Simon Vanveggel

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.

Efficacy and safety of TMC278 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 patients: week 96 results of a phase IIb randomized trial

Objective:TMC278 is a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor highly active against wild-type and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 in vitro. The week 96 analysis of TMC278-C204, a large dose-ranging study of TMC278 in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients, is presented. Design:Phase IIb randomized trial. Methods:Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized and treated with three blinded once-daily TMC278 doses 25, 75 or 150 mg, or an open-label, active control, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, all with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The primary analysis was at week 48. Results:No TMC278 dose–response relationship for efficacy and safety was observed. TMC278 demonstrated potent antiviral efficacy comparable with efavirenz over 48 weeks that was sustained to week 96 (76.9–80.0% and 71.4–76.3% of TMC278-treated patients with confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml, respectively; time-to-loss of virological-response algorithm). Median increases from baseline in CD4 cell count with TMC278 at week 96 (138.0–149.0 cells/μl) were higher than at week 48 (108.0–123.0 cells/μl). All TMC278 doses were well tolerated. The incidences of the most commonly reported grade 2–4 adverse events at least possibly related to study medication, including nausea, dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmare, dyspepsia, asthenia, rash, somnolence and vertigo, were low and lower with TMC278 than with efavirenz. Incidences of serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar among groups. Conclusion:All TMC278 doses demonstrated potent and sustained efficacy comparable with efavirenz in treatment-naive patients over 96 weeks. TMC278 was well tolerated with lower incidences of neurological and psychiatric adverse events, rash and lower lipid elevations than those with efavirenz. TMC278 25 mg once daily was selected for further clinical development.

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.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz in HIV-1-infected subjects receiving emtricitabine/tenofovir DF: pooled 96-week data from ECHO and THRIVE Studies.

Abstract Objectives: Week 96 efficacy and safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV) was compared to efavirenz (EFV) in subset of 1,096 subjects who received emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) in pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies. Methods: ECHO and THRIVE are double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 studies of RPV versus EFV plus 2 NRTIs in antiretroviral-naïve adult subjects. The primary and secondary endpoints were the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL using an intent-to-treat, time to loss of virologic response (ITT-TLOVR) analysis at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. Safety, tolerability, immunologic response, adherence level, and other measures were also evaluated. Results: At week 48, noninferior efficacy of RPV+FTC/TDF over EFV+FTC/TDF was established, and at week 96 RPV+FTC/TDF remained noninferior (77% overall response rate in both groups). Through week 96, rates of virologic failure were higher in the RPV+FTC/TDF group, with low and similar rates of virologic failure and resistance mutations occurring during the second year of follow-up. Treatment with RPV+FTC/TDF was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and grade 2–4 adverse events including dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmares, rash, and lipid abnormalities. Conclusions: The pooled ECHO and THRIVE studies demonstrated noninferiority of RPV+FTC/TDF in achieving virologic response with safety and tolerability advantages over EFV+FTC/TDF through 96 weeks. Higher rates of virologic failure in the RPV+FTC/TDF group were balanced with higher rates of discontinuations due to adverse events in the EFV+FTC/TDF group.

Pre-existing mutations in the rilpivirine Phase III trials ECHO and THRIVE: prevalence and impact on virological response.

BACKGROUND Rilpivirine (RPV), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), was approved for HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive adults based on data from two Phase III trials. In the screening population, the prevalence of 49 NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) and the impact of allowed NNRTI RAMs on virological response to an RPV- or efavirenz (EFV)-containing regimen were analysed. METHODS ECHO and THRIVE were global, Phase III, doubleblind, double-dummy, randomized trials in antiretroviral treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults to determine whether RPV 25 mg once daily had non-inferior efficacy versus EFV 600 mg once daily, both given with tenofovir/emtricitabine (ECHO) or tenofovir/emtricitabine, zidovudine/lamivudine or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The prevalence of 49 NNRTI RAMs, including the predefined list of 39 NNRTI RAMs used to exclude patients with potential resistance to RPV or EFV, was investigated at screening by population sequencing (including mixtures) using the virco(®)TYPE HIV-1 genotyping assay. RESULTS Of the 1,796 screened patients in whom genotypic resistance results were available, 372 (21%) had NNRTI RAMs. Of 527 screening failures, 148 (28%) were due to the presence of NNRTI RAMs. The presence of allowed NNRTI RAMs was associated with comparable response rates to the overall population (RPV 84.3% versus EFV 82.3%, intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response): V90I (82.4% and 100% for RPV and EFV, respectively), V106I (85.7% and 93.3%), V179I (87.7% and 94.0%) and V189I (100.0% and 88.9%). CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the ECHO and THRIVE screened population suggests that transmitted NNRTI resistance is prevalent in treatment-naive patients but prevalence of the 15 RPV RAMs remains low. The four allowed NNRTI RAMs present at baseline did not affect RPV response at week 48.

Lipid Levels and Changes in Body Fat Distribution in Treatment-Naive, HIV-1–Infected Adults Treated With Rilpivirine or Efavirenz for 96 Weeks in the ECHO and THRIVE Trials

BACKGROUND Pooled ECHO/THRIVE lipid and body fat data are presented from the ECHO (Efficacy Comparison in Treatment-Naïve, HIV-Infected Subjects of TMC278 and Efavirenz) and THRIVE (TMC278 Against HIV, in a Once-Daily Regimen Versus Efavirenz) trials. METHODS We assessed the 96-week effects on lipids, adverse events (AEs), and body fat distribution (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) of rilpivirine (RPV) and EFV plus 2 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs) in treatment-naive adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). RESULTS Rilpivirine produced minimal changes in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides. Compared with RPV, EFV significantly (P < .001) increased lipid levels. Decreases in the TC/HDL-C ratio were similar with RPV and EFV. Background N[t]RTI affected RPV-induced lipid changes; all levels increased with zidovudine/lamivudine (3TC) and abacavir/3TC (except triglycerides, which were unchanged). With emtricitabine/tenofovir, levels of HDL-C were increased, TC and LDL-C were unchanged, and triglycerides were decreased. With EFV, lipid levels increased in each N[t]RTI subgroup (except triglycerides were unchanged with abacavir/3TC). Fewer (P < .001) RPV-treated patients than EFV-treated patients had TC, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels above National Cholesterol Education Program cutoffs. More RPV- than EFV-treated patients had HDL-C values below these cutoffs (P = .02). Dyslipidemia AEs were less common with RPV than with EFV. Similar proportions of patients had a ≥10% decrease in limb fat (16% with RPV and 17% with EFV). Limb fat was significantly (P < .001) increased to a similar extent (by 12% with RPV and 11% with EFV). At week 96, patients receiving zidovudine/3TC had lost limb fat, and those receiving emtricitabine/tenofovir had gained it. CONCLUSIONS Over the course of 96 weeks, RPV-based therapy was associated with lower increases in lipid parameters and fewer dyslipidemia AEs than EFV-based treatment. Body fat distribution changes were similar between treatments. The N[t]RTI regimen affected lipid and body fat distribution changes.

Change in vitamin D levels and risk of severe vitamin D deficiency over 48 weeks among HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz in a Phase III trial (ECHO).

BACKGROUND This analysis assessed changes in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D; the precursor form of active vitamin D) in antiretroviral-naive adults receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz over 48 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial (ECHO). METHODS ECHO included 690 patients randomized 1:1 to receive rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (n=346) or efavirenz 600 mg once daily (n=344), plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. 25(OH)D was measured in stored serum samples collected at baseline, and weeks 24 and 48. Proportions of patients with optimal/sufficient (≥30 ng/ml), insufficient (21-29 ng/ml), deficient (10-20 ng/ml) and severely deficient (<10 ng/ml) 25(OH)D levels were determined. Data are presented for patients with paired baseline and week 48 25(OH)D data (rilpivirine, n=292; efavirenz, n=290). RESULTS After 48 weeks, mean 25(OH)D levels remained largely unchanged from baseline with rilpivirine (-0.2 ng/ml; P=0.57 versus no change), but were significantly reduced with efavirenz (-2.5 ng/ml; P<0.0001 versus no change). When adjusting for season of randomization and the combined variable of race (Black/African American, White/Caucasian, Asian, other race) and ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino and not Hispanic or not Latino), the conclusion about the treatment difference between the rilpivirine and efavirenz treatment groups remained valid. At baseline the proportion of patients with severe 25(OH)D deficiency was similar in both groups (5%) but was significantly lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz at week 48 (5% versus 9%, respectively; P=0.032). Furthermore, of the patients with 25(OH)D insufficiency/deficiency at baseline, the proportion who developed severe 25(OH)D deficiency at week 48 was significantly lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz (2% versus 8%, respectively; P=0.0079). CONCLUSIONS Rilpivirine had little effect on 25(OH)D, whereas efavirenz resulted in a significant reduction in 25(OH)D levels and an increase in the risk of severe 25(OH)D deficiency.

Neurological and psychiatric tolerability of rilpivirine (TMC278) vs. efavirenz in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks.

The aim of the study was to compare the neuropsychiatric safety and tolerability of rilpivirine (TMC278) vs. efavirenz in a preplanned pooled analysis of data from the ECHO and THRIVE studies which compared the safety and efficacy of the two drugs in HIV‐1 infected treatment naïve adults.

Rilpivirine vs. efavirenz in HIV-1 patients with baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less: week 48 phase III analysis.

Objectives:To compare efficacy, resistance development, and safety between rilpivirine and efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less in the pooled 48-week dataset of the ECHO (Efficacy Comparison in treatment-naive HIV-infected subjects Of TMC278 and EFV) and THRIVE (TMC278 against HIV, in a once-daily RegImen Vs. Efavirenz) trials. Design:Phase III, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trials. Methods:Patients received rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d. with two nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs]. This analysis considers the subpopulation of 368 rilpivirine and 330 efavirenz patients with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less. Results:Significantly higher 48-week response rates (viral load <50 copies/ml, intent-to-treat-time-to-loss-of-virological response) were observed with rilpivirine vs. efavirenz [90 vs. 84%, respectively; difference 6.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6–11.5%)]. The proportion of patients experiencing virological failure (VFres) was 5% in each treatment group. A comparable proportion of VFres patients in each group developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) [rilpivirine: 6/16 (38%) vs. efavirenz: 5/12 (42%)]. A numerically higher proportion of rilpivirine VFres patients developed N(t)RTI RAMs [7/16 (44%)] vs. efavirenz [2/12 (17%)]; P = 0.2232. A significantly lower incidence for rilpivirine vs. efavirenz was observed for the following events: treatment-related grade 2–4 overall adverse events (17 vs. 30%; P <0.0001), rash (any type; 2 vs. 12%; P <0.0001), and neurological adverse events (19 vs. 40%; P <0.0001), including dizziness (10 vs. 29%; P <0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups in the total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. Conclusion:In treatment-naive patients with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less, rilpivirine along with two N(t)RTIs achieved a high response, with a comparable frequency of VFres and more favorable tolerability than efavirenz.

Week 96 analysis of rilpivirine or efavirenz in HIV‐1‐infected patients with baseline viral load ≤ 100 000 copies/mL in the pooled ECHO and THRIVE phase 3, randomized, double‐blind trials

These 96‐week, ECHO/THRIVE pooled analyses evaluated data for antiretroviral treatment‐naïve, HIV‐1‐infected adults with viral load (VL) ≤ 100 000 HIV‐1 RNA copies/mL receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz.