Search

Background: In DISCOVER, a multinational, randomised controlled trial, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide compared with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate showed non-inferior efficacy for HIV prevention and improved bone mineral density and renal safety biomarkers at week 48. We report outcomes analysed after all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up., Methods: This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in Europe and North America. Adult cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV as determined by self-reported sexual behaviour or recent sexually transmitted infections, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (200/25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (200/300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection. Incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years was assessed when the last participant had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02842086., Findings: Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 participants were randomly assigned to receive emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693), contributing 10 081 person-years of follow-up. At 96 weeks of follow-up, there were eight HIV infections in participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·07-0·31]) and 15 in participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·30 infections per 100 person-years [0·17-0·49]). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide maintained its non-inferiority to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention (IRR 0·54 [95% CI 0·23-1·26]). Approximately 78-82% of participants reported taking study medication more than 95% of the time across all study visits. Rates of sexually transmitted infections remained high and similar across groups (21 cases per 100 person-years for rectal gonorrhoea and 28 cases per 100 person-years for rectal chlamydia). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide continued to show superiority over emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all but one of the six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarkers. There was more weight gain among participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (median weight gain 1·7 kg vs 0·5 kg, p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide is safe and effective for longer-term pre-exposure prophylaxis in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men., Funding: Gilead Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests OO reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and has served on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare during the conduct of the study. PJR reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare for serving as a speaker and advisor. DP reports research grants and honoraria for advisories and conferences from Viiv Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme. LCS reports grants and payment for recruitment and follow-up of participants in clinical trials, speakers' bureaus, and advisory boards from Gilead Sciences and GlaxoSmithKline during the conduct of the study. KH reports clinical research funds paid to institution from GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Janssen, and Gilead Sciences during the conduct of the study. GW reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences during the conduct of the study, as well as personal fees from Cepheid and Merck, Sharp & Dohme, outside the submitted work. DMA reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and ViiV Healthcare for serving on speakers' bureaus and advisory boards, from Napo Pharmaceuticals for serving as a consultant, and from Merck for serving on speakers' bureaus. DW reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck, as well as personal fees from Janssen. RG reports receiving payment to his institution from Gilead Sciences for recruitment and follow-up of participants in the trial. JMB has served as a consultant for AbbVie; reports fees as a consultant, for grant or research support, as a scientific research study investigator, and for speakers' bureaus from Gilead Sciences, as well as other financial support and conference attendance sponsorship; reports other financial support and conference attendance sponsorship from Janssen; and has served as a consultant, on the speakers' bureau, and received other financial support and conference attendance sponsorship form Merck and Viiv Healthcare. CDS reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, Jannsen-Cilag, GlaxoSmithKline, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck, Sharpe & Dohme, during the conduct of the study, as well as grants from AbbVie, Aperion, and Eli Lilly, personal fees from AbbVie, Aperion, Formycon, and Eli Lilly, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Aperion, outside the submitted work. YS, RE, SC, AK, CC, MD, and DMB are employees of Gilead Sciences and shareholders of Gilead Sciences stock. GK declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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: 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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In 2 double-blinded Phase 3 trials, 1733 antiretroviral-naive participants were randomized to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a tenofovir prodrug versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (E/C/F). At 96 weeks, 86.6% in the TAF arm and 85.2% in the TDF arm had HIV-1 RNA <50 c/mL [difference 1.5%; (95% CI: -1.8% to 4.8%)]. With TAF, there are smaller declines in bone mineral density and more favorable changes in proteinuria, albuminuria, and tubular proteinuria, and no cases of proximal tubulopathy compared with 2 for TDF. These longer-term data support E/C/F/TAF as a safe, well-tolerated, and durable regimen for initial HIV-1 treatment.

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Findings: 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., Interpretation: 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., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We report week 96 results from a phase 3 trial of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, n = 348) vs efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF, n = 352). At week 48, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF (88% vs 84%, difference +3.6%, 95% confidence interval: -1.6% to 8.8%). Virologic success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) was maintained at week 96 (84% vs 82%, difference +2.7%, 95% CI: -2.9% to 8.3%). Discontinuation due to adverse events was low (5% vs 7%). Median changes in serum creatinine (mg/dL) at week 96 were similar to week 48. These results support the durable efficacy and long-term safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF.