Risk of developing low-level viral rebound (LLVR) among people with HIV (PWH) receiving two or three drug regimens: a case control study nested in the ICONA cohort

Clicks: 19
ID: 313660
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #156 of 316 articles by views in Open forum infectious diseases

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 316 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Background The risk of developing low-level viral rebound (LLVR) after achieving HIV-RNA suppression with two-drug regimens (2DR) compared to triple regimens (3DR) remains uncertain. Methods We conducted a matched 1:3 case-control study nested within the ICONA cohort including persons with HIV (PWH) who achieved virological suppression (≥2 consecutive HIV-RNA≤50copies/ml over 6 months) after November 11, 2014 (baseline, BL). Cases were defined as PWH experiencing a single HIV-RNA of 51-199 copies/ml after BL (index date); controls as those who maintained HIV-RNA ≤50 copies/mL up to the index date and matched for history of care gaps and number of drugs failed. The cumulative incidence of LLVR after virological suppression was estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods and conditional logistic regression models evaluated the association between the currently ART regimen [2DR (dolutegravir/lamivudine, dolutegravir/rilpivirine, dolutegravir/doravirine or cabotegravir/riplivirine) vs. 3DR (doloutegravir, bictegravir, rilpivirine, doravirine, darunavir/b, atazanavir/b-based with a backbone of tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine)] and LLVR risk. Sensitivity analyses restricted cases to those with two consecutive LLVR event. Results Among 1,033 PWH [261 cases, 772 matched controls; 21% female, median age 43 years (Interquartile range, IQR, 34-51), BL CD4 count 601/mm3 (IQR 379-826)], 2DR use was 25% in cases versus 29% in controls (p=0.23). Two years after viral suppression, cumulative LLVR incidence was 2.7% (95% CI 2.3-3.1) when considering all single LLVR events and 1.8% (1.4-2.1) when limited to two consecutive values. After adjusting for confounding, evidence was inconclusive [aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.57-1.29].)]. Conclusion Despite the wide range of plausibility, we can exclude a risk of LLVR higher than 29% when using 2DR vs. 3DR regimens.
Reference Key
openalex_W7160996821 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors
Journal Open forum infectious diseases
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/ofid/ofag250
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.