Summary Background Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new ...non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Methods We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response ITT-TLOVR algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00540449. Findings 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was −0·4 (95% CI −5·9 to 5·2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11% vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2–4 adverse events (55 16% on rilpivirine vs 108 31% on efavirenz, p<0·0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight 2% on rilpivirine vs 27 8% on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. Interpretation Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. Funding Tibotec.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted ...darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks.
FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929.
Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 82% vs 32/61 52%, homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 10% in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 24% in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 13% vs 34/242 14%), and headache (17/242 7% vs 12/242 5%).
Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients.
ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.
Summary Background Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the ...safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. Methods Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00369941. Findings 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86·1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81·9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4·2%, 95% CI −1·9 to 10·3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0·0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 44·1%) than those on efavirenz (n=217 77·0%; difference −32·8%, 95% CI −40·2 to −25·0, p<0·0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. Interpretation Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. Funding Merck.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Two randomised, placebo-controlled trials—BENCHMRK-1 and BENCHMRK-2—investigated the efficacy and safety of raltegravir, an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor. We report ...final results of BENCHMRK-1 and BENCHMRK-2 combined at 3 years (the end of the double-blind phase) and 5 years (the end of the study). Methods Integrase-inhibitor-naive patients with HIV resistant to three classes of drug and who were failing antiretroviral therapy were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to raltegravir 400 mg twice daily or placebo, both with optimised background treatment. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation until week 156, after which all patients were offered open-label raltegravir until week 240. The primary endpoint was previously assessed at 16 weeks. We assessed long-term efficacy with endpoints of the proportion of patients with an HIV viral load of less than 50 copies per mL and less than 400 copies per mL, and mean change in CD4 cell count, at weeks 156 and 240. Findings 1012 patients were screened for inclusion. 462 were treated with raltegravir and 237 with placebo. At week 156, 51% in the raltegravir group versus 22% in the placebo group (non-completer classed as failure) had viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL, and 54% versus 23% had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL. Mean CD4 cell count increase (analysed by an observed failure approach) was 164 cells per μL versus 63 cells per μL. After week 156, 251 patients (54%) from the raltegravir group and 47 (20%) from the placebo group entered the open-label raltergravir phase; 221 (47%) versus 44 (19%) completed the entire study. At week 240, viral load was less than 50 copies per mL in 193 (42%) of all patients initially assigned to raltegravir and less than 400 copies per mL in 210 (45%); mean CD4 cell count increased by 183 cells per μL. Virological failure occurred in 166 raltegravir recipients (36%) during the double-blind phase and in 17 of all patients (6%) during the open-label phase. The most common drug-related adverse events at 5 years in both groups were nausea, headache, and diarrhoea, and occurred in similar proportions in each group. Laboratory test results were similar in both treatment groups and showed little change after year 2. Interpretation Raltegravir has a favourable long-term efficacy and safety profile in integrase-inhibitor-naive patients with triple-class resistant HIV in whom antiretroviral therapy is failing. Raltegravir is an alternative for treatment-experienced patients, particularly those with few treatment options. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with potent in-vitro activity against HIV-1 strains including those resistant to currently available antiretroviral drugs. The ...aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of raltegravir when added to optimised background regimens in HIV-infected patients. Methods HIV-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA viral load over 5000 copies per mL, CD4 cell counts over 50 cells per μL, and documented genotypic and phenotypic resistance to at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and one protease inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive raltegravir (200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo orally twice daily in this multicentre, triple-blind, dose-ranging, randomised study. The primary endpoints were change in viral load from baseline at week 24 and safety. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , with the number NCT00105157. Findings 179 patients were eligible for randomisation. 44 patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg raltegravir, 45 to receive 400 mg raltegravir, and 45 to receive 600 mg raltegravir; 45 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. One patient in the 200 mg group did not receive treatment and was therefore excluded from the analyses. For all groups, the median duration of previous antiretroviral therapy was 9·9 years (range 0·4–17·3 years) and the mean baseline viral load was 4·7 (SD 0·5) log10 copies per mL. Four patients discontinued due to adverse experiences, three (2%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and one (2%) of the 45 patients on placebo. 41 patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy: 14 (11%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and 27 (60%) of the 45 patients on placebo. At week 24, mean change in viral load from baseline was −1·80 (95% CI −2·10 to −1·50) log10 copies per mL in the 200 mg group, −1·87 (−2·16 to −1·58) log10 copies per mL in the 400 mg group, −1·84 (−2·10 to −1·58) log10 copies per mL in the 600 mg group, and −0·35 (−0·61 to −0·09) log10 copies per mL for the placebo group. Raltegravir at all doses showed a safety profile much the same as placebo; there were no dose-related toxicities. Interpretation In patients with few remaining treatment options, raltegravir at all doses studied provided better viral suppression than placebo when added to an optimised background regimen. The safety profile of raltegravir is comparable with that of placebo at all doses studied.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background TMC125 (etravirine) is a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with activity against NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 in phase IIb trials. The aim of DUET-2 is to examine the ...efficacy, tolerability, and safety of TMC125 in treatment-experienced patients. Methods In this continuing randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial, HIV-1-infected patients on failing antiretroviral therapy with evidence of resistance to currently available NNRTIs and at least three primary protease inhibitor mutations were eligible for enrolment if on stable (8 weeks unchanged) antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA greater than 5000 copies per mL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TMC125 (200 mg) or placebo, each given twice daily with darunavir-ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and optional enfuvirtide. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (FDA time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00255099. Findings 591 patients were randomised and treated (295 patients in the TMC125 group and 296 in the placebo group). By week 24, 51 (17%) patients in the TMC125 group and 73 (25%) in the placebo group had discontinued, mainly because of virological failure. 183 (62%) patients in the TMC125 group and 129 (44%) in the placebo group achieved confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (difference 18%, 95% CI 11–26; p=0·0003). The type and frequency of adverse events were much the same in the two groups. Interpretation In treatment-experienced patients, treatment with TMC125 led to better virological suppression at week 24 than did placebo. The safety and tolerability profile of TMC125 was generally comparable with placebo.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Summary Background The continuing, randomised, multinational, phase IIB POWER 1 and 2 studies aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of darunavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir in ...treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We did a pooled subgroup analysis to update results at week 48 for patients receiving the recommended dose of darunavir-ritonavir compared with those receiving other protease inhibitors (PIs). Methods After 24-week dose-finding phases and primary efficacy analyses, patients randomised to receive darunavir-ritonavir were given 600/100 mg twice daily, and patients receiving control PIs continued on assigned treatment into the longer-term, open-label phase; all patients continued on optimised background regimen. We assessed patients who had reached week 48 or discontinued earlier at the time of analysis; for the darunavir-ritonavir group, only patients who received 600/100 mg twice daily from baseline were included. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The POWER 2 study (TMC114-C202) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT00071097 ). Findings At week 48, 67 of 110 (61%) darunavir-ritonavir patients compared with 18 of 120 (15%) of control PI patients had viral load reductions of 1 log10 copies per mL or greater from baseline (primary endpoint; difference in response rates 46%, 95% CI 35%–57%, p<0·0001). Based on a logistic regression model including stratification factors (baseline number of primary PI mutations, use of enfuvirtide, baseline viral load) and study as covariates, the difference in response was 50% (odds ratio 11·72, 95% CI 5·75–23·89). In the darunavir-ritonavir group, rates of adverse events were mostly lower than or similar to those in the control group when corrected for treatment exposure. No unexpected safety concerns were identified. Interpretation Efficacy responses with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily plus optimised background regimen were greater than those with control PI and were sustained to at least week 48, with favourable safety and tolerability in treatment-experienced patients. This regimen could expand the treatment options available for such patients.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
PDF