<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>BACKGROUND: </b>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.<b>METHODS: </b>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.<b>FINDINGS: </b>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).<b>INTERPRETATION: </b>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.<b>Funding: </b>Gilead Sciences Inc.
BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir has been shown to be non-inferior to an integrase inhibitor and superior to a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). In FLAMINGO, we compared dolutegravir with darunavir plus ritonavir in individuals naive for antiretroviral therapy.
METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study, HIV-1-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive adults with HIV-1 RNA concentration of 1000 copies per mL or more and no resistance at screening were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dolutegravir 50 mg once daily or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg once daily, with investigator-selected tenofovir-emtricitabine or abacavir-lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤100,000 or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) selection. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL (Food and Drug Administration [FDA] snapshot algorithm) at week 48 with a 12% non-inferiority margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01449929.
FINDINGS: Recruitment began on Oct 31, 2011, and was completed on May 24, 2012, in 64 research centres in nine countries worldwide. Of 595 patients screened, 484 patients were included in the analysis (242 in each group). At week 48, 217 (90%) patients receiving dolutegravir and 200 (83%) patients receiving darunavir plus ritonavir had HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 7·1%, 95% CI 0·9-13·2), non-inferiority and on pre-specified secondary analysis dolutegravir was superior (p=0·025). Confirmed virological failure occurred in two (<1%) patients in each group; we recorded no treatment-emergent resistance in either group. Discontinuation due to adverse events or stopping criteria was less frequent for dolutegravir (four [2%] patients) than for darunavir plus ritonavir (ten [4%] patients) and contributed to the difference in response rates. The most commonly reported (≥10%) adverse events were diarrhoea (dolutegravir 41 [17%] patients vs darunavir plus ritonavir 70 [29%] patients), nausea (39 [16%] vs 43 [18%]), and headache (37 [15%] vs 24 [10%]). Patients receiving dolutegravir had significantly fewer low-density lipoprotein values of grade 2 or higher (11 [2%] vs 36 [7%]; p=0·0001).
INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir was superior to once-daily darunavir plus ritonavir. Once-daily dolutegravir in combination with fixed-dose NRTIs represents an effective new treatment option for HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive patients.
FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.
OBJECTIVES: 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.
METHODS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
Objective: To compare WHO first‐line antiretroviral therapy (ART) with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI)‐based regimen with a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) regimen in a resource‐limited setting regarding treatment outcome and emergence of drug resistance mutations (DRMs). Methods: Treatment‐naive adults were randomized to nevirapine (NVP) or ritonavirboosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimens each in combination with tenofovir (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC) or zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC). Primary endpoint was the incidence of therapeutical (clinical and/or virologic) failure at week 48 with follow‐up till week 96. Results: Four hundred and twenty‐five patients (120 men; 305 women) received at least one dose of the study drug. mITT analysis showed no difference in proportion of therapeutical failure between treatment arms [67/209 (32%) in NVP vs. 63/216 (29%) LPV/r at week 48 (P=0.53); 88/209 (42%) in NVP vs. 83/216 (38%) in LPV/r at week 96 (P=0.49)]. Per‐protocol analysis demonstrated significantly more virologic failure with NVP than with LPV/r regimens [at week 48: 19/167 (11%) vs. 7/166 (4%), P=0.014; at week 96: 27/158 (17%) vs. 13/159 (8%), P= 0.019)]. Drug resistance mutations to NNRTI were detected in 19 out of 22 (86.3%) and dual‐class resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and NNRTI in 15 out of 27 (68.2%) of NVP failing patients. K65R mutation was present in seven out of 14 patients failing NVP‐TDF/FTC regimen. No major protease inhibitor‐DRM was detected among LPV/r failing patients. Discontinuation for adverse events was similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: In resource‐limited settings, first‐line NNRTI‐NRTI regimen as compared with bPI‐based regimen provides similar outcome but is associated with a significantly higher number of virologic failure and resistance mutations in both classes that jeopardize future options for second‐line therapy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of the two single-tablet regimens (STRs), rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EFV/FTC/TDF), in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults.
DESIGN: This is a phase 3b, randomized, open-label, multicenter, international, 96-week study.
METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at week 48 by the Snapshot algorithm.
RESULTS: A total of 786 participants were randomized. RPV/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF (85.8 vs. 81.6%) at week 48 for HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml [difference 4.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.1 to 9.2%]. A statistically significant difference in efficacy favoring RPV/FTC/TDF was demonstrated for participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA 100000 copies/ml or less [(n=510) 88.8% RPV/FTC/TDF vs. 81.6% EFV/FTC/TDF (difference 7.2%, 95% CI 1.1-13.4%)]. In participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA more than 100000 copies/ml (n=276), RPV/FTC/TDF demonstrated noninferior efficacy compared with EFV/FTC/TDF (79.9 vs. 81.7%, respectively, difference -1.8%, 95% CI -11.1 to 7.5%). In the RPV/FTC/TDF arm, more virologic failure was observed as baseline HIV-1 RNA levels increased. There were more participants with emergent resistance in the RPV/FTC/TDF arm than in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (4 vs. 1%, respectively). There were fewer discontinuations because of adverse events with RPV/FTC/TDF (2.5%) than with EFV/FTC/TDF (8.7%).
CONCLUSION: In treatment-naive participants, RPV/FTC/TDF demonstrated noninferior efficacy and improved tolerability compared with EFV/FTC/TDF, as well as a statistically significant difference in efficacy for participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA 100000 copies/ml or less at week 48.
ANTECEDENTES: dolutegravir (S / GSK1349572) es un inhibidor de una vez al día la integrasa del VIH con potente actividad antiviral y un perfil de seguridad favorable. Comparamos dolutegravir con la integrasa del VIH inhibidor de raltegravir, como tratamiento inicial para los adultos con VIH-1.
MÉTODOS: SPRING-2 es un 96 semanas, la fase 3, aleatorizado, doble ciego, con control activo, de no inferioridad, que comenzó el 19 oct 2010, a 100 sitios en Canadá, EE.UU., Australia y Europa. Adultos-tratamiento tratados (de edad ≥ 18 años), con infección VIH-1 y VIH-1 ARN concentraciones de 1.000 ejemplares por ml o mayores fueron asignados al azar (1: 1) a través de la secuencia de asignación al azar generado por computadora para recibir dolutegravir (50 mg una vez al día) o raltegravir (400 mg dos veces al día). Fármacos del estudio se les dio con coformulado tenofovir / emtricitabina o abacavir / lamivudina. La aleatorización se estratificó por el cribado del VIH-1 ARN (≤ 100.000 copias por ml o> 100.000 copias por ml) y nucleósido inhibidor de la transcriptasa inversa columna vertebral. Los investigadores no estaban cegados a los resultados del VIH-1 ARN antes de la asignación al azar. El criterio principal de valoración fue la proporción de participantes con el VIH-1 RNA menos de 50 copias por ml a las 48 semanas, con un margen de no inferioridad del 10%. Variables secundarias principales fueron cambios desde el inicio en el recuento de CD4 de células, la incidencia y gravedad de los eventos adversos, los cambios en los parámetros de laboratorio, y genotípica o fenotípica pruebas de resistencia. Nuestro análisis primario fue por intención de tratar. Este ensayo se ha registrado en ClinicalTrials.gov, número NCT01227824.
RESULTADOS: 411 pacientes fueron asignados al azar para recibir dolutegravir y 411 para recibir raltegravir y recibieron al menos una dosis del fármaco del estudio. A las 48 semanas, 361 (88%) pacientes en el grupo de dolutegravir alcanzaron un valor de ARN VIH-1 de menos de 50 copias por ml en comparación con 351 (85%) en el grupo de raltegravir (diferencia ajustada 2 · 5%; IC del 95% -2 · 2 a 7 · 1). Los eventos adversos fueron similares entre los grupos de tratamiento. Los eventos más frecuentes fueron náuseas (59 [14%] pacientes en el grupo dolutegravir vs 53 [13%] en el grupo de raltegravir), dolor de cabeza (51 [12%] frente a 48 [12%]), nasofaringitis (46 [11% ] vs 48 [12%]), y diarrea (47 [11%] en cada grupo). Pocos pacientes tuvieron eventos adversos graves relacionados con las drogas (tres [<1%] frente a cinco [1%]), y pocos tenían los eventos adversos que provocaron la interrupción (diez [2%] frente a siete [2%] en cada grupo). Los recuentos de células CD4 aumentaron desde el inicio hasta la semana 48 en ambos grupos de tratamiento por una mediana de 230 células por microlitro. Las tasas de efectos tóxicos de laboratorio graduadas fueron similares. Hemos observado ninguna evidencia de resistencia emergente del tratamiento en pacientes con fracaso virológico en dolutegravir, mientras que de los pacientes con fracaso virológico que recibieron raltegravir, uno (6%) tenían inhibidores de la transcriptasa integrasa emergentes del tratamiento de resistencia y cuatro (21%) habían inversa nucleósidos tratamiento emergente resistencia.
Interpretación: El perfil de seguridad eficacia no inferior y similar de dolutegravir en comparación con raltegravir significa que si se aprueba, el tratamiento de combinación con inhibidores de la transcriptasa inversa análogos de nucleósidos dolutegravir una vez al día y con dosis fija sería una nueva opción eficaz para el tratamiento del VIH-1 en el tratamiento pacientes -naive.
FINANCIACIÓN: ViiV Healthcare.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of ritonavir boosted atazanavir versus ritonavir boosted lopinavir or efavirenz, all in combination with 2 nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), over 144 weeks in antiretroviral-naïve HIV-1-infected individuals.
METHODS: A prospective open-label randomized controlled trial was conducted at 29 sites in Sweden and Norway between April 2004 and December 2009. Patients were randomized to receive either efavirenz 600 mg once daily (EFV), or atazanavir 300 mg and ritonavir 100 mg once daily (AZV/r), or lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily (LPV/r). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml at 48 and 144 weeks.
RESULTS: Of 245 patients enrolled, 243 were randomized and 239 received the allocated intervention: 77 EFV, 81 AZV/r, and 81 LPV/r. Median (interquartile range) CD4 cell counts at baseline were 150 (80-200), 170 (80-220), and 150 (90-216) per microlitre, respectively. At week 48 the proportion (95% confidence interval (CI)) of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml was 86 (78-94)% in the EFV arm, 78 (69-87)% in the AZV/r arm and, 69 (59-78)% in the LPV/r arm in the intention-to-treat analysis. There was a significant difference between the EFV and LPV/r arm (p = 0.014). At week 144, the proportion (95% CI) of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml was 61 (50-72)%, 58 (47-69)%, 51 (41-63)%, respectively (p = 0.8). Patients with CD4 cell counts of ≤ 200/μl or HIV-1 RNA > 100,000 copies/ml at baseline had similar response rates in all arms.
CONCLUSION: EFV was superior to LPV/r at week 48, but there were no significant differences between the 3 arms in the long-term (144 weeks) follow-up.
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572), a once-daily, unboosted integrase inhibitor, was recently approved in the United States for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in combination with other antiretroviral agents. Dolutegravir, in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, may provide a simplified regimen.<b>METHODS: </b>We conducted a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study involving adult participants who had not received previous therapy for HIV-1 infection and who had an HIV-1 RNA level of 1000 copies per milliliter or more. Participants were randomly assigned to dolutegravir at a dose of 50 mg plus abacavir-lamivudine once daily (DTG-ABC-3TC group) or combination therapy with efavirenz-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF)-emtricitabine once daily (EFV-TDF-FTC group). The primary end point was the proportion of participants with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 48. Secondary end points included the time to viral suppression, the change from baseline in CD4+ T-cell count, safety, and viral resistance.<b>RESULTS: </b>A total of 833 participants received at least one dose of study drug. At week 48, the proportion of participants with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter was significantly higher in the DTG-ABC-3TC group than in the EFV-TDF-FTC group (88% vs. 81%, P=0.003), thus meeting the criterion for superiority. The DTG-ABC-3TC group had a shorter median time to viral suppression than did the EFV-TDF-FTC group (28 vs. 84 days, P<0.001), as well as greater increases in CD4+ T-cell count (267 vs. 208 per cubic millimeter, P<0.001). The proportion of participants who discontinued therapy owing to adverse events was lower in the DTG-ABC-3TC group than in the EFV-TDF-FTC group (2% vs. 10%); rash and neuropsychiatric events (including abnormal dreams, anxiety, dizziness, and somnolence) were significantly more common in the EFV-TDF-FTC group, whereas insomnia was reported more frequently in the DTG-ABC-3TC group. No participants in the DTG-ABC-3TC group had detectable antiviral resistance; one tenofovir DF-associated mutation and four efavirenz-associated mutations were detected in participants with virologic failure in the EFV-TDF-FTC group.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Dolutegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine had a better safety profile and was more effective through 48 weeks than the regimen with efavirenz-tenofovir DF-emtricitabine. (Funded by ViiV Healthcare; SINGLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01263015 .).
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.
METHODS:
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.
FINDINGS:
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).
INTERPRETATION:
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.Funding: Gilead Sciences.
