016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Søgaard OS, Graversen ME, Leth S, Olesen R, Brinkmann CR, Nissen SK, et al. The depsipeptide romidepsin reverses HIV‐1 latency In Vivo. PLOS Pathog. 2015;11(9):e1005142. 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Guihot A, Marcelin A‐G, Massiani M‐A, Samri A, Soulié C, Autran B, et al. Drastic decrease of the HIV reservoir in a patient treated with nivolumab for lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(2):517–518. 10.1093/annonc/mdx696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Tipoe T, Fidler S, Frater J. An exploration of how broadly neutralizing antibodies might induce HIV remission: the ‘vaccinal’ effect. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2022;17(3):162–170. 10.1097/coh.0000000000000731 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Clotet B, Feinberg J, van Lunzen J, Khuong‐Josses M‐A, Antinori A, Dumitru I, et al. Once‐daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir in antiretroviral‐naive adults with HIV‐1 infection (FLAMINGO): 48 week results from the randomised open‐label phase 3b study. Lancet. 2014;383(9936):2222–2231. 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60084-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Raffi F, Rachlis A, Stellbrink H‐J, Hardy WD, Torti C, Orkin C, et al. Once‐daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral‐naive adults with HIV‐1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double‐blind, non‐inferiority SPRING‐2 study. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):735–743. 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61853-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1. Sensitivity analysis: Kaplan Meier for people in bNAbs + ATI vs ATI only

Figure S2. Funnel plot of included studies

Table S1. Prisma checklist (separate file)

Table S2. Search strategies for systematic review on the Medline database till 22 Apr 2024

Table S3. Search strategies for systematic review on the Embase database till 22 Apr 2024

Table S4. Multivariable analysis for people in bNAbs + ATI only vs ATI only

Table S5. Search strategies for systematic review on the Web of Science database till 22 Apr 2024

JIA2-27-e26349-s001.docx (169.6KB, docx)

PRISMA 2020 Checklist

JIA2-27-e26349-s002.docx (30.9KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The template data collection form, data extracted from included studies and used for analyses, analytic code, and other material used in the review are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.


Articles from Journal of the International AIDS Society are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES