BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
FINDINGS: 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.
INTERPRETATION: These week 96 data support bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people living with chronic HIV.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences, Inc.
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
FINDINGS: 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.
INTERPRETATION: 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.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences, Inc.
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>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.<b>METHODS: </b>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.<b>FINDINGS: </b>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).<b>INTERPRETATION: </b>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.<b>Funding: </b>Gilead Sciences.
<b>OBJECTIVES: </b>To compare efficacy, safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes between two single-tablet regimens, rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF), in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults.<b>DESIGN: </b>This was a phase 3b, 96-week, randomized, open-label, international, noninferiority trial.<b>METHODS: </b>A total of 799 participants were randomized (1 : 1) to receive RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF. The primary efficacy endpoint evaluated proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml using the Snapshot algorithm. Additional assessments included CD4 cell counts, genotypic/phenotypic resistance, adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life questionnaires.<b>RESULTS: </b>At week 96, trial completion rates were 80.2% (316/394; RPV/FTC/TDF) and 74.0% (290/392; EFV/FTC/TDF). Overall, RPV/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF [HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml: 77.9 vs. 72.4%, respectively; difference -5.5; 95%CI (-0.6, 11.5); P = 0.076]. RPV/FTC/TDF was significantly more efficacious compared with EFV/FTC/TDF in participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA equal to or less than 100 000 copies/ml (78.8 vs. 71.2%; P = 0.046) and in those with CD4 cell count greater than 200 cells/μl (80.6 vs. 73.0%; P = 0.018). There was no significant between-group difference in the CD4 cell count increase (278 ± 189 vs. 259 ± 191 cells/μl; P = 0.17). Few participants developed resistance after week 48 (1.0% RPV/FTC/TDF; 0.3% EFV/FTC/TDF). Compared with EFV/FTC/TDF, RPV/FTC/TDF was associated with fewer adverse event-related discontinuations (3.0 vs. 11.0%; P<0.001), significantly fewer adverse events due to central nervous system issues and rash, greater improvements in patient-reported symptoms, and significant improvements in the SF-12v2 quality of life questionnaire mental health composite score (P = 0.014).<b>CONCLUSION: </b>In treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected participants, 96-week RPV/FTC/TDF treatment demonstrated noninferior efficacy and better tolerability than EFV/FTC/TDF.
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To compare the efficacy, safety, and anti-inflammatory effects of cenicriviroc (CVC), an oral, once-daily C-C chemokine receptor types 5 and 2 antagonist, with those of efavirenz (EFV) in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults.<b>DESIGN: </b>A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 2b trial at 43 institutions (USA and Puerto Rico).<b>METHODS: </b>Study participants (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/ml, CD4 cell count ≥200 cells/μl, C-C chemokine receptor type 5-tropic virus) were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to CVC 100 mg (CVC100), CVC 200 mg (CVC200), or EFV 600 mg, each administered with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Key end points were virologic success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml) at week 24 (primary) and week 48 (secondary), safety/tolerability at weeks 24 and 48. Study sites and patients remained blinded until week 48.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 143 patients were randomized (CVC100, n = 59; CVC200, n = 56; EFV, n = 28). Virologic success was obtained at week 24 in 76, 73, and 71% of study participants for CVC100, CVC200, and EFV, respectively (all P > 0.05 versus EFV), and at week 48 in 68, 64, and 50%, respectively (all P > 0.05 versus EFV). Resistance mutations emerged in five and zero CVC and EFV-treated study participants, respectively. Virologic nonresponse and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance decreased when CVC minimum plasma concentration was at least 47.8 ng/ml. Treatment-related adverse events of at least grade 2 and discontinuations because of adverse events were less frequent in CVC-treated study participants. Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased with CVC, but increased with EFV. C-C chemokine ligand type 2 (CCL2) (aka monocyte chemotactic protein-1) increased in a dose-dependent manner, whereas soluble CD14 levels decreased with CVC.<b>CONCLUSION: </b>CVC showed efficacy and favorable safety in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected study participants, supporting selection of CVC200 for phase 3 studies.<b>Trial Registration: </b>NCT01338883.
BACKGROUND: The week 48 primary analysis of the ENCORE1 trial established the virological non-inferiority and safety of efavirenz 400 mg compared with the standard 600 mg dose, combined with tenofovir and emtricitabine, as first-line HIV therapy. This 96-week follow-up of the trial assesses the durability of efficacy and safety of this treatment over 96 weeks.
METHODS: ENCORE1 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial done at 38 clinical sites in 13 countries. HIV-infected adult patients (≥16 years of age) with no previous antiretroviral therapy, a CD4 cell count of 50-500 cells per μL, and plasma HIV-1 viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic case report form to receive fixed-dose daily tenofovir 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg plus efavirenz either 400 mg daily or 600 mg daily. Participants, physicians, and all other trial staff were masked to treatment assignment. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 viral load at baseline (≤ or >100 000 copies per mL). The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportions of patients in the two treatment groups with a plasma HIV-1 viral load below 200 copies per mL at week 96. Treatment groups were deemed to be non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in viral load was above -10% by modified intention-to-treat analysis. Non-inferiority was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, and non-completer=failure (NC=F) populations. Adverse events and serious adverse events were summarised by treatment group. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01011413.
FINDINGS: Between Aug 24, 2011, and March 19, 2012, 636 eligible participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (324 to efavirenz 400 mg and 312 to efavirenz 600 mg). The intention-to-treat population who received at least one dose of study drug comprised 630 patients: 321 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group. 585 patients (93%; 299 in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 286 in the 600 mg group) completed 96 weeks of follow-up. At 96 weeks, 289 (90·0%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and 280 (90·6%) of 309 in the efavirenz 600 mg group had a plasma HIV-1 viral load less than 200 copies per mL (difference -0·6, 95% CI -5·2 to 4·0; p=0·72), which suggests continued non-inferiority of the lower efavirenz dose. Non-inferiority was recorded for thresholds of less than 50 and less than 400 copies per mL, irrespective of baseline plasma viral load. Adverse events were reported by 291 (91%) of 321 patients in the efavirenz 400 mg group and by 285 (92%) of 309 in the 600 mg group (p=0·48). The proportions of patients reporting an adverse event that was definitely or probably related to efavirenz were 126 (39%) for efavirenz 400 mg and 148 (48%) for efavirenz 600 mg (p=0·03). The number of patients who reported serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (p=0·20).
INTERPRETATION: Our findings confirm that efavirenz 400 mg is non-inferior to the standard dose of 600 mg in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine as initial HIV therapy over 96 weeks. Fewer efavirenz-related adverse events were reported with the 400 mg efavirenz dose than with the 600 mg dose. These findings support the routine use of efavirenz 400 mg. The coadministration of rifampicin and efavirenz 400 mg needs further investigation.
FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and UNSW Australia.
The SINGLE study was a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study that evaluated the safety and efficacy of 50 mg dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine versus efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine in 833 ART-naive HIV-1 + participants. Of 833 randomized participants, 71% in the dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine arm and 63% in the efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine arm maintained viral loads of <50 copies per milliliter through W144 (P = 0.01). Superior efficacy was primarily driven by fewer discontinuations due to adverse events in the dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine arm [dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine arm, 16 (4%); efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine arm, 58 (14%)] through W144 [corrected]. No treatment-emergent integrase or nucleoside resistance was observed in dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine recipients through W144.
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.
METHODS:
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.
FINDINGS:
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.
INTERPRETATION:
These week 96 data support bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people living with chronic HIV.
