Summary Background Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% ...reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. Methods In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected patients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. Findings We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2·0%, 95% CI −0·7 to 4·7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·08 vs 0·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change −3 vs 20; p<0·0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change −1·30 vs –2·86; p<0·0001) and hip (−0·66 vs –2·95; p<0·0001) at 48 weeks. Interpretation Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. Funding Gilead Sciences.
Summary Background Dolutegravir (GSK1349572), a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor, has shown potent antiviral response and a favourable safety profile. We evaluated safety, efficacy, and emergent ...resistance in antiretroviral-experienced, integrase-inhibitor-naive adults with HIV-1 with at least two-class drug resistance. Methods ING111762 (SAILING) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began in October, 2010. Eligible patients had two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA assessments of 400 copies per mL or higher (unless >1000 copies per mL at screening), resistance to two or more classes of antiretroviral drugs, and had one to two fully active drugs for background therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg or twice-daily raltegravir 400 mg, with investigator-selected background therapy. Matching placebo was given, and study sites were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, evaluated in all participants randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of study drug, excluding participants at one site with violations of good clinical practice. Non-inferiority was prespecified with a 12% margin; if non-inferiority was established, then superiority would be tested per a prespecified sequential testing procedure. A key prespecified secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent integrase-inhibitor resistance. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01231516. Findings Analysis included 715 patients (354 dolutegravir; 361 raltegravir). At week 48, 251 (71%) patients on dolutegravir had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL versus 230 (64%) patients on raltegravir (adjusted difference 7·4%, 95% CI 0·7 to 14·2); superiority of dolutegravir versus raltegravir was then concluded (p=0·03). Significantly fewer patients had virological failure with treatment-emergent integrase-inhibitor resistance on dolutegravir (four vs 17 patients; adjusted difference −3·7%, 95% CI −6·1 to −1·2; p=0·003). Adverse event frequencies were similar across groups; the most commonly reported events for dolutegravir versus raltegravir were diarrhoea (71 20% vs 64 18% patients), upper respiratory tract infection (38 11% vs 29 8%), and headache (33 9% vs 31 9%). Safety events leading to discontinuation were infrequent in both groups (nine 3% dolutegravir, 14 4% raltegravir). Interpretation Once-daily dolutegravir, in combination with up to two other antiretroviral drugs, is well tolerated with greater virological effect compared with twice-daily raltegravir in this treatment-experienced patient group. Funding ViiV Healthcare.
Summary Background Daily oral triple therapy is effective at halting HIV disease progression, but can have toxic effects and is costly. We investigated whether dual therapy with lopinavir and ...ritonavir plus lamivudine is non-inferior to standard triple therapy. Methods The GARDEL study (Global AntiRetroviral Design Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard therapy) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults (age ≥18 years) with documented HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL. The study was done at 19 centres in six countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dual therapy or triple therapy by sealed envelopes, in blocks of four, stratified by baseline viral load (<100 000 vs ≥100 000 copies per mL). Dual therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg plus lamivudine 150 mg, both twice daily. Triple therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily and lamivudine or emtricitabine plus another nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in fixed-dose combination. Efficacy was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was virological response rate, defined as the proportion of patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Dual therapy was classed as non-inferior to triple therapy if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between groups was no lower than −12%. Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01237444. Findings Between Dec 10, 2010, and May 15, 2012, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the dual-therapy group and 209 to the triple-therapy group. 198 patients in the dual-therapy group and 175 in the triple-therapy group completed 48 weeks of treatment. At week 48, 189 patients (88·3%) in the dual-therapy group and 169 (83·7%) in the triple-therapy group had viral response (difference 4·6%, 95% CI −2·2 to 11·8; p=0·171). Patients with baseline viral load of at least 100 000 copies per mL showed similar results (87·2% vs 77·9%, respectively; difference 9·3%, 95% CI −2·8 to 21·5; p=0·145). Toxicity-related or tolerability-related discontinuations were more common in the triple-therapy group (n=10 4·9%) than in the dual-therapy group (n=1 0·4%; difference 4·5%, 95% CI −8·1 to −0·9; p=0·011). 65 adverse events in the dual-therapy group and 88 in the triple-therapy group were possibly or probably drug related (p=0·007). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the dual-therapy arm, one of which (a case of gastritis) was reported as possibly or probably related to drug treatment. Interpretation Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine regimen warrants further clinical research and consideration as a potential therapeutic option for antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients. Funding Fundación Huésped and AbbVie.
Summary Background Atazanavir/ritonavir is as effective as lopinavir/ritonavir, with a more favourable lipid profile and less gastrointestinal toxicity, in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected ...patients. We compared these two combinations directly in treatment-naive patients. Methods In this open-label, international non-inferiority study, 883 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomly assigned to receive atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily (n=440) or lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily (n=443), in combination with fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated centralised randomisation schedule and was stratified by baseline levels of HIV RNA (viral load) and geographic region. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with viral load less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The main efficacy analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00272779. Findings At week 48, 343 (78%) of 440 patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir and 338 (76%) of 443 patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir had achieved a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL (difference 1·7%, 95% CI −3·8 to 7·1). Mean increases from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar (203 cells per μL in the atazanavir/ritonavir group vs 219 cells per μL in the lopinavir/ritonavir group). 25 (6%) patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and 26 (6%) in the lopinavir/ritonavir group were virological failures by week 48. Only two patients, both in the atazanavir/ritonavir group, had non-polymorphic protease inhibitor resistance mutations emerge on treatment, which conferred phenotypic resistance to atazanavir in one patient. Serious adverse events were noted in 51 (12%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group and in 42 (10%) of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group. Fewer patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group than in the lopinavir/ritonavir group experienced grade 2–4 treatment-related diarrhoea (10 2% vs 50 11%) and nausea (17 4% vs 33 8%). Grade 2–4 jaundice was seen in 16 (4%) of 441 patients in the atazanavir/ritonavir group versus none of 437 patients in the lopinavir/ritonavir group; grade 3–4 increases in total bilirubin were seen in 146 (34%) of 435 patients on atazanavir/ritonavir and in one (<1%) of 431 patients on lopinavir/ritonavir. Interpretation In treatment-naive patients, atazanavir/ritonavir once-daily demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to lopinavir/ritonavir twice-daily, with less gastrointestinal toxicity but with a higher rate of hyperbilirubinaemia. Funding Bristol-Myers Squibb.
Summary Background To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of ...their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. Methods The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of −12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. Findings 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0·0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol −12·6% vs 1·0%, non-HDL cholesterol −15·0% vs 2·6%, and triglycerides −42·2% vs 6·2%. At week 24, 293 (84·4%, 95% CI 80·2–88·1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90·6%, 87·1–93·5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference −6·2%, −11·2 to −1·3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. Interpretation Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. Funding Merck.
Summary Background Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data ...suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. Methods In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of −10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00745823. Findings From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100 000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per μL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference −5·7%, 95% CI −10·7 to −0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. Interpretation Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. Funding Merck.
Summary Background Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel ...tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Methods In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01815736. Findings Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6–6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients 21% vs 76 16%). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Interpretation Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. Funding Gilead Sciences.
Summary Background The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a ...phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs). Methods We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response TLOVR algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00543725. Findings From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3·5% 95% CI −1·7 to 8·8; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2–4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% 54 patients) than they were with efavirenz (31% 104; p<0·0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0·0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0·0001). Interpretation Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Funding Tibotec.
Summary Background Elvitegravir is a once daily inhibitor of HIV-1 integrase boosted by ritonavir. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of elvitegravir with raltegravir, another HIV-1 ...integrase inhibitor, in patients in whom previous antiretroviral treatment failed. Methods We conducted a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3 study at 234 sites in 13 countries. Eligible patients had plasma HIV RNA of 1000 copies per mL or greater, any CD4 cell count, and resistance to or 6 months' experience with at least two classes of antiretroviral drugs. They received an open-label background regimen of a fully active, ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor and a second agent. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by computer with a block size of four to receive either elvitegravir 150 mg once daily (n=361; 85 mg dose if given with atazanavir, or lopinavir with ritonavir) or raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (n=363). Placebo tablets were given to mask the difference in daily dosing. The primary endpoint was achievement and maintenance of virological response (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL) through week 48. Non-inferiority was prespecified with a margin of 10%. We did a modified intention-to-treat analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00708162. Findings Ten patients allocated elvitegravir and 12 assigned raltegravir were excluded from the analysis (either for protocol violations or because they did not receive treatment). 207 (59%) of 351 patients allocated elvitegravir achieved virological response compared with 203 (58%) of 351 assigned raltegravir (treatment difference 1·1%, 95% CI −6·0 to 8·2), meeting the criterion for non-inferiority (p=0·001). Three patients allocated elvitegravir had serious adverse events related to study drugs compared with seven assigned raltegravir; two and eight patients died, respectively. More individuals assigned elvitegravir reported diarrhoea up to week 48 (p=0·023), and more patients assigned raltegravir had grade 3 or 4 rises in alanine aminotransferase (p=0·020) or aspartate aminotransferase (p=0·009). Interpretation Elvitegravir used in combination with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor in treatment-experienced patients has similar efficacy and safety to raltegravir. Since elvitegravir can be given once a day compared with twice a day for raltegravir, elvitegravir might improve patients' adherence. Funding Gilead Sciences.
PDF
