Explore the vast range of titles available.

Interferon-free regimens are needed to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections. We investigated the efficacy of combined simeprevir and sofosbuvir. We enrolled patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infections who had previously not responded to pegylated interferon (peginterferon) and ribavirin or were treatment naive. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1:2:1 ratio to receive 150 mg simeprevir and 400 mg sofosbuvir daily for 24 weeks with (group 1) or without (group 2) ribavirin or for 12 weeks with (group 3) or without (group 4) ribavirin, in two cohorts: previous non-responders with METAVIR scores F0–F2 (cohort 1) and previous non-responders and treatment-naive patients with METAVIR scores F3–F4 (cohort 2). The primary endpoint was sustained virological response 12 weeks after stopping treatment (SVR12). Analysis was done by intention to treat. Safety data from cohorts 1 and 2 were pooled for analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466790. 168 patients were enrolled and randomised, and 167 started treatment (n=80 in cohort 1 and n=87 in cohort 2). SVR12 was achieved in 154 (92%) patients (n=72 [90%, 95% CI 81–96] in cohort 1 and n=82 [94%, 87–98] in cohort 2). The most common adverse events in the pooled groups were fatigue (n=52 [31%]), headache (n=33 [20%]), and nausea (n=26 [16%]). Grade 4 adverse events were seen in one (2%) of 54 patients in each of groups 1 and 3 and in three (10%) of 31 patients in group 2, whereas grade 3–4 events were reported in less than 5% of all patients, except increased blood amylase concentration. Serious adverse events were seen in four (2%) patients, all in groups 1 and 2. Four (2%) patients discontinued all study treatment because of adverse events, three before week 12. Combined simeprevir and sofosbuvir was efficacious and well tolerated. Janssen.

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. 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. 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. 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. Gilead Sciences.

Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6–6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. Gilead Sciences.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-specific broadly neutralizing monoclonal antibodies (bNAbs) have to date shown transient viral suppression when administered as monotherapy or as a cocktail of two antibodies 1 , 2 , 3 – 4 . A combination of three bNAbs provides improved neutralization coverage of global viruses, which may more potently suppress viral escape and rebound 5 , 6 – 7 . Here we performed an open-label, two-part study evaluating a single intravenous dose of HIV-1 bNAbs, PGT121, PGDM1400 and VRC07-523LS, in six adults without HIV in part 1 and a multicenter trial of up to six monthly infusions of these three bNAbs in 12 people living with HIV with an antiretroviral therapy (ART) interruption in part 2. The primary endpoints were safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics, and the secondary endpoints in part 2 were antiviral activity following ART discontinuation, changes in CD4 + T cell counts and development of HIV-1 sequence mutations associated with bNAb resistance. The trial met its prespecified endpoints. The bNAb treatment was generally safe and well tolerated. In part 2, 83% of participants (10 of 12) maintained virologic suppression for the duration of antibody therapy for at least 28 weeks, and 42% of participants (5 of 12) showed virologic suppression for at least 38–44 weeks, despite the decline of serum bNAb concentrations to low or undetectable levels. In exploratory analyses, early viral rebound in two individuals correlated with baseline resistance to PGT121 and PGDM1400, whereas long-term virologic control in five individuals correlated with reduced immune activation, T cell exhaustion and proinflammatory signaling following bNAb therapy. Our data show the potential of a triple bNAb cocktail to suppress HIV-1 in the absence of ART. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03721510 . In a first-in-human trial of a triple combination of broadly neutralizing antibodies in people living with HIV, 83% of participants maintained virologic suppression for the duration of antibody therapy, with 42% showing virologic suppression for at least 38–44 weeks, despite the decline of serum antibody concentrations to low or undetectable levels.

The integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in a single tablet given once daily. We compared the efficacy and safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with standard of care—co-formulated efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF—as initial treatment for HIV infection. In this phase 3 trial, treatment-naive patients from outpatient clinics in North America were randomly assigned by computer-generated allocation sequence with a block size of four in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF, once daily, plus matching placebo. Patients and study staff involved in giving study treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting and analysing data were masked to treatment allocation. Eligibility criteria included screening HIV RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more, and susceptibility to efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01095796. 700 patients were randomly assigned and treated (348 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, 352 with EFV/FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF; 305/348 (87·6%) versus 296/352 (84·1%) of patients had HIV RNA concentrations of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (difference 3·6%, 95% CI −1·6% to 8·8%). Proportions of patients discontinuing drugs for adverse events did not differ substantially (13/348 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group vs 18/352 in the EFV/FTC/TDF group). Nausea was more common with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF than with EFV/FTC/TDF (72/348 vs 48/352) and dizziness (23/348 vs 86/352), abnormal dreams (53/348 vs 95/352), insomnia (30/348 vs 49/352), and rash (22/348 vs 43/352) were less common. Serum creatinine concentration increased more by week 48 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group than in the EFV/FTC/TDF group (median 13 μmol/L, IQR 5 to 20 vs 1 μmol/L, −6 to 8; p<0·001). If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the only single-tablet, once-daily, integrase-inhibitor-based regimen for initial treatment of HIV infection. Gilead Sciences.

Both hepatitis C virus (HCV) mono-infected and HIV/HCV co-infected patients are in need of safe, effective, all-oral HCV regimens. In a phase 2 study we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of grazoprevir (MK-5172; HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and two doses of elbasvir (MK-8742; HCV NS5A inhibitor) in patients with HCV mono-infection and HIV/HCV co-infection. The C-WORTHY study is a phase 2, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of grazoprevir plus elbasvir with or without ribavirin in patients with HCV; here, we report findings for previously untreated (genotype 1) patients without cirrhosis who were HCV mono-infected or HIV/HCV co-infected. Eligible patients were previously untreated adults aged 18 years or older with chronic HCV genoype 1 infection and HCV RNA at least 10 000 IU/mL in peripheral blood without evidence of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or decompensated liver disease. In part A of the study we randomly assigned HCV-mono-infected patients to receive 12 weeks of grazoprevir (100 mg) plus elbasvir (20 mg or 50 mg) with or without ribavirin (arms A1–3); in part B we assigned HCV-mono-infected patients to 8 or 12 weeks of grazoprevir (100 mg) plus elbasvir (50 mg) with or without ribavirin (arms B1–3) and HIV/HCV co-infected patients to 12 weeks of therapy with or without ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving HCV RNA less than 25 IU/mL 12 weeks after end of treatment (SVR12). Randomisation was by presence or absence of ribavirin, 8 or 12 weeks of treatment, and dosage of elbasvir. Patients were stratified by gentoype 1a versus 1b. The patients, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignements but the funder was not. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01717326. 218 patients with HCV mono-infection (n=159) and HIV/HCV co-infection (n=59) were enrolled. SVR12 for patients treated for 12 weeks with or without ribavirin ranged from 93–98% in mono-infected and 87–97% in co-infected patients. SVR12 rates in mono-infected and co-infected patients treated for 12 weeks without ribavirin were 98% (95% CI 88–100; 43/44) and 87% (95% CI 69–96; 26/30), respectively, and with ribavirin were 93% (95% CI 85–97; 79/85) and 97% (95% CI 82–100; 28/29), respectively. Among mono-infected patients with genotype 1a infection treated for 8 weeks, SVR12 was 80% (95% CI 61–92; 24/30). Five of six patients who discontinued early for reasons other than virological failure had HCV RNA less than 25 IU/mL at their last study visit. Virological failure among patients treated for 12 weeks occurred in seven patients (7/188, 4%) and was associated with emergence of resistance-associated variants to one or both drugs. The safety profile of grazoprevir plus elbasvir with or without ribavirin was similar in mono-infected and co-infected patients. No patient discontinued due to an adverse event or laboratory abnormality. The most common adverse events were fatigue (51 patients, 23%), headache (44, 20%), nausea (32, 15%), and diarrhoea (21, 10%). Once-daily grazoprevir plus elbasvir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks in previously untreated HCV-mono-infected and HIV/HCV-co-infected patients without cirrhosis achieved SVR12 rates of 87–98%. These results support the ongoing phase 3 development of grazoprevir plus elbasvir. Merck & Co, Inc.

Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per μL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86·1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81·9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4·2%, 95% CI −1·9 to 10·3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0·0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44·1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77·0%]; difference −32·8%, 95% CI −40·2 to −25·0, p<0·0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. Merck.

This randomized, open-label trial compared two regimens for the initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection: tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine plus efavirenz or a fixed dose of zidovudine and lamivudine plus efavirenz. Through week 48, the first regimen was superior in terms of viral suppression, CD4-cell response, and adverse events leading to discontinuation of the medication. As this trial continues, it will be important to assess any differences in long-term toxic effects, especially with regard to lipoatrophy and hyperlipidemia. For the initial treatment of HIV, a regimen of tenofovir and emtricitabine plus efavirenz was superior in terms of viral suppression, CD4-cell response, and adverse events through week 48. Highly active antiretroviral therapy has fundamentally altered the course of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection by making it possible to suppress the plasma viral load below the limit of detection and to increase the number of CD4 cells. 1 The cornerstone of durable suppression of HIV replication is maintenance of a potent and tolerable regimen to which the patient can adhere. Adherence is necessary to prevent the emergence and replication of drug-resistant strains of the virus. 2 Current guidelines for the management of HIV infection recommend the use of zidovudine or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) with lamivudine or emtricitabine as preferred nucleoside . . .

To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of −12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0·0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol −12·6% vs 1·0%, non-HDL cholesterol −15·0% vs 2·6%, and triglycerides −42·2% vs 6·2%. At week 24, 293 (84·4%, 95% CI 80·2–88·1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90·6%, 87·1–93·5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference −6·2%, −11·2 to −1·3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. Merck.

Background Dolutegravir (DTG) monotherapy results in virologic failure and the development of DTG resistance. Here, we evaluated virologic outcomes of patients switched to DTG functional mono- or dual therapy with a non-cytosine nucleoside analog (NA). Methods This retrospective, single center study included treatment-experienced patients switched to regimens containing ≥ 2 antiretrovirals between 8/13/13–11/22/14 who were later found to be on DTG functional mono- or dual therapy with a non-cytosine NA based on historical genotypes. Eligible patients were either suppressed or viremic at baseline and had ≥ 2 HIV-1 RNA measurements at least 4 weeks apart following switch. Demographics, laboratory values and clinical parameters were extracted from the charts of all eligible patients during study treatment until 12/31/2018 and were summarized using descriptive statistics. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL following switch. Results Of 70 patients switched to DTG functional mono- or dual therapy, 39 were eligible; 19 (49%) were on DTG functional monotherapy and 20 (51%) were on DTG functional dual therapy with a non-cytosine NA. Historical genotypes indicated that all had an M184V/I, and 23 (59%) had an M184V/I and ≥ 1 additional NA mutation. The median duration of follow-up on study treatment was 50 weeks (range 12–244). Following switch, 32/39 (82%) patients achieved or maintained an HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL and 7 (18%) had persistent HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL. Five viremic patients were found to be on functional dual therapy with DTG plus a non-cytosine NA and 2 were on DTG functional monotherapy. Five of these patients had post-switch genotypes ordered as a part of routine clinical care and there was no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance. Five were switched to a different DTG-containing regimen and achieved HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL, 1 was switched to a non-DTG containing regimen and achieved HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL and 1 was lost-to-follow up at week 36. Conclusions In this real-world cohort, the majority of whom had virus with the M184V/I and ≥ 1 additional NA mutation, switching to DTG functional mono-or dual therapy with a non-cytosine NA resulted in persistent HIV-1 RNA ≥ 50 copies/mL in 18%. None with post-switch genotypes developed treatment-emergent resistance.