Dolutegravir Group Research Articles

Fixed-dose combination bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir-containing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: week 144 results from two randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

In the primary week-48 analyses of two phase 3 studies, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to a dolutegravir-containing regimen in treatment-naive people with HIV. We report week-144 efficacy and safety results from these studies. We did two double-blind, active-controlled studies (now in open-label extension phase). Study 1 randomly assigned (1:1) HLA-B*5701-negative adults without hepatitis B virus co-infection to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg once daily. Study 2 randomly assigned (1:1) adults to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, or dolutegravir 50 mg given with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg. We previously reported non-inferiority at the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week-144 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 144, by US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm, analysed in the same manner. These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02607930 and NCT02607956. 629 participants were randomly assigned and treated in study 1 (314 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 315 to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine) and 645 in study 2 (327 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, 325 to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide). At week 144, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to both dolutegravir-containing regimens for efficacy. In study 1, 256 (82%) of 314 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 265 (84%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference -2·6%, 95% CI -8·5 to 3·4). In study 2, 262 (82%) of 320 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 273 (84%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (difference -1·9%, -7·8 to 3·9). In both studies, no participant had treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs up to week 144. All treatment regimens were well tolerated with additional exposure. Adverse events that led to study drug discontinuation were reported for no participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (study 1), and six (2%) of 320 in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus six (2%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (study 2). In study 1, statistically significant differences were observed in median changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol (14 mg/dL vs 10 mg/dL; p=0·034), direct LDL (21 mg/dL vs 14 mg/dL; p=0·004), and total cholesterol to HDL ratio (-0·1 vs -0·3; p=0·007) at week 144; no differences were observed between groups in study 2. Weight gain was seen across all treatment groups in both studies, with no differences in median changes from baseline in weight at week 144 for either study. These long-term data support the use of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people with HIV, with no emergent resistance. Gilead Sciences.

Dolutegravir versus efavirenz in women starting HIV therapy in late pregnancy (DolPHIN-2): an open-label, randomised controlled trial

Late initiation of HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) in pregnancy is associated with not achieving viral suppression before giving birth and increased mother-to-child transmission of HIV. We aimed to investigate virological suppression before giving birth with dolutegravir compared with efavirenz, when initiated during the third trimester. In this randomised, open-label trial, DolPHIN-2, we recruited pregnant women in South Africa and Uganda aged at least 18 years, with untreated but confirmed HIV infection and an estimated gestation of at least 28 weeks, initiating ART in third trimester. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir-based or efavirenz-based therapy. HIV viral load was measured 7 days and 28 days after antiretroviral initiation, at 36 weeks' gestation, and at the post-partum visit (0-14 days post partum). The primary efficacy outcome was a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL at the first post-partum visit, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of drug-related adverse events in mothers and infants until the post-partum visit. Longer-term follow-up of mothers and infants continues. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249181. Between Jan 23, and Aug 15, 2018, we randomly assigned 268 mothers to dolutegravir (135) or efavirenz (133). All mothers and their infants were included in the safety analysis, and 250 mothers (125 in the dolutegravir group, 125 in the efavirenz group) and their infants in efficacy analyses, by intention-to-treat analyses. The median duration of maternal therapy at birth was 55 days (IQR 33-77). 89 (74%) of 120 in the dolutegravir group had viral loads less than 50 copies per mL, compared with 50 (43%) of 117 in the efavirenz group (risk ratio 1·64, 95% CI 1·31-2·06). 30 (22%) of 137 mothers in the dolutegravir group reported serious adverse events compared with 14 (11%) of 131 in the efavirenz group (p=0·013), particularly surrounding pregnancy and puerperium. We found no differences in births less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks gestation (16·4% vs 3·3%, across both groups). Three stillbirths in the dolutegravir group and one in the efavirenz group were considered unrelated to treatment. Three infant HIV infections were detected, all in the dolutegravir group, and were considered likely to be in-utero transmissions. Our data support the revision to WHO guidelines recommending the transition to dolutegravir in first-line ART for all adults, regardless of pregnancy or child-bearing potential. Unitaid.

Weight gain in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients starting a regimen including an integrase strand transfer inhibitor or darunavir/ritonavir.

Weight gain after initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) is a possible side effect of all antiretroviral regimens, but it seems to be more evident in association with integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs). So, we aimed to evaluate weight change associated with an initial cART including one INSTI or darunavir-ritonavir (DRV/r). A retrospective, observational, cohort study of antiretroviral therapy-naive adult HIV-positive patients starting an initial cART including raltegravir (RAL), dolutegravir (DTG), elvitegravir-cobicistat (EVG), or DRV/r. We compared changes in weight and body mass index (BMI) across the four groups during a 12-month follow-up. As a whole, 680 patients (470 males, mean age 42.1years) were enrolled: 196 starting RAL, 174 DTG, 158 EVG/c, and 152 DRV/r. Baseline mean CD4 lymphocyte count was 455 cells/mm3 and 7.3% had an AIDS diagnosis. After 12months, mean increase in body weight was 1.93kg in the RAL group, 2.38kg in the DTG group, 2.14kg in the EVG group, and 1.85 in the DRV/r group. Mean increase in BMI was 0.71, 0.84, 0.77 and 0.63kg/m2, respectively (p > 0.05 for each comparison). Therefore, no significant increases in weight and BMI were reported in each group, and no significant differences in weight and BMI changes were described across the four treatment groups. In our study, patients starting an initial cART including one INSTI or DRV/r after 12months showed a small and comparable, but not significant, increase in body weight, whose long-term clinical consequences are unknown.

Dolutegravir-Based or Low-Dose Efavirenz–Based Regimen for the Treatment of HIV-1

BackgroundAn efavirenz-based regimen (with a 600-mg dose of efavirenz, known as EFV600) was the World Health Organization preferred first-line treatment for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection until June 2018. Given concerns about side effects, dolutegravir-based and low-dose efavirenz–based combinations have been considered as first-line treatments for HIV-1 in resource-limited settings.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 noninferiority trial in Cameroon. Adults with HIV-1 infection who had not received antiretroviral therapy and had an HIV-1 RNA level (viral load) of at least 1000 copies per milliliter were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir or the reference treatment of low-dose efavirenz (a 400-mg dose, known as EFV400), combined with tenofovir and lamivudine. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48, on the basis of the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm. The difference between treatment groups was calculated, and noninferiority was tested with a margin of 10 percentage points.ResultsA total of 613 participants received at least one dose of the assigned regimen. At week 48, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was observed in 231 of 310 participants (74.5%) in the dolutegravir group and in 209 of 303 participants (69.0%) in the EFV400 group, with a difference of 5.5 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], −1.6 to 12.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Among those with a baseline viral load of at least 100,000 copies per milliliter, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was observed in 137 of 207 participants (66.2%) in the dolutegravir group and in 123 of 200 participants (61.5%) in the EFV400 group, with a difference of 4.7 percentage points (95% CI, −4.6 to 14.0). Virologic failure (a viral load of >1000 copies per milliliter) was observed in 3 participants in the dolutegravir group (with none acquiring drug-resistance mutations) and in 16 participants in the EFV400 group. More weight gain was observed in the dolutegravir group than in the EFV400 group (median weight gain, 5.0 kg vs. 3.0 kg; incidence of obesity, 12.3% vs. 5.4%).ConclusionsIn HIV-1–infected adults in Cameroon, a dolutegravir-based regimen was noninferior to an EFV400-based reference regimen with regard to viral suppression at week 48. Among participants who had a viral load of at least 100,000 copies per milliliter when antiretroviral therapy was initiated, fewer participants than expected had viral suppression. (Funded by Unitaid and the French National Agency for AIDS Research; NAMSAL ANRS 12313 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02777229.)

Co-formulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: week 96 results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

The single-tablet regimen consisting of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide is recommended for treatment of HIV-1 infection on the basis of data from 48 weeks of treatment. Here, we examine the longer-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with dolutegravir plus co-formulated emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide at week 96. This ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at 126 outpatient centres in ten countries. We enrolled treatment-naive adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 infection who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min and sensitivity to emtricitabine and tenofovir. People with chronic hepatitis B or C infection, or both, and those who had used antivirals previously for prophylaxis were allowed. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive treatment with either co-formulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg (the bictegravir group) or dolutegravir 50 mg with co-formulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg (the dolutegravir group), each with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Treatment allocation was masked to all participants and investigators. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. We previously reported the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week 96 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 96 by US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607956. Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we screened 742 individuals, of whom 657 were enrolled. 327 participants were assigned to the bictegravir group and 330 to the dolutegravir group. Of these, 320 in the bictegravir group and 325 in the dolutegravir group received at least one dose of study drug. At week 96, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL was achieved by 269 (84%) of 320 participants in the bictegravir group and 281 (86%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group (difference -2·3%, 95% CI -7·9 to 3·2), demonstrating non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen compared with the dolutegravir regimen. Both treatments continued to be well tolerated through 96 weeks; 283 (88%) of 320 participants in the bictegravir group and 288 (89%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group had any adverse event and 55 (17%), and 33 (10%) had any serious adverse event. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (57 [18%] of 320 in the bictegravir group vs 51 [16%] of 325 in the dolutegravir group) and headache (51 [16%] of 320 vs 48 [15%] of 325). Deaths were reported for three (1%) individuals in each group (one cardiac arrest, one gastric adenocarcinoma, and one hypertensive heart disease and congestive cardiac failure in the bictegravir group and one unknown causes, one pulmonary embolism, and one lymphoma in the dolutegravir group); none were considered to be treatment related. Adverse events led to discontinuation in six (2%) participants in the bictegravir group and five (2%) in the dolutegravir group; one of these events in the bictegravir group versus four in the dolutegravir group occurred between weeks 48 and 96. Study drug-related adverse events were reported for 64 (20%) participants in the bictegravir group and 92 (28%) in the dolutegravir group. These week 96 data support bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people living with chronic HIV. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Bictegravir combined with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: week 96 results from a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Bictegravir co-formulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination is recommended for treatment of HIV-1-infection and might be better tolerated than other integrase inhibitor-based single-tablet regimens, but long-term outcomes data are not available. We assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with co-formulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine at week 96. This ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries. We enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) living with HIV who were treatment naive and HLA-B*5701 negative, did not have hepatitis B virus infection, and had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 50 mL/min. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive co-formulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg (the bictegravir group) or co-formulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg (the dolutegravir group), each with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Treatment allocation was masked to all participants and investigators. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. We previously reported the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week 96 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 96 by US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607930. Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we screened 739 participants, of whom 108 were excluded and 631 enrolled and randomly assigned to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315). Two participants in the bictegravir group did not receive at least one dose of their assigned drug and were excluded from analyses. At week 96, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with 276 (88%) of 314 participants in the bictegravir group versus 283 (90%) of 315 participants in the dolutegravir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (difference -1·9%; 95% CI -6·9 to 3·1). The most common adverse events were nausea (36 [11%] of 314 for the bictegravir group vs 76 [24%] of 315 for the dolutegravir group), diarrhoea (48 [15%] vs 50 [16%]), and headache (41 [13%] vs 51 [16%]). 36 (11%) participants in the bictegravir group versus 39 (12%) participants in the dolutegravir group had a serious adverse event. Two individuals died in the bictegravir group (recreational drug overdose and suicide, neither of which was treatment related) and none died in the dolutegravir group. No participants discontinued because of adverse events in the bictegravir group compared with five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir group. Study drug-related adverse events were reported for 89 (28%) participants in the bictegravir group and 127 (40%) in the dolutegravir group. These week 96 data support bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people living with HIV-1 with no emergent resistance. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Effectiveness of switching from protease inhibitors to dolutegravir in combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors as maintenance antiretroviral therapy among HIV-positive patients

Prolonged exposure to regimens containing protease inhibitors (PIs) as second-line therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection may have a negative impact on metabolic profiles and increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases. Real-world experience with dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimens as alternatives to PI-based regimens is limited in antiretroviral-experienced patients with previous failure or intolerance to first-line therapy. The current study included HIV-positive patients receiving PI-containing regimens with viral suppression for ≥6 months. Virological response and lipid profiles were compared between patients who were subsequently switched to DTG-based therapy plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and those remaining on their PI-containing regimen at Week 48. In total, 189 patients were switched to DTG-based regimens and 313 remained on PI-containing regimens during the observation period. Patients in the DTG group were younger (mean age 40.0 years vs. 44.6 years) and were more likely to have a previous history of virological failure (44.4% vs. 19.5%) than those in the PI group. At Week 48, 1.1% of the DTG group and 3.8% of the PI group had virological non-response (HIV-RNA load >50 copies/mL) (difference, -2.7%, 95% CI -5.5% to 0.5%). The presence of M184V/I mutation and other NRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) did not increase the risk of virological failure in either group. Patients switched to DTG-based therapy had statistically significant improvement of lipid profiles. Among virally suppressed HIV-positive patients, a switch to DTG-based therapy was non-inferior to continuation of PI-based therapy in virological effectiveness at Week 48, even in the presence of NRTI RAMs.

Dolutegravir versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir both with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection in whom first-line therapy has failed (DAWNING): an open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3b trial

Doubts exist regarding optimal second-line treatment options for HIV-1-infected patients in resource-limited settings. We assessed safety and efficacy of dolutegravir compared with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in adults in whom previous first-line antiretroviral therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) plus two NRTIs has failed. DAWNING is a phase 3b, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, active-controlled trial done at 58 sites in 13 countries. Eligible adults were aged at least 18 years and, during at least 6 months of treatment with a first-line treatment containing an NNRTI and two NRTIs, had virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies per mL). Participants were randomly assigned by a central randomisation system to receive oral dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg lopinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir once daily or 400 mg plus 100 mg twice daily), plus two investigator-selected NRTIs (at least one fully active based on resistance testing at screening). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving viral suppression (defined as plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48 using the snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -12%. The primary analysis was done in an intention-to-treat-exposed (ITT-E) population of participants who received at least one dose of study medication, according to original group assignment. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, according to which drug was received. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02227238, and viiv-studyregister.com, number 200304. Between Dec 11, 2014, and June 27, 2016, 968 adults were screened and 627 were randomly assigned to the dolutegravir group (n=312) or the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (n=315). Three patients in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group did not receive study medication and so 624 were included in the ITT-E population. At week 48, 261 (84%) of 312 participants in the dolutegravir group achieved viral suppression compared with 219 (70%) of 312 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (adjusted difference 13·8%; 95% CI 7·3-20·3). Non-inferiority was achieved on the basis of the 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference having a lower bound greater than -12% (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Because the lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than zero (7·3%), superiority of dolutegravir was also concluded (p<0·0001). The safety profile for dolutegravir was favourable compared with that of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. More grade 2-4 drug-related adverse events occurred with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir than dolutegravir (44 [14%] of 310 with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir vs 11 [4%] of 314 with dolutegravir), mainly driven by gastrointestinal disorders. When administered with two NRTIs, dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks and can be considered a suitable option for second-line treatment. ViiV Healthcare.

Efficacy and tolerability of lamivudine plus dolutegravir compared with lamivudine plus boosted PIs in HIV-1 positive individuals with virologic suppression: a retrospective study from the clinical practice

BackgroundDirect comparisons between lamivudine plus bPIs and lamivudine plus dolutegravir as maintenance strategies in virologically-suppressed HIV positive patients are lacking.MethodsTime to treatment discontinuation (TD) and virological failure (VF) were compared in a cohort of HIV+ patients on a virologically-effective ART starting lamivudine with either darunavir/r, atazanavir/r or dolutegravir. Changes in laboratory parameters were also evaluated.ResultsFour-hundred-ninety-four patients were analyzed (170 switching to darunavir/r, 141 to atazanavir/r, 183 to dolutegravir): median age was 49 years, with 8 years since ART start. Groups differed for age, HIV-risk factor, time since HIV-diagnosis and on ART, previous therapy and reasons for switching.Estimated proportions free from TD at week 48 and 96 were 79.8 and 48.3% of patients with darunavir/r, 87.0 and 70.9% with atazanavir/r, and 88.2 and 82.6% with dolutegravir, respectively (p < 0.001). Calendar years, HIV-risk factor, higher baseline cholesterol and an InSTI-based previous regimen predicted TD, whereas lamivudine+dolutegravir therapy and previous tenofovir use were protective. VF was the cause of TD in 6/123 cases with darunavir/r, 4/97 with atazanavir/r and 3/21 with dolutegravir. Other main reasons for TD were: toxicity (43.1% with darunavir/r, 39.2% with atazanavir/r, 52.4% with dolutegravir), further simplification (36.6% with darunavir/r, 30.9% with atazanavir/r, 14.3% with dolutegravir). Incidence of VF did not differ among study groups (p = 0.747). No factor could predict VF.Lipid profile improved in the dolutegravir group, whereas renal function improved in the bPIs groups.ConclusionsIn real practice, a switch to lamivudine+dolutegravir showed similar efficacy but longer durability than a switch to lamivudine+bPIs.

Dolutegravir Monotherapy Versus Dolutegravir/Abacavir/Lamivudine for Virologically Suppressed People Living With Chronic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection: The Randomized Noninferiority MONotherapy of TiviCAY Trial.

We investigated whether dolutegravir (DTG) monotherapy could be used to maintain virological suppression in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) on a successful dolutegravir-based triple therapy. MONCAY (MONotherapy of TiviCAY) was a 48-week, multicentric, randomized, open-label, 12% noninferiority margin trial. Patients with CD4 nadir >100/μL, plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for ≥12 months, and stable regimen with DTG/abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC) were 1:1 randomized to continue their regimen or to DTG monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 in intention-to-treat snapshot analysis. Virologic failure (VF) was defined as 2 consecutive HIV RNA >50 copies/mL within 2 weeks apart. Seventy-eight patients were assigned to DTG monotherapy and 80 to continue DTG/ABC/3TC. By week 24, 2 patients in the DTG group experienced VF without resistance to the integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) class; 1 patient discontinued DTG/ABC/3TC due to an adverse event. The success rate at week 24 was 73/78 (93.6%) in the DTG arm and 77/80 (96.3%) in the DTG/ABC/3TC arm (difference, 2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.0 to 10.8). During subsequent follow-up, 5 additional VFs occurred in the DTG arm (2 of which harbored emerging resistance mutation to INSTI). The cumulative incidence of VF at week 48 was 9.7% (95% CI, 2.8 to 16.6) in the DTG arm compared with 0% in the DTG/ABC/3TC arm (P = .005 by the log-rank test). The Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended to reintensify the DTG arm with standardized triple therapy. Because the risk of VF with resistance increases over time, we recommend avoiding DTG monotherapy as a maintenance strategy among people living with chronic HIV infection. NCT02596334 and EudraCT 2015-002853-36.

Improvement in insulin sensitivity and serum leptin concentration after the switch from a ritonavir-boosted PI to raltegravir or dolutegravir in non-diabetic HIV-infected patients.

An observational, prospective, cohort study was performed to assess changes in insulin sensitivity and serum leptin level after a switch from a ritonavir-boosted PI (PI/r) to raltegravir or dolutegravir in HIV-infected adults on stable combination ART (cART). Non-diabetic HIV-infected patients receiving suppressive cART including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine plus one PI/r, who underwent a switch from the PI/r to raltegravir (group A) or dolutegravir (group B), were enrolled in the study. Serum levels of insulin, leptin and the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA) index were evaluated during a 12 month follow-up. Overall, 86 patients were enrolled: 45 patients were included in group A and 41 were included in group B. The mean age was 45.7 years and 74 (86%) patients were male. After 12 months of follow-up, a significant reduction in the mean concentration of leptin and insulin was reported both in group A [-0.61 ng/mL (P < 0.001) and -2.5 mIU/L (P = 0.008), respectively] and in group B [-0.54 ng/mL (P = 0.005) and -2.1 mIU/L (P = 0.017), respectively], without a significant difference between the groups. A significant and comparable reduction in the mean HOMA index was reported both in group A [-0.55 (P = 0.004)] and in group B [-0.49 (P < 0.001)], as well as a significant decrease in lipid levels. In HIV-positive subjects on suppressive cART, the switch from a PI/r to raltegravir or dolutegravir led to a significant and comparable reduction in both HOMA index and serum leptin level, reflecting a similar and significant improvement in insulin sensitivity.

Switching to fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from dolutegravir plus abacavir and lamivudine in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1: 48 week results of a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Bictegravir, co-formulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, has shown good efficacy and tolerability, and similar bone, renal, and lipid profiles to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, in treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, without development of treatment-emergent resistance. Here, we report 48-week results of a phase 3 study investigating switching to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection. In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 96 outpatient centres in nine countries. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and on a regimen of 50 mg dolutegravir, 600 mg abacavir, and 300 mg lamivudine (fixed-dose combination or multi-tablet regimen); had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or higher; and had been virologically suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) for 3 months or more before screening. We randomly assigned participants (1:1), using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to switch to co-formulated bictegravir (50 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg; herein known as the bictegravir group), or to remain on dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (herein known as the dolutegravir group), once daily for 48 weeks. The investigators, participants, study staff, and individuals assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher at week 48 (according to the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm); the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4%. The primary efficacy and safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is ongoing but not actively recruiting participants and is in the open-label extension phase, wherein participants are given the option to receive bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide for an additional 96 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02603120. Between Nov 11, 2015, and July 6, 2016, 567 participants were randomly assigned and 563 were treated (282 received bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 281 received dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine). Switching to the bictegravir regimen was non-inferior to remaining on dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine for the primary outcome: three (1%) of 282 in the bictegravir group had HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher at week 48 versus one (<1%) of 281 participants in the dolutegravir group (difference 0·7%, 95·002% CI -1·0 to 2·8; p=0·62). Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 23 (8%) participants in the bictegravir group and 44 (16%) in the dolutegravir group. Treatment was discontinued because of adverse events in six (2%) participants in the bictegravir group and in two (1%) participants in the dolutegravir group. The fixed-dose combination of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide might provide a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV-1 infection. Gilead Sciences.

The effect of antiretroviral intensification with dolutegravir on residual virus replication in HIV-infected individuals: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial

Whether ongoing virus replication occurs in HIV-infected individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) is unclear; therefore, whether residual virus replication is a barrier to achieving a cure for HIV is also unknown. We aimed to establish whether ART intensification with dolutegravir would reveal or affect residual virus replication in HIV-infected individuals on suppressive treatment. In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we enrolled HIV-infected adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving combination ART (at least three agents) for at least 3 years from the Alfred Hospital and Melbourne Sexual Health Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Eligible participants had fewer than 50 copies per mL HIV-1 plasma RNA for more than 3 years and fewer than 20 copies per mL at screening and two CD4 counts higher than 350 cells per μL in the previous 24 months including screening. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 50 mg oral dolutegravir or placebo once a day for 56 days in addition to background ART. Follow-up was done at days 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 56, and 84. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in frequency of 2-long terminal repeat (2-LTR) circles in peripheral blood CD4 cells at day 7. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500446. Between Sept 21, 2015, and Sept 19, 2016, 46 individuals were screened for inclusion. 40 were eligible for inclusion and were randomly assigned to the dolutegravir (n=21) or placebo group (n=19). All enrolled participants completed the study procedures and no individuals were lost to follow up. All participants were on suppressive ART with 12% receiving protease inhibitors and the others non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Median 2-LTR circles fold-change from baseline to day 7 was -0·17 (IQR -0·90 to 0·90) in the dolutegravir group and -0·26 (-1·00 to 1·17) in the placebo group (p=0·17). The addition of dolutegravir to pre-existing ART regimens was safe and there were no treatment discontinuations or treatment-related serious adverse events. Our findings show that in HIV-infected individuals on modern suppressive ART regimens, residual replication is rare, if at all present, and was not recorded in blood after dolutegravir intensification. Because tissue biopsies were not done we cannot exclude the possibility of residual virus replication in tissue. Strategies other than ART alone are needed to eliminate HIV persistence on treatment. ViiV Healthcare.

Coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (GS-US-380–1490): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) coadministered with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are recommended as first-line treatment for HIV, and coformulated fixed-dose combinations are preferred to facilitate adherence. We report 48-week results from a study comparing initial HIV-1 treatment with bictegravir-a novel INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug interactions-coformulated with the NRTI combination emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination to dolutegravir administered with coformulated emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 126 outpatient centres in 10 countries in Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Participants were previously untreated adults (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL) with estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min. Chronic hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C co-infection was allowed. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral fixed-dose combination bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or dolutegravir 50 mg with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, with matching placebo, once a day for 144 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607956. Between Nov 11, 2015, and July 15, 2016, 742 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 657 were randomly assigned to treatment (327 with bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fixed-dose combination [bictegravir group] and 330 with dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide [dolutegravir group]). 320 participants who received the bictegravir regimen and 325 participants who received the dolutegravir regimen were included in the primary efficacy analyses. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL was achieved in 286 (89%) of 320 participants in the bictegravir group and 302 (93%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group (difference -3·5%, 95·002% CI -7·9 to 1·0, p=0·12), showing non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen to the dolutegravir regimen. No treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug was observed. Incidence and severity of adverse events were similar between groups, and few participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events (5 [2%] of 320 in the bictegravir group and 1 [<1%] 325 in the dolutegravir group). Study drug-related adverse events were less common in the bictegravir group than in the dolutegravir group (57 [18%] of 320 vs 83 [26%] of 325, p=0·022). At 48 weeks, virological suppression with the bictegravir regimen was achieved and was non-inferior to the dolutegravir regimen in previously untreated adults. There was no emergent resistance to either regimen. The fixed-dose combination of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was safe and well tolerated compared with the dolutegravir regimen. Gilead Sciences Inc.

Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (GS-US-380-1489): a double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended components of initial antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bictegravir is a novel, potent INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bictegravir coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination versus coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. We did this double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America. We enrolled HIV-1 infected adults (aged ≥18 years) who were previously untreated (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL); HLA-B*5701-negative; had no hepatitis B virus infection; screening genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine, tenofovir, lamivudine, and abacavir; and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or more. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size of four), to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg, with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 copies per mL, >100 000 to ≤400 000 copies per mL, or >400 000 copies per mL), CD4 count (<50 cells per μL, 50-199 cells per μL, or ≥200 cells per μL), and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, participants, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607930. Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we randomly assigned 631 participants to receive coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315), of whom 314 and 315 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL was achieved in 92·4% of patients (n=290 of 314) in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 93·0% of patients (n=293 of 315) in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference -0·6%, 95·002% CI -4·8 to 3·6; p=0·78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. No individual developed treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug. Incidence and severity of adverse events was mostly similar between groups except for nausea, which occurred less frequently in patients given bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than in those given dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (10% [n=32] vs 23% [n=72]; p<0·0001). Adverse events related to study drug were less common with bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than with dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (26% [n=82] vs 40% [n=127]), the difference being driven by a higher incidence of drug-related nausea in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (5% [n=17] vs 17% [n=55]; p<0·0001). At 48 weeks, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide achieved virological suppression in 92% of previously untreated adults and was non-inferior to coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with no treatment-emergent resistance. Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was safe and well tolerated with better gastrointestinal tolerability than dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. Because coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide does not require HLA B*5701 testing and provides guideline-recommended treatment for individuals co-infected with HIV and hepatitis B, this regimen might lend itself to rapid or same-day initiation of therapy in the clinical setting. Gilead Sciences.

Fixed-dose combination dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine versus ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine in previously untreated women with HIV-1 infection (ARIA): week 48 results from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3b study

Dolutegravir is a once-daily integrase strand transfer inhibitor with no need for pharmacokinetic boosting that is approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Because women are often under-represented in HIV clinical trials, we addressed the safety and efficacy of dolutegravir in women with HIV-1. The ARIA study is a randomised, open-label, multicentre, active-controlled, parallel-group, non-inferiority phase 3b study done in 86 hospital and university infectious disease clinics, local health clinics, and private infectious disease clinics in 12 countries and one US territory, in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Eligible participants were women aged 18 years or older who had HIV-1 RNA viral loads of 500 copies per mL or greater, had received 10 days or less of previous antiretroviral therapy, and had tested negative for the HLA-B*5701 allele. Pregnant women were excluded. Eligible women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either a single-tablet regimen of dolutegravir plus abacavir and lamivudine once a day (dolutegravir group) or a three-tablet combination of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus coformulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine once a day (atazanavir group). Random treatment group assignment was stratified by plasma HIV-1 RNA viral loads and CD4 cell count at baseline. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 in all participants who received at least one dose of study medication (intention-to-treat exposed population). We used a non-inferiority margin of -12%. Investigators monitored adverse events to assess safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01910402. Between Aug 22, 2013, and Sept 22, 2015, of 705 women assessed, 499 were randomly assigned to either the dolutegravir group (n=250) or the atazanavir group (n=249); two participants from each group were randomised to treatment but did not receive study medication. At week 48, 203 (82%) of 248 participants in the dolutegravir group compared with 176 (71%) of 247 in the atazanavir group had HIV-1 RNA viral loads of less than 50 copies per mL (mean difference 10·5%, 95% CI 3·1-17·8, p=0·005). One participant in the atazanavir group had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-associated resistance that led to reduced emtricitabine susceptibility. Adverse events were similar between the dolutegravir and atazanavir groups; the most common were nausea (46 [19%] of 248 in the dolutegravir group vs 49 [20%] of 247 in the atazanavir group) and headache (28 [11%] vs 32 [13%]). Fewer participants in the dolutegravir group than the atazanavir group reported drug-related adverse events (83 [33%] vs 121 [49%]) or adverse events that led to discontinuation (ten [4%] vs 17 [7%]). One death was reported in each treatment group, but neither was considered related to the study medications. The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of the dolutegravir combined regimen compared with the atazanavir regimen support the use of dolutegravir for HIV-1 infection in treatment-naive women. ViiV Healthcare.

Bictegravir versus dolutegravir, each with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial

All recent treatment guidelines recommend integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as components of initial HIV therapy. Bictegravir, a novel, once-daily, unboosted INSTI, showed potent activity in a 10 day monotherapy study and has a high in-vitro resistance barrier. On the basis of these results, we did a phase 2 trial comparing bictegravir with dolutegravir. In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we recruited previously untreated adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 infections from 22 outpatient centres in the USA. Eligible patients had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 counts of at least 200 cells per μL, estimated glomerular filtration rates of at least 70 mL per min, and HIV-1 genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine and tenofovir. We excluded patients if they were hepatitis B-co-infected or hepatitis C-co-infected, had new AIDS-defining conditions within 30 days of screening, or were pregnant. We randomly allocated participants (2:1) to receive oral once-daily 75 mg bictegravir or 50 mg dolutegravir with matching placebo plus the fixed-dose combination of 200 mg emtricitabine and 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide for 48 weeks. We randomly allocated participants via an interactive web system, stratified by HIV-1 RNA concentration. Investigators, patients, study staff giving treatment, collecting data, and assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 according to the US Food and Drug Administration-defined snapshot algorithm. We included all participants receiving one dose of study drug in analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02397694. Between March 23, 2015, and May 21, 2015, we screened 125 patients, randomly allocating and giving study drug to 98 (65 received bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and 33 received dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide). At week 24, 63 (96·9%) of 65 in the bictegravir group had HIV-1 RNA loads of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 31 (93·9%) of 33 in the dolutegravir group (weighted difference 2·9%, 95% CI -8·5 to 14·2; p=0·50). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55 (85%) of 65 participants in the bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group versus 22 (67%) of 33 in the dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (eight [12%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33) and nausea (five [8%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33). One participant taking bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide discontinued because of a drug-related adverse event (urticaria) after week 24. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred. Bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide both showed high efficacy up to 24 weeks. Both treatments were well tolerated. Administration of bictegravir, a novel, potent, once-daily INSTI designed to improve on existing INSTI options with the backbone of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, might provide an advantage to patients. Gilead Sciences.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study

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.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus twice-daily raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (SPRING-2 study): 96 week results from a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial

In the primary analysis of SPRING-2 at week 48, dolutegravir showed non-inferior efficacy to and similar tolerability to raltegravir in adults infected with HIV-1 and naive for antiretroviral treatment. We present the 96 week results. SPRING-2 is an ongoing phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 that started in Oct 19, 2010. We present results for the safety cutoff date of Jan 30, 2013. Patients had to be aged 18 years or older and have HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or more. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily), plus investigator-selected tenofovir-emtricitabine or abacavir-lamivudine. Prespecified 96 week secondary endpoints included proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL, CD4 cell count changes from baseline, safety, tolerability, and genotypic or phenotypic resistance. We used an intention-to-treat exposed population (received at least one dose of study drug) for the analyses. Sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment until primary analysis at week 48; investigators, site staff, and patients were masked until week 96. Of 1035 patients screened, 827 were randomly assigned to study group, and 822 received at least one dose of the study drug (411 patients in each group). At week 96, 332 (81%) of 411 patients in the dolutegravir group and 314 (76%) of 411 patients in the raltegravir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 4∙5%, 95% CI -1∙1% to 10∙0%) confirming non-inferiority. Secondary analyses of efficacy such as per protocol (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL: 83% for dolutegravir and 80% for raltegravir) and treatment-related discontinuation equals failure (93% without failure for dolutegravir; 91% for raltegravir) supported non-inferiority. Virological non-response occurred less frequently in the dolutegravir group (22 [5%] patients for dolutegravir vs 43 [10%] patients for raltegravir). Median increases in CD4 cell count from baseline were similar between groups (276 cells per μL for dolutegravir and 264 cells per μL for raltegravir). Ten patients (2%) in each group discontinued because of adverse events, with few such events between weeks 48 and 96 (zero in the dolutegravir group and one in the raltegravir group). No study-related serious adverse events occurred between week 48 and week 96. At virological failure, no additional resistance to integrase inhibitors or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors was detected since week 48 or in any patient receiving dolutegravir. At week 96, once-daily dolutegravir was non-inferior to twice-daily raltegravir in treatment-naive, patients with HIV-1. Once-daily dosing without requirement for a pharmacokinetic booster makes dolutegravir-based therapy an attractive treatment option for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients.

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

Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. ViiV Healthcare.