Daniel Podzamczer

Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study

BACKGROUND Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. METHODS SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. FINDINGS 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. INTERPRETATION The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING ViiV Healthcare.

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. METHODS In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected patients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. FINDINGS We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2·0%, 95% CI -0·7 to 4·7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·08 vs 0·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change -3 vs 20; p<0·0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change -1·30 vs -2·86; p<0·0001) and hip (-0·66 vs -2·95; p<0·0001) at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. FUNDING Gilead Sciences.

Randomized comparison of renal effects, efficacy, and safety with once-daily abacavir/lamivudine versus tenofovir/emtricitabine, administered with efavirenz, in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected adults: 48-week results from the ASSERT study

Background:Abacavir/lamivudine and tenofovir/emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used first-line antiretroviral therapies, yet few studies have comprehensively compared their safety profiles. Methods:Forty-eight-week data are presented from this multicenter, randomized, open-label study comparing the safety profiles of abacavir/lamivudine and tenofovir/emtricitabine, both administered with efavirenz, in HLA-B*5701-negative HIV-1-infected adults. Results:Three hundred eighty-five subjects were enrolled in the study. The overall rate of withdrawal was high (28%). Changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline were similar between arms [difference 0.953 mL·min−1·1.73 m−2 (95% confidence interval: −1.445 to 3.351), P = 0.435]. Urinary excretion of retinol-binding protein and β-2 microglobulin increased significantly more in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm (+50%; +24%) compared with the abacavir/lamivudine arm (no change; −47%) (P < 0.0001). A lower proportion achieved viral load <50 copies per milliliter in the abacavir/lamivudine arm (114 of 192, 59%) compared with the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm (137 of 193, 71%) [difference 11.6% (95% confidence interval: 2.2 to 21.1)]. The overall virological failure rate was low. The adverse event rate was similar between arms (except drug hypersensitivity, reported more in the abacavir/lamivudine arm). Conclusions:The study showed no difference in estimated glomerular filtration rate between the arms, however, increases in markers of tubular dysfunction were observed in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm, the long-term consequence of which is unclear. A significant difference in efficacy favoring tenofovir/emtricitabine was observed.

A prospective study of the risk of tuberculosis among HIV-infected patients.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the risk of developing active tuberculosis (TB) in a cohort of HIV-1 -infected patients. MethodsProspective longitudinal follow-up of 839 HIV-infected patients, of whom 505 (60%) were parenteral drug users and 269 (32%) homosexual men. Tuberculin skin tests were performed at baseline and annually thereafter. Prophylaxis with isoniazid (300 mg daily for 9 months) was offered to those with a positive tuberculin test (induration ≥5mm). Diagnosis of TB was accepted if it could be confirmed microbiologically (acid-fast bacilli seen in Ziehl—Neelsen stains or grown in Lowenstein—Jensen cultures) or pathologically (presence of caseating granulomas) and patients had consistent clinical manifestations. ResultsActive TB developed in 23 out of the 733 (3.1%) patients with a negative tuberculin skin test after a mean follow-up of 16

Less lipoatrophy and better lipid profile with abacavir as compared to stavudine: 96-week results of a randomized study.

pM 11 months (range, 2–52 months), with an estimated cumulative probability of 1.5 and 7% after 1 and 3 years, respectively (or 2.4 per 100 patient-years). None of the 87 patients with a negative tuberculin test but a positive Multitest developed TB. Conversely, 106 patients had a positive tuberculin skin test (97 at baseline and nine who converted during follow-up). Active TB developed in seven out of the 26 not receiving prophylaxis or in whom prophylaxis had to be discontinued (16.2 per 100 patient-years), in four out of 61 patients 3–27 months after having completed 9 months of prophylaxis with isoniazid (8.9 per 100 patient-years) and in none of the 19 still receiving isoniazid. When TB was diagnosed, the mean CD4 lymphocyte count of the 34 patients who developed it during follow-up was 77

Metabolic benefits 24 months after replacing a protease inhibitor with abacavir, efavirenz or nevirapine.

pM 103

Toxicogenomics of nevirapine-associated cutaneous and hepatic adverse events among populations of African, Asian, and European descent.

106/I (range/ −1–400

A simplification trial switching from nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors to once-daily fixed-dose abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine in HIV-1-infected patients with virological suppression.

106/l). ConclusionsAmong HIV-infected patients in whom the tuberculin skin test is negative, the risk of developing active TB is sufficient to consider prophylaxis if the CD4 count falls below 400