Jean Michel Molina

Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials.

BACKGROUND The continuing, randomised, multinational, phase IIB POWER 1 and 2 studies aim to evaluate efficacy and safety of darunavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. We did a pooled subgroup analysis to update results at week 48 for patients receiving the recommended dose of darunavir-ritonavir compared with those receiving other protease inhibitors (PIs). METHODS After 24-week dose-finding phases and primary efficacy analyses, patients randomised to receive darunavir-ritonavir were given 600/100 mg twice daily, and patients receiving control PIs continued on assigned treatment into the longer-term, open-label phase; all patients continued on optimised background regimen. We assessed patients who had reached week 48 or discontinued earlier at the time of analysis; for the darunavir-ritonavir group, only patients who received 600/100 mg twice daily from baseline were included. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The POWER 2 study (TMC114-C202) is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00071097). FINDINGS At week 48, 67 of 110 (61%) darunavir-ritonavir patients compared with 18 of 120 (15%) of control PI patients had viral load reductions of 1 log10 copies per mL or greater from baseline (primary endpoint; difference in response rates 46%, 95% CI 35%-57%, p<0.0001). Based on a logistic regression model including stratification factors (baseline number of primary PI mutations, use of enfuvirtide, baseline viral load) and study as covariates, the difference in response was 50% (odds ratio 11.72, 95% CI 5.75-23.89). In the darunavir-ritonavir group, rates of adverse events were mostly lower than or similar to those in the control group when corrected for treatment exposure. No unexpected safety concerns were identified. INTERPRETATION Efficacy responses with darunavir-ritonavir 600/100 mg twice daily plus optimised background regimen were greater than those with control PI and were sustained to at least week 48, with favourable safety and tolerability in treatment-experienced patients. This regimen could expand the treatment options available for such patients.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. METHODS We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. FINDINGS 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was -0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 5.2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11%vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2-4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0.0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. INTERPRETATION Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING Tibotec.

Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus ritonavir-boosted atazanavir plus co-formulated emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND The HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) into a once-daily, single tablet. We compared EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with a ritonavir-boosted (RTV) protease inhibitor regimen of atazanavir (ATV)/RTV+FTC/TDF as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection. METHODS This phase 3, non-inferiority study enrolled treatment-naive patients with an HIV-1 RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more and susceptibility to atazanavir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF plus matching placebos, administered once daily. Randomisation was by a computer-generated random sequence, accessed via an interactive telephone and web response system. Patients, and investigators and study staff who gave treatments, assessed outcomes, or analysed data were masked to the assignment. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of 50 copies per mL or less after 48 weeks (according to the US FDA snapshot algorithm), with a 12% non-inferiority margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01106586. FINDINGS 1017 patients were screened, 715 were enrolled, and 708 were treated (353 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and 355 with ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF for the primary outcome (316 patients [89·5%] vs 308 patients [86·8%], adjusted difference 3·0%, 95% CI -1·9% to 7·8%). Both regimens had favourable safety and tolerability; 13 (3·7%) versus 18 (5·1%) patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Fewer patients receiving EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF had abnormal results in liver function tests than did those receiving ATV/RTV+FTC/TDF and had smaller median increases in fasting triglyceride concentration (90 μmol/L vs 260 μmol/L, p=0·006). Small median increases in serum creatinine concentration with accompanying decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rate occurred in both study groups by week 2; they generally stabilised by week 8 and did not change up to week 48 (median change 11 μmol/L vs 7 μmol/L). INTERPRETATION If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the first integrase-inhibitor-based regimen given once daily and the only one formulated as a single tablet for initial HIV treatment. FUNDING Gilead Sciences.

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.

Efficacy and safety of etravirine in treatment-experienced, HIV-1 patients: pooled 48 week analysis of two randomized, controlled trials.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy, safety and virologic resistance profile of etravirine (TMC125), a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, over 48 weeks in treatment-experienced adults infected with HIV-1 strains resistant to a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and other antiretrovirals. Design:DUET-1 (NCT00254046) and DUET-2 (NCT00255099) are two identically designed, randomized, double-blind phase III trials. Methods:Patients received twice-daily etravirine 200 mg or placebo, each plus a background regimen of darunavir/ritonavir, investigator-selected nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and optional enfuvirtide. Eligible patients had documented nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance, at least three primary protease inhibitor mutations at screening and were on a stable but virologically failing regimen for at least 8 weeks, with plasma viral load more than 5000 copies/ml. Pooled 48-week data from the two trials are presented. Results:Patients (1203) were randomized and treated (n = 599, etravirine; n = 604, placebo). Significantly more patients in the etravirine than in the placebo group achieved viral load less than 50 copies/ml at week 48 (61 vs. 40%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Significantly fewer patients in the etravirine group experienced at least one confirmed or probable AIDS-defining illness/death (6 vs. 10%; P = 0.0408). Safety and tolerability in the etravirine group was comparable to the placebo group. Rash was the only adverse event to occur at a significantly higher incidence in the etravirine group (19 vs. 11%, respectively, P < 0.0001), occurring primarily in the second week of treatment. Conclusion:At 48 weeks, treatment-experienced patients receiving etravirine plus background regimen had statistically superior and durable virologic responses (viral load less than 50 copies/ml) than those receiving placebo plus background regimen, with comparable tolerability and no new safety signals reported since week 24.

Dolutegravir in Antiretroviral-Experienced Patients With Raltegravir- and/or Elvitegravir-Resistant HIV-1: 24-Week Results of the Phase III VIKING-3 Study

Background. The pilot phase IIb VIKING study suggested that dolutegravir (DTG), a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) integrase inhibitor (INI), would be efficacious in INI-resistant patients at the 50 mg twice daily (BID) dose. Methods. VIKING-3 is a single-arm, open-label phase III study in which therapy-experienced adults with INI-resistant virus received DTG 50 mg BID while continuing their failing regimen (without raltegravir or elvitegravir) through day 7, after which the regimen was optimized with ≥1 fully active drug and DTG continued. The primary efficacy endpoints were the mean change from baseline in plasma HIV-1 RNA at day 8 and the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA <50 c/mL at week 24. Results. Mean change in HIV-1 RNA at day 8 was −1.43 log10 c/mL, and 69% of subjects achieved <50 c/mL at week 24. Multivariate analyses demonstrated a strong association between baseline DTG susceptibility and response. Response was most reduced in subjects with Q148 + ≥2 resistance-associated mutations. DTG 50 mg BID had a low (3%) discontinuation rate due to adverse events, similar to INI-naive subjects receiving DTG 50 mg once daily. Conclusions. DTG 50 mg BID–based therapy was effective in this highly treatment-experienced population with INI-resistant virus. Clinical Trials Registration. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01328041) and http://www.gsk-clinicalstudywww.gsk-clinicalstudyregister.com (112574).

Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for treatment of hepatitis C virus in patients co-infected with HIV (PHOTON-2): A multicentre, open-label, non-randomised, phase 3 study

BACKGROUND Although interferon-free regimens are approved for patients co-infected with HIV and genotype-2 or genotype-3 hepatitis C virus (HCV), interferon-based regimens are still an option for those co-infected with HIV and HCV genotypes 1 or 4. These regimens are limited by clinically significant toxic effects and drug interactions with antiretroviral therapy. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of an interferon-free, all-oral regimen of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in patients with HIV and HCV co-infection. METHODS We did this open-label, non-randomised, uncontrolled, phase 3 study at 45 sites in seven European countries and Australia. We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) co-infected with stable HIV and chronic HCV genotypes 1-4, including those with compensated cirrhosis. Once-daily sofosbuvir (400 mg) plus twice-daily ribavirin (1000 mg in patients with bodyweights <75 kg and 1200 mg in those with weights ≥75 kg) was given for 24 weeks to all patients except treatment-naive patients with genotype-2 HCV, who received a 12-week regimen. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks after treatment. We did analysis by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01783678. FINDINGS Between Feb 7, 2013, and July 29, 2013, we enrolled 275 eligible patients, of whom 262 (95%) completed treatment; 274 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall rates of sustained virological response 12 weeks after treatment were 85% (95% CI 77-91) in patients with genotype-1 HCV, 88% (69-98) in patients with genotype-2 HCV, 89% (81-94) in patients with genotype-3 HCV, and 84% (66-95) in patients with genotype-4 HCV. Response rates in treatment-naive patients with HCV genotypes 2 or 3 (89% [95% CI 67-99] and 91% [81-97], respectively) were similar to those in treatment-experienced patients infected with those genotypes (83% [36-100] and 86% [73-94], respectively). There was no emergence of sofosbuvir-resistance mutations in patients with HCV viral relapse. Six (2%) patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. The most common adverse events were fatigue, insomnia, asthenia, and headache. Four (1%) patients had serious adverse events regarded as related to study treatment. Additionally, four (1%) patients receiving antiretroviral treatment had a transient HIV viral breakthrough; however, none required changes in antiretroviral regimen. INTERPRETATION Sofosbuvir and ribavirin provided high rates of sustained virological response after 12 weeks of treatment in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients co-infected with HIV and HCV genotypes 1-4. The characteristics of this interferon-free combination regimen make sofosbuvir plus ribavirin a useful treatment option for this patient population. FUNDING Gilead Sciences.

Efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir maintenance monotherapy in patients with HIV-1 viral suppression: a randomized open-label, noninferiority trial, MONOI-ANRS 136.

Background:Darunavir/ritonavir (darunavir/r) maintenance strategy, in patients with suppressed HIV RNA viremia, is a potential long-term strategy to avoid nucleoside analogue toxicities and to reduce costs. Methods:MONOtherapy Inhibitor protease is a prospective, open-label, noninferiority, 96-week safety and efficacy trial in virologically suppressed patients on triple therapy who were randomized to a darunavir/r triple drug regimen or darunavir/r monotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV RNA less than 400 copies/ml at week 48; treatment failure was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA more than 400 copies/ml (time to loss of virologic response) or any change in treatment. The trial had 80% power to show noninferiority for the monotherapy arm (δ=−10%, 90% confidence interval). Results:A total of 242 patients were screened, 225 of whom were randomized. In the per protocol efficacy analysis, treatment success was 99% on darunavir/r triple drug versus 94% on darunavir/r monotherapy (δ = −4.9%, 90% confidence interval, from −9.1 to −0.8). Similar results were found in intent-to-treat population (92 versus 87.5%, δ = −4.5%, 90% confidence interval from −11.2 to 2.1). Three patients experienced virologic failure on darunavir/monotherapy and none on darunavir/r triple drug. No resistance to protease inhibitor emerged in patients with plasma viral load above 50 copies/ml. The two groups did not differ in the number of serious adverse events. Conclusion:Darunavir/r monotherapy exhibited efficacy rate over 85% with concordant results in the magnitude of difference with darunavir/r triple drug regimen in both intent-to-treat and per protocol analyses, but discordant conclusions with respect to the noninferiority margin. Patients failing on darunavir/r monotherapy had no emergence of new darunavir resistance mutations preserving future treatment options.

Week 96 efficacy and safety of rilpivirine in treatment-naive, HIV-1 patients in two Phase III randomized trials.

Background:In the week 48 primary analysis of ECHO and THRIVE, rilpivirine demonstrated noninferior efficacy and more favourable tolerability versus efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults. Pooled 96-week results are presented. Methods:Patients (N = 1368) received rilpivirine 25 mg once-daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d., with two background nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in two randomized, double-blind, double-dummy Phase III trials. Results:At week 96, response rate (% confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml; intent-to-treat, time-to-loss-of-virologic response) was 78% in both groups. Responses were similar for both treatments by background regimen, sex, race, and in patients with more than 95% adherence (M-MASRI) or baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less. Responses were lower and virologic failure higher for rilpivirine versus efavirenz in patients with 95% or less adherence or baseline viral load more than 100 000 copies/ml. Beyond week 48, the incidence of virologic failure was comparable (3 versus 2%) between treatment groups, rilpivirine resistance-associated mutations were consistent with those observed in year 1, there were few adverse events in both groups and no new safety concerns. Over 96 weeks, discontinuations due to adverse events (4 versus 9%), treatment-related grade 2–4 adverse events (17 versus 33%), rash (4 versus 15%), dizziness (8 versus 27%) and abnormal dreams/nightmares (8 versus 13%), and grade 2–4 lipid abnormalities were lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz. Only 2 and 4% of patients in the rilpivirine and efavirenz treatment groups, respectively, reported at least possibly treatment-related grade 2–4 adverse events during the second year of treatment. Conclusions:Rilpivirine 25 mg q.d. and efavirenz 600 mg q.d. had comparable responses at week 96. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures but improved tolerability versus efavirenz. The majority of virologic failures occurred in the first 48 weeks.

Survival trends in critically ill HIV-infected patients in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era

IntroductionThe widespread use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (ART) has reduced HIV-related life-threatening infectious complications. Our objective was to assess whether highly active ART was associated with improved survival in critically ill HIV-infected patients.MethodsA retrospective study from 1996 to 2005 was performed in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) in a university hospital specialized in the management of immunocompromised patients. A total of 284 critically ill HIV-infected patients were included. Differences were sought across four time periods. Risk factors for death were identified by multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAmong the 233 (82%) patients with known HIV infection before ICU admission, 64% were on highly active ART. Annual admissions increased over time, with no differences in reasons for admission: proportions of patients with newly diagnosed HIV, previous opportunistic infection, CD4 counts, viral load, or acute disease severity. ICU and 90-day mortality rates decreased steadily: 25% and 37.5% in 1996 to 1997, 17.1% and 17.1% in 1998 to 2000, 13.2% and 13.2% in 2001 to 2003, and 8.6% in 2004 to 2005. Five factors were independently associated with increased ICU mortality: delayed ICU admission (odds ratio (OR), 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29 to 7.17), acute renal failure (OR, 4.21; 95% CI, 1.63 to 10.92), hepatic cirrhosis (OR, 3.78; 95% CI, 1.21 to 11.84), ICU admission for coma (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.16 to 6.46), and severe sepsis (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.53 to 8.80). Admission to the ICU in the most recent period was independently associated with increased survival: admission from 2001 to 2003 (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.99), and between 2004 and 2005 (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.53).ConclusionsICU survival increased significantly in the highly active ART era, although disease severity remained unchanged. Co-morbidities and organ dysfunctions, but not HIV-related variables, were associated with death. Earlier ICU admission from the hospital ward might improve survival.