Search

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.

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

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.

Background Long-acting (LA) formulations of cabotegravir, an HIV integrase inhibitor, and rilpivirine, an NNRTI, are in development as monthly or 2 monthly intramuscular (IM) injections for maintenance of virological suppression. Objectives To evaluate cabotegravir and rilpivirine CSF distribution and HIV-1 RNA suppression in plasma and CSF in HIV-infected adults participating in a substudy of the Phase 2b LATTE-2 study (NCT02120352). Methods Eighteen participants receiving cabotegravir LA 400 mg + rilpivirine LA 600 mg IM [every 4 weeks (Q4W), n = 3] or cabotegravir LA 600 mg + rilpivirine LA 900 mg IM [every 8 weeks (Q8W), n = 15] with plasma HIV-1 RNA Results Median total CSF concentrations in Q4W and Q8W groups, respectively, were 0.011 μg/mL and 0.013 μg/mL for cabotegravir (0.30% and 0.34% of the paired plasma concentrations) and 1.84 ng/mL and 1.67 ng/mL for rilpivirine (1.07% and 1.32% of paired plasma concentrations). Cabotegravir and rilpivirine total CSF concentrations exceeded their respective in vitro EC50 for WT HIV-1 (0.10 ng/mL and 0.27 ng/mL, respectively). All 16 participants had HIV-1 RNA Conclusions A dual regimen of cabotegravir LA and rilpivirine LA achieved therapeutic concentrations in the CSF resulting in effective virological control in CSF.

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

Introduction Heavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people living with HIV-1 (PLWH) have limited viable antiretroviral regimens available because of multidrug resistance and safety concerns. The first-in-class HIV-1 attachment inhibitor fostemsavir demonstrated efficacy and safety in HTE participants in the ongoing phase III BRIGHTE trial. Objectives We describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through week 48. Methods Eligible participants for whom their current regimen was failing were assigned to the randomized cohort (RC; one to two fully active agents remaining) or the nonrandomized cohort (NRC; no fully active agents remaining). PRO assessments included the EQ-5D-3L, EQ-VAS, and Functional Assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) instruments. Results Both cohorts achieved increases in EQ-5D-3L US- and UK-referenced utility score from baseline at week 24. Mean visual analog scale (VAS) scores in the RC and NRC increased from baseline by 8.7 (95% CI 6.2–11.2) and 5.6 points (95% CI 1.5–9.7) at week 24 and increased from baseline by 9.8 (95% CI 7.0–12.6) and 4.9 points (95% CI 0.6–9.2) at week 48, respectively. Mean increases in FAHI total score from baseline to weeks 24 and 48 in the RC were 6.9 (95% CI 4.2–9.7) and 5.8 (95% CI 2.7–9.0), respectively, whereas mean increases in physical and emotional well-being subscale scores were 2.7 (95% CI 1.9–3.6) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.3–3.4) and 3.2 (95% CI 2.2–4.2) and 2.6 (95% CI 1.6–3.7), respectively, with little to no change in other subscales. Conclusions Improvements in major domains of the EQ-VAS and FAHI through week 48, combined with efficacy and safety results, support the use of fostemsavir for HTE PLWH. Trial Registration Number and Date NCT02362503; February 13, 2015.

Objectives The single‐tablet regimen rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (RPV/FTC/TAF) for treatment of HIV‐1‐infected adults was approved based on bioequivalence. We assessed the clinical efficacy, safety and tolerability of switching to RPV/FTC/TAF from either RPV/FTC/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF. Methods We conducted two distinct randomized, double‐blind, active‐controlled, noninferiority trials in participants taking RPV/FTC/TDF (Study 1216) and EFV/FTC/TDF (Study 1160). Each study randomized virologically suppressed (HIV‐1 RNA

BACKGROUND: The integrase inhibitor regimen [elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)] demonstrated superior efficacy when compared with a protease inhibitor regimen [ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV + RTV) and FTC/TDF] in 575 treatment-naive women at week 48. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a TAF-based, single-tablet regimen containing elvitegravir, cobicistat, FTC, and tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/TAF) versus remaining on ATV + RTV plus FTC/TDF. METHODS: After completing the initial randomized, blinded phase, virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA

Background GEMINI 1 & 2 are global double-blind, multi-center phase III non-inferiority studies evaluating efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) + lamivudine (3TC) once daily in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults with Screening HIV-1 RNA ≤ 500,000 c/mL (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02831673/NCT02831764). Participants were randomized 1:1 to treatment with DTG+3TC or DTG + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/emtricitabine (FTC). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL at Week 48 (Snapshot algorithm). DTG+3TC was non-inferior to DTG+TDF/FTC at Weeks 48 and 96. Here we evaluate the impact of treatment adherence on Week 48 virologic response (VR) within the GEMINI trials as a post-hoc analysis. Methods Adherence was estimated using pill counts data and categorized as follows: ≥ 90% vs < 90%. Week 48 VR was measured as % of participants with HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL by Food and Drug Administration Snapshot and by last on treatment viral load (VL) for the intention to treat–exposed population for which adherence could be derived. VR and differences between treatment arms within each adherence category were calculated along with exact unadjusted 95% confidence intervals. Results 5% of participants had < 90% adherence in both treatment arms. Baseline VL and CD4+ cell counts were similar across adherence categories. VR was lower in the < 90% adherence group than the ≥ 90% group, but not different between the 2 treatment arms within the same adherence category: In the low adherence group, DTG+3TC VR was 69% compared to 65% in DTG+TDF/FTC arm by Snapshot and 91% and 85% respectively by last on treatment VL analysis (Table). Table. Conclusion In the GEMINI studies, a lower Week 48 VR was observed in participants with < 90% adherence, but the impact of lower adherence on VR was similar in the DTG+3TC compared with DTG+TDF/FTC arms. One limitation of the analysis is the small number of participants in the lower adherence subgroup. However, the results add further information about the robustness of DTG+3TC compared to 3-drug DTG-containing regimens and may suggest similar regimen forgiveness. Disclosures Mounir Ait-Khaled, PhD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee, Shareholder) Choy Man, BSc, ViiV Healthcare (Employee, Shareholder) Jorg Sievers, DPhil, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Richard Grove, MSc, GSK/ViiV (Employee, Shareholder) Brian Wynne, MD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee) Rimgaile Urbaityte, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Employee, Shareholder) Jean A. van Wyk, MB,ChB, ViiV Healthcare (Employee, Shareholder) 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) Andrew Zolopa, MD, ViiV Healthcare (Employee)

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)

Darunavir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (D/C/F/TAF) 800/150/200/10 mg was investigated through 96 weeks in EMERALD (NCT02269917). Virologically-suppressed, HIV-1-positive treatment-experienced adults (previous non-darunavir virologic failure [VF] allowed) were randomized (2:1) to D/C/F/TAF or boosted protease inhibitor (PI) plus emtricitabine/tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate (F/TDF) over 48 weeks. At week 52 participants in the boosted PI arm were offered switch to D/C/F/TAF (late-switch, 44 weeks D/C/F/TAF exposure). All participants were followed on D/C/F/TAF until week 96. Efficacy endpoints were percentage cumulative protocol-defined virologic rebound (PDVR; confirmed viral load [VL] ≥50 copies/mL) and VL

Summary Background Effective two-drug regimens could decrease long-term drug exposure and toxicity with HIV-1 antiretroviral therapy (ART). We therefore aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a two-drug regimen compared with a three-drug regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in ART-naive adults. Methods We conducted two identically designed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trials: GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2. Both studies were done at 192 centres in 21 countries. We included participants (≥18 years) with HIV-1 infection and a screening HIV-1 RNA of 500 000 copies per mL or less, and who were naive to ART. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive a once-daily two-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) or a once-daily three-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg). Both drug regimens were administered orally. We masked participants and investigators to treatment assignment: dolutegravir was administered as single-entity tablets (similar to its commercial formulation, except with a different film colour), and lamivudine tablets and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine tablets were over-encapsulated to visually match each other. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 in the intention-to-treat-exposed population, using the Snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of −10%. Safety analyses were done on the safety population. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02831673 and NCT02831764, respectively. Findings Between July 18, 2016, and March 31, 2017, 1441 participants across both studies were randomly assigned to receive either the two-drug regimen (n=719) or three-drug regimen (n=722). At week 48 in the GEMINI-1 intention-to-treat-exposed population, 320 (90%) of 356 participants receiving the two-drug regimen and 332 (93%) of 358 receiving the three-drug regimen achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted treatment difference −2·6%, 95% CI −6·7 to 1·5); in GEMINI-2, 335 (93%) of 360 in the two-drug regimen and 337 (94%) of 359 in the three-drug regimen achieved HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted treatment difference −0·7%, 95% CI −4·3 to 2·9), showing non-inferiority at a −10% margin in both studies (pooled analysis: 655 [91%] of 716 in the two-drug regimen vs 669 [93%] of 717 in the three-drug regimen; adjusted treatment difference −1·7%, 95% CI −4·4 to 1·1). Numerically, more drug-related adverse events occurred with the three-drug regimen than with the two-drug regimen (169 [24%] of 717 vs 126 [18%] of 716); few participants discontinued because of adverse events (16 [2%] in the three-drug regimen and 15 [2%] in the two-drug regimen). Two deaths were reported in the two-drug regimen group of GEMINI-2, but neither was considered to be related to the study medication. Interpretation The non-inferior efficacy and similar tolerability profile of dolutegravir plus lamivudine to a guideline-recommended three-drug regimen at 48 weeks in ART-naive adults supports its use as initial therapy for patients with HIV-1 infection. Funding ViiV Healthcare.

Summary Background Once daily regimens are preferred for HIV-1 treatment, to facilitate adherence and improve quality of life. We compared a new once daily formulation of raltegravir to the currently marketed twice daily formulation. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3, non-inferiority study, we enrolled participants aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA of 1000 or more copies per mL and no previous antiretroviral treatment at 139 sites worldwide. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to raltegravir 1200 mg (two 600 mg tablets) orally once daily or raltegravir 400 mg (one tablet) orally twice daily, each with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine orally once daily, for up to 96 weeks. A computer-generated allocation schedule stratified randomisation by screening HIV-1 RNA value and co-infection with hepatitis B or C. Participants, sponsor personnel, investigators, and study site personnel involved in the treatment or evaluation of the participants were unaware of the treatment group assignments. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 40 copies per mL at week 48 assessed with the US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm. Non-inferiority was concluded if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than −10%. We assessed efficacy and safety in all participants who received one dose or more of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02131233. Findings Between May 26, 2014, and Dec 5, 2014, 802 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 533 to once daily treatment and 269 to twice daily; 797 received study therapy, 531 once daily and 266 twice daily. At week 48, 472 (89%) of 531 once daily recipients and 235 (88%) of 266 twice daily recipients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 40 copies per mL (treatment difference 0·5%, 95% CI −4·2 to 5·2). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 130 (24%) of 531 participants in the once daily group (one of which was serious; none led to treatment discontinuation) and 68 (26%) of 266 participants in the twice daily group (two of which were serious; two led to treatment discontinuation). The most common drug-related adverse events were nausea (39 [7%] vs 18 [7%]), headache (16 [3%] vs 12 [5%]), and dizziness (12 [2%] vs eight [3%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation A once daily raltegravir 1200 mg regimen was non-inferior compared with raltegravir 400 mg twice daily for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection. These results support the use of raltegravir 1200 mg once daily for first-line therapy. Funding Merck & Co, Inc.

Simplified regimens with reduced pill burden and fewer side-effects are desirable for people living with HIV. We investigated the efficacy and safety of switching to a single-tablet regimen of darunavir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus continuing a regimen of boosted protease inhibitor, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.EMERALD was a phase-3, randomised, active-controlled, open-label, international, multicentre trial, done at 106 sites across nine countries in North America and Europe. HIV-1-infected adults were eligible to participate if they were treatment-experienced and virologically suppressed (viral load50 copies per mL for ≥2 months; one viral load of 50-200 copies per mL was allowed within 12 months before screening), and patients with a history of virological failure on non-darunavir regimens were allowed. Randomisation was by computer-generated interactive web-response system and stratified by boosted protease inhibitor use at baseline. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to switch to the open-label study regimen or continue the control regimen. The study regimen consisted of a fixed-dose tablet containing darunavir 800 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg, which was taken once per day for 48 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with virological rebound (confirmed viral load ≥50 copies per mL or premature discontinuations, with last viral load ≥50 copies per mL) cumulative through week 48; we tested non-inferiority (4% margin) of the study regimen versus the control regimen in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02269917.The study began on April 1, 2015, and the cutoff date for the week 48 primary analysis was Feb 24, 2017. Of 1141 patients (763 in the study group and 378 in the control group), 664 (58%) had previously received five or more antiretrovirals, including screening antiretrovirals, and 169 (15%) had previous virological failure on a non-darunavir regimen. The study regimen was non-inferior to the control for virological rebound cumulative through week 48 (19 [2·5%] of 763 patients in the study group vs eight (2·1%) of 378 patients in the control group; difference 0·4%, 95% CI -1·5 to 2·2; p0·0001). No resistance to any study drug was observed. Numbers of discontinuations related to adverse events (11 [1%] of 763 patients in the study group vs four [1%] of 378 patients in the control group) and grade 3-4 adverse events (52 [7%] patients vs 31 [8%] patients) were similar between the two groups. There was a small non-clinically relevant but statistically significant (0·2 [SD 1·1] vs 0·1 [1·1], p=0.010) difference between the two groups in change from baseline in total cholesterol to HDL-cholesterol ratio. Only one serious adverse event (pancreatitis in the study group) was deemed as possibly related to the study regimen.Our findings show the safety and efficacy of single-tablet darunavir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a potential switch option for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults with viral suppression.Janssen.

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.

Summary Background Women are under-represented in HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) studies. Guidelines for selection of ART as initial therapy in patients with HIV-1 infection do not contain sex-specific treatment. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of the single tablet integrase inhibitor regimen containing elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate compared with a boosted protease inhibitor regimen of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Methods In this international, randomised, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 study (Women AntiretroViral Efficacy and Safety study [WAVES]), we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected women with an estimated creatinine clearance of 70 mL/min or higher from 80 centres in 11 countries. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (integrase inhibitor regimen) or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (protease inhibitor based regimen); regimens were masked with matching placebos. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size four) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA viral load and race. 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 efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcome was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm (prespecified non-inferiority margin of 12%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01705574. Findings Between Nov 28, 2012, and March 12, 2014, 575 women were enrolled. 289 were randomly assigned to receive the integrase inhibitor regimen and 286 to receive the protease inhibitor based regimen. 252 (87%) women in the integrase inhibitor group had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 compared with 231 (81%) women in the protease inhibitor group (adjusted difference 6·5%; 95% CI 0·4–12·6). No participant had virological failure with resistance in the integrase inhibitor group compared with three participants ([1%]; all Met184Val/Ile) in the protease inhibitor group. 19 women in the protease inhibitor group discontinued because of adverse events compared with five in the integrase inhibitor group. Interpretation WAVES shows that clinical trials of ART regimens in global and diverse populations of treatment-naive women are possible. The findings support guidelines recommending integrase inhibitor based regimens in first-line antiretroviral therapy. Funding Gilead Sciences.

Summary Background In phase 1 trials, the HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor cabotegravir (GSK1265744) was well tolerated, both alone, and in combination with the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor rilpivirine. We assessed cabotegravir plus rilpivirine, as a two-drug oral antiretroviral regimen, for the maintenance of viral suppression in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected individuals. Methods In the phase 2b Long-Acting antireTroviral Treatment Enabling (LATTE) trial, a multicentre study done in Canada and the USA, antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected adults (aged ≥18 years) were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to oral cabotegravir 10 mg once a day, 30 mg once a day, 60 mg once a day, or oral efavirenz 600 mg once a day with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for 24 weeks of induction. Patients who were virologically suppressed by week 24 received a two-drug maintenance regimen consisting of their randomly allocated cabotegravir dose plus oral rilpivirine 25 mg or continued efavirenz plus NRTIs for an additional 72 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to doses of cabotegravir received for 96 weeks, but not to the assignment of cabotegravir or efavirenz. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies per mL of HIV-1 RNA (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) at week 48. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01641809. Findings Of 243 patients randomly allocated and treated, 156 (86%) of 181 patients in the cabotegravir groups (52 [87%] of 60, 51 [85%] of 60, and 53 [87%] of 61 patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) and 46 (74%) of 62 in the efavirenz group had fewer than 50 copies per mL of HIV-1 RNA after induction therapy. After patients in the cabotegravir groups were changed over from dual NRTIs to rilpivirine at week 24, 149 (82%; 95% CI 77–88) patients in the cabotegravir groups (48 [80%; 70–90], 48 [80%; 70–90], and 53 [87%; 78–95] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) versus 44 (71%; 60–82) in the efavirenz group were virologically suppressed at week 48, and 137 (76%; 69–82) receiving cabotegravir (41 [68%; 57–80], 45 [75%; 64–86], and 51 [84%; 74–93] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) versus 39 (63%; 51–75) in the efavirenz group were virologically suppressed at week 96. Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 93 (51%) cabotegravir-treated patients (28 [47%], 32 [53%], and 33 [54%] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) and 42 (68%) efavirenz-treated patients. Six (3%) patients in the cabotegravir groups (one [2%], one [2%], and four [7%] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) withdrew because of treatment-emergent adverse events compared with nine (15%) in the efavirenz group. Interpretation Cabotegravir plus dual NRTI therapy had potent antiviral activity during the induction phase. As a two-drug maintenance therapy, cabotegravir plus rilpivirine provided antiviral activity similar to efavirenz plus dual NRTIs until the end of week 96. Combined efficacy and safety results lend support to our selection of oral cabotegravir 30 mg once a day for further assessment. LATTE precedes studies of the assessment of longacting injectable formulations of both drugs as a two-drug regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Funding ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research and Development.

BACKGROUND Women account for an increasing proportion of patients with HIV-1 but remain underrepresented in antiretroviral clinical trials. OBJECTIVE To evaluate sex-based differences in efficacy and adverse events in treatment-experienced, HIV-positive women and men receiving darunavir-ritonavir therapy over 48 weeks. DESIGN Multicenter, open-label, phase 3b study designed to enroll a high proportion of women, with sample size determined on the basis of a noninferiority design with a maximum allowable difference of 15% in virologic response favoring men. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00381303) SETTING 65 sites in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. PATIENTS 287 women and 142 men. INTERVENTION Patients received darunavir-ritonavir, 600/100 mg twice daily, plus an investigator-selected optimized background regimen. MEASUREMENTS Virologic response (HIV RNA

Introduction : Doravirine (DOR) is an investigational NNRTI (aka MK-1439) that retains activity against common NNRTI-resistant mutants. We have previously reported the Part 1 results from a two-part, randomized, double-blind, Phase IIb study in ART-naive HIV-1-positive patients [1]. At doses of 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg qd, DOR plus open-label tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) demonstrated potent antiretroviral activity comparable to EFV 600 mg qhs plus TDF/FTC and was generally well tolerated at week 24. DOR 100 mg was selected for use in patients continuing in Part 1 and those newly enrolled in Part 2. Methods : Patients receiving DOR 25, 50 or 200 mg in Part 1 were switched to 100 mg after dose selection. In Part 2, 132 additional patients were randomized 1:1 to DOR 100 mg qd or EFV 600 mg qhs (each with TDF/FTC). We present week 48 efficacy and safety results for all patients in Part 1, and early (week 8) CNS tolerability only for patients randomized to DOR 100 mg or to EFV in Parts 1 and 2 combined. The primary safety endpoint is the % of patients with pre-specified CNS events (all causality) by week 8 for DOR 100 mg qd vs EFV (Parts 1 +2 combined). Results : Part 1 week 48 efficacy and safety results are shown below. The most common DR clinical AEs in the DOR and EFV groups, respectively, were abnormal dreams (10.2%; 9.5%), nausea (7.8%; 2.4%), fatigue (7.2%; 4.8%), diarrhoea (4.8%; 9.5%) and dizziness (3.0%; 23.8%), and were generally mild to moderate. Part 1+2 Week 8 CNS Event Analysis : One hundred thirty-two patients were randomized in Part 2, 66 to DOR 100 mg and 66 to EFV. Combining Part 1 and 2, a total of 108 patients received DOR 100 mg and 108 received EFV. By week 8, at least one CNS AE was reported in 22.2% of the DOR group and 43.5% of the EFV group ( p