Explore the vast range of titles available.

There has been remarkable improvement in primary antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection over the past 15 years. The authors found that a once-daily regimen that included dolutegravir, an integrase inhibitor, was effective as initial ART. The initial antiretroviral therapy (ART) recommended in treatment guidelines for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) infection consists of two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and a third agent: a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI; e.g., efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (e.g., atazanavir or darunavir), or an integrase inhibitor (e.g., raltegravir). Integrase inhibitors are the most recent drug class to be approved on the basis of their efficacy and safety profiles. 1 – 3 Over the past 15 years, combination products have been developed, consisting initially of partial regimens with two NRTIs and now available in triple combinations. 4 , 5 All the regimens that . . .

Background Antiretroviral therapy (ART) in people with HIV (PWH) can lead to weight gain, but the effects of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors such as abacavir (ABC) are not well understood. In this study, we investigated whether discontinuing ABC would mitigate weight changes and metabolic complications in PWH. Methods In a randomized controlled trial including PWH on dolutegravir, ABC, and lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC), participants were randomized 2:1 to either switch to DTG/3TC or continue DTG/ABC/3TC. Data was collected at baseline, week 24, and week 48. This study was powered to detect a difference of 2 kg in weight between groups. Secondary outcomes included body composition, fat and muscle distribution, and metabolic parameters. Weight and metabolic changes were analyzed by linear mixed modeling. Results Eighty-one participants were randomized. Switching from DTG/ABC/3TC to DTG/3TC was not associated with a significant change in weight at 48 weeks in the intention to treat (ITT) analysis (mean difference − 0.5 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.5 to 1.5, p  = 0.599) or the modified ITT, (-0.1 kg, 95% CI: -1.7 to 1.5, p  = 0.914). In the ITT analysis, the DTG/3TC group gained 0.4 kg ± 5.1 SD ( p  = 0.589) compared to 0.9 kg ± 2.3 SD ( p  = 0.054) in the DTG/ABC/3TC group, while in the modified ITT, the changes were 0.9 ± 3.2 kg ( p  = 0.054) and 0.9 ± 3.6 kg ( p  = 0.071), respectively. The were no differences between groups in secondary outcomes. Conclusion Continuing or discontinuing abacavir for 48 weeks was associated with modest gains in weight that did not differ between groups. Similarly, fat distribution, or metabolic parameters were comparable between groups.

Hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir are tightly associated with HLA-B*5701. In this global, multicenter, prospective, randomized study, 1956 patients with HIV-1 infection who had not previously received abacavir were randomly assigned to undergo HLA-B*5701 screening or to receive the standard of care. Screening eliminated immunologically confirmed hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir in this predominantly white population. In this case, a pharmacogenetic test can prevent the toxic effects of this drug. Hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir are tightly associated with HLA-B*5701. In this study of patients with HIV-1 infection, HLA-B*5701 screening eliminated immunologically confirmed hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir. Pharmacogenetic testing is not widely used in routine clinical practice to optimize drug choice or clinical management. 1 This gap between scientific knowledge and clinical application may be explained by the fact that the successful incorporation of a pharmacogenetic test into routine practice requires a combination of high-level evidence that can be generalized to diverse clinical settings, widespread availability of cost-effective and reliable laboratory tests, and effective strategies to incorporate testing into routine clinical practice. Abacavir is a nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor with activity against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), available for once-daily use in combination with other antiretroviral agents, that has . . .

Our objective was to assess the therapeutic noninferiority of dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine compared to triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir plus 2 nucleos(t)ides for maintenance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) suppression. This was a multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial (margin 12%). Patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL for 6 months or longer on triple therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and 2 nucleos(t)ides (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine or abacavir and lamivudine) and with no resistance were randomized to continue therapy (n = 128) or switch to darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine (n = 129). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL after 48 weeks of follow-up according to the snapshot algorithm. A total of 249 participants received study drugs (intention-to-treat exposed). The proportion of participants with HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL in the dual- and triple-therapy arms was 88.9% (112/126) and 92.7% (114/123; difference, -3.8%; 95% confidence interval, -11.0 to 3.4), respectively. Four participants in the dual-therapy arm and 2 in the triple-therapy arm developed protocol-defined virological failure. Switching to dual therapy was associated with a significant increase in total, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, but not in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio. Serious adverse events and study drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 4.8% vs 4.9%P = .97) and in 0.8% (1/126) vs 1.6% P = .55) in dual therapy vs triple therapy, respectively. Dual therapy with darunavir/ritonavir and lamivudine demonstrated noninferior therapeutic efficacy and similar tolerability compared to triple therapy. NCT02159599.

Background. Abacavir-lamivudine and tenofovir DF-emtricitabine fixed-dose combinations are commonly used as first-line antiretroviral therapies. However, few studies have comprehensively compared their relative safety profiles. Methods. In this European, multicenter, open-label, 96-week study, antiretroviral-naive adult subjects with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were randomized to receive either abacavir-lamivudine or tenofovir-emtricitabine with efavirenz. Primary analyses were conducted after 48 weeks of treatment. Bone mineral density (BMD), a powered secondary end point, was assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry. Bone turnover markers (osteocalcin, procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide, bone specific alkaline phosphatase, and type 1 collagen cross-linked C telopeptide [CTx]) were assessed in an exploratory analysis. Results. A total of 385 subjects were enrolled in the study. BMD loss was observed in both treatment groups, with a significant difference in the change from baseline in both total hip (abacavir-lamivudine group, −1.9%; tenofovir-emtricitabine group, −3.6%; P <; .001) and lumbar spine (abacavir-lamivudine group, −1.6%; tenofoviremtricitabine group, −2.4%; P = .036). BMD loss of ⩾6% was more common in the tenofovir-emtricitabine group (13% of the tenofovir-emtricitabine group vs 3% of the abacavir-lamivudine group had a loss of ⩾6% in the hip; 15% vs 5% had a loss of ⩾6% in the spine). Bone turnover markers increased in both treatment groups over the first 24 weeks, stabilizing or decreasing thereafter. Increases in all markers were significantly greater in the tenofovir-emtricitabine treatment group than in the abacavir-lamivudine group at week 24. All but CTx remained significantly different at week 48 (eg, osteocalcin: abacavir-lamivudine group, +8.07 mg/L; tenofoviremtricitabine group, +11.92 mg/L; P < .001). Conclusions. This study demonstrated the impact of first-line treatment regimens on bone. Greater increases in bone turnover and decreases in BMD were observed in subjects treated with tenofovir-emtricitabine than were observed in subjects treated with abacavir-lamivudine.

Cabotegravir and rilpivirine are antiretroviral drugs in development as long-acting injectable formulations. The LATTE-2 study evaluated long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression through 96 weeks. In this randomised, phase 2b, open-label study, treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 initially received oral cabotegravir 30 mg plus abacavir–lamivudine 600–300 mg once daily. The objective of this study was to select an intramuscular dosing regimen based on a comparison of the antiviral activity, tolerability, and safety of the two intramuscular dosing regimens relative to oral cabotegravir plus abacavir–lamivudine. After a 20-week induction period on oral cabotegravir plus abacavir–lamivudine, patients with viral suppression (plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to intramuscular long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine at 4-week intervals (long-acting cabotegravir 400 mg plus rilpivirine 600 mg; two 2 mL injections) or 8-week intervals (long-acting cabotegravir 600 mg plus rilpivirine 900 mg; two 3 mL injections) or continued oral cabotegravir plus abacavir–lamivudine. Randomisation was computer-generated with stratification by HIV-1 RNA (<50 copies per mL, yes or no) during the first 12 weeks of the induction period. The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with viral suppression at week 32 (as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), protocol-defined virological failures, and safety events through 96 weeks. All randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the maintenance period were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses. The primary analysis used a Bayesian approach to evaluate the hypothesis that the proportion with viral suppression for each long-acting regimen is not worse than the oral regimen proportion by more than 10% (denoted comparable) according to a prespecified decision rule (ie, posterior probability for comparability >90%). Difference in proportions and associated 95% CIs were supportive to the primary analysis. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02120352. Among 309 enrolled patients, 286 were randomly assigned to the maintenance period (115 to each of the 4-week and 8-week groups and 56 to the oral treatment group). This study is currently ongoing. At 32 weeks following randomisation, both long-acting regimens met primary criteria for comparability in viral suppression relative to the oral comparator group. Viral suppression was maintained at 32 weeks in 51 (91%) of 56 patients in the oral treatment group, 108 (94%) of 115 patients in the 4-week group (difference 2·8% [95% CI −5·8 to 11·5] vs oral treatment), and 109 (95%) of 115 patients in the 8-week group (difference 3·7% [−4·8 to 12·2] vs oral treatment). At week 96, viral suppression was maintained in 47 (84%) of 56 patients receiving oral treatment, 100 (87%) of 115 patients in the 4-week group, and 108 (94%) of 115 patients in the 8-week group. Three patients (1%) experienced protocol-defined virological failure (two in the 8-week group; one in the oral treatment group). Injection-site reactions were mild (3648 [84%] of 4360 injections) or moderate (673 [15%] of 4360 injections) in intensity and rarely resulted in discontinuation (two [<1%] of 230 patients); injection-site pain was reported most frequently. Serious adverse events during maintenance were reported in 22 (10%) of 230 patients in the intramuscular groups (4-week and 8-week groups) and seven (13%) of 56 patients in the oral treatment group; none were drug related. The two-drug combination of all-injectable, long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks was as effective as daily three-drug oral therapy at maintaining HIV-1 viral suppression through 96 weeks and was well accepted and tolerated. ViiV Healthcare and Janssen R&D.

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.

Background. Observational and retrospective clinical trial cohorts have reported conflicting results for the association of abacavir use with risk of myocardial infarction (MI), possibly related to issues that may bias estimation of treatment effects, such as time-varying confounders, informative dropout, and cohort loss due to competing events. Methods. We analyzed data from 5056 individuals initiating randomized antiretroviral treatment (ART) in AIDS Clinical Trials Group studies; 1704 started abacavir therapy. An intent-to-treat analysis adjusted for pretreatment covariates and weighting for informative censoring was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of MIs after initiation of a regimen with or without abacavir. Results. Through 6 years after ART initiation, 36 MI events were observed in 17,404 person-years of follow-up. No evidence of an increased hazard of MI in subjects using abacavir versus no abacavir was seen (over a 1-year period: P = .50; HR, 0.7 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.2-2.4]); over a 6-year period: P = .24; HR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.3-1.4]); these results were robust over as-treated and sensitivity analyses. Although the risk of MI decreased over time, there was no evidence to suggest a time-dependent abacavir effect. Classic cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors were the strongest predictors of MI. Conclusion. We find no evidence to suggest that initial ART containing abacavir increases MI risk over shortterm and long-term periods in this population with relatively low MI risk. Traditional CVD risk factors should be the main focus in assessing CVD risk in individuals with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

Lopinavir-ritonavir is a preferred protease inhibitor co-formulation for initial HIV-1 treatment. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir has shown similar efficacy and safety to lopinavir-ritonavir when each is combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We compared the two treatments directly in antiretroviral-naive patients. This open-label, non-inferiority study included 878 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients randomised to receive either fosamprenavir-ritonavir 700 mg/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily, each with the co-formulation of abacavir-lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL at week 48 and treatment discontinuations because of an adverse event. The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed to at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00085943. At week 48, non-inferiority of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to lopinavir-ritonavir (95% CI around the treatment difference −4·84 to 7·05) was shown, with 315 of 434 (73%) patients in the fosamprenavir-ritonavir group and 317 of 444 (71%) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL. Treatment discontinuations due to an adverse event were few and occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups (fosamprenavir-ritonavir 53, 12%; lopinavir-ritonavir 43, 10%). Diarrhoea, nausea, and abacavir hypersensitivity were the most frequent drug-related grade 2–4 adverse events. Treatment-emergent drug resistance was rare; no patient had virus that developed reduced susceptibility to fosamprenavir-ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir twice daily in treatment-naive patients provides similar antiviral efficacy, safety, tolerability, and emergence of resistance as lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine.

Simplification of antiretroviral therapy in patients with suppressed viremia may minimize long-term adverse effects. The study's primary objective was to determine whether abacavir/lamivudine + atazanavir (ABC/3TC+ATV) was virologically non-inferior to tenofovir/emtricitabine + atazanavir/ritonavir (TDF/FTC+ATV/r) over 24 weeks in a population of virologically suppressed, HIV-1 infected patients. This open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority study enrolled antiretroviral experienced, HIV-infected adults currently receiving a regimen of TDF/FTC+ATV/r for ≥ 6 months with no history of virologic failure and whose HIV-1 RNA had been ≤ 75 copies/mL on 2 consecutive measurements including screening. Patients were randomized 1 ∶ 2 to continue current treatment or simplify to ABC/3TC+ATV. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-RNA<50 copies/mL at Week 24 by the Time to Loss of Virologic Response (TLOVR) algorithm. Secondary endpoints included alternative measures of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and fasting lipids. Exploratory endpoints included inflammatory, coagulation, bone, and renal biomarkers. After 24 weeks, ABC/3TC+ATV (n = 199) was non-inferior to TDF/FTC+ATV/r (n = 97) by both the primary analysis (87% in both groups) and all secondary efficacy analyses. Rates of grade 2-4 AEs were similar between the two groups (40% vs 37%, respectively), but an excess of hyperbilirubinemia made the rate of grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities higher in the TDF/FTC+ATV/r group (30%) compared with the ABC/3TC+ATV group (13%). Lipid levels were stable except for HDL cholesterol, which increased significantly in the ABC/3TC+ATV group. Bone and renal biomarkers improved significantly between baseline and Week 24 in patients taking ABC/3TC+ATV, and the difference between groups was significant at Week 24. No significant changes occurred in any inflammatory or coagulation biomarker within or between treatment groups. After 24 weeks, simplification to ABC/3TC+ATV from TDF/FTC+ATV/r maintained viral suppression was well-tolerated, and led to improvements in bone and renal biomarkers and HDL cholesterol. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01102972 GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Study Register #113734.