Search

Background: Doravirine and islatravir is an investigational, once-daily, single-tablet regimen with high antiviral potency, favourable safety and tolerability, and low propensity for resistance. We report week 48 results from a phase 3 trial evaluating switch from stable, oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) to the fixed combination of doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg)., Methods: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted at 77 research, community, and hospital-based clinics in 15 countries. Adults aged 18 years or older with fewer than 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL on any oral, two-drug or three-drug ART regimen for at least 3 months, and no history of previous virological failure on any past or current regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule to switch to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) or to continue their baseline ART regimen. Block randomisation was based on a block size of four, and randomisation was stratified by baseline regimen (ie, protease inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or other). Participants in the doravirine and islatravir group were instructed to take one tablet at approximately the same time each day, and participants in the baseline ART group continued to take the medication according to the locally approved label. HIV-1 RNA and safety evaluations were done at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. CD4 cell counts were measured at baseline, week 24, and week 48. The primary endpoint was proportion of participants with greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL at week 48 in the full analysis set (ie, all participants who received at least one dose of study drug) using the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and prespecified non-inferiority margin of 4%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04223778) and is completed., Findings: Between Feb 18 and Oct 2, 2020, 740 individuals were screened for eligibility, of whom 672 (90·8%) participants (249 [37·1%] women and 423 [62·9%] men; median CD4 count of 678 cells per μL [IQR 496-868]) were randomly assigned to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg; n=336) or to continue baseline ART (n=336). The last follow-up visit occurred on Sept 8, 2021. At week 48, zero of 336 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group versus five (1·5%) of 336 participants in the baseline ART group had greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL (difference -1·5, 95% CI -3·4 to -0·3). The per-protocol analysis showed consistent results. Headache was the most common adverse event in both groups (35 [10·4%] of 336 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group, 16 [4·8%] of 336 in the baseline ART group), infection rates were similar (113 [33·6%] in both groups), and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (seven [2·1%] vs one [0·3%]). 66 (19·6%) of 336 participants had treatment-related adverse events in the doravirine and islatravir group compared with 30 (8·9%) of 336 in the baseline ART group. In the islatravir and doravirine group, CD4 cell counts (mean change -30·3 cells per μL) and total lymphocyte counts (mean change -0·26 × 10 9 /L) were decreased at 48 weeks., Interpretation: Switching to single-tablet doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) maintained viral suppression up to week 48 and was non-inferior to antiretroviral combinations used in clinical practice for adults with HIV-1; however, decreases in CD4 cell and total lymphocyte counts do not support further development of once-daily doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg)., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J-MM reports a grant to his institution from Gilead; consulting fees from Gilead, ViiV, and Merck for advisory boards; payment from Merck for expert testimony; and participation on a data safety monitoring board for Aelix. GR reports honoraria for lectures from ViiV, GSK, and MSD and support from Gilead for attending meetings or travel. CO reports payment to the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation for the current study and honoraria and travel support from MSD for attendance and presentation at Expert Input Forum. AA declares no competing interests. AC reports unrestricted educational grants with MSD, Gilead Sciences, and ViiV Healthcare. SO reports research grants from MSD, ViiV Healthcare, and Gilead Sciences and honoraria for lectures from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences. FH reports research grants from AbbVie, VIR, Merck, and GSK; payment from AbbVie, Gilead, ViiV, and Merck for Speakers Bureau; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Viiv and Gilead. PK reports grants from Merck, Gilead, GSD/ViiV, and Theratechnologies; consulting fees from Merck, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, GSK/ViiV, and Theratechnologies; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Gilead, Merck, GSK/ViiV, Theratechnologies, and Johnson & Johnson; and stock or stock options with Merck, Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and GSK. PT reports a grant from Merck to the University of Pennsylvania for the current study and consulting fees from Merck, Gilead, and ViiV. SW reports funding and provision of study materials from Merck for the current study; grants from Merck, ViiV Healthcare, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen; and consulting fees and honoraria for lectures from Merck and ViiV Healthcare. AG, SK, IG, KE, TAC, MCF, and JK are current or former employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, and might own stock or stock options, or both, in the company., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: Long-acting treatment for HIV has potential to improve adherence, provide durable viral suppression, and have long-term individual and public health benefits. We evaluated treatment with two antibodies that broadly and potently neutralise HIV (broadly neutralising antibodies; bNAbs), combined with lenacapavir, a long-acting capsid inhibitor, as a long-acting regimen., Methods: This ongoing, randomised, blind, phase 1b proof-of-concept study conducted at 11 HIV treatment centres in the USA included adults with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration below 50 copies per mL who had at least 18 months on oral antiretroviral therapy (ART), CD4 counts of at least 500 cells per μL, and protocol-defined susceptibility to bNAbs teropavimab (3BNC117-LS) and zinlirvimab (10-1074-LS). Participants stopped oral ART and were randomly assigned (1:1) to one dose of 927 mg subcutaneous lenacapavir plus an oral loading dose, 30 mg/kg intravenous teropavimab, and 10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg intravenous zinlirvimab on day 1. Investigational site personnel and participants were masked to treatment assignment throughout the randomised period. The primary endpoint was incidence of serious adverse events until week 26 in all randomly assigned participants who received one dose or more of any study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04811040., Findings: Between June 29 and Dec 8, 2021, 21 participants were randomly assigned, ten in each group received the complete study regimen and one withdrew before completing the regimen on day 1. 18 (86%) of 21 participants were male; participants ranged in age from 25 years to 61 years and had a median CD4 cell count of 909 (IQR 687-1270) cells per μL at study entry. No serious adverse events occurred. Two grade 3 adverse events occurred (lenacapavir injection-site erythaema and injection-site cellulitis), which had both resolved. The most common adverse events were symptoms of injection-site reactions, reported in 17 (85%) of 20 participants who received subcutaneous lenacapavir; 12 (60%) of 20 were grade 1. One (10%; 95% CI 0-45) participant had viral rebound (confirmed HIV-1 RNA concentration of ≥50 copies per mL) in the zinlirvimab 10 mg/kg group, which was resuppressed on ART, and one participant in the zinlirvimab 30 mg/kg group withdrew at week 12 with HIV RNA <50 copies per mL., Interpretation: Lenacapavir with teropavimab and zinlirvimab 10 mg/kg or 30 mg/kg was generally well tolerated with no serious adverse events. HIV-1 suppression for at least 26 weeks is feasible with this regimen at either zinlirvimab dose in selected people with HIV-1., Funding: Gilead Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JJE reports grants or contract payments made to their institution from ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences and consulting fees from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, and Gilead Sciences. SJL declares no competing interests. GC reports grants or contract payments from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences and support for attending meetings from Gilead Sciences. PC reports grants or contract payments from Lilly, Seres Therapeutics, National Institutes of Health, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead Sciences and data safety monitoring or advisory board participation from Westat. PJR reports grants or contract payments from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, AbbVie, Theratechnology, and Gilead Sciences; honoraria from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences; and support for attending meetings from Gilead Sciences. DJ reports grants or contract payments made to his institution from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, and NeuroRx; honoraria from Clinical Care Options; and advisory board participation for CITI and Theratechnologies. ED reports grants or contract payments from ViiV Healthcare, Merck, AbbVie, TeroTechnology/Taimed Biologic, and Gilead Sciences. AM reports grants or contract payments from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck, Taimed Biologic, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and GSK and advisory board participation for Gilead Sciences, Merck, and ViiV Healthcare. SEW reports grants or contract payments from Gilead Sciences and Merck. MR reports consulting fees from Merck, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals and honoraria from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. LG reports grants or contract payments made to their institution from Gilead Sciences and Merck; and honoraria from the AIDS Education and Training Center—South Central. LAV, YZ, HH, and SEC report employment with and stock in Gilead Sciences. JMB reports employment with and stock in Gilead Sciences; grants or contract payments and participation on a data monitoring committee from the US National Institutes of Health; and consulting fees from Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. MC reports data safety monitoring or advisory board participation for Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Islatravir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for the treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of islatravir-based regimens for the treatment of HIV-1., Methods: We did a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, comparator-controlled, dose-ranging trial at 24 clinics or hospitals in four countries (Chile, France, the UK, and the USA). Treatment-naive adults (≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell counts of at least 200 cells per mL, and a calculated creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min (all within 60 days before study treatment) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of four via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral treatment with one of three doses of islatravir (0·25 mg, 0·75 mg, or 2·25 mg) plus doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (300 mg) or to doravirine (100 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) once daily with placebo (part 1). Treatment groups were stratified according to screening HIV-1 RNA concentration (≤100 000 copies per mL or >100 000 copies per mL). After at least 24 weeks of treatment, participants taking islatravir who achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL switched to a two-drug regimen of islatravir and doravirine (part 2). All participants and study investigators were masked to treatment in part 1; in part 2, the islatravir dose was masked to all participants and investigators, but the other drugs were given open label. The primary efficacy outcomes were the proportions of participants with an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL at weeks 24 and 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach). The primary safety outcomes were the number of participants experiencing adverse events and the number of participants discontinuing study drug owing to adverse events. All participants who received at least one dose of any study drug were included in the analyses. This trial is ongoing, but closed to enrolment of new participants; herein, we report study findings through 48 weeks of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03272347., Findings: Between Nov 27, 2017, and April 25, 2019, 121 participants (mean age 31 years [SD 10·9], 112 [93%] male, 92 [76%] white, 27 [22%] with HIV-1 RNA concentration >100 000 copies per mL) were randomly assigned: 29 to the 0·25 mg, 30 to the 0·75 mg, and 31 to the 2·25 mg islatravir groups, and 31 to the doravirine, lamivudine, and TDF group. At week 24, 26 (90%) of 29 participants in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 30 (100%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 27 (87%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group achieved HIV-1 RNA concentrations lower than 50 copies per mL compared with 27 (87%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 2·8%, 95% CI -14·9 to 20·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 12·9%, -1·6 to 27·5, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and 0·3%, -17·9 to 18·5, for the 2·25 mg islatravir group). At week 48, these data were 26 (90%) of 29 in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 27 (90%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 24 (77%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group compared with 26 (84%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 6·1%, 95% CI -12·4 to 24·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 6·2%, -12·2 to 24·6, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and -6·1%, -27·1 to 14·8, for the 2·75 mg islatravir group). 66 (73%) of participants in the islatravir groups combined and 24 (77%) of those in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group reported at least one adverse event. Two participants in the 2·25 mg islatravir group and one participant in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group discontinued owing to an adverse event. No deaths were reported up to week 48., Interpretation: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine showed antiviral efficacy and were well tolerated regardless of dose. Doravirine in combination with islatravir has the potential to be a potent two-drug regimen that warrants further clinical development., Funding: Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests J-MM has received grants from Gilead, Merck, ViiV, and Sanofi. ED has received personal fees from Gilead Science and Janssen Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. SOK, AG, KE, MNR, TC, CH, GJH, and PS are employees of Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc. YY, AAS, CB, and CCA declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fostemsavir, a prodrug of the first-in-class attachment inhibitor, temsavir, is indicated for heavily treatment-experienced individuals with multidrug-resistant HIV-1. We previously reported superior efficacy of fostemsavir versus placebo in the randomised cohort of the BRIGHTE study after 8-day functional monotherapy (primary endpoint); here we report planned interim analyses through week 96., Methods: BRIGHTE (NCT02362503) is an ongoing multicentre, two-cohort, phase 3 trial, done at 108 centres in 22 countries. We enrolled heavily treatment-experienced adults (≥18 years) failing antiretroviral therapy (HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies per mL) into two cohorts: the randomised cohort, in which patients with one or two fully active antiretrovirals remaining received oral fostemsavir (600 mg twice a day) or placebo in combination with their failing regimen for 8 days, followed by fostemsavir plus optimised background therapy; or the non-randomised cohort, in which patients with no remaining antiretroviral options received oral fostemsavir (600 mg twice a day) plus optimised background therapy from day 1. Endpoints for the week 96 interim analyses included the proportions of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 40 copies per mL, changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, and the frequency of adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and deaths. The intention-to-treat exposed population and the safety population both included all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. The response rates (proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per mL) in the intention-to-treat exposed population were calculated via snapshot analysis at weeks 24, 48, and 96., Findings: Between Feb 23, 2015, and Aug 11, 2016, 371 participants were enrolled and treated, of which 272 participants were in the randomised cohort and 99 in the non-randomised cohort. 320 (86%) of 371 reported a history of AIDS. In the randomised cohort, rates of virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per mL) increased from 53% (144 of 272) at week 24 to 60% (163 of 272) at week 96. Response rates in the non-randomised cohort were 37% (37 of 99) at week 24 and week 96. Mean increases in CD4 counts from baseline at week 96 were 205 cells per μL (SD 191) in the randomised cohort and 119 cells per μL (202) in the non-randomised cohort. Mean CD4/CD8 ratio increased from 0·20 at baseline to 0·44 at week 96 in the randomised cohort. Few adverse events led to discontinuation (26 [7%] of 371). 12 (4%) of 272 people in the randomised cohort and 17 (17%) of 99 in the non-randomised cohort died; the median baseline CD4 count for participants who died was 11 cells per μL., Interpretation: In heavily treatment-experienced individuals with advanced HIV-1 disease and limited treatment options, fostemsavir-based antiretroviral regimens were generally well tolerated and showed a distinctive trend of increasing virological and immunological response rates through 96 weeks; these findings support fostemsavir as a treatment option for this vulnerable population., Funding: ViiV Healthcare., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the primary week-48 analyses of two phase 3 studies, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to a dolutegravir-containing regimen in treatment-naive people with HIV. We report week-144 efficacy and safety results from these studies., Methods: We did two double-blind, active-controlled studies (now in open-label extension phase). Study 1 randomly assigned (1:1) HLA-B*5701-negative adults without hepatitis B virus co-infection 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 once daily. Study 2 randomly assigned (1:1) adults to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, or dolutegravir 50 mg given with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg. We previously reported non-inferiority at the primary endpoint. Here, we report the week-144 secondary outcome of proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 144, by US Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm, analysed in the same manner. These studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02607930 and NCT02607956., Findings: 629 participants were randomly assigned and treated in study 1 (314 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 315 to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine) and 645 in study 2 (327 to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, 325 to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide). At week 144, bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to both dolutegravir-containing regimens for efficacy. In study 1, 256 (82%) of 314 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 265 (84%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference -2·6%, 95% CI -8·5 to 3·4). In study 2, 262 (82%) of 320 participants had plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 273 (84%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (difference -1·9%, -7·8 to 3·9). In both studies, no participant had treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs up to week 144. All treatment regimens were well tolerated with additional exposure. Adverse events that led to study drug discontinuation were reported for no participants in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group versus five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (study 1), and six (2%) of 320 in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus six (2%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group (study 2). In study 1, statistically significant differences were observed in median changes from baseline in fasting total cholesterol (14 mg/dL vs 10 mg/dL; p=0·034), direct LDL (21 mg/dL vs 14 mg/dL; p=0·004), and total cholesterol to HDL ratio (-0·1 vs -0·3; p=0·007) at week 144; no differences were observed between groups in study 2. Weight gain was seen across all treatment groups in both studies, with no differences in median changes from baseline in weight at week 144 for either study., Interpretation: These long-term data support the use of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide as a safe, well tolerated, and durable treatment for people with HIV, with no emergent resistance., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Doravirine is a novel, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that has shown non-inferior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted darunavir, with a superior lipid profile, in adults with HIV who were treatment naive at week 48 in the phase 3 DRIVE-FORWARD trial. Here we present the 96-week data for the study., Methods: This randomised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study was undertaken at 125 clinical centres in 15 countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) infected with HIV-1 who were naive to antiretroviral therapy, with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 1000 copies per mL or higher at screening, and no known resistance to any of the study drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA concentration and background nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy, to doravirine (100 mg per day) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (100 mg ritonavir and 800 mg darunavir per day), both with investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir and lamivudine. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment until week 96. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who achieved this concentration by week 96, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, regardless of whether it was their randomly assigned treatment. We used a US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and a margin of 10 percentage points to define the non-inferiority of doravirine to ritonavir-boosted darunavir at 96 weeks. Key safety endpoints were change in fasting serum lipid concentrations, the incidence of adverse events, and time to discontinuation due to an adverse event, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02275780, and is closed to accrual., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Oct 20, 2015, 1027 individuals were screened, of whom 769 participants were randomly assigned to doravirine (n=385) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=384), and 383 in both groups were given at least one dose of their allocated treatment. Most participants were male (645 [84%] of 766) and white (560 [73%]), with a mean age of 35·2 years (SD 10·6). 292 participants in the doravirine group and 273 in the darunavir group completed 96 weeks of treatment. At week 96, a higher proportion of the doravirine group (277 [73%] of 383) achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL than did of the darunavir group (248 [66%] of 383; difference 7·1%, 95% CI 0·5-13·7). Responses were similar regardless of baseline characteristics. Treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug occurred in two (1%) of 383 participants in the doravirine group and one (<1%) of 383 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group. Significant differences were seen between treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in LDL cholesterol (-14·6 mg/dL, 95% CI -18·2 to -11·0) and non-HDL cholesterol (-18·4 mg/dL, -22·5 to -14·3). Frequencies of adverse events were similar between groups. No significant treatment difference (log-rank nominal p=0·063) through week 96 was observed in time to discontinuation due to an adverse event. The most common adverse events (week 0-96) were diarrhoea (65 [17%] in the doravirine group vs 91 [24%] in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group), nausea (45 [12%] vs 52 [14%]), headache (57 [15%] vs 46 [12%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (51 [13%] vs 30 [8%]). Two participants, one in each group, died during treatment; neither death was considered to be related to study medication., Interpretation: These results through 96 weeks support the efficacy and safety results reported previously for doravirine at 48 weeks, supporting the use of doravirine for the long-term treatment of adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection., Funding: Merck., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Switching from therapy based on a boosted protease inhibitor to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide could avoid drug interactions and unwanted side-effects in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection, while maintaining a high barrier to resistance and providing a simplified once-daily, single-tablet regimen. Here, we report 48 week results of a phase 3 study investigating this switch., Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, adults with HIV-1 infection were enrolled at 121 outpatient centres in ten countries. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or higher, had been virologically suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) for 6 months or more before screening, and were on a regimen consisting of boosted atazanavir or darunavir plus either emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir and lamivudine. We randomly assigned participants (1:1), using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to switch to co-formulated once-daily bictegravir (50 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg), herein known as the bictegravir group, or to remain on their baseline boosted protease inhibitor regimen, herein known as the boosted protease inhibitor group, for 48 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir at screening. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher at week 48 (by US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 4%. Efficacy and safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is ongoing but not actively recruiting patients and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02603107., Findings: Between Dec 2, 2015, and July 15, 2016, 578 participants were randomly assigned and 577 were treated (290 in the bictegravir group and 287 in the boosted protease inhibitor group). At week 48, five participants (2%) in the bictegravir group and five (2%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group had plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher (difference 0·0%, 95·002% CI -2·5 to 2·5), thus switching to the bictegravir regimen was non-inferior to continued boosted protease inhibitor therapy. The overall incidence and severity of adverse events was similar between groups, although headache occurred more frequently in the bictegravir group than in the boosted protease inhibitor group. 233 (80%) participants in the bictegravir group and 226 (79%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group had an adverse event. Only two (1%) participants in the bictegravir group and one (<1%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. 54 participants (19%) in the bictegravir group had drug-related adverse events compared with six (2%) in the protease inhibitor group., Interpretation: Fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide might be a safe and efficacious alternative to continued boosted protease inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Doravirine is a novel non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with a pharmacokinetic profile supporting once-daily dosing, and potent in-vitro activity against the most common NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 variants. We compared doravirine with ritonavir-boosted darunavir, when both were given with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), in adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection., Methods: In this randomised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority trial, adults with HIV-1 infection were screened and enrolled at 125 clinical centres in 15 countries. Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) were naive to antiretroviral therapy with plasma HIV-1 RNA of at least 1000 copies per mL at screening. Participants who had previously been treated for a viral infection other than HIV-1, those taking immunosuppressive drugs, and individuals with active acute hepatitis were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral doravirine 100 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg once daily, with two investigator-selected NRTIs (tenofovir and emtricitabine or abacavir and lamivudine) for up to 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA measurements at screening (≤100 000 vs >100 000 copies per mL) and the NRTI pair. Study participants, funding institution staff, investigators, and study site personnel were masked to treatment group assignment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with non-inferiority established if the lower bound of the two-sided 95% CI for the treatment difference (doravirine minus darunavir) was greater than -10 percentage points. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is active, but not recruiting, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02275780., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Oct 20, 2015, 1027 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 769 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (385 with doravirine and 384 with ritonavir-boosted darunavir). 56 participants discontinued treatment in the doravirine group compared with 71 in the darunavir group, mostly due to loss to follow-up. 383 participants who received doravirine and 383 who received darunavir were included in the primary efficacy analyses. At week 48, 321 (84%) participants in the doravirine group and 306 (80%) in the darunavir group achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL (difference 3·9%, 95% CI -1·6 to 9·4), indicating non-inferiority of the doravirine regimen. The most common study drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (21 [5%] of 383 participants in the doravirine group and 49 [13%] of 383 participants in the darunavir group), nausea (25 [7%] vs 29 [8%]), and headache (23 [6%] vs ten [3%]). 18 participants (six [2%] of 383 participants in the doravirine group vs 12 [3%] of 383 participants in the darunavir group) discontinued treatment due to adverse events, which were considered drug-related in four (1%) participants in the doravirine group and 8 (2%) participants in the darunavir group. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (5%) of 383 participants in the doravirine group and 23 (6%) of 383 in the darunavir roup, and were considered study-drug related in one (<1%) participant of each group., Interpretation: In treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, doravirine combined with two NRTIs might offer a valuable treatment option for adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection., Funding: Merck & Co., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Abacavir and tenofovir alafenamide offer reduced bone toxicity compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. We aimed to compare safety and efficacy of tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine with that of abacavir plus lamivudine., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, HIV-1-positive adults (≥18 years) were screened at 79 sites in 11 countries in North America and Europe. Eligible participants were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) and on a stable three-drug regimen containing abacavir plus lamivudine. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) to switch to fixed-dose tablets of tenofovir alafenamide (10 mg or 25 mg) plus emtricitabine (200 mg) or remain on abacavir (600 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg), with matching placebo, while continuing to take the third drug. Randomisation was stratified by the third drug (boosted protease inhibitor vs other drug) at screening. Investigators, participants, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48 (assessed by snapshot algorithm), with a 10% non-inferiority margin. We analysed the primary endpoint in participants enrolled before May 23, 2016 (when target sample size was reached), and we analysed safety in all enrolled participants who received at least one dose of study drug (including patients enrolled after these dates). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02469246., Findings: Study enrolment began on June 29, 2015, and the cutoff enrolment date for the week 48 primary endpoint analysis was May 23, 2016. 501 participants were randomly assigned and treated. At week 48, virological suppression was maintained in 227 (90%) of 253 participants receiving tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine compared with 230 (93%) of 248 receiving abacavir plus lamivudine (difference -3·0%, 95% CI -8·2 to 2·0), showing non-inferiority. Few participants discontinued treatment because of adverse events: 12 (4%) of 280 participants in the tenofovir alafenimide plus emtricitabine group and nine (3%) of 276 in the abacavir plus lamivudine group. Three participants had serious, treatment-related adverse events: one each with renal colic and neutropenia in the tenofovir alafenamide plus emtricitabine group, and one myocardial infarction in the abacavir plus lamivudine group. There were no treatment-related deaths., Interpretation: Tenofovir alafenamide, in combination with emtricitabine and various third drugs, maintained high efficacy with a renal and bone safety profile similar to that of abacavir. In virologically suppressed patients, a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide could be an alternative to those containing abacavir, without concern for new onset of renal or bone toxicities or hyperlipidaemia., Funding: Gilead Sciences Inc., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide is a prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90% compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, thereby decreasing bone and renal risks. The coformulation of rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide has recently been approved, and we aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to this regimen compared with remaining on coformulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 120 hospitals and outpatient clinics in eight countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to continue a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz (600 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02345226., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 27, 2015, 875 participants were randomly assigned and treated (438 with rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide and 437 with efavirenz, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Viral suppression at week 48 was maintained in 394 (90%) of 438 participants assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide regimen and 402 (92%) of 437 assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen (difference -2·0%, 95·001% CI -5·9 to 1·8), demonstrating non-inferiority. 56 (13%) of 438 in participants in the rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group experienced treatment-related adverse events compared with 45 (10%) of 437 in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group., Interpretation: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tenofovir alafenamide, a tenofovir prodrug, results in 90% lower tenofovir plasma concentrations than does tenofovir disproxil fumarate, thereby minimising bone and renal risks. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a single-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with remaining on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 119 hospitals in 11 countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of either rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to remain on a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo, once daily for 96 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug and were on the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen before screening were included in primary efficacy analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with less than 50 copies per mL of plasma HIV-1 RNA at week 48 (by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736., Findings: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 25, 2015, 630 participants were randomised (316 to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 314 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, 296 (94%) of 316 participants on tenofovir alafenamide and 294 (94%) of 313 on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had maintained less than 50 copies per mL HIV-1 RNA (difference -0·3%, 95·001% CI -4·2 to 3·7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Numbers of adverse events were similar between groups. 20 (6%) of 316 participants had study-drug related adverse events in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 37 (12%) of 314 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group; none of these were serious., Interpretation: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to continuing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: All recent treatment guidelines recommend integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as components of initial HIV therapy. Bictegravir, a novel, once-daily, unboosted INSTI, showed potent activity in a 10 day monotherapy study and has a high in-vitro resistance barrier. On the basis of these results, we did a phase 2 trial comparing bictegravir with dolutegravir., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we recruited previously untreated adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 infections from 22 outpatient centres in the USA. Eligible patients had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 counts of at least 200 cells per μL, estimated glomerular filtration rates of at least 70 mL per min, and HIV-1 genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine and tenofovir. We excluded patients if they were hepatitis B-co-infected or hepatitis C-co-infected, had new AIDS-defining conditions within 30 days of screening, or were pregnant. We randomly allocated participants (2:1) to receive oral once-daily 75 mg bictegravir or 50 mg dolutegravir with matching placebo plus the fixed-dose combination of 200 mg emtricitabine and 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide for 48 weeks. We randomly allocated participants via an interactive web system, stratified by HIV-1 RNA concentration. Investigators, patients, study staff giving treatment, collecting data, and assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 according to the US Food and Drug Administration-defined snapshot algorithm. We included all participants receiving one dose of study drug in analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02397694., Findings: Between March 23, 2015, and May 21, 2015, we screened 125 patients, randomly allocating and giving study drug to 98 (65 received bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and 33 received dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide). At week 24, 63 (96·9%) of 65 in the bictegravir group had HIV-1 RNA loads of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 31 (93·9%) of 33 in the dolutegravir group (weighted difference 2·9%, 95% CI -8·5 to 14·2; p=0·50). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55 (85%) of 65 participants in the bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group versus 22 (67%) of 33 in the dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (eight [12%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33) and nausea (five [8%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33). One participant taking bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide discontinued because of a drug-related adverse event (urticaria) after week 24. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred., Interpretation: Bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide both showed high efficacy up to 24 weeks. Both treatments were well tolerated. Administration of bictegravir, a novel, potent, once-daily INSTI designed to improve on existing INSTI options with the backbone of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, might provide an advantage to patients., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is a standard-of-care nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone. However, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is associated with renal and bone toxic effects; the novel prodrug tenofovir alafenamide achieves 90% lower plasma tenofovir concentrations. We aimed to further assess safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination emtricitabine with tenofovir alafenamide in patients switched from emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate., Methods: In this controlled, double-blind, multicentre phase 3 study, we recruited virologically suppressed (HIV RNA <50 copies per mL) patients with HIV aged 18 years and older receiving regimens containing fixed-dose combination emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumartate from 78 sites in North America and Europe. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to fixed-dose 200 mg emtricitabine with 10 mg or 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide or to continue 200 mg emtricitabine with 200 mg or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, while remaining on the same third agent for 96 weeks. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence and was stratified by the third agent (boosted protease inhibitor vs other agent). Investigators, patients, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients 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 10%. The primary efficacy endpoint was analysed with the per-protocol analysis set, whereas the safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02121795., Findings: We recruited patients between May 6, 2011, and Sept 11, 2014; 780 were screened and 668 were randomly assigned to receive either tenofovir alafenamide (n=333) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n=330). Through week 48, virological success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) was maintained in 314 (94%) of patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 307 (93%) in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (difference 1·3%, 95% CI -2·5 to 5·1), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disproxil fumarate. Seven patients in the tenofovir alafenamide (2%) and three (1%) in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group discontinued due to adverse events. There were no cases of proximal renal tubulopathy in either group., Interpretation: In patients switching from emtricitabine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to emtricitabine with tenofovir alafenamide, high rates of virological suppression were maintained. With its safety advantages, fixed-dose emtricitabine with tenofovir alafenamide has the potential to become an important NRTI backbone., Funding: Gilead Sciences., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)