Structured Treatment Interruptions Workshop Summary

Workshop Summary

The investigation of Structured Treatment Interruption (STI) has fluid borders. Interruption is considered a treatment strategy per se, an adjunct to treatment, as well as the removal of treatment. Though first proposed as an immune-based treatment strategy, STI is now being explored as a research tool for basic science and clinical investigation, an option for clinical management, a tactic for toxicity relief, a way of reducing the cost of treatment, an aid to improving patient quality of life and as a method for guiding viral evolution. Recently, research on STI has begun as a resource conservation practice for large health networks or low-resource settings such as in developing countries. In addition, many clinicians and people on therapy have simply perceived a need to study the safety of what is already an established phenomenon -- the "drug holiday." Although fears about the danger of stopping treatment have been allayed and the popularity of treatment interruption has soared, there is still no firm consensus about the safety of STI.

STI as Treatment Research to stimulate response to autologous virus to boost after acute infection to boost after exogenous vaccine to relieve drug toxicity to limit drug exposure for improved quality of life until virus reverts to WT to suppress virus with fewer resources to reduce the cost of treatment  STI as Pathogenesis Research to elucidate science of immune response to elucidate viral and host immune dynamics to allow readout of clinical benefits from immune-based therapies

The second STI Workshop assembled a diverse group of clinicians, researchers and community advocates from multiple disciplines. Investigator interest in structured treatment interruption is varied. Workshop attendees are leaders in exploring STI as a way to potentially enhance HIV-1-specific immune responses, limit drug exposure, prevent and recover from drug-related toxicity, allow a shift to a more drug-susceptible "wild type virus"(WT) in the absence of drug pressure, and improve quality of life for people with HIV. For two and a half days, participants candidly shared observations, data and speculation about the state and future directions of STI research.

Workshop participants discussed these and other objectives. The following report summarizes the workshop proceedings and the discussions that led to the workshop conclusions and follow-up recommendations. The STI Steering Committee will undertake to facilitate their implementation.

The Workshop agenda was structured by presentations that addressed issues specific to these patient population categories: 1) primary infection, 2) chronic suppressed infection, and 3) chronic, unsuppressed drug resistant infection. A suite of Interlude Talks allowed participants to appreciate some interesting perspectives on new assays, mathematical modeling, insights from animal models and bench work. This was followed by a comprehensive overview of the immunologic, virologic and clinical hypotheses behind STI and the state of the evidence supporting them. Looking ahead, participants presented a range of new protocol designs. Finally, the meeting was summarized and task lists were drawn up.

Two years after news of the "Berlin Patient" launched the field, the promise of STI remains greater than its proven benefits. But this assessment varies by the population treated and by the benefit sought. Despite initial excitement about possible disease remission by STI-mediated immune control, it's been the critical need for better quality-of-life while on long-term therapy that has driven the popularity of STI among patients.

Previous | Next
Table of Contents