Jan Fourie

Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48

Background:The present primary analysis of AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naive Subjects (ARTEMIS) compares the efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) with that of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naive patients. Methods:Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml were stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count in a phase III, open-label trial, and randomized to receive DRV/r 800/100 mg qd or LPV/r 800/200 mg total daily dose (bid or qd) plus fixed-dose tenofovir and emtricitabine for 192 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r in HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response at 48 weeks. Results:Six hundred and eighty-nine patients were randomized and treated; mean baseline HIV-1 RNA: 4.85 log10 copies/ml and median CD4 count: 225 cells/μl. At 48 weeks, 84% of DRV/r and 78% of LPV/r patients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (estimated difference = 5.6 [95% confidence interval −0.1–11]%), demonstrating non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r (P < 0.001; per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response). Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml had a significantly higher response rate with DRV/r (79%) versus LPV/r (67%; P < 0.05). Median CD4 cell count increases (non-completer = failure; cells/μl) were 137 for DRV/r and 141 for LPV/r. DRV/r had a lower incidence of possibly treatment-related grade 2–4 gastrointestinal-related adverse events (7 versus 14%) and treatment-related moderate-to-severe diarrhea (4 versus 10%) than LPV/r. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were DRV/r: 3% and LPV/r: 7%. Conclusion:DRV/r 800/100 mg qd was non-inferior to LPV/r 800/200 mg at 48 weeks, with a more favorable safety profile. Significantly higher response rates were observed with DRV/r in patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml. DRV/r 800/100 mg offers a new effective and well tolerated once-daily, first-line treatment option for treatment-naive patients.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). METHODS We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. FINDINGS From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. FUNDING Tibotec.

Dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-experienced, integrase-inhibitor-naive adults with HIV: week 48 results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SAILING study.

BACKGROUND Dolutegravir (GSK1349572), a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor, has shown potent antiviral response and a favourable safety profile. We evaluated safety, efficacy, and emergent resistance in antiretroviral-experienced, integrase-inhibitor-naive adults with HIV-1 with at least two-class drug resistance. METHODS ING111762 (SAILING) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began in October, 2010. Eligible patients had two consecutive plasma HIV-1 RNA assessments of 400 copies per mL or higher (unless >1000 copies per mL at screening), resistance to two or more classes of antiretroviral drugs, and had one to two fully active drugs for background therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily dolutegravir 50 mg or twice-daily raltegravir 400 mg, with investigator-selected background therapy. Matching placebo was given, and study sites were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, evaluated in all participants randomly assigned to treatment groups who received at least one dose of study drug, excluding participants at one site with violations of good clinical practice. Non-inferiority was prespecified with a 12% margin; if non-inferiority was established, then superiority would be tested per a prespecified sequential testing procedure. A key prespecified secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients with treatment-emergent integrase-inhibitor resistance. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01231516. FINDINGS Analysis included 715 patients (354 dolutegravir; 361 raltegravir). At week 48, 251 (71%) patients on dolutegravir had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL versus 230 (64%) patients on raltegravir (adjusted difference 7·4%, 95% CI 0·7 to 14·2); superiority of dolutegravir versus raltegravir was then concluded (p=0·03). Significantly fewer patients had virological failure with treatment-emergent integrase-inhibitor resistance on dolutegravir (four vs 17 patients; adjusted difference -3·7%, 95% CI -6·1 to -1·2; p=0·003). Adverse event frequencies were similar across groups; the most commonly reported events for dolutegravir versus raltegravir were diarrhoea (71 [20%] vs 64 [18%] patients), upper respiratory tract infection (38 [11%] vs 29 [8%]), and headache (33 [9%] vs 31 [9%]). Safety events leading to discontinuation were infrequent in both groups (nine [3%] dolutegravir, 14 [4%] raltegravir). INTERPRETATION Once-daily dolutegravir, in combination with up to two other antiretroviral drugs, is well tolerated with greater virological effect compared with twice-daily raltegravir in this treatment-experienced patient group. FUNDING ViiV Healthcare.

Efficacy and safety of rilpivirine (TMC278) versus efavirenz at 48 weeks in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: pooled results from the phase 3 double-blind randomized ECHO and THRIVE Trials.

Background:Pooled analysis of phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy ECHO and THRIVE trials comparing rilpivirine (TMC278) and efavirenz. Methods:Treatment-naive HIV-1–infected adults were randomized 1:1 to rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, with background tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) (ECHO) or TDF/FTC, zidovudine/lamivudine, or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The primary endpoint was confirmed response [viral load <50 copies per milliliter; intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virologic-response (ITT-TLOVR) algorithm] at week 48. The pooled data set enabled analyses of subgroups and predictors of response/virologic failure. Results:Confirmed responses were 84% (rilpivirine) and 82% (efavirenz). The difference in response rates (95% confidence interval) was 2.0% (–2.0% to 6.0%). The incidence of virologic failure was 9% (rilpivirine) versus 5% (efavirenz). Responses in ITT-TLOVR and ITT-snapshot analyses were consistent. Responses were similar for rilpivirine and efavirenz by background regimen, gender, race and clade. Suboptimal adherence and higher baseline viral load resulted in lower responses, higher virologic failure, and development of resistance in both groups; the effects on virologic failure were more apparent with rilpivirine. CD4+ cell count increased over time in both groups. Rilpivirine compared with efavirenz gave smaller incidences of adverse events leading to discontinuation (3% vs. 8%, respectively), treatment-related grade 2–4 adverse events (16% vs. 31%), rash (3% vs. 14%), dizziness (8% vs. 26%), abnormal dreams/nightmares (8% vs. 13%), and grade 2−4 lipid abnormalities. Conclusions:At week 48, rilpivirine 25 mg once daily and efavirenz 600 mg once daily had comparable response rates. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures and improved tolerability versus efavirenz.

Week 48 analysis of once-daily vs. twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients

Objective:ODIN (Once-daily Darunavir In treatment-experieNced patients) was a phase III, 48-week, open-label study comparing once-daily vs. twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) in treatment-experienced patients with no DRV resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) at screening. Methods:Patients with no DRV RAMs and receiving stable HAART for at least 12 weeks were stratified by HIV-1 RNA (≤ or > 50 000 copies/ml) and randomized to once-daily DRV/r 800/100 mg or twice-daily DRV/r 600/100 mg and an optimized background regimen (≥2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). Primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of once-daily vs. twice-daily DRV/r in confirmed virologic response (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml) at week 48. Results:Five hundred and ninety patients received once-daily (n = 294) or twice-daily (n = 296) DRV/r. Mean baseline HIV-1 RNA was 4.16 log10 copies/ml; median CD4 cell count was 228 cells/μl; and 53.9% had previously used at least one protease inhibitor. At week 48, 72.1% of once-daily and 70.9% of twice-daily patients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (intent-to-treat/time-to-loss of virologic response). The difference in response between once-daily and twice-daily arms was 1.2% (95% confidence interval –6.1 to 8.5%; P < 0.001), establishing noninferiority of once-daily DRV/r versus twice-daily DRV/r. Median CD4 cell count increase was 100 (once-daily) and 94 cells/μl (twice-daily). Virologic failure rate was low and similar for both arms; only one patient (once-daily arm) developed primary protease inhibitor mutations. Once-daily DRV/r had a lower incidence of grade 2–4 triglyceride increases (5.2 vs. 11.0%, P < 0.05). Conclusion:Once-daily DRV/r 800/100 mg was noninferior in virologic response to twice-daily DRV/r 600/100 mg at 48 weeks in treatment-experienced patients with no DRV RAMs, and with a more favorable lipid profile. These findings support use of once-daily DRV/r in this population.

Randomized, comparative, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial of miconazole buccal tablet and clotrimazole troches for the treatment of oropharyngeal candidiasis: study of miconazole Lauriad® efficacy and safety (SMiLES).

Abstract Background: Oropharyngeal candidiasis (OPC) is the most common opportunistic infection among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Once-daily miconazole 50 mg buccal tablet (MBT) is a novel delivery system using an extended-spectrum azole with potent in vitro activity against many Candida species, including some that may be resistant to other azoles. Methods: This phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter trial evaluated 578 randomized patients with HIV infection and OPC. The study compared the efficacy and safety of MBT once daily with clotrimazole 10 mg troches (CT) 5 times daily for 14 days. The co-primary efficacy endpoints were clinical cure at test of cure (TOC) visit (days 17–22) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) populations. Results: Clinical cure rate at TOC visit for MBT-treated patients was statistically noninferior to CT-treated patients in both the ITT (61% vs 65%) and PP (68% vs 74%) populations. Secondary endpoints, safety, and tolerability were similar between treatment groups. Conclusions: In this large trial, once-daily MBT was shown to be noninferior to CT 5 times daily in the treatment of OPC in HIV-positive patients. MBT offers an effective, safe, and well-tolerated topical treatment option for OPC administered as a convenient once-daily dose.

Safety and efficacy of the HIV-1 attachment inhibitor prodrug BMS-663068 in treatment-experienced individuals: 24 week results of AI438011, a phase 2b, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND BMS-663068 is an oral prodrug of BMS-626529, an attachment inhibitor that binds to HIV-1 gp120, blocking viral attachment to host CD4 cells. AI438011 is an ongoing trial investigating the efficacy, safety, and dose-response of BMS-663068 in treatment-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients. Herein we present the results of the primary analysis. METHODS AI438011 is a phase 2b, randomised, active-controlled trial, at 53 hospitals and outpatient clinics across ten countries in North and South America, Europe, and Africa. Individuals with an HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL and a BMS-626529 half-maximum inhibitory concentration lower than 100 nmol/L were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1) to receive either BMS-663068 at 400 mg twice daily, 800 mg twice daily, 600 mg once daily, or 1200 mg once daily or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (300 mg of atazanavir and 100 mg of ritonavir once daily), each with 400 mg of raltegravir twice daily and 300 mg of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate once daily as a backbone. The sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked for BMS-663068 dose but not for allocation. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with an HIV-1 RNA viral load less than 50 copies per mL (response rate) at week 24 and the frequency of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation, up to the week 24 analysis. The primary analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (modified intention-to-treat population). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01384734. FINDINGS Between July 26, 2011, and July 16, 2012, 581 participants were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 254 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BMS-663068 (n=52 for the 400 mg twice daily group, n=50 for the 800 mg twice daily group, n=51 for the 600 mg once daily group, and n=50 for the 1200 mg once daily group) or ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (n=51). 200 patients received at least one dose of BMS-663068, and 51 patients received at least one dose of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. At week 24, 40 (80%) of 50 patients in the BMS-663068 400 mg twice daily group, 34 (69%) of 49 patients in the 800 mg twice daily group, 39 (76%) of 51 patients in the 600 mg once daily group, and 36 (72%) of 50 patients in the 1200 mg once daily group had an HIV-1 RNA viral load less than 50 copies per mL, compared with 38 (75%) of 51 patients in the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir group. Serious adverse events were noted in 13 (7%) of 200 patients in the BMS-663068 groups and five (10%) of the 51 patients in the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir group. Four (2%) of the 200 patients in the BMS-663068 groups and two (4%) of the 51 patients in the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir group discontinued because of adverse events. No serious adverse events or adverse events leading to discontinuation were BMS-663068-related. Grade 2-4 adverse events related to study drug(s) occurred in 17 (9%) of 200 patients across the BMS-663068 groups and 14 (27%) of 51 patients in the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir group. For the BMS-663068 groups these events were mostly single instances with no dose relation and for the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir group these were mostly gastrointestinal or hepatobiliary disorders associated with hyperbilirubinaemia. INTERPRETATION In a comparison with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, efficacy and safety of BMS-663068 up to the week 24 analysis support continued development of BMS-663068, which is being assessed in a phase 3 trial in heavily treatment-experienced individuals. FUNDING Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Effect of Baseline Characteristics on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Darunavir/ Ritonavir in HIV-1–Infected, Treatment-Naïve ARTEMIS Patients at Week 96

Abstract Objectives: ARTEMIS demonstrated significantly greater efficacy of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg versus lopinavir/ritonavir 800/200 mg (total daily dose) in treatment-naïve, HIV-1–infected patients at week 96. The influence of baseline characteristics on efficacy and safety was analyzed in DRV/r patients. Methods: Patients received once-daily DRV/r plus fixed-dose tenofovir/emtric-itabine. Week 96 efficacy and safety data were analyzed by gender (males, n = 239; females, n = 104), age (≤30, n = 115; 31–45, n = 175; >45, n = 53), race (Asian, n = 44; Black, n = 80; Caucasian/White, n = 137; Hispanic, n = 77), and hepatitis B and/or C virus coinfection (n = 43). Results: Week 96 virologic response rates (HIV–1 RNA <50 copies/mL) were as follows: gender: 79% for both males and females; age: 72% (?30), 81% (31–45), and 89% (>45); race: 96% (Asian), 71% (Black), 77% (Caucasian/White), and 79% (Hispanic); coinfection status: 72% (coinfected) and 80% (non-coinfected). The incidence of treatment-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and laboratory abnormalities were comparable across gender, age, and race subgroups. Coinfected patients had a higher incidence of liver-related ADRs than non-coinfected patients. Conclusions: DRV/r 800/100 mg qd is an effective, well-tolerated treatment option for treatment-naïve patients of different gender, age, race, or coinfection status.

Pooled week 48 safety and efficacy results from the ECHO and THRIVE phase III trials comparing TMC278 vs EFV in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients

7‐11 November 2010, Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, Glasgow, UK