Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized, controlled trial involving women in South Africa and Uganda, twice-yearly subcutaneous lenacapavir was superior to daily oral emtricitabine–tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in preventing HIV infection.

Preventing HIV-1 infection is a high global priority. This study assessed prevention strategies in young women in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe using oral or vaginal antiretroviral agents. No approach was found to be effective. The HIV-1 incidence was 5.7 per 100 person-years. Daily oral preexposure prophylaxis with 300 mg of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), alone or in combination with 200 mg of emtricitabine (FTC) (TDF-FTC [Truvada, Gilead Sciences]), reduces the risk of acquisition of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) by 50% or more among persons with high adherence to the regimen, with demonstrated efficacy in men who have sex with men, heterosexuals, and injection-drug users. 1 – 4 On the basis of these observations, in July 2012 the Food and Drug Administration approved daily treatment with Truvada for the prevention of HIV-1 acquisition, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued . . .

Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT. The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II–IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18–65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1–5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1–4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1–19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258. Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84–92) versus 72% (67–79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67–79) versus 86% (82–91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0–3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3–5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3–5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238). Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined. Janssen and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) during pregnancy is important for both maternal health and prevention of perinatal HIV-1 transmission; however adequate data on the safety and efficacy of different ART regimens that are likely to be used by pregnant women are scarce. In this trial we compared the safety and efficacy of three antiretroviral regimens started in pregnancy: dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate; dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; and efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. This multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 22 clinical research sites in nine countries (Botswana, Brazil, India, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, the USA, and Zimbabwe). Pregnant women (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed HIV-1 infection and at 14–28 weeks' gestation were eligible. Women who had previously taken antiretrovirals in the past were excluded (up to 14 days of ART during the current pregnancy was permitted), as were women known to be pregnant with multiple fetuses, or those with known fetal anomaly or a history of psychiatric illness. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a central computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was done using permuted blocks (size six) stratified by gestational age (14–18, 19–23, and 24–28 weeks' gestation) and country. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg, and once-daily oral fixed-dose combination emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate 25 mg; once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg, and once-daily oral fixed-dose combination emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of efavirenz 600 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg. The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of participants with viral suppression, defined as an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 200 copies per mL, at or within 14 days of delivery, assessed in all participants with an HIV-1 RNA result available from the delivery visit, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of −10% in the combined dolutegravir-containing groups versus the efavirenz-containing group (superiority was tested in a pre-planned secondary analysis). Primary safety outcomes, compared pairwise among treatment groups, were the occurrence of a composite adverse pregnancy outcome (ie, either preterm delivery, the infant being born small for gestational age, stillbirth, or spontaneous abortion) in all participants with a pregnancy outcome, and the occurrence of grade 3 or higher maternal and infant adverse events in all randomised participants. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03048422. Between Jan 19, 2018, and Feb 8, 2019, we enrolled and randomly assigned 643 pregnant women: 217 to the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group, 215 to the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group, and 211 to the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. At enrolment, median gestational age was 21·9 weeks (IQR 18·3–25·3), the median HIV-1 RNA concentration among participants was 902·5 copies per mL (152·0–5182·5; 181 [28%] of 643 participants had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of <200 copies per mL), and the median CD4 count was 466 cells per μL (308–624). HIV-1 RNA concentrations at delivery were available for 605 (94%) participants. Of these, 395 (98%) of 405 participants in the combined dolutegravir-containing groups had viral suppression at delivery compared with 182 (91%) of 200 participants in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (estimated difference 6·5% [95% CI 2·0 to 10·7], p=0·0052; excluding the non-inferiority margin of −10%). Significantly fewer participants in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group (52 [24%] of 216) had a composite adverse pregnancy outcome than those in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (70 [33%] of 213; estimated difference −8·8% [95% CI −17·3 to −0·3], p=0·043) or the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (69 [33%] of 211; −8·6% [–17·1 to −0·1], p=0·047). The proportion of participants or infants with grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ among the three groups. The proportion of participants who had a preterm delivery was significantly lower in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group (12 [6%] of 208) than in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (25 [12%] of 207; −6·3% [–11·8 to −0·9], p=0·023). Neonatal mortality was significantly higher in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (ten [5%] of 207 infants) than in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate group (two [1%] of 208; p=0·019) or the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (three [2%] of 202; p=0·050). When started in pregnancy, dolutegravir-containing regimens had superior virological efficacy at delivery compared with the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen. The dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate regimen had the lowest frequency of composite adverse pregnancy outcomes and of neonatal deaths. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the National Institute of Mental Health.

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.

The Centre for the AIDS Program of Research in South Africa (CAPRISA) 004 trial assessed the effectiveness and safety of a 1% vaginal gel formulation of tenofovir, a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, for the prevention of HIV acquisition in women. A double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted comparing tenofovir gel (n = 445 women) with placebo gel (n = 444 women) in sexually active, HIV-uninfected 18- to 40-year-old women in urban and rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. HIV serostatus, safety, sexual behavior, and gel and condom use were assessed at monthly follow-up visits for 30 months. HIV incidence in the tenofovir gel arm was 5.6 per 100 women-years (person time of study observation) (38 out of 680.6 women-years) compared with 9.1 per 100 women-years (60 out of 660.7 women-years) in the placebo gel arm (incidence rate ratio = 0.61; P = 0.017). In high adherers (gel adherence > 80%), HIV incidence was 54% lower (P = 0.025) in the tenofovir gel arm. In intermediate adherers (gel adherence 50 to 80%) and low adherers (gel adherence < 50%), the HIV incidence reduction was 38 and 28%, respectively. Tenofovir gel reduced HIV acquisition by an estimated 39% overall, and by 54% in women with high gel adherence. No increase in the overall adverse event rates was observed. There were no changes in viral load and no tenofovir resistance in HIV seroconverters. Tenofovir gel could potentially fill an important HIV prevention gap, especially for women unable to successfully negotiate mutual monogamy or condom use.

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended components of initial antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bictegravir is a novel, potent INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug–drug interactions. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bictegravir coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination versus coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. We did this double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America. We enrolled HIV-1 infected adults (aged ≥18 years) who were previously untreated (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL); HLA-B*5701-negative; had no hepatitis B virus infection; screening genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine, tenofovir, lamivudine, and abacavir; and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or more. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size of four), to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg, with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 copies per mL, >100 000 to ≤400 000 copies per mL, or >400 000 copies per mL), CD4 count (<50 cells per μL, 50–199 cells per μL, or ≥200 cells per μL), and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, participants, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of −12%. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607930. Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we randomly assigned 631 participants to receive coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315), of whom 314 and 315 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL was achieved in 92·4% of patients (n=290 of 314) in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 93·0% of patients (n=293 of 315) in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference −0·6%, 95·002% CI −4·8 to 3·6; p=0·78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. No individual developed treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug. Incidence and severity of adverse events was mostly similar between groups except for nausea, which occurred less frequently in patients given bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than in those given dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (10% [n=32] vs 23% [n=72]; p<0·0001). Adverse events related to study drug were less common with bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than with dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (26% [n=82] vs 40% [n=127]), the difference being driven by a higher incidence of drug-related nausea in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (5% [n=17] vs 17% [n=55]; p<0·0001). At 48 weeks, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide achieved virological suppression in 92% of previously untreated adults and was non-inferior to coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with no treatment-emergent resistance. Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was safe and well tolerated with better gastrointestinal tolerability than dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. Because coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide does not require HLA B*5701 testing and provides guideline-recommended treatment for individuals co-infected with HIV and hepatitis B, this regimen might lend itself to rapid or same-day initiation of therapy in the clinical setting. Gilead Sciences.

In the primary analysis report of the GAIA/CLL13 trial, we found that venetoclax–obinutuzumab and venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib improved undetectable measurable residual disease (MRD) rates and progression-free survival compared with chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. However, to our knowledge, no data on direct comparisons of different venetoclax-based combinations are available. GAIA/CLL13 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study conducted at 159 sites in ten countries in Europe and the Middle East. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a life expectancy of at least 6 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology group performance status of 0–2, a cumulative illness rating scale score of 6 or lower or a single score of 4 or lower, and no TP53 aberrations. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1), with a computer-generated list stratified by age, Binet stage, and regional study group, to either chemoimmunotherapy, venetoclax–rituximab, venetoclax–obinutuzumab, or venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib. All treatments were administered in 28-day cycles. Patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group received six cycles of treatment, with patients older than 65 years receiving intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m2, days 1–2), whereas patients aged 65 years or younger received intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m2, days 1–3) and intravenous cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m2, days 1–3). Intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2, day 1 of cycles 2–6) was added to chemotherapy. In the experimental groups, patients received daily venetoclax (400 mg orally) for ten cycles after a 5-week ramp-up phase starting on day 22 of cycle 1. In the venetoclax–rituximab group, intravenous rituximab (375 mg/m2, day 1 of cycle 1; 500 mg/m2, day 1 of cycles 2–6) was added. In the obinutuzumab-containing groups, obinutuzumab was added (cycle 1: 100 mg on day 1, 900 mg on day 2, and 1000 mg on days 8 and 15; cycles 2–6: 1000 mg on day 1). In the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group, daily ibrutinib (420 mg orally, from day 1 of cycle 1) was added until undetectable MRD was reached in two consecutive measurements (3 months apart) or until cycle 36. The planned treatment duration was six cycles in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 12 cycles in the venetoclax–rituximab and the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group and between 12 and 36 cycles in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group. Coprimary endpoints were the undetectable MRD rate in peripheral blood at month 15 for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab versus standard chemoimmunotherapy and investigator-assessed progression-free survival for the comparison of venetoclax-obinutuzumab-ibrutinib versus standard chemoimmunotherapy, both analysed in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all patients randomly assigned to treatment) with a split α of 0·025 for each coprimary endpoint. Both coprimary endpoints have been reported elsewhere. Here we report a post-hoc exploratory analysis of updated progression-free survival results after a 4-year follow-up of our study population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02950051, recruitment is complete, and all patients are off study treatment. Between Dec 13, 2016, and Oct 13, 2019, 1080 patients were screened and 926 were randomly assigned to treatment (chemoimmunotherapy group n=229; venetoclax–rituximab group n=237; venetoclax–obinutuzumab group n=229; and venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group n=231); mean age 60·8 years (SD 10·2), 259 (28%) of 926 patients were female, and 667 (72%) were male (data on race and ethnicity are not reported). At data cutoff for this exploratory follow-up analysis (Jan 31, 2023; median follow-up 50·7 months [IQR 44·6–57·9]), patients in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group had significantly longer progression-free survival than those in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·47 [97·5% CI 0·32–0·69], p<0·0001) and the venetoclax–rituximab group (0·57 [0·38–0·84], p=0·0011). The venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group also had a significantly longer progression-free survival than the chemoimmunotherapy group (0·30 [0·19–0·47]; p<0·0001) and the venetoclax–rituximab group (0·38 [0·24–0·59]; p<0·0001). There was no difference in progression-free survival between the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib and venetoclax–obinutuzumab groups (0·63 [0·39–1·02]; p=0·031), and the proportional hazards assumption was not met for the comparison between the venetoclax–rituximab group versus the chemoimmunotherapy group (log-rank p=0·10). The estimated 4-year progression-free survival rate was 85·5% (97·5% CI 79·9–91·1; 37 [16%] events) in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group, 81·8% (75·8–87·8; 55 [24%] events) in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group, 70·1% (63·0–77·3; 84 [35%] events) in the venetoclax–rituximab group, and 62·0% (54·4–69·7; 90 [39%] events) in the chemoimmunotherapy group. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse event was neutropenia (114 [53%] of 216 patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group, 109 [46%] of 237 in the venetoclax–rituximab group, 127 [56%] of 228 in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab group, and 112 [48%] of 231 in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group). Deaths determined to be associated with study treatment by the investigator occurred in three (1%) patients in the chemoimmunotherapy group (n=1 due to each of sepsis, metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, and Richter's syndrome), none in the venetoclax–rituximab and venetoclax–obinutuzumab groups, and four (2%) in the venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib group (n=1 due to each of acute myeloid leukaemia, fungal encephalitis, small-cell lung cancer, and toxic leukoencephalopathy). With more than 4 years of follow-up, venetoclax–obinutuzumab and venetoclax–obinutuzumab–ibrutinib significantly extended progression-free survival compared with both chemoimmunotherapy and venetoclax–rituximab in previously untreated, fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, thereby supporting their use and further evaluation in this patient group, while still considering the higher toxicities observed with the triple combination. AbbVie, Janssen, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

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.

INTRODUCTION:The results from 2 phase 3 studies, through 2 years, in chronic hepatitis B infection showed tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) had similar efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) with superior renal and bone safety. We report updated results through 5 years.METHODS:Patients with HBeAg-negative or HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B infection with or without compensated cirrhosis were randomized (2:1) to TAF 25 mg or TDF 300 mg once daily in double-blind (DB) fashion for up to 3 years, followed by open-label (OL) TAF up to 8 years. Efficacy (antiviral, biochemical, and serologic), resistance (deep sequencing of polymerase/reverse transcriptase and phenotyping), and safety, including renal and bone parameters, were evaluated by pooled analyses.RESULTS:Of 1,298 randomized and treated patients, 866 receiving TAF (DB and OL) and 432 receiving TDF with rollover to OL TAF at year 2 (n = 180; TDF→TAF3y) or year 3 (n = 202; TDF→TAF2y) were included. Fifty (4%) TDF patients who discontinued during DB were excluded. At year 5, 85%, 83%, and 90% achieved HBV DNA <29 IU/mL (missing = failure) in the TAF, TDF→TAF3y, and TDF→TAF2y groups, respectively; no patient developed TAF or TDF resistance. Median estimated glomerular filtration rate (by using Cockcroft-Gault) declined <2.5 mL/min, and mean declines of <1% in hip and spine bone mineral density were seen at year 5 in the TAF group; patients in the TDF→TAF groups had improvements in these parameters at year 5 after switching to OL TAF.DISCUSSION:Long-term TAF treatment resulted in high rates of viral suppression, no resistance, and favorable renal and bone safety.