Search

Objectives Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) is an effective treatment for HIV-1 infection; however, clinical trial data in older people living with HIV (PLWH) are lacking. The primary 24-week and secondary 48-week analyses of study GS-US-380-4449 (NCT03405935), which assessed the efficacy and safety of switching to B/F/TAF in older PLWH, have been published. Here we report the results of the final 96-week analyses from the study. Methods In this 96-week, phase 3b, open-label, single-arm trial, virologically suppressed PLWH aged >= 65 years switched from elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide or a tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-based regimen to B/F/TAF. Viral suppression, resistance, immune response, safety, tolerability and adherence were evaluated through week 96. Results Of 90 participants screened, 86 were enrolled and switched to B/F/TAF. No participants had HIV-1 RNA >= 50 copies/ml (by FDA Snapshot algorithm) at weeks 72 or 96; virologic suppression rates were 94.2% (81/86; 95% CI 87.0-98.1) and 74.4% (64/86; 95% CI 63.9-83.2), respectively. No treatment-emergent resistance was observed, and CD4 counts remained stable. There were no study drug-related serious adverse events. Three participants experienced drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events that led to premature drug discontinuation. There were no clinically relevant changes from baseline to week 96 in fasting lipid parameters, and the median change in body weight at week 96 was 0.0 kg (IQR -2.3, 2.0). Median self-reported adherence was 100% (IQR 100-100%). Conclusions Switching to B/F/TAF is an effective long-term option for virologically suppressed adults >= 65 years of age, with favourable safety and tolerability profiles in this population.

We investigated the prevalence of preexisting M184V/I and associated risk factors among clinical trial participants with suppressed HIV and evaluated the impact of M184V/I on virologic response after switching to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF).Participant data were pooled from six clinical trials investigating the safety and efficacy of switching to B/F/TAF in virologically suppressed people with HIV.Preexisting drug resistance was assessed by historical genotypes and/or baseline proviral DNA genotyping. Virologic outcomes were determined by last available on-treatment HIV-1 RNA. Stepwise selection identified potential risk factors for M184V/I in a multivariate logistic regression model.Altogether, 2034 participants switched treatment regimens to B/F/TAF and had follow-up HIV-1 RNA data, and 1825 of these participants had baseline genotypic data available. Preexisting M184V/I was identified in 182 (10%), mostly by baseline proviral DNA genotype ( n = 167). Most substitutions were M184V ( n = 161) or M184V/I mixtures ( n = 10). Other resistance substitutions were often detected in addition to M184V/I ( n = 147). At last on-treatment visit, 98% (179/182) with preexisting M184V/I and 99% (2012/2034) of all B/F/TAF-treated participants had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml, with no treatment-emergent resistance to B/F/TAF. Among adult participants, factors associated with preexisting M184V/I included other resistance, black race, Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, lower baseline CD4 + cell count, advanced HIV disease, longer duration of antiretroviral therapy, and greater number of prior third agents.M184V/I was detected in 10% of virologically suppressed clinical trial participants at study baseline. Switching to B/F/TAF demonstrated durable efficacy in maintaining viral suppression, including in those with preexisting M184V/I.

Preexisting drug resistance limits the utility of HIV antiretroviral therapy. Studies have demonstrated safety and efficacy of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF), including in patients with M184V/I substitutions.We investigated virologic outcomes through 48 weeks of B/F/TAF treatment in individuals with preexisting primary integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance (INSTI-R).Preexisting INSTI-R was retrospectively evaluated from 7 B/F/TAF studies. INSTI-R was assessed by historical genotypes and/or baseline RNA or DNA sequencing. Viral loads were measured at all visits.Preexisting primary INSTI-R substitutions were detected in 20 of the 1907 participants (1.0%). The 20 participants were predominantly male (75%), were Black (65%), had HIV-1 subtype B (85%), and had baseline median CD4 counts of 594 cells/mm3 and median age of 52 years. Most of the participants (n = 19) were virologically suppressed at baseline and had one primary INSTI-R substitution, E92G, Y143C/H, S147G, Q148H/K/R, N155S, or R263K, +/-secondary substitutions. All suppressed participants maintained virologic suppression throughout 48 weeks without any viral blips. One treatment-naive participant had virus with Q148H+G140S that was fully sensitive to bictegravir but only partially to dolutegravir (phenotype2.5-fold change and4-fold change, respectively). With a baseline viral load of 30,000 copies/mL, this participant was virologically suppressed by week 4 and maintained50 copies/mL through week 48.This small cohort with primary INSTI-R achieved and/or maintained virologic suppression through 48 weeks of B/F/TAF treatment. Consistent with the potent in vitro activity of bictegravir against most INSTI-R patterns, B/F/TAF may be a potential treatment option for patients with select preexisting INSTI-R, if confirmed by further studies.

Bictegravir is a potent integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (INSTI) with a high genetic barrier to resistance. Bictegravir, coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, is recommended by key European and US HIV treatment guidelines as the preferred single-tablet regimen for adults and adolescents. The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of switching to this regimen in virologically suppressed children and adolescents with HIV.In this single-arm, open-label trial, we enrolled virologically suppressed children and adolescents (aged 6 to18 years) with HIV at 22 hospital clinics in South Africa, Thailand, Uganda, and the USA. Eligible participants had a bodyweight of at least 25 kg, were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA50 copies per mL) on a stable ART regimen for at least 6 months before screening, had a CD4 count of at least 200 cells per μL, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 90 mL/min per 1·73 mBetween Sept 29, 2016 and Feb 16, 2018, we enrolled 102 participants. 100 participants received bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (cohort 1 [adolescents aged 12 to18 years], n=50; cohort 2 [children aged 6 to12 years], n=50). The mean bictegravir AUCIn adolescents and children with HIV, the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide single-tablet regimen was well tolerated and maintained virological suppression. Our data support the treatment of HIV in adolescents and children with this single-tablet regimen. At present, the single-tablet regimen is recommended as first-line treatment in the USA for adolescents and as an alternative regimen in children and has the potential to represent an important regimen in the paediatric population.Gilead Sciences.

Background We sought to identify factors associated with weight gain in randomized clinical trials of antiretroviral therapy (ART) switch. Methods We explored the effects of demographic factors, clinical characteristics, and ART on weight gain in a pooled analysis of 12 prospective clinical trials, wherein virologically suppressed people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) were randomized to switch or remain on a stable baseline regimen (SBR). Results Both PWH randomized to switch ART (n = 4166) and those remaining on SBR (n = 3150) gained weight. Median weight gain was greater in those who switched (1.6 kg, interquartile range [IQR], –.05 to 4.0 vs 0.4 kg, [IQR], –1.8 to 2.4 at 48 weeks, P Conclusions Moderate weight gain after ART switch was common and usually plateaued by 48 weeks. Baseline ART was a predictor of post-switch weight gain; participants who switched off of EFV and TDF had the greatest weight gain. The biological mechanisms that underlie the differential effects of switching ART agents on weight and associated clinical implications require further study.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., Background: With the highest rates of HIV/AIDS in the United States, Black Americans are still underrepresented in HIV medical research. Setting: BRAAVE (NCT03631732) is a randomized, phase 3b, multicenter, open-label US study. Methods: Adults identifying as Black or African American and virologically suppressed on 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus third agent were randomized (2:1) to switch to open-label bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) once daily or stay on baseline regimen (SBR) for 24 weeks, after which SBR had delayed switch to B/F/TAF. Resistance to non-NRTIs, protease inhibitors, and/or NRTIs was permitted; integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance was exclusionary. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 24 (snapshot algorithm; noninferiority margin of 6%). Results: Of 558 screened, 495 were randomized/treated (B/F/TAF n = 330; SBR n = 165). Overall, 32% were ciswomen, 2% transwomen, and 10% had an M184V/I mutation. At week 24, 0.6% on B/F/TAF vs 1.8% on SBR had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (difference −1.2%; 95% confidence interval −4.8% to 0.9%), demonstrating noninferiority of B/F/TAF vs SBR. Proportions with HIV-1 RNA

BACKGROUND Study 4030 was a phase 3, randomized, double-blinded study of 565 HIV-1 RNA-suppressed participants switching to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) or dolutegravir (DTG)+F/TAF. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI), non-NRTI, and protease inhibitor resistance (-R) was allowed, but integrase strand transfer inhibitor-R was excluded. Here, we describe the detailed resistance analysis. METHODS Historical plasma HIV-1 RNA genotypes and baseline proviral DNA genotypes were analyzed. Documented or investigator-suspected NRTI-R was grouped for stratification into 3 categories of level of resistance. Viral blips were assessed through week 48. Virologic failures had genotypic and phenotypic resistance analyses at week 48, confirmed failure, or last visit, if HIV-1 RNA did not resuppress to

Summary Background In the primary week-48 analyses of two phase 3 studies, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to a dolutegravir-containing regimen in treatment-naive people with HIV. We report week-144 efficacy and safety results from these studies. Methods We did two double-blind, active-controlled studies (now in open-label extension phase). Study 1 randomly assigned (1:1) HLA-B*5701-negative adults without hepatitis B virus co-infection to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg once daily. Study 2 randomly assigned (1:1) adults to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, or dolutegravir 50 mg given with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg. We previously reported non-inferiority at the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week-144 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 144, by US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm, analysed in the same manner. These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02607930 and NCT02607956 . Findings 629 participants were randomly assigned and treated in study 1 (314 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 315 to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine) and 645 in study 2 (327 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, 325 to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide). At week 144, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to both dolutegravir-containing regimens for efficacy. In study 1, 256 (82%) of 314 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 265 (84%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference −2·6%, 95% CI −8·5 to 3·4). In study 2, 262 (82%) of 320 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 273 (84%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (difference −1·9%, −7·8 to 3·9). In both studies, no participant had treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs up to week 144. All treatment regimens were well tolerated with additional exposure. Adverse events that led to study drug discontinuation were reported for no participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (study 1), and six (2%) of 320 in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus six (2%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (study 2). In study 1, statistically significant differences were observed in median changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol (14 mg/dL vs 10 mg/dL; p=0·034), direct LDL (21 mg/dL vs 14 mg/dL; p=0·004), and total cholesterol to HDL ratio (−0·1 vs −0·3; p=0·007) at week 144; no differences were observed between groups in study 2. Weight gain was seen across all treatment groups in both studies, with no differences in median changes from baseline in weight at week 144 for either study. Interpretation These long-term data support the use of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people with HIV, with no emergent resistance. Funding Gilead Sciences.

ObjectivesStudies 1878 and 1844 demonstrated non-inferior efficacy of switching suppressed HIV-1-infected adults to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) versus continuing boosted PI-based triple regimens or dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC). Here, detailed analyses of pre-existing resistance in the two BIC/FTC/TAF switch studies and efficacy at week 48 are described.MethodsPre-existing resistance was assessed from historical genotypes (documented resistance to study drugs was excluded) and by retrospective baseline proviral archive DNA genotyping from whole blood. Outcomes were based on HIV-1 RNA at week 48 with missing values imputed using the last on-treatment observation carried forward method.ResultsCumulative pre-existing resistance data from historical and proviral genotypes were obtained for 95% (543/570) of participants who switched to BIC/FTC/TAF. Altogether, 40% (217/543) had one or more pre-existing primary resistance substitutions in protease, reverse transcriptase and/or integrase. Pre-switch NRTI resistance was detected in 16% (89/543) of BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants, with M184V or M184I detected by proviral genotyping in 10% (54/543). At week 48, 98% (561/570) of all BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants versus 98% (213/217) with pre-existing resistance and 96% (52/54) with archived M184V/I had HIV-1 RNA ConclusionsPre-existing resistance substitutions, notably M184V/I, were unexpectedly common among suppressed participants who switched to BIC/FTC/TAF. High rates of virological suppression were maintained in the overall study population and in those with pre-existing resistance, including M184V/I, for up to 48 weeks of BIC/FTC/TAF treatment with no resistance development. These results indicate that BIC/FTC/TAF is an effective treatment option for suppressed patients, including those with evidence of archived NRTI resistance.

Summary Background Bictegravir co-formulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination is recommended for treatment of HIV-1-infection and might be better tolerated than other integrase inhibitor-based single-tablet regimens, but long-term outcomes data are not available. We assessed the efficacy, safety and tolerability of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with co-formulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine at week 96. Methods This ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial was done at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries. We enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) living with HIV who were treatment naive and HLA-B*5701 negative, did not have hepatitis B virus infection, and had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 50 mL/min. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive co-formulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg (the bictegravir group) or co-formulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg (the dolutegravir group), each with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Treatment allocation was masked to all participants and investigators. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. We previously reported the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week 96 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 96 by US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of −12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607930. Findings Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we screened 739 participants, of whom 108 were excluded and 631 enrolled and randomly assigned to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315). Two participants in the bictegravir group did not receive at least one dose of their assigned drug and were excluded from analyses. At week 96, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with 276 (88%) of 314 participants in the bictegravir group versus 283 (90%) of 315 participants in the dolutegravir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (difference −1·9%; 95% CI −6·9 to 3·1). The most common adverse events were nausea (36 [11%] of 314 for the bictegravir group vs 76 [24%] of 315 for the dolutegravir group), diarrhoea (48 [15%] vs 50 [16%]), and headache (41 [13%] vs 51 [16%]). 36 (11%) participants in the bictegravir group versus 39 (12%) participants in the dolutegravir group had a serious adverse event. Two individuals died in the bictegravir group (recreational drug overdose and suicide, neither of which was treatment related) and none died in the dolutegravir group. No participants discontinued because of adverse events in the bictegravir group compared with five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir group. Study drug-related adverse events were reported for 89 (28%) participants in the bictegravir group and 127 (40%) in the dolutegravir group. Interpretation These week 96 data support bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people living with HIV-1 with no emergent resistance. Funding Gilead Sciences, Inc.

BACKGROUND: 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

Objectives Two Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled studies of initial HIV-1 treatment demonstrated that bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) was non-inferior to dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC; Study 1489) or to DTG+F/TAF (Study 1490) through 144 weeks. In both studies, there was no emergent resistance to study drugs. Here, the 3 year resistance analysis and impact of baseline resistance substitutions on treatment response are described. Methods Population sequencing of HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase (RT) was performed at screening. Retrospective baseline next generation sequencing of protease, RT and integrase (IN) was analysed at a ≥ 15% cutoff. Resistance analyses were performed on participants with confirmed viral rebound of HIV-1 RNA ≥200 copies/mL through Week 144 or last visit who did not resuppress to Results Transmitted primary drug resistance substitutions were present in the following proportions of participants: integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance (-R) in 1.3% (17/1270) of participants; NRTI-R in 2.7% (35/1274); NNRTI-R in 14.1% (179/1274); and PI-R in 3.5% (44/1274). These pre-existing resistance substitutions not associated with study drug did not affect treatment outcomes. One participant in the B/F/TAF group had pre-existing bictegravir and dolutegravir resistance substitutions (Q148H+G140S in integrase) at baseline and suppressed and maintained HIV-1 RNA Conclusions Treatment with B/F/TAF, DTG/ABC/3TC, or DTG+F/TAF achieved high, durable rates of virological suppression in HIV-1 treatment-naive participants. The presence of pre-existing resistance substitutions did not affect treatment outcomes, and there was no treatment-emergent resistance.

Background Bictegravir (B)/emtricitabine (F)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is guideline-recommended treatment for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). We evaluated whether people receiving dolutegravir (DTG) plus F/TAF or F/TDF (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with viral suppression can switch to B/F/TAF without compromising safety or efficacy, regardless of preexisting nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, we enrolled adults who were virologically suppressed for ≥6 months before screening (with documented/suspected NRTI resistance) or ≥3 months before screening (with no documented/suspected NRTI resistance) on DTG plus either F/TDF or F/TAF. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants to switch to B/F/TAF or DTG + F/TAF once daily for 48 weeks, each with matching placebo. The primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (snapshot algorithm); the prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%. Results Five hundred sixty-seven adults were randomized; 565 were treated (284 B/F/TAF, 281 DTG + F/TAF). At week 48, B/F/TAF was noninferior to DTG + F/TAF, as 0.4% (1/284) vs 1.1% (3/281) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (difference, −0.7% [95.001% confidence interval {CI}, −2.8% to 1.0%]). There were no significant differences in efficacy among participants with suspected or confirmed prior NRTI resistance (n = 138). No participant had treatment-emergent drug resistance. Median weight change from baseline at week 48 was +1.3 kg (B/F/TAF) vs +1.1 kg (DTG + F/TAF) (P = .46). Weight change differed by baseline NRTIs (+2.2 kg [F/TDF] and +0.6 kg [F/TAF], P < .001), with no differences between B/F/TAF and DTG + F/TAF. Conclusions The single-tablet regimen B/F/TAF is a safe, effective option for people virologically suppressed on DTG plus either F/TDF or F/TAF, including in individuals with preexisting resistance to NRTIs. Clinical Trials Registration NCT03110380., Switching to bictegravir (B)/emtricitabine (F)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) was noninferior to dolutegravir (DTG) plus F/TAF at week 48, with high rates of virologic suppression. B/F/TAF is a safe, effective option for people virologically suppressed on DTG + F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or F/TAF, including individuals with preexisting resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

Background: Bictegravir a potent integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) with a high barrier to resistance, coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, is a guidelines-recommended and preferred single-tablet regimen for adults and adolescents. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy of switching to this regimen in virologically suppressed children and adolescents living with HIV. Methods: In this prospective, multi-country, 48-week, Phase 2/3, single-arm, open-label trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02881320), virologically suppressed children and adolescents (6 to

Summary Background Switching from therapy based on a boosted protease inhibitor to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide could avoid drug interactions and unwanted side-effects in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection, while maintaining a high barrier to resistance and providing a simplified once-daily, single-tablet regimen. Here, we report 48 week results of a phase 3 study investigating this switch. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, adults with HIV-1 infection were enrolled at 121 outpatient centres in ten countries. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or higher, had been virologically suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA Findings Between Dec 2, 2015, and July 15, 2016, 578 participants were randomly assigned and 577 were treated (290 in the bictegravir group and 287 in the boosted protease inhibitor group). At week 48, five participants (2%) in the bictegravir group and five (2%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group had plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher (difference 0·0%, 95·002% CI −2·5 to 2·5), thus switching to the bictegravir regimen was non-inferior to continued boosted protease inhibitor therapy. The overall incidence and severity of adverse events was similar between groups, although headache occurred more frequently in the bictegravir group than in the boosted protease inhibitor group. 233 (80%) participants in the bictegravir group and 226 (79%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group had an adverse event. Only two (1%) participants in the bictegravir group and one ( Interpretation Fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide might be a safe and efficacious alternative to continued boosted protease inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection. Funding Gilead Sciences.

Background Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended for first-line antiretroviral therapy in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Co-formulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF), a novel, INSTI-based regimen, is currently approved in the US and EU for the treatment of HIV-1 infection and recommended as first-line treatment in current guidelines. In our current analysis, we aimed to determine changes in patient-reported symptoms over time among HIV-1-infected adults who initiated or switched to B/F/TAF versus another INSTI-based regimen, co-formulated abacavir, dolutegravir, and lamivudine (ABC/DTG/3TC). Methods A planned secondary analysis of patient-reported outcomes was conducted for two double-blind, randomized, phase III studies in HIV-1-infected adults comparing B/F/TAF with ABC/DTG/3TC: one in treatment-naïve individuals (GS-US-380-1489, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02607930) and the other in virologically suppressed participants (GS-US-380-1844, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02603120). In both studies, the HIV symptoms distress module (HIV-SI) was administered at baseline (BL) and weeks 4, 12, and 48. Responses to each of the 20 items were dichotomized as bothersome or not bothersome. Treatment differences were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models (adjusted for BL HIV-SI count, age, sex, BL Veterans Aging Cohort Study [VACS] Index, medical history of serious mental illness, BL Short Form [SF]-36 Physical Component Summary [PCS], BL SF-36 Mental Component Summary [MCS], and, for virologically suppressed participants only, years since HIV diagnosis). We conducted longitudinal modeling of bothersome symptoms using a generalized mixed model including treatment, time, time-by-treatment, and additional covariates from the adjusted logistic regression model as described above. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was administered at the same frequency as the HIV-SI, and the total score was dichotomized as good or poor sleep quality. Similar models to those used for HIV-SI were applied, using BL sleep quality and BL SF-36 MCS as covariates. Statistical significance was assessed using p

Summary Background All recent treatment guidelines recommend integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as components of initial HIV therapy. Bictegravir, a novel, once-daily, unboosted INSTI, showed potent activity in a 10 day monotherapy study and has a high in-vitro resistance barrier. On the basis of these results, we did a phase 2 trial comparing bictegravir with dolutegravir. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we recruited previously untreated adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 infections from 22 outpatient centres in the USA. Eligible patients had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 counts of at least 200 cells per μL, estimated glomerular filtration rates of at least 70 mL per min, and HIV-1 genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine and tenofovir. We excluded patients if they were hepatitis B-co-infected or hepatitis C-co-infected, had new AIDS-defining conditions within 30 days of screening, or were pregnant. We randomly allocated participants (2:1) to receive oral once-daily 75 mg bictegravir or 50 mg dolutegravir with matching placebo plus the fixed-dose combination of 200 mg emtricitabine and 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide for 48 weeks. We randomly allocated participants via an interactive web system, stratified by HIV-1 RNA concentration. Investigators, patients, study staff giving treatment, collecting data, and assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 according to the US Food and Drug Administration-defined snapshot algorithm. We included all participants receiving one dose of study drug in analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02397694. Findings Between March 23, 2015, and May 21, 2015, we screened 125 patients, randomly allocating and giving study drug to 98 (65 received bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and 33 received dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide). At week 24, 63 (96·9%) of 65 in the bictegravir group had HIV-1 RNA loads of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 31 (93·9%) of 33 in the dolutegravir group (weighted difference 2·9%, 95% CI −8·5 to 14·2; p=0·50). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55 (85%) of 65 participants in the bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group versus 22 (67%) of 33 in the dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (eight [12%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33) and nausea (five [8%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33). One participant taking bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide discontinued because of a drug-related adverse event (urticaria) after week 24. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred. Interpretation Bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide both showed high efficacy up to 24 weeks. Both treatments were well tolerated. Administration of bictegravir, a novel, potent, once-daily INSTI designed to improve on existing INSTI options with the backbone of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, might provide an advantage to patients. Funding Gilead Sciences.

Background Treatment for people living with HIV (PLWH) and end stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD) has previously required complex dose-adjusted regimens. We evaluated a daily regimen of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) and established this treatment as effective and safe, showing that daily TAF resulted in lower plasma tenofovir exposure than a historical comparison of once weekly tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in patients with ESRD on HD. After week (W) 96, participants transitioned to daily B/F/TAF to assess whether efficacy and safety would be maintained on this STR that is guidelines-recommended for PLWH with eGFR > 30 mL/min. Methods Virologically suppressed adult PLWH with ESRD on chronic HD who completed W96 on E/C/F/TAF enrolled in the B/F/TAF extension for 48 weeks. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with virologic suppression (HIV RNA < 50 copies/mL). Safety was assessed throughout the study, PK was assessed using sparse sampling at W4, 24 and 48. Results 55 enrolled, 36 completed E/C/F/TAF, 10 entered the B/F/TAF extension. The median age was 55 yrs (range 34-63); median time on HD was 4 yrs (range 2-16). All ten participants on B/F/TAF had HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL (95% CI 69%, 100%) at W48. All participants had at least 1 adverse event (AE); most were grade 1 or 2 in severity. One participant had a grade 3 AE and 3 had serious AEs; none were considered related to study drug by the investigator. One participant had AEs attributed to study drug (malaise grade 1 and nausea grade 2), which resolved and did not lead to discontinuation of study drug. There were no clinically relevant changes in fasting lipids. In participants with evaluable data (n=2-5 per timepoint), mean bictegravir trough concentrations were lower compared to PLWH not on HD but remained 4- to 7-fold higher than the established protein-adjusted 95% effective concentration (paEC95) of 162 ng/mL against wild-type virus. Conclusion A once daily regimen of B/F/TAF maintained virologic suppression in PLWH on chronic HD. B/F/TAF was well-tolerated with no discontinuations. B/F/TAF may be an effective, safe and convenient once daily STR and ameliorate the need for dose adjustment in appropriate PLWH who require chronic HD. Disclosures Joseph J. Eron, MD, Gilead Sciences (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Janssen (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Merck (Consultant)ViiV Healthcare (Consultant, Research Grant or Support) Aimee Wilkin, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Moti Ramgopal, MD FACP FIDSA, AbbVie (Speaker’s Bureau)Allergan (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Consultant)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant) Olayemi Osiyemi, M.D, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau) Jihad Slim, MD, Abbvie (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead (Speaker’s Bureau)Jansen (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV (Speaker’s Bureau) David Asmuth, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Edwin DeJesus, MD, Gilead Sciences (Advisor or Review Panel member) Polina German, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Christoph C. Carter, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Sean E. Collins, MD, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Hal Martin, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

Background Black Americans are disproportionately impacted by HIV. The BRAAVE 2020 study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of switching to the guidelines-recommended single-tablet regimen bictegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in Black adults through week (W) 48. Methods Adults with HIV who self-identified as Black or African American and were virologically suppressed on 2 NRTIs plus a 3rd agent were randomized (2:1) to switch to open-label B/F/TAF once daily or stay on their baseline regimen (SBR). Prior virologic failure was allowed except failure on an INSTI. Prior resistance to NNRTIs, PIs and/or NRTIs was permitted except K65R/E/N, ≥3 thymidine analog mutations or T69-insertions. Primary INSTI-resistance was excluded. SBR participants switched to B/F/TAF at W24. Efficacy was assessed at the W24 (1○ endpoint, noninferiority margin 6%) and at W48 as the proportion with HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL by FDA Snapshot and by changes in CD4 count. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AE) and lab results. Results 495 were randomized and treated (B/F/TAF n=330, SBR n=165): 32% cis women, 2% transgender women, median age 49 y (range 18-79), 10% had pre-existing M184V/I mutation (Table 1), and 62% lived in the US South. At W24, 1% (2/328) on B/F/TAF vs 2% (3/165) on SBR had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 c/mL (difference -1.2%; 95% CI -4.8% to 0.9%) demonstrating noninferiority of B/F/TAF; 2 with pre-existing primary INSTI resistance were excluded from analysis. 163 assigned to SBR completed W24 and switched to B/F/TAF (SBR to B/F/TAF). At W48 1% (3/328) originally randomized to B/F/TAF and 0 SBR to B/F/TAF had HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 c/mL (Table 2). The presence of baseline NRTI resistance did not affect the efficacy of B/F/TAF. No treatment emergent resistance was detected. The mean (SD) changes in CD4 were +7 cells/mm3 (189) for B/F/TAF and -8 cells/mm3 (159) for SBR to B/F/TAF. Median (IQR) weight increased 0.9 kg (-1.5, 4.1) and 0.6 kg (-1.0, 3.1) for B/F/TAF and SBR to B/F/TAF groups, respectively. Study drug-related AEs occurred in 10% of participants while on B/F/TAF; most were grade 1. Table 1. Table 2. Conclusion Switching to B/F/TAF was highly effective for Black adults regardless of baseline regimen or pre-existing NRTI resistance and was associated with few treatment related AEs or discontinuations. Disclosures Debbie Hagins, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member) Princy Kumar, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Michael Saag, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Merck (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Proteus (Grant/Research Support)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant, Grant/Research Support) Anson K. Wurapa, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support)Janssen (Grant/Research Support, Advisor or Review Panel member)Pfizer (Grant/Research Support) Indira Brar, MD, Gilead (Speaker’s Bureau)janssen (Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV (Speaker’s Bureau) Daniel Berger, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Olayemi Osiyemi, M.D, GlaxoSmithKline (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau)ViiV Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau) Corrilynn Hileman, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator) Moti Ramgopal, MD FACP FIDSA, AbbVie (Speaker’s Bureau)Allergan (Speaker’s Bureau)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Speaker’s Bureau)Merck (Consultant)Viiv Healthcare (Consultant) Cheryl McDonald, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker’s Bureau)Janssen (Grant/Research Support)Merck (Grant/Research Support, Speaker’s Bureau)Viiv Healthcare (Grant/Research Support) Christiana Blair, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Kristen Andreatta, MSc, Gilead Sciences (Employee, Shareholder) Sean E. Collins, MD, MS, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Hal Martin, MD, MPH, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder)

In clinical studies GS-US-380-1489 (study 1489) and GS-US-380-1490 (study 1490), bictegravir-emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (B-F-TAF), dolutegravir-abacavir-lamivudine (DTG-ABC-3TC), and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (DTG+F-TAF) treatment achieved high rates of virologic suppression in HIV-1 treatment-naive participants through week 48. Preexisting primary drug resistance was present at levels of 1.3% integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance (INSTI-R), 2.7% nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance (NRTI-R), 14.1% nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance (NNRTI-R), and 3.5% protease inhibitor resistance (PI-R) in the 1,274 participants from these studies. These mutations did not affect treatment outcomes. Resistance analyses in 13 virologic failures found no emergent resistance to study drugs.

Objectives Studies 1878 and 1844 demonstrated non-inferior efficacy of switching suppressed HIV-1-infected adults to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) versus continuing boosted PI-based triple regimens or dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC). Here, detailed analyses of pre-existing resistance in the two BIC/FTC/TAF switch studies and efficacy at week 48 are described. Methods Pre-existing resistance was assessed from historical genotypes (documented resistance to study drugs was excluded) and by retrospective baseline proviral archive DNA genotyping from whole blood. Outcomes were based on HIV-1 RNA at week 48 with missing values imputed using the last on-treatment observation carried forward method. Results Cumulative pre-existing resistance data from historical and proviral genotypes were obtained for 95% (543/570) of participants who switched to BIC/FTC/TAF. Altogether, 40% (217/543) had one or more pre-existing primary resistance substitutions in protease, reverse transcriptase and/or integrase. Pre-switch NRTI resistance was detected in 16% (89/543) of BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants, with M184V or M184I detected by proviral genotyping in 10% (54/543). At week 48, 98% (561/570) of all BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants versus 98% (213/217) with pre-existing resistance and 96% (52/54) with archived M184V/I had HIV-1 RNA

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel tenofovir prodrug, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), as part of the first protease inhibitor-based single-tablet regimen (STR) for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. METHODS Antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive adults with estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥ 70 mL/min were randomized 2:1 to receive the darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) STR (TAF: N = 103) or darunavir + cobicistat + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF: N = 50) once daily with matched placebos for 48 weeks. RESULTS At week 24, viral suppression (HIV-1 RNA

Background Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended components of initial antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bictegravir is a novel, potent INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug–drug interactions. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bictegravir coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination versus coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. Methods We did this double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America. We enrolled HIV-1 infected adults (aged ≥18 years) who were previously untreated (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL); HLA-B*5701-negative; had no hepatitis B virus infection; screening genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine, tenofovir, lamivudine, and abacavir; and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or more. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size of four), to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg, with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 copies per mL, >100 000 to ≤400 000 copies per mL, or >400 000 copies per mL), CD4 count (

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the novel tenofovir prodrug, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), as part of a single-tablet regimen (STR) for the initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. DESIGN Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter, active-controlled study. METHODS Antiretroviral naive adults with HIV-1 RNA ≥5000 copies per milliliter and a CD4 count ≥50 cells per microliter were randomized 2:1 to receive an STR of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) or elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/TDF), plus placebo for 48 weeks. RESULTS Patients on both E/C/F/TAF (n = 112) and E/C/F/TDF (n = 58) had high rates of virologic suppression (

Background Bictegravir (B), a potent INSTI with a high barrier to resistance, is coformulated with emtricitabine (F) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) as the FDA-approved single-tablet regimen B/F/TAF. We report Week 96 results from an ongoing phase 3 study comparing B/F/TAF to coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC) in treatment-naïve adults living with HIV-1. Primary outcome at W48 demonstrated noninferior virologic responses, similar bone and renal profiles, and no viral resistance. Methods We randomized 1:1 HLA-B*5701-negative adults, without HBV and with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥50 mL/minute to receive blinded B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) or DTG/ABC/3TC (50/600/300 mg) with matching placebos QD. Primary endpoint was proportion with HIV-1 RNA Results A total of 629 adults were randomized/treated (314 B/F/TAF, 315 DTG/ABC/3TC). At W96, B/F/TAF was noninferior to DTG/ABC/3TC: 87.9% vs. 89.8%, respectively, achieved HIV-1 RNA Conclusion At W96, B/F/TAF was virologically noninferior to DTG/ABC/3TC, with no viral resistance or safety-related discontinuations. B/F/TAF was well tolerated with less nausea than DTG/ABC/3TC and similar bone and renal safety. Disclosures D. A. Wohl, Gilead: Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research grant. Y. Yazdanpanah, AbbVie: Consultant, Consulting fee. Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultant, Consulting fee. Gilead: Consultant, Consulting fee. MSD: Consultant, Consulting fee. Pfizer: Consultant, Consulting fee. Johnson & Johnson: Consultant, Consulting fee. ViiV Healthcare: Consultant, Consulting fee. A. Baumgarten, AbbVie: Consultant and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. BMS: Consultant and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. Gilead: Consultant and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. Janssen-Cilag: Consultant and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. MSD: Consultant and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. ViiV: Consultant and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. A. Clarke, GSK: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Gilead: Conference attendence, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Conference attendance support, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. BMS: Conference attendence, Conference attendance support. Janssen: Conference attendence, Conference attendance support. M. Thompson, Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Contractor, Research support. ViiV Healthcare: Research Contractor, Research support. C. Brinson, Gilead: Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Research support and Speaker honorarium. Theratech: Investigator, Research support. BMS: Investigator, Research support. SlieaGen: Investigator, Research support. GSK ViiV: Consultant, Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee, Research support and Speaker honorarium. Daiichi Sankyo: Sub Investigator, Research support. Novo Nordisk: Investigator, Research support. Sanofi: Investigator, Research support. Watson: Investigator, Research support. Salix: Investigator, Research support. Janssen: Investigator, Research support. Roche: Investigator, Research support. Colucid: Investigator, Research support. Eisai: Investigator, Research support. Shionogi: Investigator, Research support. Elcelyx: Investigator, Research support. Sangamo: Sub Investigator, Research support. D. Hagins, GlaxoSmithKline: Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Honoraria and Speaker honorarium. ViiV Healthcare: Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Honoraria and Speaker honorarium. Gilead: Scientific Advisor, Honoraria and Speaker honorarium. Bristol-Myers Squibb: Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Honoraria and Speaker honorarium. M. Ramgopal, Gilead: Grant Investigator, Research grant. A. Antinori, AbbVie: Consultant, Consulting fee. BMS: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. Gilead: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. Janssen-Cilag: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. Merck: Consultant, Consulting fee. ViiV Healthcare: Consultant and Grant Investigator, Consulting fee and Research grant. X. Wei, Gilead: Shareholder, Salary and Stock. K. White, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. S. Collins, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. A. Cheng, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. E. Quirk, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock. H. Martin, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Stock.

Background Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are widely recommended for initial HIV-1 treatment. Bictegravir (BIC, B) is a novel, once-daily INSTI with potent antiviral activity being developed in coformulation with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF). Methods In this Phase 2 study, treatment naïve, HIV-infected adults were randomized 2:1 to receive blinded treatment with BIC or dolutegravir (DTG) coadministered with open label F/TAF (200/25 mg). After all participants completed 48 weeks, they were unblinded and switched to a single fixed-dose combination tablet of B/F/TAF 50/200/25 mg. The proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA Results Of 98 participants enrolled in the blinded treatment phase, 65 were randomized to BIC+F/TAF and 33 to DTG+F/TAF. Most were male, had asymptomatic HIV infection, with median HIV-1 RNA 4.4–4.5 log10 c/mL. The proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA Conclusion All participants switched from DTG+F/TAF to open-label B/F/TAF maintained virologic suppression, with none discontinuing due to adverse events. During 72 weeks of follow-up, no treatment-emergent resistance to any components was detected in participants taking B/F/TAF. B/F/TAF demonstrated durable virologic suppression in naïve patients through W72 and was safe and effective after switching from DTG + F/TAF, further study in treatment naïve and experienced populations is warranted. Disclosures P. E. Sax, Gilead: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee, Research grant and Research support; BMS: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee, Research grant and Research support; GlaxoSmithKline/ViiV: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee, Research grant and Research support; AbbVie: Consultant, Consulting fee; Janssen: Consultant, Consulting fee; Merck: Consultant, Consulting fee; E. Dejesus, Gilead Sciences: Consultant, Investigator and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium; Janssen: Consultant, Investigator and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium; G. Crofoot, Gilead: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Advisory honorarium and Research grant; ViiV: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Advisory honorarium, Research grant and Research support; D. Ward, Gilead: Investigator, Research support; P. Benson, Gilead Sciences: Investigator, Shareholder and Speaker’s Bureau, Research support and Speaker honorarium; ViiV Healthcare: Investigator, Research support; L. Wei, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; K. White, Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; S. Collins, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; H. Martin, Gilead Sciences: Employee, Salary; A. Cheng, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; E. Quirk, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary

Background Boosted protease inhibitor regimens (bPIs) are effective and often used in HIV-infected individuals with difficulties with adherence, but they can have drug–drug interactions and GI adverse effects. Bictegravir (B), a novel, potent integrase strand transfer inhibitor with a high barrier to resistance and low potential for drug–drug interactions, was coformulated with the recommended nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) and demonstrated high efficacy and tolerability in randomized studies in treatment-naïve adults. This randomized Phase 3 study assesses efficacy and safety of switching to B/F/TAF from a multi-tablet regimen containing a bPI. Methods HIV-infected adults suppressed on regimens of boosted atazanavir (ATV) or darunavir (DRV) + abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) or FTC/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) were randomized 1:1 to continue their current bPI regimen or switch to open-label coformulated B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) once daily. Primary endpoint was proportion with HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL (c/mL) at W48 (FDA snapshot). Noninferiority was assessed through 95.002% confidence intervals (CI) using a margin of 4%. Secondary endpoints included proportion with HIV-1 RNA Results A total of 577 participants were randomized and treated with B/F/TAF (n = 290) or current bPI regimens (n = 287): 17% women, 26% Black, median age 48 years. Most were receiving a bPI with FTC/TDF (85%) at screening. At W48, switching to B/F/TAF was noninferior to continuing bPI with 1.7% in each group having HIV-1 RNA ≥50 c/mL (difference −0.0%; 95.002% CI −2.5% to 2.5%, P = 1.00); the proportion with HIV-1 RNA Conclusion Adults switching to B/F/TAF from a boosted PI maintained high rates of virologic suppression without resistance. B/F/TAF was safe and well tolerated. Disclosures E. Daar, Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultant, Consulting fee. Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultant, Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research support. Janssen: Consultant, Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research support. Merck: Consultant, Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research support. Teva Pharmaceuticals: Consultant and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. ViiV: Consultant, Grant Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Research support. E. DeJesus, Abbott Laboratories; Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Avexa, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann LaRoche, Idenix, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Sangamo, Taimed, Tobira, and Vertex: Grant Investigator, Research grant. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck, and Vertex: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. P. Ruane, Gilead: Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Shareholder, Consulting fee and Research support. Merck: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium. Boehringer: Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research support and Speaker honorarium. Janssen: Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research support and Speaker honorarium. Abbott: Investigator, Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Research support and Speaker honorarium. Idenix: Investigator, Research support. ViiV: Scientific Advisor and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. BMS: Consultant, Investigator and Speaker’s Bureau, Consulting fee, Research support and Speaker honorarium. G. Crofoot, Gilead: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Advisory honorarium and Research grant. ViiV: Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Advisory honorarium, Research grant and Research support. C. Creticos, Thera Technologies and ViiV Healthcare: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Gilead sciences, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare: Investigator, Research support. Pfizer: Speaker’s Bureau, Speaker honorarium. J. K. Rockstroh, Abbvie: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. Gilead: Consultant, Investigator and Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee and Speaker honorarium. ViiV: Scientific Advisor, Consulting fee. Janssen: Investigator and Speaker at educational event, Speaker honorarium. J. M. Molina, Gilead, ViiV, Merck, Janssen, BMS and TEVA: Scientific Advisor, Speaker honorarium. Y. P. Liu, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Shareholder. K. Andreatta, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary and Shareholder. H. Graham, Gilead Sciences: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. A. Cheng, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. H. Martin, Gilead Sciences: Employee, Salary. E. Quirk, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary

Background BIC is a novel integrase inhibitor coformulated with emtricitabine (F) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) for treatment of HIV. MET is first-line therapy in diabetic HIV patients. In vitro, BIC inhibits renal transporters OCT2 and MATE1, which affect MET disposition. This study evaluated the effect of BIC on the PK and PD of MET following coadministration with the B/F/TAF. Methods This was a Phase 1, blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study in 32 healthy subjects randomized 1:1 to either B/F/TAF or placebo QD for 9 days followed by a 3-day washout. Following 4 days of B/F/TAF or placebo, subjects received 850 mg MET at 12 hours postdose of B/F/TAF or placebo, and 500 mg BID for 4 additional days. Plasma and urine PK of MET were assessed on the last treatment day (Days 9 and 21 for B/F/TAF or placebo). Oral glucose tolerance test was performed before (Days 5 and 17) and after MET (Days 9 and 21). MET PD endpoints including plasma glucose, active Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) and lactate were assessed after glucose intake. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for MET PK were calculated for B/F/TAF vs. placebo. Comparisons of PD responses within treatments (before vs. after MET) and comparisons between treatments (B/F/TAF vs. placebo) were done via nonparametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P > 0.05 denotes non-significance). Results MET plasma AUCtau was increased 39% (%GMR [90% CI]: 139 [131, 148]) with B/F/TAF vs. placebo, with no change in median plasma t1/2 (B/F/TAF: 6.4 hours; placebo: 7.1 hours). MET renal clearance decreased 31% with B/F/TAF vs. placebo. Following MET administration, statistically significant reduction of plasma glucose, and increase of plasma active GLP-1 and lactate levels relative to baseline were observed (P < 0.001) confirming their utility as PD endpoints. Importantly, PD responses were not statistically different when MET was administered with B/F/TAF vs. placebo (p >0.05). Conclusion Inhibition of renal transporters OCT2/MATE1 by BIC led to a modest increase of MET plasma exposure upon coadministration with B/F/TAF; however, the PD characteristics of MET were not significantly affected by B/F/TAF relative to placebo. Based on these findings, prospective dose adjustment/restriction of MET is not required upon coadministration with B/F/TAF. Disclosures J. Custodio, Gilead Sciences: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; S. West, Gilead Sciences: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; A. Yu, Gilead Science: Employee, Salary; H. Martin, Gilead Sciences: Employee, Salary; H. Graham, Gilead Sciences: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; E. Quirk, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary; B. Kearney, Gilead: Employee and Shareholder, Salary