Search

Introduction: Treatment for people with HIV-1 and end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) on haemodialysis (HD) has previously required complex dose-adjusted regimens, with limited data on the use of a single-tablet regimen in this population. Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of once-daily bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) and to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of bictegravir (BIC) in adults with HIV-1 and ESKD on HD., Methods: We performed an open-label extension (OLE) of an open-label, multicentre, single-group phase 3b study (NCT02600819) of adults with ESKD on HD and HIV-1 with virological suppression. Participants switched to elvitegravir/cobicistat/F/TAF (E/C/F/TAF) 150/150/200/10 mg for 96 weeks, following which a subgroup of US participants entered an OLE phase in which they switched to B/F/TAF 50/200/25 mg for 48 weeks, returning for study visits at weeks 4 and 12, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Study assessments included virological response, safety and pharmacokinetic analysis of BIC., Results: Ten participants entered the OLE (median age, 55 years). Virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) was maintained in all participants over 48 weeks of B/F/TAF treatment. B/F/TAF was well tolerated, with no treatment discontinuations. Mean BIC trough concentrations were lower than those previously reported for people with HIV-1 with normal kidney function, but remained four- to seven-fold higher than the established protein-adjusted 95% effective concentration against wild-type HIV-1., Conclusion: These findings support the use of the once-daily B/F/TAF single-tablet regimen for people with HIV-1 and ESKD on HD. This regimen offers a convenient treatment option for this population as it reduces the need for dose adjustment, eases pill burden and avoids potential drug-drug interactions associated with alternatives that may impact individuals on multiple medications or awaiting transplantation., (© 2024 The Author(s). HIV Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British HIV Association.)

Background: Sustained viral suppression in patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR) HIV infection remains difficult; accordingly, agents targeting different steps in the HIV life cycle are needed. Ibalizumab, a humanized immunoglobulin G4 monoclonal antibody, is a cluster of differentiation (CD4)-directed postattachment inhibitor., Methods: In this phase 2b study, 113 patients with MDR HIV-1 and limited treatment options were assigned an optimized background regimen (OBR) and randomized to either 800 mg ibalizumab every 2 weeks (q2wk; n = 59) or 2000 mg ibalizumab every 4 weeks (q4wk; n = 54) up to week 24., Results: Viral loads (VL) below the detection limit were achieved in 44% and 28% of patients in the 800 mg q2wk and 2000 mg q4wk groups, respectively, at week 24. Mean (SD) VL (log 10 copies/mL) decreased from Baseline [4.6 (0.8), 800 mg q2wk; 4.7 (0.7), 2000 mg q4wk] to week 2, with the reduction maintained through week 24 [2.9 (1.5), 800 mg q2wk; 3.2 (1.4), 2000 mg q4wk]. Baseline CD4 + counts were 80.5 and 54.0 cells/μL in the 800 mg q2wk and 2000 mg q4wk groups, respectively. Mean CD4 + T-cell count was increased at week 24 in both groups. No serious adverse events were related to ibalizumab., Conclusions: In heavily treatment-experienced patients with HIV (PWH) at a more advanced baseline disease severity, clinically significant response rates at week 24 were achieved with ibalizumab plus OBR. Ibalizumab's unique mechanism of action and lack of cross-resistance to other antiretroviral agents make it an important component of combination treatment regimens for PWH with limited treatment options., Competing Interests: E.D. has participated in advisory boards for Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Theratechnologies Inc. W.J.T. received research grants, paid to his institution, from Pfizer, Moderna, Merck, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine, ViiV Healthcare, GSK, and Dynavax Technologies. B.C. and K.A. are employees of Theratechnologies Inc. The remaining author has no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-acting treatment for HIV has potential to improve adherence, provide durable viral suppression, and have long-term individual and public health benefits. We evaluated treatment with two antibodies that broadly and potently neutralise HIV (broadly neutralising antibodies; bNAbs), combined with lenacapavir, a long-acting capsid inhibitor, as a long-acting regimen., Methods: This ongoing, randomised, blind, phase 1b proof-of-concept study conducted at 11 HIV treatment centres in the USA included adults with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration below 50 copies per mL who had at least 18 months on oral antiretroviral therapy (ART), CD4 counts of at least 500 cells per μL, and protocol-defined susceptibility to bNAbs teropavimab (3BNC117-LS) and zinlirvimab (10-1074-LS). Participants stopped oral ART and were randomly assigned (1:1) to one dose of 927 mg subcutaneous lenacapavir plus an oral loading dose, 30 mg/kg intravenous teropavimab, and 10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg intravenous zinlirvimab on day 1. Investigational site personnel and participants were masked to treatment assignment throughout the randomised period. The primary endpoint was incidence of serious adverse events until week 26 in all randomly assigned participants who received one dose or more of any study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04811040., Findings: Between June 29 and Dec 8, 2021, 21 participants were randomly assigned, ten in each group received the complete study regimen and one withdrew before completing the regimen on day 1. 18 (86%) of 21 participants were male; participants ranged in age from 25 years to 61 years and had a median CD4 cell count of 909 (IQR 687-1270) cells per μL at study entry. No serious adverse events occurred. Two grade 3 adverse events occurred (lenacapavir injection-site erythaema and injection-site cellulitis), which had both resolved. The most common adverse events were symptoms of injection-site reactions, reported in 17 (85%) of 20 participants who received subcutaneous lenacapavir; 12 (60%) of 20 were grade 1. One (10%; 95% CI 0-45) participant had viral rebound (confirmed HIV-1 RNA concentration of ≥50 copies per mL) in the zinlirvimab 10 mg/kg group, which was resuppressed on ART, and one participant in the zinlirvimab 30 mg/kg group withdrew at week 12 with HIV RNA <50 copies per mL., Interpretation: Lenacapavir with teropavimab and zinlirvimab 10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg was generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events. HIV-1 suppression for at least 26 weeks is feasible with this regimen at either zinlirvimab dose in selected people with HIV-1., Funding: Gilead Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JJE reports grants or contract payments made to their institution from ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences and consulting fees from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, and Gilead Sciences. SJL declares no competing interests. GC reports grants or contract payments from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences and support for attending meetings from Gilead Sciences. PC reports grants or contract payments from Lilly, Seres Therapeutics, National Institutes of Health, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences and data safety monitoring or advisory board participation from Westat. PJR reports grants or contract payments from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, AbbVie, Theratechnology, and Gilead Sciences; honoraria from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences; and support for attending meetings from Gilead Sciences. DJ reports grants or contract payments made to his institution from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, and NeuroRx; honoraria from Clinical Care Options; and advisory board participation for CITI and Theratechnologies. ED reports grants or contract payments from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, AbbVie, TeroTechnology/Taimed Biologic, and Gilead Sciences. AM reports grants or contract payments from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Taimed Biologic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and GSK and advisory board participation for Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare. SEW reports grants or contract payments from Gilead Sciences and Merck. MR reports consulting fees from Merck, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and honoraria from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. LG reports grants or contract payments made to their institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck; and honoraria from the AIDS Education and Training Center—South Central. LAV, YZ, HH, and SEC report employment with and stock in Gilead Sciences. JMB reports employment with and stock in Gilead Sciences; grants or contract payments and participation on a data monitoring committee from the US National Institutes of Health; and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. MC reports data safety monitoring or advisory board participation for Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cohort studies suggest higher discontinuation rates with integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) than are seen in clinical trials. We assessed discontinuations and adverse events (AEs) that were considered related to the initial INSTI in the first year following initiation among treatment-naïve people living with HIV (PLWH)., Methods: Newly diagnosed PLWH initiating raltegravir, elvitegravir/cobicistat, dolutegravir or bictegravir in combination with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide or emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate between 10/2007 and 1/2020 at the Orlando Immunology Center were included. Unadjusted incidence rates (IRs) and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated for treatment-related discontinuations and AEs associated with the initial INSTI in the first year following initiation., Results: Of 331 enrolled, 26 (8%) initiated raltegravir, 151 (46%) initiated elvitegravir/cobicistat, 74 (22%) initiated dolutegravir and 80 (24%) initiated bictegravir. Within the first year, treatment-related discontinuations occurred in 3 on elvitegravir/cobicistat (IR 0.02 per person-years (PPY)) and 5 on dolutegravir (IR 0.08 PPY); no treatment-related discontinuations occurred among those initiating raltegravir or bictegravir. Eleven treatment-related AEs occurred in 7 on raltegravir (IR 0.46 PPY), 100 treatment-related AEs occurred in 63 on elvitegravir/cobicistat (IR 0.72 PPY), 66 treatment-related AEs occurred in 37 on dolutegravir (IR 0.97 PPY) and 65 treatment-related AEs occurred in 34 on bictegravir (IR 0.88 PPY). Unadjusted IRRs did not reveal any significant difference between INSTIs in terms of early treatment-related discontinuations or AEs., Conclusions: In our cohort, treatment-related AEs occurred in 43% initiating INSTIs but were responsible for early discontinuation in only 2% with no treatment-related discontinuations observed among those initiating RAL or BIC.

In the phase 3 BRIGHTE study in heavily treatment-experienced adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1, fostemsavir plus optimized background therapy (OBT) resulted in sustained rates of virologic suppression through 96 weeks. HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL was achieved in 163/272 (60%) Randomized Cohort (RC) participants (with 1 or 2 remaining approved fully active antiretrovirals) and 37/99 (37%) Non-randomized Cohort (NRC) participants (with 0 fully active antiretrovirals). Here we report genotypic and phenotypic analyses of HIV-1 samples from 63/272 (23%) RC participants and 49/99 (49%) NRC participants who met protocol-defined virologic failure (PDVF) criteria through Week 96. The incidence of PDVF was as expected in this difficult-to-treat patient population and, among RC participants, was comparable regardless of the presence of predefined gp120 amino acid substitutions that potentially influence phenotypic susceptibility to temsavir (S375H/I/M/N/T, M426L, M434I, M475I) or baseline temsavir 50% inhibitory concentration fold change (IC 50 FC). The incidence of PDVF was lower among participants with higher overall susceptibility score to newly used antiretrovirals (OSS-new), indicating that OSS-new may be a preferred predictor of virologic outcome in heavily treatment-experienced individuals. Predefined gp120 substitutions, most commonly M426L or S375N, were emergent on treatment in 24/50 (48%) RC and 33/44 (75%) NRC participants with PDVF, with related increases in temsavir IC 50 FC. In BRIGHTE, PDVF was not consistently associated with treatment-emergent genotypic or phenotypic changes in susceptibility to temsavir or to antiretrovirals in the initial OBT. Further research will be needed to identify which factors are most likely to contribute to virologic failure in this heavily treatment-experienced population (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02362503).

Background: Patients with multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection have limited treatment options. Lenacapavir is a first-in-class capsid inhibitor that showed substantial antiviral activity in a phase 1b study., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection in two cohorts, according to the change in the plasma HIV-1 RNA level between the screening and cohort-selection visits. In cohort 1, patients were first randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral lenacapavir or placebo in addition to their failing therapy for 14 days; during the maintenance period, starting on day 15, patients in the lenacapavir group received subcutaneous lenacapavir once every 6 months, and those in the placebo group received oral lenacapavir, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir; both groups also received optimized background therapy. In cohort 2, all the patients received open-label oral lenacapavir with optimized background therapy on days 1 through 14; subcutaneous lenacapavir was then administered once every 6 months starting on day 15. The primary end point was the percentage of patients in cohort 1 who had a decrease of at least 0.5 log 10 copies per milliliter in the viral load by day 15; a key secondary end point was a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter at week 26., Results: A total of 72 patients were enrolled, with 36 in each cohort. In cohort 1, a decrease of at least 0.5 log 10 copies per milliliter in the viral load by day 15 was observed in 21 of 24 patients (88%) in the lenacapavir group and in 2 of 12 patients (17%) in the placebo group (absolute difference, 71 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 35 to 90). At week 26, a viral load of less than 50 copies per milliliter was reported in 81% of the patients in cohort 1 and in 83% in cohort 2, with a least-squares mean increase in the CD4+ count of 75 and 104 cells per cubic millimeter, respectively. No serious adverse events related to lenacapavir were identified. In both cohorts, lenacapavir-related capsid substitutions that were associated with decreased susceptibility developed in 8 patients during the maintenance period (6 with M66I substitutions)., Conclusions: In patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection, those who received lenacapavir had a greater reduction from baseline in viral load than those who received placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; CAPELLA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04150068.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Islatravir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for the treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of islatravir-based regimens for the treatment of HIV-1., Methods: We did a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, comparator-controlled, dose-ranging trial at 24 clinics or hospitals in four countries (Chile, France, the UK, and the USA). Treatment-naive adults (≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell counts of at least 200 cells per mL, and a calculated creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min (all within 60 days before study treatment) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of four via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral treatment with one of three doses of islatravir (0·25 mg, 0·75 mg, or 2·25 mg) plus doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (300 mg) or to doravirine (100 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) once daily with placebo (part 1). Treatment groups were stratified according to screening HIV-1 RNA concentration (≤100 000 copies per mL or >100 000 copies per mL). After at least 24 weeks of treatment, participants taking islatravir who achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL switched to a two-drug regimen of islatravir and doravirine (part 2). All participants and study investigators were masked to treatment in part 1; in part 2, the islatravir dose was masked to all participants and investigators, but the other drugs were given open label. The primary efficacy outcomes were the proportions of participants with an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL at weeks 24 and 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach). The primary safety outcomes were the number of participants experiencing adverse events and the number of participants discontinuing study drug owing to adverse events. All participants who received at least one dose of any study drug were included in the analyses. This trial is ongoing, but closed to enrolment of new participants; herein, we report study findings through 48 weeks of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03272347., Findings: Between Nov 27, 2017, and April 25, 2019, 121 participants (mean age 31 years [SD 10·9], 112 [93%] male, 92 [76%] white, 27 [22%] with HIV-1 RNA concentration >100 000 copies per mL) were randomly assigned: 29 to the 0·25 mg, 30 to the 0·75 mg, and 31 to the 2·25 mg islatravir groups, and 31 to the doravirine, lamivudine, and TDF group. At week 24, 26 (90%) of 29 participants in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 30 (100%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 27 (87%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group achieved HIV-1 RNA concentrations lower than 50 copies per mL compared with 27 (87%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 2·8%, 95% CI -14·9 to 20·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 12·9%, -1·6 to 27·5, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and 0·3%, -17·9 to 18·5, for the 2·25 mg islatravir group). At week 48, these data were 26 (90%) of 29 in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 27 (90%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 24 (77%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group compared with 26 (84%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 6·1%, 95% CI -12·4 to 24·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 6·2%, -12·2 to 24·6, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and -6·1%, -27·1 to 14·8, for the 2·75 mg islatravir group). 66 (73%) of participants in the islatravir groups combined and 24 (77%) of those in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group reported at least one adverse event. Two participants in the 2·25 mg islatravir group and one participant in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group discontinued owing to an adverse event. No deaths were reported up to week 48., Interpretation: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine showed antiviral efficacy and were well tolerated regardless of dose. Doravirine in combination with islatravir has the potential to be a potent two-drug regimen that warrants further clinical development., Funding: Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J-MM has received grants from Gilead, Merck, ViiV, and Sanofi. ED has received personal fees from Gilead Science and Janssen Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. SOK, AG, KE, MNR, TC, CH, GJH, and PS are employees of Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. YY, AAS, CB, and CCA declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Orlando has the second highest HIV incidence in the USA. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine is approved as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to minimize HIV transmission. Our study describes the PrEP care continuum and factors impacting PrEP persistence during the first year of PrEP care at a sexual health clinic in Orlando. Patients initiating PrEP between 2014 and 2017 with at least 1 year of follow-up were eligible for inclusion. Demographic and clinical factors were extracted from medical records. At the end of the first year of PrEP care, patients seen within the last 6 months were defined as 'persistent' whereas patients lost to follow-up for ≥6 months were defined as 'not persistent'. We evaluated factors associated with PrEP persistence with Firth's multivariable logistic regression. Of 300 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 96% were male, 59% were ≥30 years old, 59% identified as men who have sex with men and 57% endorsed recent condomless anal intercourse. Of PrEP initiators, 133 (44.3%) were persistent in the first year, whereas 167 (55.7%) were not persistent. PrEP persistence was positively associated with age ≥30 years (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.08) and negatively associated with non-white race (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83). There were no HIV seroconversions among persistent patients. In our study, younger and minority patients were less likely to persist in PrEP care and persistence was poor despite many being insured and 'high-risk'. Further research is needed to identify and address barriers that hinder PrEP persistence, specifically among younger, minority patients., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© American Federation for Medical Research 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Darunavir (DRV) is approved for once-daily use in patients with no DRV resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) and twice-daily use in those with DRV RAMs. Several studies suggest that once-daily DRV retains efficacy in the setting of 1-2 DRV RAMs whereas three or more DRV RAMs are needed for DRV resistance. There are few data to support the long-term use of once-daily DRV in patients with DRV RAMs. This observational study evaluated 48-week clinical outcomes of 22 treatment-experienced patients with ≥1 DRV RAMs switched to once-daily DRV between 2014 and 2017. The primary endpoint was HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml at week 48. Safety parameters were analyzed throughout the study. The median age of the sample was 53 years, 18 (82%) had baseline HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml, and the median number of historical DRV RAMs was 2. At week 48, 20 (91%) had HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml, and 2 (9%) had HIV-1 RNA of 82 and 59,637 copies/ml and reported non-adherence. No adverse drug reactions were observed through week 48. Once-daily DRV maintained virologic control in patients with ≥1 historical DRV RAMs and was safe and well-tolerated. Further data are needed to validate this as a viable treatment option in this population.

Background: GSK2838232 is a second-generation, potent, small-molecule, oral human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) maturation inhibitor for once-daily administration boosted with a pharmacoenhancer., Methods: The phase 2a, proof-of-concept study was an open-label, adaptive dose-ranging design. Safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of GSK2838232 boosted by cobicistat were evaluated in individuals with HIV-1 infection. The study participants (N = 33) received GSK2838232 once daily across a range of doses (20-200 mg) with cobicistat 150 mg for 10 days., Results: GSK2838232 was safe and well tolerated with no clinically meaningful changes in safety parameters or adverse events. Exposure (maximum concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the concentration at 24 hours postdose) increased 2- to 3-fold with repeated dosing in an approximately dose-proportional manner, reaching steady-state by day 8 with a half-life (t½) from 16.3 to 19.2 hours. Clearance and t½ values were not dependent on dose. Viral load declined from baseline with all GSK2838232 doses. Mean maximum declines from baseline to day 11 in HIV-1 RNA log10 copies/mL with the 20-mg, 50-mg, 100-mg, and 200-mg cohorts were -0.67, -1.56, -1.32, and -1.70, respectively. CD4+ cell counts increased at doses ≥50 mg., Conclusions: GSK2838232 with cobicistat was well tolerated and exhibited efficacy as a short-term monotherapy in participants with HIV-1. This positive proof-of-concept study supports the continued development of GSK2838232 for the treatment of HIV as part of combination antiretroviral therapy., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT03045861., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention., 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 regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086, and is no longer recruiting., Findings: Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19-1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06-0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19-0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints., Interpretation: Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Doravirine (DOR) demonstrated noninferior efficacy to darunavir plus ritonavir (DRV+r) and efavirenz (EFV) in 2 ongoing phase 3 trials: DRIVE-FORWARD (NCT02275780) and DRIVE-AHEAD (NCT02403674)., Methods: This prespecified analysis pooled efficacy data through the first 48 weeks of DRIVE-FORWARD and DRIVE-AHEAD from the DOR groups (DOR/lamivudine [3TC]/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [TDF] or DOR [100 mg daily] with emtricitabine [FTC]/TDF or abacavir [ABC]/3TC [n = 747]) compared with DRV+r (800/100 mg daily) with FTC/TDF or ABC/3TC (n = 383) or EFV/FTC/TDF (600/200/300 mg daily; n = 364). Efficacy assessments included the proportion of participants with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA <50 copies/mL and change in CD4+ T-cell count., Results: At week 48, DOR demonstrated noninferior efficacy to DRV+r and EFV, with 84.1% of DOR-treated participants achieving HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL compared with 79.9% of the DRV+r and 80.8% of the EFV groups. Results were similar across demographic/prognostic subpopulations, including baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA, gender, race, and HIV-1 subtype. Mean increases from baseline in CD4+ T-cell count through 48 weeks were 195.5 cells/mm3 for DOR, 185.6 cells/mm3 for DRV+r, and 188.4 cells/mm3 for EFV/FTC/TDF., Conclusions: DOR, as a single entity (in combination with other antiretroviral agents) and as a fixed-dose combination (DOR/3TC/TDF), demonstrated noninferior efficacy to DRV+r and EFV as assessed by the proportion of HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02275780 and NCT02403674., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Doravirine is a novel, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that has shown non-inferior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted darunavir, with a superior lipid profile, in adults with HIV who were treatment naive at week 48 in the phase 3 DRIVE-FORWARD trial. Here we present the 96-week data for the study., Methods: This randomised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study was undertaken at 125 clinical centres in 15 countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) infected with HIV-1 who were naive to antiretroviral therapy, with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 1000 copies per mL or higher at screening, and no known resistance to any of the study drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA concentration and background nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy, to doravirine (100 mg per day) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (100 mg ritonavir and 800 mg darunavir per day), both with investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir and lamivudine. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment until week 96. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who achieved this concentration by week 96, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, regardless of whether it was their randomly assigned treatment. We used a US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and a margin of 10 percentage points to define the non-inferiority of doravirine to ritonavir-boosted darunavir at 96 weeks. Key safety endpoints were change in fasting serum lipid concentrations, the incidence of adverse events, and time to discontinuation due to an adverse event, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02275780, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Oct 20, 2015, 1027 individuals were screened, of whom 769 participants were randomly assigned to doravirine (n=385) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=384), and 383 in both groups were given at least one dose of their allocated treatment. Most participants were male (645 [84%] of 766) and white (560 [73%]), with a mean age of 35·2 years (SD 10·6). 292 participants in the doravirine group and 273 in the darunavir group completed 96 weeks of treatment. At week 96, a higher proportion of the doravirine group (277 [73%] of 383) achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL than did of the darunavir group (248 [66%] of 383; difference 7·1%, 95% CI 0·5-13·7). Responses were similar regardless of baseline characteristics. Treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug occurred in two (1%) of 383 participants in the doravirine group and one (<1%) of 383 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group. Significant differences were seen between treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in LDL cholesterol (-14·6 mg/dL, 95% CI -18·2 to -11·0) and non-HDL cholesterol (-18·4 mg/dL, -22·5 to -14·3). Frequencies of adverse events were similar between groups. No significant treatment difference (log-rank nominal p=0·063) through week 96 was observed in time to discontinuation due to an adverse event. The most common adverse events (week 0-96) were diarrhoea (65 [17%] in the doravirine group vs 91 [24%] in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group), nausea (45 [12%] vs 52 [14%]), headache (57 [15%] vs 46 [12%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (51 [13%] vs 30 [8%]). Two participants, one in each group, died during treatment; neither death was considered to be related to study medication., Interpretation: These results through 96 weeks support the efficacy and safety results reported previously for doravirine at 48 weeks, supporting the use of doravirine for the long-term treatment of adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection., Funding: Merck., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bictegravir, coformulated with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination (B/F/TAF), is recommended for treatment of HIV-1-infection. Multiple studies of B/F/TAF in treatment-naive and virologically suppressed cohorts have shown high efficacy and tolerability with no treatment-emergent resistance through 48 weeks. Participants in these studies have been predominantly men. We report 48-week results from a phase 3 study evaluating switching to B/F/TAF, specifically in a globally distributed trial population of women., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, noninferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02652624), women living with HIV who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL) on a regimen containing either TAF or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) or stay on baseline regimen (SBR) once daily for 48 weeks. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (U.S. Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm); prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%., Findings: We randomized 472 participants and treated 470 (234 B/F/TAF, 236 SBR). Switching to B/F/TAF was noninferior to SBR for the primary outcome, as 1.7% (4/234) vs 1.7% (4/236) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (difference 0.0%, 95.001% confidence interval: -2.9% to 2.9%). No individual receiving B/F/TAF developed treatment-emergent resistance. Both treatments were well-tolerated; no participant discontinued treatment because of an adverse event., Interpretation: Fixed-dose combination B/F/TAF provides a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV in women. This study contributes important data on safety, tolerability, and outcomes of antiretroviral therapy among women living with HIV.

Background: Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg is a once-daily, single-tablet regimen for treatment of HIV-1 infection. The efficacy/safety of switching to D/C/F/TAF versus continuing boosted protease inhibitor (bPI) + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (control) were demonstrated in a phase 3, randomized study (EMERALD) of treatment-experienced, virologically suppressed adults through week 48. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate EMERALD outcomes across subgroups of patients based on demographic characteristics, prior treatment experience, and baseline antiretroviral regimen., Methods: EMERALD patients were virologically suppressed (viral load [VL] < 50 copies/mL for ≥ 2 months at screening). Prior non-darunavir virologic failure (VF) was allowed. Primary endpoint was proportion of patients with virologic rebound (confirmed VL ≥ 50 copies/mL) cumulative through week 48. Virologic response was VL < 50 copies/mL (FDA snapshot). Safety was assessed by adverse events, renal proteinuria markers, and bone mineral density. Outcomes were examined for prespecified subgroups by age (≤/> 50 years), gender, race (black/non-black), prior number of antiretrovirals used (4/5/6/7/> 7), prior VF (0/≥ 1), baseline bPI (darunavir/atazanavir or lopinavir), and baseline boosting agent (ritonavir/cobicistat)., Results: Among 1141 patients in the D/C/F/TAF (n = 763) and control (n = 378) arms, virologic rebound rates (2.5% and 2.1%, respectively) were similar, and this was consistent across all subgroups. Virologic response rates ranged from 91 to 97% (D/C/F/TAF) and 89 to 99% (control) across all subgroups, with differences between treatment arms of 0 and 6%. Adverse event rates were low in both arms and across subgroups. Improvements in renal and bone parameters were observed with D/C/F/TAF across demographic subgroups., Conclusions: For treatment-experienced, virologically suppressed patients, switching to D/C/F/TAF was highly effective and safe, regardless of demographic characteristics, prior treatment experience, or pre-switch bPI. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02269917. Registered 21 October 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02269917.

: A phase 2, randomized, active-controlled study of initial antiretroviral therapy with bictegravir or dolutegravir in combination with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide showed excellent efficacy. After 60 weeks of blinded treatment, participants switched to a single-tablet regimen of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide. Switching maintained viral suppression in all participants who remained on the study through 12 weeks in the open-label phase, and was safe and well tolerated.

Background: Doravirine is a novel non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with a pharmacokinetic profile supporting once-daily dosing, and potent in-vitro activity against the most common NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 variants. We compared doravirine with ritonavir-boosted darunavir, when both were given with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), in adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection., Methods: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial, adults with HIV-1 infection were screened and enrolled at 125 clinical centres in 15 countries. Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) were naive to antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA of at least 1000 copies per mL at screening. Participants who had previously been treated for a viral infection other than HIV-1, those taking immunosuppressive drugs, and individuals with active acute hepatitis were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral doravirine 100 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg once daily, with two investigator-selected NRTIs (tenofovir and emtricitabine or abacavir and lamivudine) for up to 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA measurements at screening (≤100 000 vs >100 000 copies per mL) and the NRTI pair. Study participants, funding institution staff, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with non-inferiority established if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (doravirine minus darunavir) was greater than -10 percentage points. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is active, but not recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02275780., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Oct 20, 2015, 1027 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 769 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (385 with doravirine and 384 with ritonavir-boosted darunavir). 56 participants discontinued treatment in the doravirine group compared with 71 in the darunavir group, mostly due to loss to follow-up. 383 participants who received doravirine and 383 who received darunavir were included in the primary efficacy analyses. At week 48, 321 (84%) participants in the doravirine group and 306 (80%) in the darunavir group achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (difference 3·9%, 95% CI -1·6 to 9·4), indicating non-inferiority of the doravirine regimen. The most common study drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (21 [5%] of 383 participants in the doravirine group and 49 [13%] of 383 participants in the darunavir group), nausea (25 [7%] vs 29 [8%]), and headache (23 [6%] vs ten [3%]). 18 participants (six [2%] of 383 participants in the doravirine group vs 12 [3%] of 383 participants in the darunavir group) discontinued treatment due to adverse events, which were considered drug-related in four (1%) participants in the doravirine group and 8 (2%) participants in the darunavir group. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) of 383 participants in the doravirine group and 23 (6%) of 383 in the darunavir roup, and were considered study-drug related in one (<1%) participant of each group., Interpretation: In treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, doravirine combined with two NRTIs might offer a valuable treatment option for adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection., Funding: Merck & Co., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We previously demonstrated superior efficacy and safety advantages in HIV-infected, virologically suppressed adults switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) as compared with those remaining on a tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) regimen through week 48. We now report long-term data through week 96. In this randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT01815736), we randomized virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml) adults (2:1) to receive a once-daily, single-tablet regimen containing elvitegravir (EVG), cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and TAF group or to continue one of four TDF-containing regimens (TDF group) for 96 weeks. We evaluated efficacy (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml using the FDA snapshot algorithm) and prespecified bone and renal endpoints at week 96. We randomized and treated 1,436 participants in this study (TAF n = 959, TDF n = 477). At week 96, TAF was superior to TDF in virologic efficacy, with 93% on TAF and 89% on TDF having HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml (difference 3.7%, 95% confidence interval: 0.4%-7.0%). Improvements in hip and spine bone mineral density for those assigned to TAF versus TDF continued through week 96 (p < .001). Significant improvements in urine protein or albumin to creatinine ratios were also seen among those in the TAF group versus TDF through week 96 (p < .001). There were no cases of investigator-reported proximal renal tubulopathy in the TAF group as compared with one case in the TDF group. Switching to EVG/COBI/FTC/TAF (E/C/F/TAF) was associated with statistically significant efficacy and safety advantages over remaining on a standard-of-care TDF-based regimen.

In 2 double-blind phase 3 trials, 1733 antiretroviral-naive adults were randomized to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (E/C/F). At 144 weeks, TAF was superior to TDF in virologic efficacy, with 84.2% vs 80.0% having HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (difference 4.2%; 95% confidence interval: 0.6% to 7.8%). TAF had less impact than TDF on bone mineral density and renal biomarkers. No participants on TAF had renal-related discontinuations vs 12 on TDF (P < 0.001), with no cases of proximal tubulopathy for TAF vs 4 for TDF. There were greater increases in lipids with TAF vs TDF, with no difference in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein ratio. For initial HIV therapy, E/C/F/TAF is superior to E/C/F/TDF in efficacy and bone and renal safety.

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide is a prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90% compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, thereby decreasing bone and renal risks. The coformulation of rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide has recently been approved, and we aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to this regimen compared with remaining on coformulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 120 hospitals and outpatient clinics in eight countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to continue a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz (600 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02345226., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 27, 2015, 875 participants were randomly assigned and treated (438 with rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide and 437 with efavirenz, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Viral suppression at week 48 was maintained in 394 (90%) of 438 participants assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide regimen and 402 (92%) of 437 assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen (difference -2·0%, 95·001% CI -5·9 to 1·8), demonstrating non-inferiority. 56 (13%) of 438 in participants in the rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group experienced treatment-related adverse events compared with 45 (10%) of 437 in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group., Interpretation: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Antiretroviral therapy (ART) simplification to a single-tablet regimen can benefit HIV-1-infected, virologically suppressed, individuals on ART composed of multiple pills., Objective: We assessed long-term efficacy and safety of switching to co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/TDF) from multi-tablet ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI + RTV) plus F/TDF (TVD) regimens., Methods: STRATEGY-PI was a 96-week, phase 3b, randomized (2:1), open-label, non-inferiority study examining the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to E/C/F/TDF from PI + RTV + TVD regimens in virologically suppressed individuals (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL). Participants were randomized to switch to E/C/F/TDF (switch group) or to continue their PI + RTV + TVD regimens (no-switch group). Eligibility criteria included no resistance to F/TDF or history of virologic failure, and estimated creatinine clearance ≥70 mL/min., Results: At week 96, 87% (252/290) of switch and 70% (97/139) of no-switch participants maintained HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (difference: 17%, 95% CI 8.7-26.0%, p < 0.001). Superiority of the switch to E/C/F/TDF vs. no-switch was due to a smaller proportion of both virologic failures (switch, 1% [3/290]; no-switch, 6% [8/139]) and discontinuations for non-virologic reasons (switch, 11% [31/290]; no-switch, 24% [33/139]). No treatment-emergent resistance was observed in switch subjects with virologic failure. Discontinuation rates from adverse events were 3% in both groups (9/293, switch; 4/140, no-switch). Switching from PI + RTV + TVD to E/C/F/TDF was associated with significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes related to gastrointestinal symptoms (nausea and bloating)., Conclusion: E/C/F/TDF is a safe, effective long-term alternative to multi-tablet PI + RTV + TVD-based regimens in virologically suppressed, HIV-1-infected adults, and improves patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms.

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide, a tenofovir prodrug, results in 90% lower tenofovir plasma concentrations than does tenofovir disproxil fumarate, thereby minimising bone and renal risks. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a single-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with remaining on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 119 hospitals in 11 countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of either rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to remain on a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo, once daily for 96 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug and were on the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen before screening were included in primary efficacy analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with less than 50 copies per mL of plasma HIV-1 RNA at week 48 (by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 25, 2015, 630 participants were randomised (316 to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 314 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, 296 (94%) of 316 participants on tenofovir alafenamide and 294 (94%) of 313 on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had maintained less than 50 copies per mL HIV-1 RNA (difference -0·3%, 95·001% CI -4·2 to 3·7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Numbers of adverse events were similar between groups. 20 (6%) of 316 participants had study-drug related adverse events in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 37 (12%) of 314 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group; none of these were serious., Interpretation: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to continuing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: The standard of care for HIV treatment is a three-drug regimen consisting of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and either a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, a protease inhibitor (PI) or an integrase strand transfer inhibitor. Darunavir boosted with ritonavir (DRV/r) is the only preferred PI in the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) HIV treatment guidelines for antiretroviral-naïve patients, recommended in combination with tenofovir/emtricitabine for antiretroviral-naïve patients. For treatment-experienced and certain antiretroviral-naïve patients, abacavir and lamivudine (ABC/3TC) in combination with DRV/r is considered an effective and tolerable alternative, despite limited research on the effectiveness of this particular combination. This study evaluated virologic outcomes in treatment-experienced patients taking ABC/3TC + DRV/r compared to treatment-experienced patients taking ABC/3TC with any other PI., Methods: Treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients initiating their first regimen containing ABC/3TC in combination with any PI in the year 2005 or later were selected from the Observational Pharmaco-Epidemiology Research and Analysis (OPERA ® ) cohort, a prospective observational cohort reflecting routine medical care. Viral load measurements taken during follow-up were compared between patients taking ABC/3TC + DRV/r and ABC/3TC with a PI other than DRV/r. Logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between regimen exposure and viral load suppression., Results: A total of 151 patients initiating ABC/3TC + DRV/r and 525 patients initiating ABC/3TC + a non-darunavir PI were included. Patients in both treatment groups had comparable clinical indicators (viral load, CD4) at baseline. A regimen of ABC/3TC + DRV/r was more likely to be prescribed in the later years of the study period, leading to a shorter median follow-up in the DRV/r treatment group (as-treated analysis: 14 vs. 17 months, p = 0.04; intent-to-treat analysis: 33 vs. 68 months, p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for year of regimen initiation, among other factors, indicated no statistically significant differences in achieving an undetectable viral load for patients taking DRV/r with ABC/3TC compared with other PIs, both in the as-treated (odds ratio [95 % confidence interval]: 0.84 [0.53-1.34]) and intent-to-treat analyses (0.82 [0.48-1.40]). Patients in both treatment groups also showed similar reductions in viral load (median darunavir vs. non-darunavir: -23.0 vs. -23.0 copies/mL; p = 0.72) and gains in CD4 T cell counts (median darunavir vs. non-darunavir: 106 vs. 108 cells/mm 3 ; p = 0.59] while being treated with the regimen of interest., Conclusions: Patients receiving ABC/3TC + DRV/r appear to experience similar treatment benefit to patients taking ABC/3TC with other PIs in terms of achieving suppression, as well as absolute reductions in viral load and CD4 lymphocyte gains., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Funding This work was support by a project grant from ViiV Healthcare, which was performed using Epividian’s OPERA® database. ViiV Healthcare had no editorial control in the content of this article or involvement in the design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of this study. Conflicts of interest Philip Lackey is a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Anthony Mills has received research support and served as a consultant for Gilead Sciences, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, EMD Serono, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and has received lecture fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Merck. He is also a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Felix Carpio is a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Ricky Hsu has received research support from Gilead Sciences, and has served as a consultant and received lecture honoraria from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and AbbVie. Edwin DeJesus is a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Gerald Pierone is a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Cassidy Henegar is an employee of Epividian. Jennifer Fusco is an employee of Epividian and a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Gregory Fusco is chairperson for the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Michael Wohlfeiler has served as a consultant for ViiV Healthcare, and has received lecture honoraria from EMD Serono and Gilead Sciences. He is also a member of the OPERA® Clinical and Epidemiological Advisory Board. Ethical approval All procedures in this study were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration (and its amendments). No approval by ethical committee or institutional review board was needed. Analysis was performed on de-identified patient data collected for routine clinical purposes.

Background: Emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is a standard-of-care nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone. However, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is associated with renal and bone toxic effects; the novel prodrug tenofovir alafenamide achieves 90% lower plasma tenofovir concentrations. We aimed to further assess safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination emtricitabine with tenofovir alafenamide in patients switched from emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this controlled, double-blind, multicentre phase 3 study, we recruited virologically suppressed (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL) patients with HIV aged 18 years and older receiving regimens containing fixed-dose combination emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumartate from 78 sites in North America and Europe. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to fixed-dose 200 mg emtricitabine with 10 mg or 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide or to continue 200 mg emtricitabine with 200 mg or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, while remaining on the same third agent for 96 weeks. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence and was stratified by the third agent (boosted protease inhibitor vs other agent). Investigators, patients, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients 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 10%. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed with the per-protocol analysis set, whereas the safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02121795., Findings: We recruited patients between May 6, 2011, and Sept 11, 2014; 780 were screened and 668 were randomly assigned to receive either tenofovir alafenamide (n=333) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=330). Through week 48, virological success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) was maintained in 314 (94%) of patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 307 (93%) in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (difference 1·3%, 95% CI -2·5 to 5·1), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disproxil fumarate. Seven patients in the tenofovir alafenamide (2%) and three (1%) in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group discontinued due to adverse events. There were no cases of proximal renal tubulopathy in either group., Interpretation: In patients switching from emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to emtricitabine with tenofovir alafenamide, high rates of virological suppression were maintained. With its safety advantages, fixed-dose emtricitabine with tenofovir alafenamide has the potential to become an important NRTI backbone., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: 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., Design: A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 2b trial at 43 institutions (USA and Puerto Rico)., Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: CVC showed efficacy and favorable safety in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected study participants, supporting selection of CVC200 for phase 3 studies., Trial Registration: NCT01338883.

Objectives: HIV treatment guidelines endorse switching or simplification of antiretroviral therapy in therapy-experienced patients with suppressed viraemia; ritonavir discontinuation may also enhance tolerability and reduce long-term adverse events (AEs). This open-label, multicentre, noninferiority study enrolled HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced adults with confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≤ 75 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL currently receiving tenofovir/emtricitabine + atazanavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC + ATV/r) for ≥ 6 months with no reported history of virological failure., Methods: Participants were randomized 1:2 to continue current treatment or switch to abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir (ABC/3TC + ATV). Endpoints included the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL by time to loss of virological response (TLOVR), AEs, fasting lipids, and inflammatory, coagulation, bone and renal biomarkers., Results: After 48 weeks, 76% (152 of 199) of ABC/3TC + ATV-treated and 79% (77 of 97) of TDF/FTC + ATV/r-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL (TLOVR; P = 0.564). Other efficacy analyses yielded similar results. Rates of new grade 2-4 AEs were 45% in both groups, but an excess of hyperbilirubinaemia made the rate of treatment-emergent grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities higher with TDF/FTC + ATV/r (36%) compared with ABC/3TC + ATV (19%). Most fasting lipid levels remained stable over time; high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increased modestly in ABC/3TC + ATV-treated participants. Bone and renal biomarkers improved significantly between baseline and week 48 in participants taking ABC/3TC + ATV and were stable in participants taking TDF/FTC + ATV/r. No significant changes occurred in any inflammatory or coagulation biomarker within or between treatment groups., Conclusions: The ABC/3TC + ATV treatment-switch group had similar viral suppression rates up to 48 weeks to the TDF/FTC + ATV/r comparator group, with lower rates of moderate- to high-grade hyperbilirubinaemia and improvements in bone and renal biomarkers., (© 2015 ViiV Healthcare. HIV Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British HIV Association.)

Background: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736., Findings: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group., Interpretation: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cobicistat (COBI) is a pharmacoenhancer with no antiretroviral activity., Methods: International, randomized double-blind active-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COBI vs ritonavir (RTV) as a pharmacoenhancer of atazanavir in combination with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV treatment-naive patients followed through week 144., Results: At Week 144, virologic suppression was achieved in 72% (COBI) and 74% (RTV) of patients. Adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation occurred in 11% of patients in each group. Median changes in serum creatinine (mg/dL) were +0.13 (COBI) and +0.07 (RTV) and were unchanged from week 48., Conclusions: Once-daily COBI is a safe and effective pharmacoenhancer of the protease inhibitor atazanavir.

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.)

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of lersivirine versus etravirine in patients with HIV-1 and prior non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) use and evidence of NNRTI resistance., Methods: In this 96-week, phase 2b study, 97 patients were randomized and treated with lersivirine 750 mg qd (n = 31), lersivirine 1,000 mg qd (n = 32), and etravirine 200 mg bid (n = 34), plus one optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24., Results: At week 24, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL was achieved by fewer patients receiving lersivirine 750 mg (48.4%) and 1,000 mg (43.8%) qd compared with etravirine 200 mg qd (67.7%) (intention to treat [ITT], missing/switch/discontinuation equals failure [MSDF]). At week 48, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL and <400 copies/mL were also achieved by fewer patients receiving lersivirine 750 mg (41.9% and 41.9%, respectively) and 1,000 mg (31.3% and 34.4%, respectively) qd compared with etravirine 200 mg bid (61.8% and 70.6%, respectively) (ITT, MSDF). Least squares means (SE) change from baseline in log transformed HIV-1 RNA at week 48 was -1.42 (0.27) and -0.95 (0.28) copies/mL for lersivirine 750 mg and 1,000 mg qd, respectively, versus -2.02 (0.26) copies/mL for etravirine 200 mg bid (ITT). Lersivirine and etravirine were generally safe and well-tolerated., Conclusions: Lersivirine 750 mg and 1,000 mg qd was associated with lower rates of viral suppression at week 24 and week 48 versus etravirine in patients with prior NNRTI use and evidence of NNRTI resistance. No new safety signals were detected.

Objective: Simplification of antiretroviral therapy in patients with suppressed viremia may minimize long-term adverse effects. The study's primary objective was to determine whether abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir (ABC/3TC+ATV) was virologically non-inferior to tenofovir/emtricitabine + atazanavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC+ATV/r) over 24 weeks in a population of virologically suppressed, HIV-1 infected patients., Design: This open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority study enrolled antiretroviral experienced, HIV-infected adults currently receiving a regimen of TDF/FTC+ATV/r for ≥ 6 months with no history of virologic failure and whose HIV-1 RNA had been ≤ 75 copies/mL on 2 consecutive measurements including screening. Patients were randomized 1 ∶ 2 to continue current treatment or simplify to ABC/3TC+ATV., Methods: The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-RNA<50 copies/mL at Week 24 by the Time to Loss of Virologic Response (TLOVR) algorithm. Secondary endpoints included alternative measures of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and fasting lipids. Exploratory endpoints included inflammatory, coagulation, bone, and renal biomarkers., Results: After 24 weeks, ABC/3TC+ATV (n = 199) was non-inferior to TDF/FTC+ATV/r (n = 97) by both the primary analysis (87% in both groups) and all secondary efficacy analyses. Rates of grade 2-4 AEs were similar between the two groups (40% vs 37%, respectively), but an excess of hyperbilirubinemia made the rate of grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities higher in the TDF/FTC+ATV/r group (30%) compared with the ABC/3TC+ATV group (13%). Lipid levels were stable except for HDL cholesterol, which increased significantly in the ABC/3TC+ATV group. Bone and renal biomarkers improved significantly between baseline and Week 24 in patients taking ABC/3TC+ATV, and the difference between groups was significant at Week 24. No significant changes occurred in any inflammatory or coagulation biomarker within or between treatment groups., Conclusions: After 24 weeks, simplification to ABC/3TC+ATV from TDF/FTC+ATV/r maintained viral suppression was well-tolerated, and led to improvements in bone and renal biomarkers and HDL cholesterol., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01102972 GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Study Register #113734.

Objective: Maraviroc, a chemokine co-receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonist, has demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to efavirenz, each in combination with zidovudine/lamivudine, over 96 weeks in the Maraviroc vs. Efavirenz Regimens as Initial Therapy (MERIT) study. Here we report 5-year findings., Design: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter phase IIb/III study with an open-label extension phase., Methods: Treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1 infection (Trofile) received maraviroc 300 mg twice daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, and zidovudine/lamivudine 300 mg/150 mg twice daily. After the last patient's week 96 visit, the study was unblinded and patients could enter a nominal 3-year open-label phase. Endpoints at the 5-year nominal visit (week 240) included proportion of patients (CCR5 tropism re-confirmed by enhanced sensitivity Trofile) with viral load (plasma HIV-1 RNA) below 50 and 400 copies/ml, and change from baseline in CD4(+) cell count, as well as safety., Results: The proportion of patients maintaining viral load below 50 copies/ml was similar between treatment arms throughout the study and at week 240 (maraviroc 50.8% vs. efavirenz 45.9%). Maraviroc-treated patients had a greater increase from baseline in mean CD4(+) cell count than efavirenz-treated patients at week 240 (293 vs. 271 cells/μl, respectively). Fewer patients on maraviroc vs. efavirenz experienced treatment-related adverse events (68.9 vs. 81.7%) and discontinued as a result of any adverse event (10.6 vs. 21.3%)., Conclusion: Maraviroc maintained similar long-term antiviral efficacy to efavirenz over 5 years in treatment-naive patients with CCR5-tropic HIV-1. Maraviroc was generally well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings or evidence of long-term safety concerns.

Background: The impact of boosted protease inhibitor therapy on inflammatory and cardiovascular biomarker levels in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients remains unclear and may differ between agents. Unconjugated bilirubin elevation, which favourably affects vascular biomarkers and cardiovascular disease risk in Gilbert's syndrome, occurs with atazanavir., Methods: CASTLE was a 96-week study comparing efficacy and safety in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients randomized to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), each in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. In this substudy, fasting plasma tumour necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) and fibrinogen were assessed at baseline, week 12, 24, 48 and 96. Impact of grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinaemia on biomarkers was examined., Results: CASTLE demonstrated similar efficacy in both treatment arms with higher rates of hyperbilirubinaemia on ATV/r and elevated lipids on LPV/r. In this substudy (n=224), patterns of biomarker expression were similar between the ATV/r and LPV/r groups and between-group differences in biomarker percentage change from baseline were not significant at 48 and/or 96 weeks. Hyperbilirubinaemia did not influence fasting biomarker expression., Conclusions: No significant differences were noted between ATV/r and LPV/r for biomarker percentage changes from baseline. Furthermore, no association was found between total bilirubin levels and biomarker expression.

Background: Fosdevirine (GSK2248761) is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor with HIV-1 activity against common efavirenz-resistant strains. Two partially blind, randomized, Phase IIb studies were initiated (1 in treatment-naive and 1 in treatment-experienced subjects with HIV) to select a once-daily dose of fosdevirine for Phase III trials., Methods: In the SIGNET study, treatment-naive subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive once-daily fosdevirine 100 or 200 mg or efavirenz 600 mg, each along with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine 300 mg/200 mg or abacavir/lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg. In the SONNET study, treatment-experienced subjects with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 were randomized 1:1:1 to treatment with fosdevirine 100 or 200 mg once daily or etravirine 200 mg twice daily, each along with twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg and raltegravir 400 mg. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml. Safety and pharmacokinetics were also addressed., Results: A total of 35 subjects were exposed to fosdevirine 100 or 200 mg. Trials were halted when 5 treatment-experienced subjects (1 receiving fosdevirine 100 mg, 4 receiving fosdevirine 200 mg) developed new-onset seizures after ≥4 weeks of exposure to fosdevirine. There was no clear association between seizures and fosdevirine plasma drug levels. Time to seizure onset ranged from 28 to 81 days, and all 5 subjects experienced ≥1 seizure after drug discontinuation., Conclusions: The delayed onset of seizures after fosdevirine exposure and persistence after discontinuation is without precedent in antiretroviral drug development, leading to additional investigation and underscoring the need for careful subject monitoring.

Objectives: The introduction of two new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) in the past 5 years and the identification of novel NNRTI-associated mutations have made it necessary to reassess the extent of phenotypic NNRTI cross-resistance., Methods: We analysed a dataset containing 1975, 1967, 519 and 187 genotype-phenotype correlations for nevirapine, efavirenz, etravirine and rilpivirine, respectively. We used linear regression to estimate the effects of RT mutations on susceptibility to each of these NNRTIs., Results: Sixteen mutations at 10 positions were significantly associated with the greatest contribution to reduced phenotypic susceptibility (≥10-fold) to one or more NNRTIs, including: 14 mutations at six positions for nevirapine (K101P, K103N/S, V106A/M, Y181C/I/V, Y188C/L and G190A/E/Q/S); 10 mutations at six positions for efavirenz (L100I, K101P, K103N, V106M, Y188C/L and G190A/E/Q/S); 5 mutations at four positions for etravirine (K101P, Y181I/V, G190E and F227C); and 6 mutations at five positions for rilpivirine (L100I, K101P, Y181I/V, G190E and F227C). G190E, a mutation that causes high-level nevirapine and efavirenz resistance, also markedly reduced susceptibility to etravirine and rilpivirine. K101H, E138G, V179F and M230L mutations, associated with reduced susceptibility to etravirine and rilpivirine, were also associated with reduced susceptibility to nevirapine and/or efavirenz., Conclusions: The identification of novel cross-resistance patterns among approved NNRTIs illustrates the need for a systematic approach for testing novel NNRTIs against clinical virus isolates with major NNRTI-resistance mutations and for testing older NNRTIs against virus isolates with mutations identified during the evaluation of a novel NNRTI.

Background: Due to ongoing neuropsychiatric adverse events in some efavirenz (EFV)-treated patients, a switch to an alternative non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor may be considered. Rilpivirine (RPV) has been coformulated as a single-tablet regimen (STR) with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF), and the components have demonstrated noninferior efficacy to EFV+FTC/TDF, good tolerability profile, and high adherence. After discontinuation, EFV has an extended inductive effect on cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 that, after switching, may reduce RPV exposures and adversely impact clinical outcomes., Objective: This study examines the clinical implications of reduced RPV exposures with concomitant FTC/TDF and declining EFV exposures when patients, intolerant to EFV, switch from EFV/FTC/TDF to RPV/FTC/TDF., Methods: This 48-week, phase 2b, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching from EFV/FTC/TDF (≥3 months duration) to RPV/FTC/TDF. Virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL), safety, and EFV and RPV pharmacokinetics were assessed., Results: At weeks 12 and 24, all 49 dosed subjects remained suppressed on RPV/FTC/TDF. At week 48, 46 (93.9%) subjects remained suppressed and virologic failure occurred in 2/49 (4.1%) subjects with no emergence of resistance. EFV concentrations were above the 90th percentile for inhibitory concentration (IC90) for several weeks after EFV discontinuation, and RPV exposures were in the range observed in phase 3 studies by approximately 2 weeks post switch. No subjects discontinued the study due to an adverse event., Conclusions: Switching from EFV/FTC/TDF to RPV/FTC/ TDF was a safe, efficacious option for virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients with EFV intolerance wishing to remain on an STR.

Background:  Cobicistat (COBI) is a pharmacoenhancer with no antiretroviral activity in vitro., Methods:  An international, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of COBI versus ritonavir (RTV) as a pharmacoenhancer of atazanavir (ATV) in combination with emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in treatment-naive patients. The primary end point was a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA load of <50 copies/mL at week 48 by the Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm; the noninferiority margin was 12%., Results:  A total of 692 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment arm and received study drug (344 in the COBI group vs 348 in the RTV group). At week 48, virologic success was achieved in 85% of COBI recipients and 87% of RTV recipients (difference, -2.2% [95% confidence interval, -7.4% to 3.0%]); among patients with a baseline HIV-1 RNA load of >100 000 copies/mL, rates were similar (86% vs 86%). Similar percentages of patients in both groups had serious adverse events (10% of COBI recipients vs 7% of RTV recipients) and adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment with the study drug (7% vs 7%). Median increases in the serum creatinine level were 0.13 and 0.09 mg/dL, respectively, for COBI and RTV recipients., Conclusions:  COBI was noninferior to RTV in combination with ATV plus FTC/TDF at week 48. Both regimens achieved high rates of virologic success. Safety and tolerability profiles of the 2 regimens were comparable. Once-daily COBI is a safe and effective pharmacoenhancer of the protease inhibitor ATV.

Background: Rates of cardiovascular disease are higher among HIV-infected patients as a result of the complex interplay between traditional risk factors, HIV-related inflammatory and immunologic changes, and effects of antiretroviral therapy (ART). This study prospectively evaluated changes in cardiovascular biomarkers in an underrepresented, racially diverse, HIV-1-infected population receiving abacavir/lamivudine as backbone therapy., Methods: This 96-week, open-label, randomized, multicenter study compared once-daily fosamprenavir/ritonavir 1400/100 mg and efavirenz 600 mg, both with ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg, in antiretroviral-naïve, HLA-B*5701-negative adults without major resistance mutations to study drugs. We evaluated changes from baseline to weeks 4, 12, 24, 48, and 96 in interleukin-6 (IL-6), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), soluble vascular adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1), d-dimer, plasminogen, and fibrinogen. Biomarker data were log-transformed before analysis, and changes from baseline were described using geometric mean ratios., Results: This study enrolled 101 patients (51 receiving fosamprenavir/ritonavir; 50 receiving efavirenz): 32% female, 60% African American, and 38% Hispanic/Latino; 66% (67/101) completed 96 weeks on study. At week 96, levels of IL-6, sVCAM-1, d-dimer, fibrinogen, and plasminogen were lower than baseline in both treatment groups, and the decrease was statistically significant for sVCAM-1 (fosamprenavir/ritonavir and efavirenz), d-dimer (fosamprenavir/ritonavir and efavirenz), fibrinogen (efavirenz), and plasminogen (efavirenz). Values of hs-CRP varied over time in both groups, with a significant increase over baseline at Weeks 4 and 24 in the efavirenz group. At week 96, there was no difference between the groups in the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (fosamprenavir/ritonavir 63%; efavirenz 66%) by ITT missing-equals-failure analysis. Treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events were more common with efavirenz (32%) compared with fosamprenavir/ritonavir (20%), and median lipid concentrations increased in both groups over 96 weeks of treatment., Conclusions: In this study of underrepresented patients, treatment with abacavir/lamivudine combined with either fosamprenavir/ritonavir or efavirenz over 96 weeks, produced stable or declining biomarker levels except for hs-CRP, including significant and favorable decreases in thrombotic activity (reflected by d-dimer) and endothelial activation (reflected by sVCAM-1). Our study adds to the emerging data that some cardiovascular biomarkers are decreased with initiation of ART and control of HIV viremia., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00727597.

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.

Background: STARTMRK, a phase III noninferiority trial of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based therapy in treatment-naive patients, remained blinded until its conclusion at 5 years. We now report the final study results., Methods: Previously untreated patients without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were eligible for a randomized study of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus either raltegravir or efavirenz. Yearly analyses were planned, with primary and secondary end points stipulated at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients with viral RNA (vRNA) levels <50 copies per milliliter counting noncompleters as failures (NC=F). Changes from baseline CD4 count were computed using an observed-failure approach to missing data. No formal hypotheses were formulated for testing at week 240., Results: Overall, 71 of 281 raltegravir recipients (25%) and 98 of 282 efavirenz recipients (35%) discontinued the study; discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 14 (5%) and 28 (10%) patients in the respective groups. In the primary NC=F efficacy analysis at week 240, 198 of 279 (71.0%) raltegravir recipients and 171 of 279 (61.3%) efavirenz recipients had vRNA levels <50 copies per milliliter, yielding a treatment difference {Δ [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 9.5 (1.7 to 17.3)}. Generally comparable between-treatment differences were seen in both the protocol-stipulated sensitivity analyses and the prespecified subgroup analyses. The mean (95% CI) increments in baseline CD4 counts at week 240 were 374 and 312 cells per cubic millimeter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ(95% CI) = 62 (22 to 102)]. Overall, significantly fewer raltegravir than efavirenz recipients experienced neuropsychiatric side effects (39.1% vs 64.2%, P < 0.001) or drug-related clinical adverse events (52.0% vs 80.1%, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis of combination therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients at week 240, vRNA suppression rates and increases in baseline CD4 counts were significantly higher in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients. Over the entire study, fewer patients experienced neuropsychiatric and drug-related adverse events in the raltegravir group than in the efavirenz group. Based on better virologic and immunologic outcomes after 240 weeks, raltegravir/tenofovir/emtricitabine seemed to have superior efficacy compared with efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine.

This ongoing, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled phase 3 international trial demonstrated the noninferior efficacy of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF) compared with atazanavir boosted by ritonavir (ATV/RTV) plus emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) at 48 weeks. Here, we report the week 96 results. Of 708 treated subjects, virological success (Food and Drug Administration snapshot) was maintained at week 96 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF (83% vs 82%, difference 1.1%, 95% confidence interval -4.5% to 6.7%). Study drug discontinuations due to adverse events were low (4% vs 6%). Median increases from baseline in serum Cr (mg/dL) in EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF vs ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF at week 96 (0.12 vs 0.08) were similar to those at week 48 (0.12 vs 0.08). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF showed similar mean decreases (%) in bone mineral density from baseline vs ATV/RTV + FTC/TDF (hip: -3.16 vs -4.19, P = 0.069; spine: -1.96 vs -3.54, P = 0.049). Overall, week 96 results support durable efficacy and safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF in HIV-1-infected patients.

Background: The open-label study ARIES (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00440947) utilized a ritonavir (/r)-boosted protease inhibitor treatment simplification strategy. Antiretroviral-naïve subjects received abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) + atazanavir/ ritonavir (ATV/r) from baseline through randomization at week 36, then maintained or discontinued ritonavir for an additional 108 weeks. Non-inferiority of the unboosted regimen was demonstrated at week 84. In this optional extension phase, virologic suppression and adverse events were assessed through week 144., Methods: Patients were randomized at week 36 if they had confirmed HIV RNA <50 copies/mL by week 30 and no previous virologic failure (VF; defined as failure to achieve HIV RNA <400 copies/mL or confirmed rebound after achieving HIV RNA ≥400 copies/mL). Three hundred sixty-nine subjects who completed 84 weeks in ARIES participated in the extension phase and maintained their randomized regimen for an additional 60 weeks post randomization., Results: At week 144, 146/189 (77%) versus 132/180 (73%) subjects in the unboosted ATV and ATV/r groups, respectively, maintained HIV RNA <50 copies/mL. Post randomization (weeks 36-144), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events were more common in the ATV/r-treated (23%) compared to the ATV-treated (13%) group; the most frequently reported was increased serum bilirubin (6% of ATV-treated subjects vs 14 % of ATV/r-treated subjects). During the extension phase, 3% (11/369) of subjects met protocol-defined VF (5 ATV-treated and 6 ATV/ r-treated subjects); one ATV/r-treated subject had treatment-emergent major viral resistance-associated mutations. The median change in fasting triglycerides from baseline to week 144 was significantly different (P=.001) in the ATV-treated (-8.5 mg/dL) compared to the ATV/r-treated (28.5 mg/dL) groups., Conclusions: These long-term study results demonstrate that ATV in combination with ABC/3TC is a potent, well-tolerated regimen in patients who have achieved initial suppression on a ritonavir-boosted regimen.

We compared 4 years of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine and either raltegravir or efavirenz from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Through 192 weeks, raltegravir produced durable and consistent viral suppression and immune restoration compared with efavirenz irrespective of baseline demographic and prognostic factors, including in patients with high viral loads.

Background: The HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) into a once-daily, single tablet. We compared EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with a ritonavir-boosted (RTV) protease inhibitor regimen of atazanavir (ATV)/RTV+FTC/TDF as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection., Methods: This phase 3, non-inferiority study enrolled treatment-naive patients with an HIV-1 RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more and susceptibility to atazanavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF plus matching placebos, administered once daily. Randomisation was by a computer-generated random sequence, accessed via an interactive telephone and web response system. Patients, and investigators and study staff who gave treatments, assessed outcomes, or analysed data were masked to the assignment. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of 50 copies per mL or less after 48 weeks (according to the US FDA snapshot algorithm), with a 12% non-inferiority margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106586., Findings: 1017 patients were screened, 715 were enrolled, and 708 were treated (353 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and 355 with ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF for the primary outcome (316 patients [89·5%] vs 308 patients [86·8%], adjusted difference 3·0%, 95% CI -1·9% to 7·8%). Both regimens had favourable safety and tolerability; 13 (3·7%) versus 18 (5·1%) patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Fewer patients receiving EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF had abnormal results in liver function tests than did those receiving ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF and had smaller median increases in fasting triglyceride concentration (90 μmol/L vs 260 μmol/L, p=0·006). Small median increases in serum creatinine concentration with accompanying decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate occurred in both study groups by week 2; they generally stabilised by week 8 and did not change up to week 48 (median change 11 μmol/L vs 7 μmol/L)., Interpretation: If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the first integrase-inhibitor-based regimen given once daily and the only one formulated as a single tablet for initial HIV treatment., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in a single tablet given once daily. We compared the efficacy and safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with standard of care-co-formulated efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF-as initial treatment for HIV infection., Methods: In this phase 3 trial, treatment-naive patients from outpatient clinics in North America were randomly assigned by computer-generated allocation sequence with a block size of four in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF, once daily, plus matching placebo. Patients and study staff involved in giving study treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting and analysing data were masked to treatment allocation. Eligibility criteria included screening HIV RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more, and susceptibility to efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01095796., Findings: 700 patients were randomly assigned and treated (348 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, 352 with EFV/FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF; 305/348 (87·6%) versus 296/352 (84·1%) of patients had HIV RNA concentrations of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (difference 3·6%, 95% CI -1·6% to 8·8%). Proportions of patients discontinuing drugs for adverse events did not differ substantially (13/348 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group vs 18/352 in the EFV/FTC/TDF group). Nausea was more common with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF than with EFV/FTC/TDF (72/348 vs 48/352) and dizziness (23/348 vs 86/352), abnormal dreams (53/348 vs 95/352), insomnia (30/348 vs 49/352), and rash (22/348 vs 43/352) were less common. Serum creatinine concentration increased more by week 48 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group than in the EFV/FTC/TDF group (median 13 μmol/L, IQR 5 to 20 vs 1 μmol/L, -6 to 8; p<0·001)., Interpretation: If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the only single-tablet, once-daily, integrase-inhibitor-based regimen for initial treatment of HIV infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nucleoside and ritonavir (RTV) toxicities have led to increased interest in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and RTV-sparing antiretroviral regimens. SPARTAN was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noncomparative pilot study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and resistance profile of an investigational NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen (experimental atazanavir [ATV] dose 300 mg bid + raltegravir [RAL] 400 mg bid [ATV+RAL]). The reference regimen consisted of ATV 300 mg/RTV 100 mg qd + tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg/emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg qd (ATV/r+TDF/FTC)., Methods: Treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA ≥5,000 copies/mL were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily ATV+RAL (n=63) or once-daily ATV/r+TDF/FTC (n=31). Efficacy at 24 weeks was determined by confirmed virologic response (CVR; HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) with noncom-pleters counted as failures based on all treated subjects., Results: The proportion of patients with CVR HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 74.6% (47/63) in the ATV+RAL arm and 63.3% (19/30) in the ATV/r+TDF/FTC arm. Systemic exposure to ATV in the ATV+RAL regimen was higher than historically observed with ATV/r+TDF/ FTC. Incidence of Grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia was higher on ATV+RAL (20.6%; 13/63) than on ATV/r+TDF/FTC (0%). The criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [VF]: HIV-RNA ≥400 copies/mL) was met in 6/63 patients on ATV+RAL, and 1/30 on ATV/r+TDF/FTC; 4 VFs on ATV+RAL developed RAL resistance., Conclusions: ATV+RAL, an experimental NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen, achieved virologic suppression rates comparable to current standards of care for treatment-naïve patients. The overall profile did not appear optimal for further clinical development given its development of resistance to RAL and higher rates of hyperbilirubinemia with twice-daily ATV compared with ATV/RTV.

Background: We report data from NEWART, a randomised phase 4 clinical trial comparing virologic efficacy and safety of nevirapine (NVP) vs. ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) on a background of tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) in HIV-1-infected treatment-naïve patients. This study enrolled patients according to CD4-based initiation criteria for NVP (<250 cells/mm(3) for women and <400 cells/mm(3) for men), to reduce the likelihood of symptomatic hepatic events. NEWART was designed to support and confirm results from ARTEN, an international trial with similar design and study endpoints., Methods: A total of 152 patients were randomised 1 : 1 to open-label NVP 200 mg twice daily or ATV/r (300/100 mg) once daily, plus once daily TDF/FTC (300/200 mg). All participants met CD4(+) guidelines at entry. The primary endpoint for non-inferiority was virologic response prior to and at week 48 (confirmed HIV plasma viral load <50 copies/ml, without rebound or change in ARVs). Safety data, including plasma lipids, were recorded throughout the study., Results: The primary endpoint was achieved in 46/75 (61.3%) and 50/77 (64.9%) of patients taking NVP and ATV/r, respectively. Frequency of adverse events (AEs) was similar between arms, with 88.0% of NVP-treated patients and 94.8% of ATV/r-treated patients experiencing at least one AE. Nine patients (12%) in each arm experienced an AE that led to discontinuation. At week 48, a significantly greater increase was seen in mean plasma HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) in the NVP arm (9.6 mg/dl) vs. the ATV/r arm (3.5 mg/dl); p = 0.016. Also, total cholesterol (TC):HDL-C ratio on-treatment was -0.38 and -0.02 for the NVP and ATV/r arms, respectively (p = 0.038)., Conclusions: Efficacy results were consistent with the ARTEN study demonstrating that NVP was non-inferior to ATV/r when taken in combination with TDF/FTC. Rates of AEs were similar between the two arms, whereas HDL-C increased and TC:HDL-C decreased significantly more in patients taking NVP than ATV/r., (© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)