Initial Treatment Of HIV-1 Infection Research Articles

Dolutegravir-based and low-dose efavirenz-based regimen for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (NAMSAL): week 96 results from a two-group, multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 non-inferiority trial in Cameroon

Updated WHO guidelines recommend a dolutegravir-based regimen as the preferred first-line treatment for HIV infection and low-dose efavirenz (400 mg) as an alternative. We aimed to report the non-inferior efficacy of dolutegravir compared with efavirenz 400 mg at week 96. We did a multicentre, randomised, open label, phase 3 trial in in three hospitals in Yaoundé, Cameroon, in HIV-1 infected antiretroviral-naive adults with an HIV RNA viral load of greater than 1000 copies per mL to compare dolutegravir 50 mg with efavirenz 400 mg (reference treatment), both combined with lamivudine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. The primary endpoint was the proportion with a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (10% non-inferiority margin). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02777229 and is ongoing. Between July, 2016, and August, 2019, of 820 patients assessed, 613 were randomly assigned to receive at least one dose of study medication, with 310 in the dolutegravir group and 303 in the efavirenz 400 mg group. At week 96 in the intention-to-treat analysis, 229 (74%) of 310 patients receiving dolutegravir and 219 (72%) of 303 patients receiving efavirenz, achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (difference 1·6%, 95% CI -5·4 to 8·6; p=0.66). Viral load suppression was reached significantly more rapidly in the dolutegravir group (p<0·001). Virological failure (>1000 copies per mL) was observed in 27 patients (eight in the dolutegravir group, among which, three women switched to efavirenz 600 mg because of the dolutegravir teratogeneicity signal, and 19 in the efavirenz 400 mg group). No acquired resistance mutations to dolutegravir were observed against 17 mutations to efavirenz with or without mutations to lamivudine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate among the 19 efavirenz 400 mg participants with virological failure. Weight gain was greater in the dolutegravir group (median weight gain, 5·0 kg in the dolutegravir group and 3·0 kg in the efavirenz 400 mg group, p<0·001, and incidence of obesity, 22% in the dolutegravir group and 16% in the efavirenz 400 mg group, p=0·043). The incidence of new WHO HIV-related stage 3 and 4 events was similar in each group (12 [4%] in each group). The two groups had similar rates of serious adverse events (28 [9%] of 310 in the dolutegravir group and 21 [7%] of 303 in the efavirenz 400 mg group). 18 deaths were observed during the 96-week follow-up (eight in the dolutegravir group and ten in the efavirenz 400 mg group). The non-inferior efficacy of the dolutegravir-based regimen and non-emergence of dolutegravir resistance at 96 weeks supports its use as a first-line regimen for antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection. Viral load suppression was reached more quickly in the dolutegravir group and weight gain was significantly higher. UNITAID and the French National Agency for AIDS Research.

Dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (ADVANCE): week 96 results from a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

ADVANCE compared the efficacy and safety of two antiretroviral first-line combinations (dolutegravir combined with emtricitabine and either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide), with a third regimen (efavirenz combined with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) previously recommended by WHO. Here, we report the 96-week data for the study. This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, was done at two research sites in Johannesburg, South Africa, after participant recruitment from 11 public health clinics also in Johannesburg. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older with HIV-1 infection, who weighed at least 40 kg, had no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months, with a creatinine clearance of more than 60 mL/min (>80 mL per min in individuals aged <19 years), and a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 500 copies per mL or higher. Individuals who were pregnant or had tuberculosis were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by study staff using a computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by age (12 and <19 years and ≥19 years). Participants were randomly assigned to once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here, we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at the week 96 visit, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Safety data, including clinical, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and laboratory data, are also reported. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122262. Between Jan 17, 2017, and May 14, 2018, we screened 1453 individuals, of whom 1053 were enrolled: 351 participants were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group. All participants received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the primary analysis. At week 96, 276 (79%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 275 (78%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 258 (74%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group had achieved a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL. Non-inferiority was established in all three comparisons. The proportion of patients with protocol-defined virological failure at week 96 was low in all treatment groups. Participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group had fewer changes in bone density than the two other treatment groups. Mean weight gain was substantial (7·1 kg [SD 7·4] in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group; 4·3 kg [6·7] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 2·3 kg [7·0] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group), and was greater among women than men. Ten (3%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events, of which liver dysfunction (n=4) and rash (n=4) were most common. Medium-term and long-term metabolic and clinical consequences of the considerable increase in bodyweight observed in participants given these antiretroviral regimens and the trajectory of this weight gain over time, especially among women, require further study. USAID, Unitaid, South African Medical Research Council, ViiV Healthcare.

Effect of the anti-retroviral drug, rilpivirine, on human subcutaneous adipose cells and its nutritional management using quercetin.

Rilpivirine, a recently developed drug of choice for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection, can greatly reduce HIV-related inflammation, but in turn, may be associated with adverse secondary effects, including disturbances in lipid metabolism and ultimately in adipose tissue distribution and function. In recent years, research findings on the benefits of anti-oxidant foods and supplements have been employed in counter-acting both oxidative stress as well as inflammation in order to reduce the adverse side effects of anti-retroviral therapy. One such natural flavonoid which possesses anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties is quercetin. This study investigated the effect of quercetin in overcoming the side effects incurred due to rilpivirine administration. The results show substantial reduction in the accumulation of triglyceride levels in a dose- and time-dependent manner for adipose cells treated with either rilpivirine or quercetin alone and in combination, as evidenced by morphological pictures and quantitative measurement of triglycerides throughout the differentiation process. Levels of inflammatory markers such as resistin and IL-8 were increased as compared to the untreated cells. No significant changes in leptin were observed on treatment of adipose cells with rilpivirine alone and its levels were almost comparable to control. Levels of oxidative markers like superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione were also decreased. Treatment with quercetin showed a decrease in the inflammatory status and an increase in the oxidative status of adipose cells, thereby exhibiting its anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties. However, further assessment of lipid metabolism and adipose tissue function in patients administered with rilpivirine-based regimes is advisable considering that totally neutral effects of rilpivirine on lipid homeostasis cannot be anticipated from the current study in vitro. It is concluded that rilpivirine causes an anti-adipogenic and pro-inflammatory response pattern but only at high concentrations, whereas quercetin has been observed to decrease inflammation and restore the levels of anti-oxidant enzymes.

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.

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.

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 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

Two-drug regimens for treatment of naïve HIV-1 infection and as maintenance therapy.

As people live longer with HIV infection, there has been a resurgence of interest in challenging the use of three-drug therapy, including two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus a third drug, as initial treatment of HIV infection or for maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed individuals. Although initial studies showed poor efficacy and/or substantial toxicity, more recent regimens have held greater promise. The SWORD-1 and -2 studies were pivotal trials of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine as maintenance therapy in virologically suppressed patients with no history of drug resistance, leading to the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the regimen as a small, single tablet. More recently, the GEMINI-1 and -2 studies demonstrated that dolutegravir plus lamivudine is as safe and effective as the same regimen when combined with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naïve individuals. Together, these and other studies of novel two-drug regimens offer the potential for improved tolerability and simplicity, as well as a reduction in cost. We will review historical and recent trials of two-drug therapy for the treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Increased Persistence of Initial Treatment for HIV Infection With Modern Antiretroviral Therapy.

Initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) early improves clinical outcomes and prevents transmission. Guidelines for first-line therapy have changed with the availability of newer ART agents. In this study, we compared persistence and virologic responses with initial ART according to the class of anchor agent used. An observational clinical cohort study in the Southeastern United States. All HIV-infected patients participating in the UNC Center for AIDS Research Clinical Cohort (UCHCC) and initiating ART between 1996 and 2014 were included. Separate time-to-event analyses with regimen discontinuation and virologic failure as outcomes were used, including Kaplan-Meier survival curves and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. One thousand six hundred twenty-four patients were included (median age of 37 years at baseline, 28% women, 60% African American, and 28% white). Eleven percent initiated integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), 33% non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), 20% boosted protease inhibitor, 27% other, and 9% NRTI only regimens. Compared with NNRTI-containing regimens, INSTI-containing regimens had an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.49 (95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.69) for discontinuation and 0.70 (95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 1.06) for virologic failure. All other regimen types were associated with increased rates of discontinuation and failure compared with NNRTI. Initiating ART with an INSTI-containing regimen was associated with lower rates of regimen discontinuation and virologic failure.

Raltegravir 1200 mg once daily versus raltegravir 400 mg twice daily, with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine, for previously untreated HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Once daily regimens are preferred for HIV-1 treatment, to facilitate adherence and improve quality of life. We compared a new once daily formulation of raltegravir to the currently marketed twice daily formulation. In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority study, we enrolled participants aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA of 1000 or more copies per mL and no previous antiretroviral treatment at 139 sites worldwide. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to raltegravir 1200 mg (two 600 mg tablets) orally once daily or raltegravir 400 mg (one tablet) orally twice daily, each with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine orally once daily, for up to 96 weeks. A computer-generated allocation schedule stratified randomisation by screening HIV-1 RNA value and co-infection with hepatitis B or C. Participants, sponsor personnel, investigators, and study site personnel involved in the treatment or evaluation of the participants were unaware of the treatment group assignments. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 40 copies per mL at week 48 assessed with the US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10%. We assessed efficacy and safety in all participants who received one dose or more of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02131233. Between May 26, 2014, and Dec 5, 2014, 802 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 533 to once daily treatment and 269 to twice daily; 797 received study therapy, 531 once daily and 266 twice daily. At week 48, 472 (89%) of 531 once daily recipients and 235 (88%) of 266 twice daily recipients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 40 copies per mL (treatment difference 0·5%, 95% CI -4·2 to 5·2). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 130 (24%) of 531 participants in the once daily group (one of which was serious; none led to treatment discontinuation) and 68 (26%) of 266 participants in the twice daily group (two of which were serious; two led to treatment discontinuation). The most common drug-related adverse events were nausea (39 [7%] vs 18 [7%]), headache (16 [3%] vs 12 [5%]), and dizziness (12 [2%] vs eight [3%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. A once daily raltegravir 1200 mg regimen was non-inferior compared with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. These results support the use of raltegravir 1200 mg once daily for first-line therapy. Merck & Co, Inc.

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.

Zidovudine- versus Tenofovir-Based Antiretroviral Therapy for the Initial Treatment of HIV Infection in the Ethnic Minority Region of Liangshan Prefecture, Sichuan Province, China.

Tenofovir (TDF)-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), as recommended by the World Health Organization guidelines for HIV-naive patients, has been limited in resource-constrained settings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of zidovudine-(ZDV) versus TDF-based HAART in the Yi minority region of Sichuan Province, China at a single HIV treatment center. The primary end point was the attainment of an HIV viral load <50 copies/mL. Secondary end points included change in CD4 level, adverse reactions, mortality, and sustained virologic suppression. Of the 361 total participants, recipients of TDF-based HAART were more likely to achieve viral load <50 copies/mL (60% versus 46%, odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, P = .016) as well as sustained virologic suppression (61% versus 28%, OR = 3.4, P = .001). Tenofovir (adjusted odds ratio [ORadj] = 1.71, P = .025) and female sex (ORadj = 1.93, P = .003) were identified as independent predictors of achieving HIV viral load <50 copies/mL in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Among Chinese Yi minority HIV-infected participants, TDF-based HAART was superior to ZDV-based HAART for initial treatment of HIV infection, suggesting TDF-based HAART should be the regimen of choice in China.

Increased Persistence of Initial Treatment for HIV Infection with Modern Antiretroviral Therapy

Increased Persistence of Initial Treatment for HIV Infection with Modern Antiretroviral Therapy

Efavirenz or nevirapine in three-drug combination therapy with two nucleoside or nucleotide-reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial treatment of HIV infection in antiretroviral-naïve individuals.

The advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) has reduced the morbidity and mortality due to HIV. The World Health Organisation (WHO) antiretroviral treatment (ART) guidelines focus on three classes of antiretroviral drugs, namely: nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors (PI). Two of the most common medications given in first-line treatment are the NNRTIs, efavirenz (EFV) and nevirapine (NVP). It is unclear which NNRTI is more efficacious for initial therapy.To determine which NNRTI, EFV or NVP, is more efficacious when given in combination with two NRTIs as part of initial ART for HIV infection in adults and children.We used a comprehensive and exhaustive strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, in electronic databases and conference proceedings from 1996 to 2009.All randomised controlled trials comparing EFV to NVP in HIV-infected individuals without prior exposure to ART, irrespective of the dosage or NRTI backbone.The primary outcome of interest was virologic response to ART. Other primary outcomes included mortality, clinical progression, severe adverse events, and discontinuation of therapy for any reason. Secondary outcomes were immunologic response to ART, treatment failure, development of ART drug resistance, and prevention of sexual transmission of HIV.Two authors assessed each reference for inclusion and exclusion criteria established a priori. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis and reported as per dosage of NVP.We identified seven randomised controlled trials that met our inclusion criteria.The trials were pooled as per dosage of NVP. None of these trials included children.The seven trials enrolled 1,688 participants and found no critical differences between EFV and NVP, except for different toxicity profiles. EFV is more likely to cause central nervous system side-effects, while NVP is more likely to result in raised transaminases and neutropoenia. There was a higher mortality rate in the NVP 400mg once daily arm.The quality of literature to support these conclusions is moderate to high. Drug resistance was slightly less common with EFV than NVP, but the quality of this literature is low since only one of the seven studies reported on this outcome. No studies reported on sexual transmission of HIV. The length of follow-up time, study settings, and NRTI backbone varied greatly.Both drugs have equivalent efficacies in initial treatment of HIV infection when combined with two NRTIs, but different side effects.

Nonnucleoside Reverse-transcriptase Inhibitor- vs Ritonavir-boosted Protease Inhibitor-based Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV Infection: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Randomized Trials.

Previous studies suggest that nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) cause faster virologic suppression, while ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) recover more CD4 cells. However, individual trials have not been powered to compare clinical outcomes. We searched databases to identify randomized trials that compared NNRTI- vs PI/r-based initial therapy. A metaanalysis calculated risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs), as appropriate. Primary outcome was death or progression to AIDS. Secondary outcomes were death, progression to AIDS, and treatment discontinuation. We calculated RR of virologic suppression and MD for an increase in CD4 cells at week 48. We included 29 trials with 9047 participants. Death or progression to AIDS occurred in 226 participants in the NNRTI arm and in 221 in the PI/r arm (RR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, .87-1.22; 12 trials; n = 3825), death in 205 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 198 in the PI/r arm (1.04; 0.86-1.25; 22 trials; n = 8311), and progression to AIDS in 140 participants in the NNRTI arm vs 144 in the PI/r arm (1.00; 0.80-1.25; 13 trials; n = 4740). Overall treatment discontinuation (1.12; 0.93-1.35; 24 trials; n = 8249) and from toxicity (1.21; 0.87-1.68; 21 trials; n = 6195) were comparable, but discontinuation due to virologic failure was more common with NNRTI (1.58; 0.91-2.74; 17 trials; n = 5371). At week 48, there was no difference between NNRTI and PI/r in virologic suppression (RR, 1.03; 0.98-1.09) or CD4(+) recovery (MD, -4.7 cells; -14.2 to 4.8). We found no difference in clinical and viro-immunologic outcomes between NNRTI- and PI/r-based therapy.

Long-Term Efficacy, Tolerability, and Renal Safety of Atazanavir/Ritonavir-based Antiretroviral Therapy in a Cohort of Treatment-Naïve Patients with HIV-1 Infection: the REMAIN Study

Background: Boosted protease inhibitors (PIs), including ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r), are a recommended option for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection based upon clinical trial data; however, long-term real-life clinical data are limited.Objective: We evaluated the long-term use of ATV/r as a component of antiretroviral combination therapy in the real-life setting in the REMAIN study.Methods: This was an observational cohort study conducted at sites across Germany, Portugal, and Spain. Retrospective historical and prospective longitudinal follow-up data were extracted every six months from medical records of HIV-infected treatment-naïve patients aged ≥ 18 years initiating a first-line ATV/r-containing regimen.Results: Eligible patients (n = 517) were followed up for a median of 3.4 years. The proportion remaining on ATV/r at 5 years was 51.5% with an estimated Kaplan-Meier median time to treatment discontinuation of 4.9 years. Principal reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (15.9%; 8.9% due to hyperbilirubinemia) and virologic failure (6.8%). The Kaplan-Meier probability of not having virologic failure (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL) was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.83) at five years. No treatment-emergent major PI resistance occurred. ATV/r was generally well tolerated during long-term treatment with no significant changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate over five years.Conclusions: In a real-life clinical setting over five years, treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection initiating an ATV/r-based regimen showed sustained virologic suppression, an overall treatment persistence rate of 51.5%, an absence of treatment-emergent major PI resistance mutations at virologic failure, a long-term safety profile consistent with that observed in clinical trials, and no significant decline in renal function.

Efavirenz-Based Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naive HIV-Infected Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Efavirenz, a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) is one of the most commonly prescribed antiretroviral drugs. The present article provides a systematic overview and meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing efavirenz and other active drugs currently recommended for treatment of HIV-infected, antiretroviral-naive patients. Electronic databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Trip Database) were searched up till 23 December 2013 for randomized controlled clinical trials published as a peer-reviewed papers, and concerning efavirenz-based regimens used as initial treatment for HIV infection. Thirty-four studies were included in the systematic review, while twenty-six trials were suitable for the meta-analysis. Efavirenz was compared with drugs from four different classes: NNRTIs other than efavirenz (nevirapine or rilpivirine), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (InSTIs), ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (bPI) and chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonists (maraviroc), all of them were added to the background regimen. Results of the current meta-analysis showed that efavirenz-based regimens were equally effective as other recommended regimens based on NNRTI, ritonavir-boosted PI or CCR5 antagonist in terms of efficacy outcomes (disease progression and/or death, plasma viral HIV RNA <50 copies/ml) while statistically significant more patients treated with InSTI achieved plasma viral load <50 copies/ml at week 48. In comparison with both InSTI-based and CCR5-based therapy, efavirenz-based treatment was associated with a higher risk of therapy discontinuation due to adverse events. However, comparisons of efevirenz-based treatment with InSTI-based and CCR5-based therapy were based on a limited number of trials, therefore, conclusions from these two comparisons must be confirmed in further reliable randomized controlled studies. Results of our meta-analysis support the present clinical guidelines for antiretroviral-naive, HIV-infected patients, in which efavirenz is one of the most preferred regimens in the analyzed population. Beneficial safety profile of InSTI-based and CCR5-based therapy over efavirenz-based treatment needs further studies.

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

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. 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. 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. 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. Gilead Sciences.

123 New HIV Therapies

The advent of triple drug highly active antiretroviral therapy in 1996 was a turning point in the battle to control HIV disease. For the first time, HIV replication could be effectively limited resulting in marked improvements in morbidity and mortality from HIV infection. However, the treatment regimens were complex with patients having to take many pills at different times during the day, and the regimens were associated with significant long term side effects. Subsequent treatment strategies have focused on simplification of dosing to facilitate adherence and better tolerated regimens. Various combination pills were developed beginning with Combivir (zidovudine/lamivudine) given twice daily and then Truvada (tenofovir DF/emtricitabine) given once daily in combination with a third or fourth drug. This led to the development of single tablet regimens (STR), a single pill that provided complete therapy for treatment of HIV infection. The first STR was Trizivir (zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir) given twice daily, which was followed by the once daily STRs Atripla (tenofovir DF/emtricitabine/efavirenz), Complera (tenofovir DF/emtricitabine/rilpivirine), and Stribild (tenofovir DF, emtricitabine, cobicistat, elvitegravir), which are now the most commonly used medications for the initial treatment of HIV infection. New drugs are in development, including the tenofovir prodrug TAF (tenofovir alafenamide fumarate) and the integrase inhibitor dolutegravir, which may offer advantages in safety, efficacy, and simplicity of dosing, and could be included in future STRs.

Early lipid changes with atazanavir/ritonavir or darunavir/ritonavir

Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir and darunavir are protease inhibitors that are recommended for initial treatment of HIV infection because each has shown better lipid effects and overall tolerability than ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. The extent to which lipid effects and overall tolerability differ between treatments with atazanavir and darunavir and whether atazanavir-induced hyperbilirubinaemia may result in more favourable metabolic effects are issues that remain to be resolved. A 96-week randomized clinical trial was carried out. The primary endpoint was change in total cholesterol at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints were changes in lipids other than total cholesterol, insulin sensitivity, total bilirubin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and CD4 and CD8 cell counts, and the proportion of patients with plasma HIV RNA < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL and study drug discontinuation because of adverse effects at 24 weeks. Analyses were intent-to-treat. One hundred and seventy-eight patients received once-daily treatment with either atazanavir/ritonavir (n = 90) or darunavir/ritonavir (n = 88) plus tenofovir/emtricitabine. At 24 weeks, mean total cholesterol had increased by 7.26 and 11.47 mg/dL in the atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir arms, respectively [estimated difference -4.21 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval (CI) -12.11 to +3.69 mg/dL; P = 0.75]. However, the ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol tended to show a greater decrease with atazanavir/ritonavir compared with darunavir/ritonavir (estimated difference -1.02; 95% CI -2.35 to +0.13; P = 0.07). Total bilirubin significantly increased with atazanavir/ritonavir (estimated difference +1.87 mg/dL; 95% CI +1.58 to +2.16 mg/dL; P < 0.01), but bilirubin changes were not associated with lipid changes. Secondary endpoints other than total bilirubin were not significantly different between arms. Atazanavir/ritonavir and darunavir/ritonavir plus tenofovir/emtricitabine did not show significant differences in total cholesterol change or overall tolerability at 24 weeks. However, there was a trend towards a lower total to HDL cholesterol ratio with atazanavir/ritonavir and this effect was unrelated to bilirubin.