Explore the vast range of titles available.

Simplified treatment regimens for HIV management may increase adherence. In this open-label, randomized, controlled trial, longer-acting (monthly) injectable cabotegravir plus rilpivirine was compared with standard oral treatment. At 48 weeks, similar viral suppression was seen with the two regimens.

The phase 3 ATLAS and FLAIR studies demonstrated that maintenance with Long-Acting (LA) intramuscular cabotegravir and rilpivirine is non-inferior in efficacy to current antiretroviral (CAR) oral therapy. Both studies utilized Patient-Reported Outcome instruments to measure treatment satisfaction (HIVTSQ) and acceptance (ACCEPT general domain), health status (SF-12), injection tolerability/acceptance (PIN), and treatment preference. In pooled analyses, LA-treated patients (n = 591) demonstrated greater mean improvements from baseline than the CAR group (n = 591) in treatment satisfaction (Week 44, + 3.9 vs. +0.5 HIVTSQs-points; p < 0.001) and acceptance (Week 48, +8.8 vs. +2.0 ACCEPT-points; p < 0.001). The acceptability of injection site reactions (PIN) significantly improved from week 5 (2.10 points) to week 48 (1.62 points; p < 0.001). In both studies, ≥ 97% of LA group participants with recorded data preferred LA treatment compared with prior oral therapy. These results further support the potential of a monthly injectable option for people living with HIV seeking an alternative to daily oral treatment.

Treatment of HIV has historically required taking daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART). A recent alternative to daily oral ART is long-acting injectable ART with cabotegravir plus rilpivirine, administered monthly or every 2 months. The purpose of this qualitative study was to evaluate the concept relevance and interpretability of five previously developed questions: one treatment preference question and four questions designed to assess how the emotional burden associated with HIV treatment impacts treatment preferences. Thirty adults in the United States currently receiving HIV treatment were enrolled in a cross-sectional study involving one-on-one concept confirmation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Concept confirmation interviews included topics, questions, and probes designed to elicit information about the emotional burden of HIV and current perceptions of a participant’s treatment regimen. Cognitive debriefing assessed the relevance and clarity of instructions, questions, response options, and recall periods. Transcripts were analyzed with MAXQDA. Mean age of participants was 49 years (range: 29–68), with 60% being male and 40% female. Racial demographics included Blacks (40%), Whites (40%), and other (20%). During concept confirmation, participants endorsed concepts relevant to HIV treatment preference: fear of disclosure of HIV status (47%), forgetting to take daily oral medication (40%), and current treatment regimen as a bothersome daily reminder of HIV status (40%). During cognitive debriefing, participants interpreted the instructions, question, response options, and recall periods as intended for the treatment preference question. Additionally, participants confirmed that the preference question’s response options were appropriate and relevant to the experiences of people living with HIV. Participants also consistently interpreted the questions related to fear of disclosure of HIV status, anxiety associated with forgetting to take HIV medication, and HIV medication being an uncomfortable reminder of HIV status; however, participants provided variable responses to the question designed to assess treatment ease of use. These results support the concept relevance and interpretability of the single treatment preference question and three of the four emotional well-being questions among adults living with HIV.

Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) improves outcomes for people living with HIV (PLWH) but requires adherence to daily dosing. Suboptimal adherence results in reduced treatment effectiveness, increased costs, and greater risk of resistance and onwards transmission. Treatment with long-acting (LA), injection-based ART administered by healthcare professionals (directly observed therapy (DOT)) eliminates the need for adherence to daily dosing and may improve clinical outcomes. This study reports the cost-effectiveness of the cabotegravir plus rilpivirine LA regimen (CAB+RPV LA) and models the potential impact of LA DOT therapies. Parameterisation was performed using pooled data from recent CAB+RPV LA Phase III trials. The analysis was conducted using a cohort-level hybrid decision-tree and state-transition model, with states defined by viral load and CD4 cell count. The efficacy of oral cART was adjusted to reflect adherence to daily regimens from published data. A Canadian health service perspective was adopted. CAB+RPV LA is predicted to be the dominant intervention when compared to oral cART, generating, per 1,000 patients treated, lifetime cost-savings of $1.5 million, QALY and life-year gains of 107 and 138 respectively with three new HIV cases averted. Economic evaluations of LA DOTs need to account for the impact of adherence and HIV transmission. This study adds to the existing literature by incorporating transmission and using clinical data from the first LA DOT regimen. Providing PLWH and healthcare providers with novel modes of ART administration, enhancing individualisation of treatment, may facilitate the achievement of UNAIDS 95-95-95 objectives.

Background Efficacy and safety of long-acting cabotegravir (CAB) + rilpivirine (RPV) every 8 weeks (Q8W) versus daily oral standard of care (SoC) maintenance in treatment-experienced individuals with virologically suppressed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) has not been directly compared in randomized clinical trials. This analysis aimed to indirectly compare these regimens. Methods An adjusted indirect treatment comparison of CAB + RPV Q8W with daily oral SoC was performed, using Phase 3 data from studies of CAB + RPV every 4 weeks (Q4W) vs SoC (ATLAS/FLAIR, n = 591 per group) and a Phase 3b trial of CAB + RPV Q8W vs Q4W (ATLAS-2M [excluding participants with prior CAB + RPV exposure]; n = 327 per group). Eligible participants were virologically suppressed (viral load < 50 HIV-1 ribonucleic acid (RNA) copies/mL), treatment-experienced individuals with HIV-1-infection. Treatment efficacy and safety assessments at Week 48 included virologic suppression and lack of virologic suppression (proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL or ≥ 50 copies/mL, respectively; both as per FDA snapshot algorithm), CD4-cell count change from baseline, no virologic data, discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs), and overall AEs, serious AEs and Grade 3–5 AEs excluding injection-site reactions. A subgroup analysis stratified by baseline third active drug class was performed. Results Baseline characteristics between the Q4W arms of ATLAS/FLAIR and ATLAS-2M showed no significant differences or differences were not judged to be clinically relevant, apart from participants switching from a baseline third active drug class; more participants switched from integrase strand inhibitors in ATLAS/FLAIR, and from non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in ATLAS-2M. Injections of CAB + RPV Q8W showed no significant differences across efficacy and safety outcomes versus daily oral SoC. Univariate subgroup analysis found there were no significant differences on virologic suppression or lack of virologic suppression for any baseline third active drug class subgroup. These results suggest that CAB + RPV Q8W is non-inferior to daily oral SoC. Conclusions This analysis supports the therapeutic potential of CAB + RPV Q8W for virologically suppressed people living with HIV-1 infection seeking an alternative maintenance treatment option to daily oral SoC. Trial registration: NCT02938520, NCT02951052, NCT03299049.

Phase 3 clinical studies showed non-inferiority of long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir and rilpivirine dosed every 4 weeks to oral antiretroviral therapy. Important phase 2 results of every 8 weeks dosing, and supportive modelling, underpin further evaluation of every 8 weeks dosing in this trial, which has the potential to offer greater convenience. Our objective was to compare the week 48 antiviral efficacy of cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-acting dosed every 8 weeks with that of every 4 weeks dosing. ATLAS-2M is an ongoing, randomised, multicentre (13 countries; Australia, Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the USA), open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-acting maintenance therapy administered intramuscularly every 8 weeks (cabotegravir 600 mg plus rilpivirine 900 mg) or every 4 weeks (cabotegravir 400 mg plus rilpivirine 600 mg) to treatment-experienced adults living with HIV-1. Eligible newly recruited individuals must have received an uninterrupted first or second oral standard-of-care regimen for at least 6 months without virological failure and be aged 18 years or older. Eligible participants from the ATLAS trial, from both the oral standard-of-care and long-acting groups, must have completed the 52-week comparative phase with an ATLAS-2M screening plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-acting every 8 weeks or every 4 weeks. The randomisation schedule was generated by means of the GlaxoSmithKline validated randomisation software RANDALL NG. The primary endpoint at week 48 was HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies per mL (Snapshot, intention-to-treat exposed), with a non-inferiority margin of 4%. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03299049 and is ongoing. Screening occurred between Oct 27, 2017, and May 31, 2018. Of 1149 individuals screened, 1045 participants were randomised to the every 8 weeks (n=522) or every 4 weeks (n=523) groups; 37% (n=391) transitioned from every 4 weeks cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-acting in ATLAS. Median participant age was 42 years (IQR 34–50); 27% (n=280) female at birth; 73% (n=763) white race. Cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-acting every 8 weeks was non-inferior to dosing every 4 weeks (HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies per mL; 2% vs 1%) with an adjusted treatment difference of 0·8 (95% CI −0·6–2·2). There were eight (2%, every 8 weeks group) and two (<1%, every 4 weeks group) confirmed virological failures (two sequential measures ≥200 copies per mL). For the every 8 weeks group, five (63%) of eight had archived non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations to rilpivirine at baseline. The safety profile was similar between dosing groups, with 844 (81%) of 1045 participants having adverse events (excluding injection site reactions); no treatment-related deaths occurred. The efficacy and safety profiles of dosing every 8 weeks and dosing every 4 weeks were similar. These results support the use of cabotegravir plus rilpivirine long-acting administered every 2 months as a therapeutic option for people living with HIV-1. ViiV Healthcare and Janssen.

Simplified treatment regimens for HIV-1 may have advantages. In this open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received antiretroviral therapy were given oral induction therapy, then treated with either monthly injections of long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine or standard treatment. At 48 weeks, similar viral suppression was observed with the two regimens.

ObjectivesA novel long-acting regimen (LAR) of cabotegravir and rilpivirine for HIV treatment requires dosing every 2 months instead of daily. We assessed what proportion of people living with HIV and physicians would be interested in trying and offering LAR respectively and why.Methods688 people living with HIV on treatment, and 120 HIV physicians completed web-based surveys in Germany, Italy, the UK and France during 2019. Balanced description of a hypothetical LAR regarding efficacy, administration and possible side effects were provided. The hypothetical long-acting injections were assumed to be cost-neutral to current daily oral antiretrovirals. Interest of people living with HIV in trying (‘very’/’highly’) and physicians’ willingness to offer (‘definitely’/’probably’) this LAR in different situations, with perceived benefits/concerns was measured.ResultsOf people living with HIV, 65.8% were interested in trying LAR. The majority (~80%–90%) of those with unmet needs felt LAR would help, including those with strong medical needs (malabsorption and interfering gastrointestinal conditions), suboptimal adherence, confidentiality/privacy concerns and emotional burden of daily dosing. Of physicians, percentage willing to offer LAR varied situationally: strong medical need (dysphagia, 93.3%; malabsorption, 91.6%; interfering gastrointestinal issues, 90.0%; central nervous system disorders, 87.5%); suboptimal adherence (84.2%); confidentiality/privacy concerns (hiding medications, 86.6%) and convenience/lifestyle (84.2%). People living with HIV liked LAR for not having to carry pills when travelling (56.3%); physicians liked the increased patient contact (54.2%). Furthermore, 50.0% of people living with HIV perceived LAR would minimise transmission risk and improve their sexual health. The most disliked attribute was scheduling appointments (37.2%) and resource constraints (57.5%) for people living with HIV and physicians, respectively. Physicians estimated 25.7% of their patients would actually switch.ConclusionProviders and people living with HIV viewed the described LAR as addressing several unmet needs. Alternative treatment routes and especially LAR may improve adherence and quality of life.

Purpose People living with HIV (PLHIV) have reported challenges associated with daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART), including missed doses, negative psychological impact, and difficulty remaining discreet while at home or traveling. Recently approved long-acting injectable (LAI) ART may help eliminate these concerns. The purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences and estimate health state utilities associated with oral and LAI treatment for ART. Methods Four health state vignettes were developed based on published literature, clinician interviews, and a pilot study. All vignettes included the same description of HIV, but differed in treatment regimens: (A) single daily oral tablet, (B) two daily oral tablets, (C) injections once monthly, and (D) injections every two months. PLHIV in the UK reported their preferences and valued the health states in time trade-off utility interviews. Results The sample included 201 PLHIV (83.1% male; mean age = 44.9y). The health states frequently selected as most preferable were D ( n  = 119; 59.2%) and A ( n  = 75; 37.3%). Utility differences among health states were relatively small, which is typical for treatment process utilities (mean utilities: A, 0.908; B, 0.905; C, 0.900; D, 0.910). Statistically significant differences in utility were found for one vs. two tablets and injections every month vs. every two months ( p  < 0.001). Participants’ quotations highlight the wide range of reasons for treatment process preferences. Conclusions Current results indicate that many PLHIV would prefer LAI ART. The reported utilities may be useful in economic modeling comparing oral vs. LAI ART.

Background Advances in HIV-1 therapeutics have led to the development of a range of daily oral treatment regimens, which share similar high efficacy rates. Consequently, more emphasis is being placed upon the individual’s experience of treatment and impact on quality of life. The first long-acting injectable antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 (long-acting cabotegravir + rilpivirine [CAB + RPV LA]) may address challenges associated with oral treatment for HIV-1, such as stigma, pill burden/fatigue, drug–food interactions, and adherence. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collected in an HIV-1 clinical trial (ATLAS-2M; NCT03299049) comparing participants’ experience with two dosing regimens (every 4 weeks [Q4W] vs. every 8 weeks [Q8W]) of CAB + RPV LA are presented herein. Methods PRO endpoints evaluated through 48 weeks of therapy included treatment satisfaction (HIV Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire [HIVTSQ]), treatment acceptance (“General Acceptance” domain of the Chronic Treatment Acceptance [ACCEPT ® ] questionnaire), acceptability of injections (Perception of Injection [PIN] questionnaire), treatment preference (questionnaire), and reasons for switching to/continuing long-acting therapy (exploratory endpoint; questionnaire). Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive CAB + RPV LA Q8W or Q4W. Results were stratified by prior CAB + RPV exposure in either preplanned or post hoc analyses. Results Overall, 1045 participants were randomized to the Q8W ( n  = 522) and Q4W ( n  = 523) regimens; 37% ( n  = 391/1045) had previously received CAB + RPV in ATLAS. For participants without prior CAB + RPV exposure, large increases from baseline were reported in treatment satisfaction in both long-acting arms (HIVTSQ status version), with Q8W dosing statistically significantly favored at Weeks 24 ( p  = 0.036) and 48 ( p  = 0.004). Additionally, improvements from baseline were also observed in the “General Acceptance” domain of the ACCEPT questionnaire in both long-acting arms for participants without prior CAB + RPV exposure; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between arms at either timepoint (Week 24, p  = 0.379; Week 48, p  = 0.525). Significant improvements ( p  < 0.001) in the “Acceptance of Injection Site Reactions” domain of the PIN questionnaire were observed from Week 8 to Weeks 24 and 48 in both arms for participants without prior CAB + RPV exposure. Participants with prior CAB + RPV exposure reported high treatment satisfaction (mean [HIVTSQ status version]: Q8W 62.2/66.0; Q4W 62.0/66.0), treatment acceptance (mean: Q8W 89.3/100; Q4W 91.2/100), and acceptance of injection site reactions (mean [5 = not at all acceptable; 1 = totally acceptable]: Q8W 1.72; Q4W 1.59) at baseline/Week 8 that were maintained over time. Participants without prior CAB + RPV exposure who received Q8W dosing preferred this regimen over oral CAB + RPV (98%, n  = 300/306). Among those with prior Q4W exposure, 94% ( n  = 179/191) preferred Q8W dosing versus Q4W dosing (3%, n  = 6/191) or oral CAB + RPV (2%, n  = 4/191). Conclusions Both long-acting regimens provided high treatment satisfaction and acceptance, irrespective of prior CAB + RPV exposure, with most participants preferring Q8W dosing over both the Q4W regimen and their previous daily oral regimen. The PRO data collected at Week 48 support the therapeutic potential of CAB + RPV LA. Funding ViiV Healthcare and Janssen. Trial Registration ATLAS-2M: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03299049, registered October 2, 2017. Plain Language Summary Developments in HIV-1 treatment have resulted in effective daily oral medications. However, life-long pill taking can come with several challenges. These include having a daily reminder of living with HIV-1. Treatment satisfaction is important to consider when evaluating a new medicine. This is because it can affect people’s quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate people’s experiences with the first long-acting injectable medicine for HIV-1. The medicine is called cabotegravir + rilpivirine long-acting (CAB + RPV LA). Over approximately 1 year, this study measured people’s satisfaction and experiences while receiving injections of CAB + RPV LA. Injections were given either every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks. The study included people who had never had CAB + RPV LA, as well as people who were already receiving CAB + RPV LA. For people new to CAB + RPV LA, their satisfaction increased compared with their previous medication. They also had improvements in their experiences of injection site reactions throughout the study. For people who were already receiving CAB + RPV LA, their high satisfaction with this treatment and tolerability of injection site reactions were maintained over time. Overall, improvements were similar between people receiving injections every 4 weeks and people receiving injections every 8 weeks. People with experience of both injection schedules tended to prefer to receive injections every 8 weeks. These results show that CAB + RPV LA can provide quality-of-life improvements for people who have HIV-1.