The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a fixed dose combination (FDC) containing bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) versus a FDC containing abacavir/dolutegravir/lamivudine (ABC/DTG/3TC) in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment naive-adults.
<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.
BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended for first-line antiretroviral therapy in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Co-formulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF), a novel, INSTI-based regimen, is currently approved in the US and EU for the treatment of HIV-1 infection and recommended as first-line treatment in current guidelines. In our current analysis, we aimed to determine changes in patient-reported symptoms over time among HIV-1-infected adults who initiated or switched to B/F/TAF versus another INSTI-based regimen, co-formulated abacavir, dolutegravir, and lamivudine (ABC/DTG/3TC).METHODS: A planned secondary analysis of patient-reported outcomes was conducted for two double-blind, randomized, phase III studies in HIV-1-infected adults comparing B/F/TAF with ABC/DTG/3TC: one in treatment-naïve individuals (GS-US-380-1489, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02607930) and the other in virologically suppressed participants (GS-US-380-1844, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02603120). In both studies, the HIV symptoms distress module (HIV-SI) was administered at baseline (BL) and weeks 4, 12, and 48. Responses to each of the 20 items were dichotomized as bothersome or not bothersome. Treatment differences were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models (adjusted for BL HIV-SI count, age, sex, BL Veterans Aging Cohort Study [VACS] Index, medical history of serious mental illness, BL Short Form [SF]-36 Physical Component Summary [PCS], BL SF-36 Mental Component Summary [MCS], and, for virologically suppressed participants only, years since HIV diagnosis). We conducted longitudinal modeling of bothersome symptoms using a generalized mixed model including treatment, time, time-by-treatment, and additional covariates from the adjusted logistic regression model as described above. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was administered at the same frequency as the HIV-SI, and the total score was dichotomized as good or poor sleep quality. Similar models to those used for HIV-SI were applied, using BL sleep quality and BL SF-36 MCS as covariates. Statistical significance was assessed using p < 0.05.RESULTS: Across both studies, bothersome symptoms were reported by fewer participants on B/F/TAF than those on ABC/DTG/3TC. In treatment-naïve adults, fatigue/loss of energy, nausea/vomiting, dizzy/lightheadedness, and difficulty sleeping were reported significantly less with B/F/TAF at two or more time points. Fatigue and nausea were also significantly less common for those receiving B/F/TAF in longitudinal models. In virologically suppressed participants, nausea/vomiting, sad/down/depressed, nervous/anxious, and poor sleep quality (from the PSQI) were reported significantly less with B/F/TAF at two or more time points, as well as in longitudinal models.CONCLUSIONS: B/F/TAF was associated with lower prevalence of bothersome symptoms than ABC/DTG/3TC in both treatment-naïve and virologically suppressed adults.
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.
BACKGROUND: 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.
METHODS: 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.
FINDINGS: 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.
INTERPRETATION: 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.
FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
OBJECTIVES: Two Phase 3, randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled studies of initial HIV‐1 treatment demonstrated that bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) was non‐inferior to dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC; Study 1489) or to DTG+F/TAF (Study 1490) through 144 weeks. In both studies, there was no emergent resistance to study drugs. Here, the 3 year resistance analysis and impact of baseline resistance substitutions on treatment response are described. METHODS: Population sequencing of HIV‐1 protease and reverse transcriptase (RT) was performed at screening. Retrospective baseline next generation sequencing of protease, RT and integrase (IN) was analysed at a ≥15% cutoff. Resistance analyses were performed on participants with confirmed viral rebound of HIV‐1 RNA ≥200 copies/mL through Week 144 or last visit who did not resuppress to <50 copies/mL while on study drug. RESULTS: Transmitted primary drug resistance substitutions were present in the following proportions of participants: integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance (‐R) in 1.3% (17/1270) of participants; NRTI‐R in 2.7% (35/1274); NNRTI‐R in 14.1% (179/1274); and PI‐R in 3.5% (44/1274). These pre‐existing resistance substitutions not associated with study drug did not affect treatment outcomes. One participant in the B/F/TAF group had pre‐existing bictegravir and dolutegravir resistance substitutions (Q148H+G140S in integrase) at baseline and suppressed and maintained HIV‐1 RNA <50 copies/mL through Week 144. In total, 21 participants qualified for resistance testing [1.3% (8/634) B/F/TAF; 1.9% (6/315) DTG/ABC/3TC; 2.2% (7/325) DTG+F/TAF]; none had emergent resistance to study drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with B/F/TAF, DTG/ABC/3TC, or DTG+F/TAF achieved high, durable rates of virological suppression in HIV‐1 treatment‐naive participants. The presence of pre‐existing resistance substitutions did not affect treatment outcomes, and there was no treatment‐emergent resistance.
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of a fixed dose combination (FDC) containing bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) versus a FDC containing abacavir/dolutegravir/lamivudine (ABC/DTG/3TC) in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment naive-adults.
País»Belgium,Canada,Dominican Republic,France,Germany,Italy,Puerto Rico,Spain,United Kingdom,United States
Diseño del estudio»Ensayo controlado aleatorizado (ECA)
