Search

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 characterized the efficacy and safety of bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in a broad population of pediatric/adolescent/adult/elderly females living with HIV (FWH). Setting: Integrated analysis. Methods: Available data from 5 trials were integrated. Week 48 virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA

Summary Background In DISCOVER, a multinational, randomised controlled trial, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide compared with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate showed non-inferior efficacy for HIV prevention and improved bone mineral density and renal safety biomarkers at week 48. We report outcomes analysed after all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. Methods This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in Europe and North America. Adult cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV as determined by self-reported sexual behaviour or recent sexually transmitted infections, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (200/25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (200/300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection. Incidence of HIV-1 infection per 100 person-years was assessed when the last participant had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02842086 . Findings Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 participants were randomly assigned to receive emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693), contributing 10 081 person-years of follow-up. At 96 weeks of follow-up, there were eight HIV infections in participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·07–0·31]) and 15 in participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·30 infections per 100 person-years [0·17–0·49]). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide maintained its non-inferiority to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention (IRR 0·54 [95% CI 0·23–1·26]). Approximately 78–82% of participants reported taking study medication more than 95% of the time across all study visits. Rates of sexually transmitted infections remained high and similar across groups (21 cases per 100 person-years for rectal gonorrhoea and 28 cases per 100 person-years for rectal chlamydia). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide continued to show superiority over emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all but one of the six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarkers. There was more weight gain among participants who had received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (median weight gain 1·7 kg vs 0·5 kg, p Interpretation Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide is safe and effective for longer-term pre-exposure prophylaxis in cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men. Funding Gilead Sciences.

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

Patients with multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection have limited treatment options. Lenacapavir is a first-in-class capsid inhibitor that showed substantial antiviral activity in a phase 1b study.In this phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection in two cohorts, according to the change in the plasma HIV-1 RNA level between the screening and cohort-selection visits. In cohort 1, patients were first randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive oral lenacapavir or placebo in addition to their failing therapy for 14 days; during the maintenance period, starting on day 15, patients in the lenacapavir group received subcutaneous lenacapavir once every 6 months, and those in the placebo group received oral lenacapavir, followed by subcutaneous lenacapavir; both groups also received optimized background therapy. In cohort 2, all the patients received open-label oral lenacapavir with optimized background therapy on days 1 through 14; subcutaneous lenacapavir was then administered once every 6 months starting on day 15. The primary end point was the percentage of patients in cohort 1 who had a decrease of at least 0.5 logA total of 72 patients were enrolled, with 36 in each cohort. In cohort 1, a decrease of at least 0.5 logIn patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection, those who received lenacapavir had a greater reduction from baseline in viral load than those who received placebo. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; CAPELLA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04150068.).

Background Remdesivir is efficacious for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults, but data in pregnant women are limited. We describe outcomes in the first 86 pregnant women with severe COVID-19 who were treated with remdesivir. Methods The reported data span 21 March to 16 June 2020 for hospitalized pregnant women with polymerase chain reaction–confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and room air oxygen saturation ≤94% whose clinicians requested remdesivir through the compassionate use program. The intended remdesivir treatment course was 10 days (200 mg on day 1, followed by 100 mg for days 2–10, given intravenously). Results Nineteen of 86 women delivered before their first dose and were reclassified as immediate “postpartum” (median postpartum day 1 [range, 0–3]). At baseline, 40% of pregnant women (median gestational age, 28 weeks) required invasive ventilation, in contrast to 95% of postpartum women (median gestational age at delivery 30 weeks). By day 28 of follow-up, the level of oxygen requirement decreased in 96% and 89% of pregnant and postpartum women, respectively. Among pregnant women, 93% of those on mechanical ventilation were extubated, 93% recovered, and 90% were discharged. Among postpartum women, 89% were extubated, 89% recovered, and 84% were discharged. Remdesivir was well tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse events (AEs) (16%). Most AEs were related to pregnancy and underlying disease; most laboratory abnormalities were grade 1 or 2. There was 1 maternal death attributed to underlying disease and no neonatal deaths. Conclusions Among 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe COVID-19 who received compassionate-use remdesivir, recovery rates were high, with a low rate of serious AEs., Among 86 pregnant and postpartum women with severe coronavirus disease 2019 who received compassionate-use remdesivir, recovery rates from serious infection were high with a low rate of serious adverse events.

Oral antiretroviral agents provide life-saving treatments for millions of people living with HIV, and can prevent new infections via pre-exposure prophylaxis1–5. However, some people living with HIV who are heavily treatment-experienced have limited or no treatment options, owing to multidrug resistance6. In addition, suboptimal adherence to oral daily regimens can negatively affect the outcome of treatment—which contributes to virologic failure, resistance generation and viral transmission—as well as of pre-exposure prophylaxis, leading to new infections1,2,4,7–9. Long-acting agents from new antiretroviral classes can provide much-needed treatment options for people living with HIV who are heavily treatment-experienced, and additionally can improve adherence10. Here we describe GS-6207, a small molecule that disrupts the functions of HIV capsid protein and is amenable to long-acting therapy owing to its high potency, low in vivo systemic clearance and slow release kinetics from the subcutaneous injection site. Drawing on X-ray crystallographic information, we designed GS-6207 to bind tightly at a conserved interface between capsid protein monomers, where it interferes with capsid-protein-mediated interactions between proteins that are essential for multiple phases of the viral replication cycle. GS-6207 exhibits antiviral activity at picomolar concentrations against all subtypes of HIV-1 that we tested, and shows high synergy and no cross-resistance with approved antiretroviral drugs. In phase-1 clinical studies, monotherapy with a single subcutaneous dose of GS-6207 (450 mg) resulted in a mean log10-transformed reduction of plasma viral load of 2.2 after 9 days, and showed sustained plasma exposure at antivirally active concentrations for more than 6 months. These results provide clinical validation for therapies that target the functions of HIV capsid protein, and demonstrate the potential of GS-6207 as a long-acting agent to treat or prevent infection with HIV. The small molecule GS-6207, which disrupts the function of the HIV capsid protein, shows potential as a long-acting therapeutic agent for the treatment and prevention of HIV infection.

Summary Background Tenofovir alafenamide shows high antiviral efficacy and improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate when used for HIV treatment. Here, we report primary results from a blinded phase 3 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention. Methods This study is an ongoing, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 94 community, public health, and hospital-associated clinics located in regions of Europe and North America, where there is a high incidence of HIV or prevalence of people living with HIV, or both. We enrolled adult cisgender men who have sex with men and transgender women who have sex with men, both with a high risk of acquiring HIV on the basis of their self-reported sexual behaviour in the past 12 weeks or their recent history (within 24 weeks of enrolment) of bacterial sexually transmitted infections. Participants with current or previous use of PrEP with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were not excluded. We used a computer-generated random allocation sequence to randomly assign (1:1) participants to receive either emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group), or emtricitabine (200 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) tablets daily, with matched placebo tablets (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). As such, all participants were given two tablets. The trial sponsor, investigators, participants, and the study staff who provided the study drugs, assessed the outcomes, and collected the data were masked to group assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was incident HIV infection, which was assessed when all participants had completed 48 weeks of follow-up and half of all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow-up. This full analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug and had at least one post-baseline HIV test. Non-inferiority of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was established if the upper bound of the 95·003% CI of the HIV incidence rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62. We prespecified six secondary bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints to evaluate using the safety analysis set. This analysis set included all randomly assigned participants who had received at least one dose of the assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02842086 , and is no longer recruiting. Findings Between Sept 13, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 5387 (92%) of 5857 participants were randomly assigned and received emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2693). At the time of the primary efficacy analysis (ie, when all participants had completed 48 weeks and 50% had completed 96 weeks) emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the IRR, was less than the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·47 [95% CI 0·19–1·15]). After 8756 person-years of follow-up, 22 participants were diagnosed with HIV, seven participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group (0·16 infections per 100 person-years [95% CI 0·06–0·33]), and 15 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (0·34 infections per 100 person-years [0·19–0·56]). Both regimens were well tolerated, with a low number of participants reporting adverse events that led to discontinuation of the study drug (36 [1%] of 2694 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group vs 49 [2%] of 2693 participants in the emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was superior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarker safety endpoints. Interpretation Daily emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide shows non-inferior efficacy to daily emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, and the number of adverse events for both regimens was low. Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide had more favourable effects on bone mineral density and biomarkers of renal safety than emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Funding Gilead Sciences.

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 HCV-specific DAAs have transformed treatment of chronic HCV, but few studies have evaluated these therapies in children. Methods Patients aged 12–17 years old with chronic GT1 HCV were enrolled into an open-label study to receive 12 weeks of LDV/SOF 90 mg/400 mg once daily, and those with HCV GT2 or GT3 to receive SOF (400 mg once daily) + RBV (15 mg/kg/day) for 12 (GT2) or 24 weeks (GT3), respectively. Primary efficacy endpoint was SVR12. Safety was assessed by adverse events and clinical/laboratory data. Pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling was conducted to confirm the appropriateness of the doses. Results 150 adolescents (100 GT1, 13 GT2 and 37 GT3) were enrolled and treated. The majority were female (56%), white (90%), treatment naive (81%), and vertically infected (80%). The mean age was 15 years (range 12–17). LDV, SOF and GS-331007 (primary metabolite) exposures were within the range of adult exposures observed in the SOF and LDV/SOF phase 2/3 studies. The SVR12 rate was 98% in GT1, 100% in GT2 and 97% in GT3; all 3 patients who were considered not to have achieved SVR12 were lost to follow-up. No adverse event (AE) leading to study drug discontinuation or serious AEs have been reported. Conclusion In adolescents, LDV/SOF for 12 weeks and SOF + RBV for 12 or 24 weeks, resulted in a SVR12 rate of 97–100% with no virologic failures. These regimens were well tolerated, demonstrating their potential as an important treatment option for children with HCV infection.

Background We have previously shown in renally impaired (RI) CHB patients, including those with ESRD on HD, that switching to TAF from TDF and/or other OAVs maintains high rates of viral suppression with stable bone and renal safety parameters at Week 48. Here we present the final Week 96 results. Methods In this study, virally suppressed CHB patients (HBV DNA Results Of 93 patients (mod-severe RI 78; ESRD on HD 15), most (74%) were male and Asian (77%), 51% ≥65 y, 83% HBeAg-negative, 34% cirrhosis, and median ALT 17 U/L. Up to 24% had osteoporosis at hip and/or spine, with most having comorbidities. Twelve (13%; 11 mod-severe RI and 1 ESRD) patients discontinued the study early (5-withdrew consent, 3-deaths [none treatment-related], 2-AE, 2-investigator decision). Viral suppression (HBV DNA Conclusions Renally-impaired CHB patients, including ESRD patients on HD, who were switched to TAF from TDF and/or other OAVs maintained high rates of viral suppression, and bone and renal parameters remained stable or slightly improved after 2 years of treatment.

Purpose Trials of tocilizumab in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia have demonstrated mixed results, and the role of tocilizumab in combination with other treatments is uncertain. Here we evaluated whether tocilizumab plus remdesivir provides greater benefit than remdesivir alone in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial included patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring > 6 L/min supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) to receive tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously plus ≤ 10 days of remdesivir. The primary outcome was time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” (defined as category 1, assessed by the investigator on a 7-category ordinal scale of clinical status) to day 28. Patients were followed for 60 days. Results Among 649 enrolled patients, 434 were randomly assigned to tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 215 to placebo plus remdesivir. 566 patients (88.2%) received corticosteroids during the trial to day 28. Median time from randomization to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” was 14 (95% CI 12–15) days with tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 14 (95% CI 11–16) days with placebo plus remdesivir [log-rank P = 0.74; Cox proportional hazards ratio 0.97 (95% CI 0.78–1.19)]. Serious adverse events occurred in 128 (29.8%) tocilizumab plus remdesivir and 72 (33.8%) placebo plus remdesivir patients; 78 (18.2%) and 42 (19.7%) patients, respectively, died by day 28. Conclusions Tocilizumab plus remdesivir did not shorten time to hospital discharge or “ready for discharge” to day 28 compared with placebo plus remdesivir in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06507-x.

Summary Background Limited empirical evidence exists for the effectiveness of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment-as-prevention. The Surveillance and Treatment of Prisoners with hepatitis C (SToP-C) study aimed to assess the effect of HCV treatment-as-prevention in the prison setting. Methods SToP-C was a prospective study, including a before-and-after analysis, within a cohort of people incarcerated in two maximum-security prisons (male) and two medium-security prisons (one male, one female) in New South Wales, Australia. All prison inmates aged at least 18 years were eligible for enrolment. After HCV testing, participants were monitored for risk behaviours and HCV infection, among three sub-populations: uninfected (HCV antibody-negative); previously infected (HCV antibody-positive, HCV RNA-negative); and infected (HCV antibody and HCV RNA-positive). Uninfected participants were followed up every 3–6 months to detect HCV primary infection and previously infected participants were followed up every 3–6 months to detect re-infection. Participants with HCV infection were assessed for treatment, initially standard-of-care treatment (administered by prison health services) from 2014 to mid-2017, then direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment scale-up from mid-2017 onwards (12 weeks of sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir, administered through SToP-C). Participants were followed up until study closure in November, 2019. The primary study outcome was HCV incidence before and after DAA treatment scale-up among participants at risk of HCV primary infection or re-infection. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02064049. Findings Between Oct 30, 2014, and Sept 30, 2019, 3691 participants were enrolled in the SToP-C study. 719 (19%) participants had detectable HCV RNA, 2240 (61%) were at risk of primary HCV infection, and 725 (20%) were at risk of re-infection at baseline. DAA treatment was initiated in 349 (70%) of 499 eligible participants during the treatment scale-up period. The HCV incidence analysis comprised 1643 participants at risk of HCV infection or re-infection during longitudinal follow-up (median age 33 years [IQR 27–42]; 1350 [82%] male). 487 (30%) of 1643 participants reported injecting drugs in prison. HCV incidence decreased from 8·31 per 100 person-years in the pre-treatment scale-up period to 4·35 per 100 person-years in the post-treatment scale-up period (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·36–0·78]; p=0·0007). The incidence of primary infection decreased from 6·64 per 100 person-years in the pre-treatment scale-up period to 2·85 per 100 person-years in the post-treatment scale-up period (IRR 0·43 [95% CI 0·25–0·74]; p=0·0019), whereas the incidence of re-infection decreased from 12·36 per 100 person-years to 7·27 per 100 person-years (0·59 [0·35–1·00]; p=0·050). Among participants reporting injecting drugs during their current imprisonment, the incidence of primary infection decreased from 39·08 per 100 person-years in the pre-treatment scale-up period to 14·03 per 100 person-years in the post-treatment scale-up period (IRR 0·36 [95% CI 0·16–0·80]; p=0·0091), and the incidence of re-infection decreased from 15·26 per 100 person-years to 9·34 per 100 person-years (0·61 [0·34–1·09]; p=0·093). The adjusted analysis (adjusted for age, Indigenous Australian ethnicity, duration of stay in prison, previous imprisonment, injecting drug use status, and prison site) indicated a significant reduction in the risk of HCV infection between the pre-DAA treatment scale-up and post-DAA treatment scale-up periods (adjusted hazard ratio 0·50 [95% CI 0·33–0·76]; p=0·0014). Interpretation DAA treatment scale-up was associated with reduced HCV incidence in prison, indicative of a beneficial effect of HCV treatment-as-prevention in this setting. These findings support broad DAA treatment scale-up within incarcerated populations. Funding Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Partnership Project Grant and Gilead Sciences.

For children under 12 years of age who have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, there are currently no approved treatments with direct‐acting antiviral agents. We therefore evaluated the safety and efficacy of ledipasvir‐sofosbuvir in HCV‐infected children aged 3 to

Currently, the only approved hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment for children aged

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 and aim Genotype 3b hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection represents approximately 50% of patients with genotype 3 in China. We compared the efficacy of sofosbuvir (SOF) plus ribavirin (RBV) in Chinese patients with genotype 3a and 3b HCV. Methods The analyzed data are from a phase 3, open-label study of SOF plus RBV for 24 weeks conducted in China. The primary endpoint for the trial was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). Results Of 126 patients included in this analysis, 58 (46%) had genotype 3a and 68 (54%) had genotype 3b. Both the subtypes were similar in age, sex, body mass index, IL28B, and baseline HCV RNA. However, more treatment-experienced and cirrhotic patients were in the genotype 3b group. All 100% of patients with genotype 3a (95% confidence interval [CI], 94-100), and 91% (95% CI, 82-97) of patients with genotype 3b achieved SVR12 (P = 0.030). For treatment-experienced patients with genotype 3b, the SVR12 rate was 73% (95% CI, 39-94) and 88% (95% CI, 64-99) among patients with and without cirrhosis (P = 1.00), respectively. Conclusion SOF plus RBV for 24 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 3 infection resulted in high rates of SVR. However, the SVR12 rate among patients with genotype 3b was lower than that observed in patients with genotype 3a infection, particularly among treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis.

Summary This study evaluated 12‐week retreatment with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who did not achieve sustained virologic response after previous treatment with a sofosbuvir‐ and velpatasvir‐containing regimen. All 31 patients maintained a sustained virologic response 12 weeks after the last sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir dose.

Background and aims In clinical studies, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir has demonstrated high cure rates and favorable tolerability in patients chronically infected with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) of any genotype. We evaluated the effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir administered with minimal medical monitoring to patients in India. Methods At 16 sites in India, 129 adult patients with chronic HCV infection of any genotype initiated 12 weeks of once-daily sofosbuvir–velpatasvir (400–100 mg). Patients with compensated cirrhosis or prior treatment experience could be included in the study. Study drug was dispensed monthly, but there were no on-treatment study assessments. The primary efficacy endpoint was rate of sustained virologic response (HCV RNA

Summary Background Treatment with combined sofosbuvir and velpatasvir has resulted in high sustained virological response rates in patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) with genotypes 1–6 in clinical trials and real-world settings, but its efficacy and safety has not been assessed in Asia, a region with diverse HCV genotypes. Methods In this single-arm, open-label, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients from 38 sites across China, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, and Malaysia, who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1–6, and were HCV treatment-naive or treatment-experienced, either without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis. Patients self-administered a combined sofosbuvir (400 mg) and velpatasvir (100 mg) tablet once daily for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response, defined as HCV RNA less than 15 IU/mL at 12 weeks after completion of treatment (SVR12), assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of adverse events leading to premature discontinuation of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02671500 , and is completed. Findings Between April 14, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 375 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 374 completed the full treatment course and one discontinued treatment. Overall, 362 (97% [95% CI 94–98]) of 375 patients achieved SVR12. Among 42 patients with HCV genotype 3b, all of whom had baseline resistance-associated substitutions in NS5A, 25 (89% [95% CI 72–98]) of 28 patients without cirrhosis and seven (50% [23–77]) of 14 patients with cirrhosis achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract infection (36 [10%] patients) and headache (18 [5%] patients). There were no discontinuations due to adverse events. Serious adverse events were reported in three (1%) patients, none of which was judged to be related to sofosbuvir–velpatasvir treatment. Interpretation Consistent with data from other phase 3 studies, single-tablet sofosbuvir–velpatasvir for 12 weeks is an efficacious and safe treatment for Asian patients with chronic HCV infection, but might have lower efficacy in those infected with HCV genotype 3b and with cirrhosis. Funding Gilead Sciences.

There are limited data on direct‐acting antiviral (DAA) treatment options for previously treated patients with recurrent genotype 3 (GT3) hepatitis C virus (HCV) after liver transplantation. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (SOF/VEL/VOX) is currently approved for treatment of HCV in patients with prior treatment with DAAs. We report the first published experience using SOF/VEL/VOX after liver transplantation for a DAA‐experienced patient with severe hepatitis due to early recurrent GT3 HCV. The patient was treated with SOF/VEL/VOX that was extended to a total duration of 16 weeks and was intensified with ribavirin (RBV) starting at week 8 due to persistent viremia during treatment. Sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12) after treatment completion was achieved. SOF/VEL/VOX was well tolerated, and immediate drug–drug interaction (DDI) with tacrolimus (TAC) was not evident. Due to improvement in liver metabolic function with increasing TAC clearance, TAC dose adjustment was required throughout the treatment course. Conclusion: SOF/VEL/VOX can be considered for treatment of recurrent HCV after transplantation. Further study is needed to establish safety and efficacy and define treatment duration in difficult‐to‐treat populations.

OBJECTIVES: Remdesivir shortens time to recovery in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its efficacy and safety in children are unknown. We describe outcomes in children with severe COVID-19 treated with remdesivir. METHODS: Seventy-seven hospitalized patients RESULTS: Median age was 14 years (interquartile range 7–16, range CONCLUSIONS: Among 77 children treated with remdesivir for severe COVID-19, most recovered and the rate of serious adverse events was low.

Background: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. Methods: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). Results: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P=0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P=.03). Conclusions: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background: In DISCOVER, a multinational randomized controlled trial, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide compared with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate demonstrated noninferior efficacy for HIV prevention and improved bone mineral density and renal safety biomarkers at week 48. Here, we report outcomes analysed after all participants had completed 96 weeks of follow up. Methods: Adult cisgender men and transgender women who have sex with men with a high risk of acquiring HIV were randomly assigned (1:1) to either of two study arms. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02842086. Findings: 5,387 participants were randomly assigned to receive emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide (n=2,694) or emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=2,693), contributing 10,081 person-years (PY) of follow-up. There were eight HIV infections in emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide users (0·16 infections/100 PY [95% CI 0·07–0·31]), and 15 in emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate users (0·30 infections/100 PY [0·17–0·49]). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide was noninferior to emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for HIV prevention, as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the infection rate ratio (IRR) was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 1·62 (IRR 0·54 [95% CI 0·23–1·26]). Approximately 78% to 82% of participants reported taking study medication more than 95% of the time across all study visits. Rates of sexually transmitted infections remained high and similar across arms (21 per 100 PYs for rectal gonorrhea and 28 per 100 PY for rectal chlamydia). Emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide continued to demonstrate superiority over emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in all six prespecified bone mineral density and renal biomarkers. There was more weight gain among emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide users (median weight gain 1·7 kg vs. 0·5 kg, p

Background COVID-19 has spread rapidly: from the first case in Dec 2019, the declaration of a global pandemic in Mar 2020, to Jun 18, 2020 with >8 M confirmed cases and >400,000 deaths worldwide. Throughout this rapid spread, Gilead has focused on contributing antiviral expertise and resources to help patients (pts) and communities fighting COVID-19 Methods Gilead is supporting the efforts of governments, partnering with professionals, and community-based org., and collaborating with healthcare providers to accelerate research and access to remdesivir (RDV), the first medicine with demonstrated efficacy in treatment of COVID-19. This is a review of the programs initiated in RDV research, access, research grants and collaborative education Results In Jan 2020 Gilead began working with government and regulatory authorities to make RDV accessible to pts globally through the compassionate use and expanded access programs. These programs has treated >2000 COVID-19 pts. By Feb 2020, several phase 3 randomized trials on RDV were initiated. Based on trials completed and published data (n= >2000), RDV was granted emergency use authorization in the US on May 1, 2020 with full approval in 5 countries thereafter and several under review elsewhere. Collectively there will be >12,000 pts enrolled in RDV clinical programs by Dec 2020. Increasing manufacturing of RDV began at-risk in Jan 2020. By May 2020 Gilead has decreased production time, increased supply and committed to donating all its 1.5 M doses. Under the licensing agreements with generic drug manufacturers, RDV will be available in 127 countries upon approval. Gilead has committed to supporting research grants to enhance the understanding of the clinical course and outcomes in vulnerable population, long-term sequelae, and evaluate real world safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 therapies. Finally, Gilead has provided corporate grants to support the efforts of community-based orgs and public health entities to expand education on COVID-19 Conclusion Gilead has initiated a global, multifaceted rapid response that reflects the unprecedented emergency posed by SARS-COV-2. This includes increasing RDV production, access, timely initiation of phase 3 RDV trials, and establishment of grants programs for community projects, research and education Disclosures EunYoung Lee, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Tram Tran, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Lauren Dau, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diogo Ferrinho, PharmD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) ChenYu Wang, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Kavita Juneja, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee)Gilead Sciences (Employee)

Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonists, in combination with other therapies, can induce sustained control of simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) or simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) in nonhuman primates. Here, we report the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1b clinical trial of an oral TLR7 agonist, vesatolimod, in HIV-1-infected controllers on antiretroviral therapy (ART). We randomized participants 2:1 to receive vesatolimod (n = 17) or placebo (n = 8) once every other week for a total of 10 doses while continuing on ART. ART was then interrupted, and the time to viral rebound was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Vesatolimod was associated with induction of immune cell activation, decreases in intact proviral DNA during ART, and a modest increase in time to rebound after ART was interrupted. The delayed viral rebound was predicted by the lower intact proviral DNA at the end of vesatolimod treatment (13 days after the final dose). Inferred pathway analysis suggested increased dendritic cell and natural killer cell cross-talk and an increase in cytotoxicity potential after vesatolimod dosing. Larger clinical studies will be necessary to assess the efficacy of vesatolimod-based combination therapies aimed at long-term control of HIV infection.

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 We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. Methods GS-US-540–5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540–5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. Results After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22–.68, P = .001). Conclusions In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Background Treatment with vesatolimod, an investigational, oral, toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) agonist, leads to sustained viral remission in some non-human primates when combined with anti-envelope antibodies or therapeutic vaccines. We report results of a Phase Ib study evaluating safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of vesatolimod in adults living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–1. Methods In this double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial, participants on antiretroviral therapy with screening plasma HIV-1 RNA levels Results A total of 48 individuals were randomly assigned to vesatolimod (n = 36) or placebo (n = 12). Vesatolimod was generally well tolerated, with no study drug–related serious adverse events or adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation. There were no statistically significant changes from baseline in plasma HIV-1 RNA in the vesatolimod groups, compared to placebo. Vesatolimod plasma exposures increased dose proportionally; consistent responses in cytokines, interferon-stimulated gene expression, and lymphocyte activation were observed with increasing dose levels above 4 mg. Peak elevations 24 hours after receipt of a 6 mg dose were >3.9-fold higher for interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), interferon–inducible T-cell alpha chemoattractant (ITAC) when compared to baseline values. Conclusions Vesatolimod was well tolerated at doses ranging from 1 to 12 mg. Immune stimulation was observed at doses above 4 mg, providing rationale for future combination trials in people living with HIV. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02858401.

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 Remdesivir, a nucleotide analogue prodrug that inhibits viral RNA polymerases, has shown in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2. Methods We provided remdesivir on a compassionate-use basis to patients hospitalized with Covid-19, the illness caused by infection with SARS-CoV-2. Patients were those with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who had an oxygen saturation of 94% or less while they were breathing ambient air or who were receiving oxygen support. Patients received a 10-day course of remdesivir, consisting of 200 mg administered intravenously on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for the remaining 9 days of treatment. This report is based on data from patients who received remdesivir during the period from January 25, 2020, through March 7, 2020, and have clinical data for at least 1 subsequent day. Results Of the 61 patients who received at least one dose of remdesivir, data from 8 could not be analyzed (including 7 patients with no post-treatment data and 1 with a dosing error). Of the 53 patients whose data were analyzed, 22 were in the United States, 22 in Europe or Canada, and 9 in Japan. At baseline, 30 patients (57%) were receiving mechanical ventilation and 4 (8%) were receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. During a median follow-up of 18 days, 36 patients (68%) had an improvement in oxygen-support class, including 17 of 30 patients (57%) receiving mechanical ventilation who were extubated. A total of 25 patients (47%) were discharged, and 7 patients (13%) died; mortality was 18% (6 of 34) among patients receiving invasive ventilation and 5% (1 of 19) among those not receiving invasive ventilation. Conclusions In this cohort of patients hospitalized for severe Covid-19 who were treated with compassionate-use remdesivir, clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%). Measurement of efficacy will require ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled trials of remdesivir therapy. (Funded by Gilead Sciences.)

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

Background In Japan, hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients with decompensated cirrhosis currently have no treatment options. In this Phase 3 study, we evaluated sofosbuvir–velpatasvir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks in patients with any HCV genotype and decompensated cirrhosis [Child–Pugh–Turcotte (CPT) class B or C] in Japan. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive sofosbuvir–velpatasvir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks. Randomization was stratified by CPT class and genotype. Sustained virologic response 12 weeks following completion of treatment (SVR12) was the primary efficacy endpoint. Results Of the 102 patients enrolled, 57% were treatment naive, 78% and 20% had genotype 1 and 2 HCV infection, respectively, and 77% and 20% had CPT class B and C cirrhosis, respectively, at baseline. Overall, 61% of patients were female and the mean age was 66 years (range 41–83). SVR12 rates were 92% (47/51) in each group. Among patients who achieved SVR12, 26% had improved CPT class from baseline to posttreatment week 12. Most adverse events (AEs) were consistent with clinical sequelae of advanced liver disease or known toxicities of ribavirin. Four patients (8%) who received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and seven (14%) who received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir plus ribavirin experienced a serious AE. The 3 deaths (bacterial sepsis, gastric varices hemorrhage, hepatocellular carcinoma) were attributed to liver disease progression. Conclusion Sofosbuvir–velpatasvir for 12 weeks provides a highly effective and well-tolerated therapy for Japanese patients with HCV and decompensated cirrhosis. Ribavirin did not improve efficacy but increased toxicity. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00535-018-1503-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background/purpose In Japan, there is a growing population of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who failed a direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based regimen. In this Phase 3 study, we evaluated sofosbuvir–velpatasvir plus ribavirin in Japanese patients with genotype 1 or 2 HCV infection who previously received DAAs. Methods Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive sofosbuvir–velpatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks. Randomization was stratified by HCV genotype and presence of cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12-week post-treatment (SVR12). Results Of 117 participants, 81% had HCV genotype 1 infection, 33% had cirrhosis, and 95% had NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RAS) at baseline. Overall, SVR12 rates were 97% (58/60; 95% CI 88–100%) with 24 weeks of treatment and 82% (47/57; 95% CI 70–91%) with 12 weeks. For HCV genotype 1 and 2 infected patients, the SVR12 rates with 24 weeks of treatment were 98% and 92%, respectively. In both treatment groups, SVR12 rates in HCV genotype 1 patients were statistically superior to a historical control rate of 50% (p

Background & aims Japanese patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 infection have high rates of sustained virological response (SVR) following 12 weeks of treatment with the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir in combination with ribavirin, which was the standard of care at the time this study was undertaken. We assessed the efficacy of 12 weeks of treatment with a ribavirin-free regimen of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir. Methods In an open-label, Phase 3 trial we enrolled Japanese patients with chronic HCV genotype 2 infection, with or without compensated cirrhosis. In Cohort 1, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (n = 106) or sofosbuvir + ribavirin (n = 108) for 12 weeks. In Cohort 2, 25 ribavirin-intolerant or -ineligible patients received ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was SVR 12 weeks after therapy (SVR12). In Cohort 1 non-inferiority was assessed with a prespecified margin of 10%. Results One-third (33%) of patients were treatment experienced, and 14% had cirrhosis. In Cohort 1, SVR12 rates were 96% (95% CI, 91% to 99%) with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir and 95% (95% CI, 90% to 98%) with sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, thus achieving non-inferiority. Among ribavirin-intolerant/ineligible patients in Cohort 2, SVR12 was 96% (95% CI, 80% to 100%) with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir. Overall, the most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, anaemia, and headache; anaemia was only observed in patients receiving ribavirin. The percentage of patients who discontinued treatment because of an adverse event was low (1%). Conclusions Among Japanese patients with HCV genotype 2, 12 weeks of treatment with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir resulted in high rates of SVR12 that were non-inferior to sofosbuvir + ribavirin.

Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni®), a fixed-dose combination tablet of an NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir and an NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, is approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir exhibits a favorable drug-drug interaction profile and can be administered with various medications that may be used by hepatitis C virus-infected patients, including patients with comorbidities, such as co-infection with human immunodeficiency virus or immunosuppression following liver transplantation. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not expected to act as a victim or perpetrator of cytochrome P450- or UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1-mediated drug-drug interactions. With the exception of strong inducers of P-glycoprotein, such as rifampin, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is not expected to act as a victim of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. As a perpetrator of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions via P-glycoprotein/BCRP, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir should not be used with rosuvastatin and elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, whereas its co-administration with amiodarone is not recommended because of a pharmacodynamic interaction. This review summarizes a number of drug interaction studies conducted in support of the clinical development of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.

Background Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a significant medical burden in China, affecting more than 10 million persons. In clinical trials and real-world settings, treatment with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in patients with genotype 1 HCV infection resulted in high sustained virologic response rates. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir may provide a highly effective, short-duration, single-tablet regimen for Chinese patients with HCV infection. Methods Chinese patients with genotype 1 HCV infection who were HCV treatment naive or treatment experienced, without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis, were treated with open-label ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after completing treatment (SVR12). For treatment-naive patients, SVR12 was compared to a historical rate of 57%. The primary safety endpoint was adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of study drug; serious adverse events were also evaluated. The presence of resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) was evaluated by viral sequencing. Results All 206 enrolled patients achieved SVR12 (100%; 95% CI 98–100%), including 106 treatment-naive patients (100%; 95% CI 97–100%), which was superior to a historical SVR rate of 57% (p

ObjectiveWe evaluated the efficacy and safety of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir alone and with ribavirin for 8 and 12 weeks in Egyptian patients with and without cirrhosis, who were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4, including those who had failed previous treatment with sofosbuvir regimens.DesignIn this open-label, multicentre, phase III study, treatment-naive patients were randomised to receive 8 or 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin. Interferon treatment-experienced patients were randomised to receive 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin, while sofosbuvir-experienced or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir-experienced patients received 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin. Randomisation was stratified by cirrhosis status. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12).ResultsWe enrolled 255 patients from four centres in Egypt. Among treatment-naive patients, SVR12 rates were 95% and 90% for those receiving 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir alone and with ribavirin, respectively, and 98% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir both alone and with ribavirin. Among interferon-experienced patients, SVR rates were 94% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and 100% for those receiving 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin. All patients previously treated with sofosbuvir regimens who received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events, headache and fatigue, were more common among patients receiving ribavirin.ConclusionAmong non-cirrhotic treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 4, 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin was highly effective. Twelve weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin was highly effective regardless of presence of cirrhosis or prior treatment experience, including previous treatment with sofosbuvir or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir.Trial registration numberNCT02487030.

BACKGROUND AND AIM Sofosbuvir is a nucleotide analog inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B RNA polymerase with pangenotypic potency. This phase 3b study evaluated the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir + ribavirin ± peginterferon in Chinese patients infected with HCV genotype 1, 2, 3, or 6. METHODS Patients with genotype 1 or 6 received sofosbuvir + peginterferon/ribavirin for 12 weeks or sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 24 weeks, depending on prior treatment and interferon eligibility. Patients with genotype 2 or 3 received sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks, respectively. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12). RESULTS Of 389 patients, 42% had genotype 1, 16% genotype 2, 32% genotype 3, and 9% genotype 6. Half were male, 58% were treatment-naive, and 15% had cirrhosis. SVR12 rates for patients receiving 12 weeks of sofosbuvir + peginterferon/ribavirin were 94% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87-98%) for HCV genotype 1 and 97% (95% CI, 84-100%) for genotype 6. SVR12 rates for those receiving sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 24 weeks were 95% (95% CI, 87-99%) for genotype 1, 100% (95% CI, 40-100%) for genotype 6, and 95% (95% CI, 90-98%) for genotype 3. For genotype 2 patients receiving sofosbuvir + ribavirin for 12 weeks, the SVR12 rate was 92% (95% CI, 83-97%). Twenty patients (5%) relapsed. Ten (3%) experienced serious adverse events. Three (

The pharmacokinetics and safety of velpatasvir, a potent pangenotypic hepatitis C virus NS5A inhibitor, were evaluated in two hepatic impairment studies: a phase I study in hepatitis C virus-uninfected subjects and a phase III study (ASTRAL-4) in hepatitis C virus-infected patients. In the phase I study, subjects with moderate or severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh-Turcotte Class B or C), and demographically matched subjects with normal hepatic function received a single dose of velpatasvir 100 mg. Pharmacokinetics and safety assessments were performed, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using non-compartmental methods and summarized using descriptive statistics and compared statistically by geometric least-squares mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals. In ASTRAL-4, subjects with decompensated cirrhosis (Child-Pugh-Turcotte Class B) were randomized to receive treatment with either sofosbuvir/velpatasvir ± ribavirin for 12 weeks or sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for 24 weeks. Pharmacokinetic and safety assessments were performed and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental analysis and summarized using descriptive statistics and were compared to pharmacokinetics from ASTRAL-1 [subjects without cirrhosis or with compensated (Child-Pugh-Turcotte Class A) cirrhosis]. In the phase I study, plasma exposures (area under the concentration–time curve) were similar in subjects with Child-Pugh-Turcotte Class B (n = 10) or Child-Pugh-Turcotte Class C hepatic impairment (n = 10) compared with normal hepatic function (n = 13). Percent free velpatasvir was similar in subjects without or with any degree of hepatic impairment. In the phase III study, velpatasvir overall exposure (area under the concentration–time curve over the 24-h dosing interval; AUCtau) was similar and sofosbuvir exposures were higher (~ 100%) for patients with Child-Pugh-Turcotte Class B hepatic impairment compared with the ASTRAL-1 population, which was not considered clinically relevant. No sofosbuvir/velpatasvir dose modification is warranted for patients with any degree of hepatic impairment.

Background Eradication of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection via interferon-based treatment lowers hepatocellular carcinoma risk; some research suggests this effect extends to interferon-free treatment. Aims The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to examine the association of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) exposure with risk of incident liver cancer in real-world data. Methods From United States administrative claims data through March 31, 2017, we identified 30 183 adult HCV patients exposed to DAAs. For comparison, we identified contemporary adult HCV patients without evidence of HCV treatment (N = 137 502), and historical HCV patients treated with interferon prior to the introduction of DAAs (N = 12 948). Included patients had at least 12 months of prior enrolment and no evidence of prior liver cancer at baseline. Hazard ratios (HRs) estimating risk of incident liver cancer associated with DAA treatment were calculated using Cox proportional hazards methods. Results Relative to untreated HCV patients, DAA-treated patients were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have cirrhosis at baseline. After adjustment, DAA treatment was associated with a significantly reduced risk of liver cancer relative to no treatment (adjusted HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.96), and relative to interferon-based treatment in the pre-DAA era (HR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.59-0.81). Conclusions In this large, population-based study, DAA-based treatment was associated with a reduced risk of incident liver cancer relative to both no HCV treatment and to interferon-based treatment in the pre-DAA era. As additional follow-up time of DAA-treated patients accrues, we anticipate that the long-term benefits of DAA treatment will become more apparent.

Background & Aims There have been reports of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection during treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with direct-acting antiviral agents. We performed a prospective study of risks and outcomes of HCV infection treatment with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir in patients with HBV infection. Methods We performed a phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study in Taiwan of 111 patients with HCV infection (61% HCV genotype 1, 39% HCV genotype 2 infection; 62% women, 16% with compensated cirrhosis) along with HBV infection. All but 1 were positive for the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg); 1 patient who was HBsAg positive at screening was found to be HBsAg negative at baseline. Overall, 33% of participants had received prior treatment for HCV and 5% had previously been treated for HBV; no patient was on HBV therapy at the start of the study. All patients received a fixed-dose combination of 90 mg of the HCV NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir with 400 mg of the NS5B nucleotide analogue inhibitor sofosbuvir, once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response (SVR) 12 weeks after the end of therapy. Results All 111 patients (100%) achieved an SVR. Of the 37 patients with baseline HBV DNA below 20 IU/mL, 31 (84%) had at least 1 episode of quantifiable HBV DNA through post-treatment week 12. Of the 74 patients with baseline HBV DNA levels of 20 IU/mL or more, 39 (53%) had increases of HBV DNA greater than 1 log 10 IU/mL through post-treatment week 12. Overall, 5 patients had increased levels of HBV DNA concomitant with a level of alanine aminotransferase more than 2-fold the upper limit of normal though post-treatment Week 12. Of these, 3 patients started HBV treatment. In addition, one patient with HBV reactivation since Week 8 and concomitant ALT elevation > 2 x ULN at post treatment Week 48 started treatment at post treatment Week 53. This patient had clinical signs and symptoms associated with HBV reactivation. The most common adverse events were headache, upper respiratory infection, and fatigue. Conclusions In a prospective study, the combination of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 12 weeks produced an SVR in 100% of patients with HCV infection who were co-infected with HBV. Most patients had an increase in level of HBV DNA not associated with signs or symptoms. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02613871

Treatment with the direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) sofosbuvir (SOF), an NS5B inhibitor, and velpatasvir (VEL), an NS5A inhibitor, demonstrates viral cure rates of ≥95% in hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes (GT) 1-6. Here, we investigated intrapatient HCV diversity in NS5A and NS5B using Shannon entropy to examine the relationship between viral diversity and treatment outcome. At baseline, HCV diversity was lowest in patients infected with HCV GT3 as compared to the other GTs, and viral diversity was greater in NS5A than NS5B (P

Background Remdesivir (RDV) has been shown to shorten recovery time and was well tolerated in patients with severe COVID-19. Hydroxychloroquine (HQN) is an experimental treatment for COVID-19. Effects of coadministration of HQN with RDV have not been studied and are relevant given the long half-life (~22 days) of HQN. We report the impact of concomitant HQN and RDV use on clinical outcomes and safety in patients with moderate COVID-19. Methods We enrolled hospitalized patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, oxygen saturation >94% on room air, and radiological evidence of pneumonia. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 5d or 10d of intravenous RDV once daily plus standard of care (SoC), or SoC only. We compared patients on concomitant HQN (HQNpos) vs not (HQNneg). Clinical recovery was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards. Covariate adjustment included age, sex, race, region, symptom duration, oxygen support status and obesity. Recovery and adverse events (AEs) were assessed through death, discharge, or d14. Results Of 584 patients, 199 (34%) received HQN (5d RDV: n=57 [30%]; 10d RDV, n=49 [25%]; SoC: n=93 [47%]). Through median follow-up of 13d (range 1-41d), HQNpos patients on 5d or 10d RDV had a lower recovery rate (adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.78 [0.59, 1.03], p=0.09) with longer median time to recovery (8 vs 6 days) compared to HQNneg. HQNpos compared to HQNneg patients in 5d RDV showed a trend of reduced recovery rate (HR: 0.69 [0.45,1.04], p=0.080); such an effect was not observed in 10d RDV or SoC (Table 1). More HQNpos than HQNneg patients had AEs in RDV (5/10d) or SoC arms evaluated separately, and all arms combined. This difference was significant for AEs and SAEs for all arms combined after covariate adjustment (Table 2). Table 1. Table 2. Conclusion In moderate COVID-19 patients, concomitant HQN may delay recovery on RDV and showed no impact on recovery with SoC alone. The AE profile of HQNpos patients was worse than that observed for HQNneg patients, regardless of RDV treatment. Disclosures Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, Alexa (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Janssen (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Merck (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees)Viiv Healthcare (Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker’s Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support, Personal fees) Jose Ramon Arribas, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Arun J. Sanyal, MD, AbbVie (Consultant)Akarna (Shareholder)Amarin (Consultant)Ardelyx (Consultant)Astra Zeneca (Consultant, Research Grant or Support)Boehringer (Consultant)Bristol Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Conatus (Consultant)Cumberland (Research Grant or Support)Durect (Shareholder)Elsevier (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Exhalenz (Shareholder)Fibrogen (Consultant)Genfit (Shareholder)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Research Grant or Support)Haemoshear (Shareholder)Indalo (Shareholder)Intercept (Research Grant or Support)Jannsen (Consultant)Lilly (Consultant)Malinckrodt (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Nimbus (Consultant)Nitto Denko (Consultant)Novartis (Consultant)Pfizer (Consultant)Salix (Consultant)Sanyal Biotechnology (Employee, Shareholder, Other Financial or Material Support, President)Shire (Research Grant or Support)Takeda (Consultant)Tiziana (Shareholder)Tobira (Consultant)UptoDate (Other Financial or Material Support, Royalties)Zafgen (Consultant) Bum Sik Chin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Bum Sik Chin, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Shirin Kalimuddin, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Stefan Schreiber, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Emon Elboudwarej, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Yuan Tian, PhD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Robert H. Hyland, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Devi SenGupta, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Employee, Shareholder) Anand Chokkalingam, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Anu Osinusi, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Diana M. Brainard, MD, Gilead Sciences (Employee) Christoph Lübbert, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) David Chien Boon Lye, MD, NO DISCLOSURE DATA Judith A. Aberg, MD, Theratechnology (Consultant) Enrique Navas Elorza, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Karen T. Tashima, MD, Bristol-Myers Squibb (Research Grant or Support)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline (Research Grant or Support)Merck (Research Grant or Support)Tibotec (Research Grant or Support)Viiv Healthcare (Research Grant or Support) Mark McPhail, MD, Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator)