Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Background. Specific antiretroviral therapy (ART) medications and the severity of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease before treatment contribute to bone mineral density (BMD) loss after ART initiation. Methods. We compared the percentage change in BMD over 96 weeks in 328 HIV-infected, treatment-naive individuals randomized equally to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) plus atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r), darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r), or raltegravir (RAL). We also determined whether baseline levels of inflammation markers and immune activation were independently associated with BMD loss. Results. At week 96, the mean percentage changes from baseline in spine and hip BMDs were similar in the protease inhibitor (PI) arms (spine: -4.0% in the ATV/r group vs -3.6% in the DRV/r [P = .42]; hip: -3.9% in the ATV/r group vs -3.4% in the DRV/r group [P= .36]) but were greater in the combined PI arms than in the RAL arm (spine: -3.8% vs -1.8% [P < .001]; hip: -3.7% vs -2.4% [P = .005]). In multivariable analyses, higher baseline concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin 6, and soluble CD14 were associated with greater total hip BMD loss, whereas markers of CD4 + T-cell senescence and exhaustion (CD4⁺ CD28⁻CD57⁺ PD1⁺) and CD4⁺ T-cell activation (CD4⁺ CD38⁺ HLA-DR⁺) were associated with lumbar spine BMD loss. Conclusions. BMD losses 96 weeks after ART initiation were similar in magnitude among patients receiving Pis, ATV/r, or DRV/r but lowest among those receiving RAL. Inflammation and immune activation/senescence before ART initiation independently predicted subsequent BMD loss.

Problems associated with lifelong antiretroviral therapy, such as need for strict adherence, drug-related toxic effects, difficulties with treatment schedules, and cost, mean that simplification strategies should be sought. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of dual treatment with atazanavir–ritonavir plus lamivudine as an option to switch to from standard combination antiretroviral therapy in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed. In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with chronic HIV-1 infection and no previous treatment failure or resistance, and with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL for at least 6 months, negative hepatitis B virus surface antigen, and good general health, from 30 hospitals in Spain. Exclusion criteria were switch in antiretroviral therapy during the previous 4 months, previous virological failure, pregnancy or breastfeeding, Gilbert's syndrome, use of contraindicated drugs, grade 4 laboratory abnormalities, and previous intolerance to any of the study drugs. We randomly assigned patients (1:1; stratified by active hepatitis C virus infection and previous treatment; computer-generated random number sequence) to dual treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or triple treatment with oral atazanavir (300 mg once daily) and ritonavir (100 mg once daily) plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors at the discretion of the investigators. The primary endpoint was virological response, defined as HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, in the per-protocol population, with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. We included patients who received at least one dose of the study drug in the safety analysis. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01307488. Between Sept 29, 2011, and May 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 286 patients (143 [50%] to each group). At week 48 in the per-protocol population, 112 (84%) of 133 patients had virological response in the dual-treatment group versus 105 (78%) of 135 in the triple-treatment group (difference 6% [95% CI −5 to 16%), showing non-inferiority at the prespecified level. 14 (5%) patients developed severe adverse events (dual treatment six [4%]; triple treatment eight [6%]), none of which we deemed related to the study drug. Grade 3–4 adverse events were similar between groups (dual treatment 77 [55%] of 140; triple treatment 78 [55%] of 141). Treatment discontinuations were less frequent in the dual-treatment group (three [2%]) than in the triple-treatment group (ten [7%]; p=0·047). In our trial, dual treatment was effective, safe, and non-inferior to triple treatment in patients with an HIV-1 infection who are virologically suppressed who switch antiretroviral therapy because of toxic effects, intolerance, or simplification. This combination has the potential to suppress some of the long-term toxic effects associated with nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, preserve future treatment options, and reduce the cost of antiretroviral therapy. Bristol Myers-Squibb and Fundación SEIMC-GESIDA.

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3·5% [95% CI −1·7 to 8·8]; p non-inferiority<0·0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2–4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0·0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0·0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0·0001). Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Tibotec.

Our objective was to assess therapeutic non-inferiority of dual treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir and lamivudine to triple treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir plus two nucleos(t)ides for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression. In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited patients from 32 HIV units in hospitals in Spain and France. Eligible patients were HIV-infected adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL, for at least 6 months on triple treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir (twice daily) plus lamivudine or emtricitabine and a second nucleos(t)ide, with no resistance or virological failure to these drugs, and no positive hepatitis B serum surface antigen. Investigators at each centre randomly assigned patients (1:1; block size of four; stratified by time to suppression [<1 year or >1 year] and nadir CD4 cell count [<100 cells per μL or >100 cells per μL]; computer-generated random sequence) to continue triple treatment or switch to dual treatment (oral lopinavir 400 mg and oral ritonavir 100 mg twice daily plus oral lamivudine 300 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was response to treatment in the intention-to-treat population (all randomised patients) at 48 weeks. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01471821. Between Oct 1, 2011, and April 1, 2013, we randomly assigned 250 participants to continue triple treatment (127 [51%] patients) or switch to dual treatment (123 [49%] patients). In the intention-to-treat population, 110 (86·6%) of 127 patients in the triple-treatment group responded to treatment versus 108 (87·8%) of 123 in the dual-treatment group (difference −1·2% [95% CI −9·6 to 7·3]; p=0·92), meeting the criteria for non-inferiority. Serious adverse events occurred in eight (7%) patients in the triple-treatment group and five (4%) in the dual-treatment group (p=0·515), and study drug discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in four (3%) in the triple-treatment group and one (1%) in the dual-treatment group (p=0·223). Dual treatment with lopinavir–ritonavir plus lamivudine has non-inferior therapeutic efficacy and is similarly tolerated to triple treatment. AbbVie and Red Temática Cooperativa de Investigación en Sida.

Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was −0·4 (95% CI −5·9 to 5·2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11% vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2–4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0·0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. Tibotec.

Appropriate second-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection is needed in resource-limited settings. In a comparison of three protease-inhibitor–based regimens in sub-Saharan Africa, the one that included nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors performed favorably. The public health approach of the World Health Organization (WHO), 1 together with large-scale donor funding, has enabled millions of adults and children in sub-Saharan Africa who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to have access to lifesaving antiretroviral therapy. 2 The key principle is the use of simplified, standardized approaches that are feasible on a large scale in resource-limited settings, 1 , 3 including a first-line regimen of two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus one non-NRTI (NNRTI). In most settings, treatment is monitored clinically and with the use of CD4+ counts, with typically late detection of treatment failure, accompanied by substantial . . .

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 . . .

Daily oral triple therapy is effective at halting HIV disease progression, but can have toxic effects and is costly. We investigated whether dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine is non-inferior to standard triple therapy. The GARDEL study (Global AntiRetroviral Design Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard therapy) is a 48 week, phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral-therapy-naive adults (age ≥18 years) with documented HIV-1 RNA viral load of at least 1000 copies per mL. The study was done at 19 centres in six countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dual therapy or triple therapy by sealed envelopes, in blocks of four, stratified by baseline viral load (<100 000 vs ≥100 000 copies per mL). Dual therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg plus lamivudine 150 mg, both twice daily. Triple therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily and lamivudine or emtricitabine plus another nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) in fixed-dose combination. Efficacy was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The primary endpoint was virological response rate, defined as the proportion of patients with HIV RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Dual therapy was classed as non-inferior to triple therapy if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference between groups was no lower than −12%. Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01237444. Between Dec 10, 2010, and May 15, 2012, 217 patients were randomly assigned to the dual-therapy group and 209 to the triple-therapy group. 198 patients in the dual-therapy group and 175 in the triple-therapy group completed 48 weeks of treatment. At week 48, 189 patients (88·3%) in the dual-therapy group and 169 (83·7%) in the triple-therapy group had viral response (difference 4·6%, 95% CI −2·2 to 11·8; p=0·171). Patients with baseline viral load of at least 100 000 copies per mL showed similar results (87·2% vs 77·9%, respectively; difference 9·3%, 95% CI −2·8 to 21·5; p=0·145). Toxicity-related or tolerability-related discontinuations were more common in the triple-therapy group (n=10 [4·9%]) than in the dual-therapy group (n=1 [0·4%]; difference 4·5%, 95% CI −8·1 to −0·9; p=0·011). 65 adverse events in the dual-therapy group and 88 in the triple-therapy group were possibly or probably drug related (p=0·007). Two serious adverse events occurred, both in the dual-therapy arm, one of which (a case of gastritis) was reported as possibly or probably related to drug treatment. Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine regimen warrants further clinical research and consideration as a potential therapeutic option for antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients. Fundación Huésped and AbbVie.

Background. Concomitant use of rifamycins to treat or prevent tuberculosis can result in subtherapeutic concentrations of antiretroviral drugs. We studied the interaction of efavirenz with daily rifapentine and isoniazid in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals receiving a 4-week regimen to prevent tuberculosis. Methods. Participants receiving daily rifapentine and isoniazid with efavirenz had pharmacokinetic evaluations at baseline and weeks 2 and 4 of concomitant therapy. Efavirenz apparent oral clearance was estimated and the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of values before and during rifapentine and isoniazid was calculated. HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA was measured at baseline and week 8. Results. Eighty-seven participants were evaluable: 54% were female, and the median age was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR], 29–44 years). Numbers of participants with efavirenz concentrations ≥1 mg/L were 85 (98%) at week 0; 81 (93%) at week 2; 78 (90%) at week 4; and 75 (86%) at weeks 2 and 4. Median efavirenz apparent oral clearance was 9.3 L/hour (IQR, 6.42–13.22 L/hour) at baseline and 9.8 L/hour (IQR, 7.04–15.59 L/hour) during rifapentine/isoniazid treatment (GMR, 1.04 [90% confidence interval, .97–1.13]). Seventy-nine of 85 (93%) participants had undetectable HIV-1 RNA (<40 copies/mL) at entry; 71 of 75 (95%) participants had undetectable HIV-1 RNA at week 8. Two participants with undetectable HIV-1 RNA at study entry were detectable (43 and 47 copies/mL) at week 8. Conclusions. The proportion of participants with midinterval efavirenz concentrations ≥1 mg/L did not cross below the prespecified threshold of >80%, and virologic suppression was maintained. Four weeks of daily rifapentine plus isoniazid can be coadministered with efavirenz without clinically meaningful reductions in efavirenz mid-dosing concentrations or virologic suppression. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT 01404312.