This 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 dolutegravir (DTG) + a FDC containing emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive adults.
<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: 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: 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.
This 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 dolutegravir (DTG) + a FDC containing emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive adults.
