Calvin Cohen1, David Wohl, Jose R Arribas, Keith Henry, Jan Van Lunzen, Mark Bloch, William Towner, Edmund Wilkins, Ramin Ebrahimi, Danielle Porter, Kirsten White, Ivan Walker, Susan Chuck, Shampa De-Oertel, Todd Fralich. 1. aCommunity Research Initiative of New England, Boston, Massachusetts bUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA cHospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain dHIV Program Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA eUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany fHoldsworth House Medical Practice, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australia gDepartment of Infectious Disease, Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA hNorth Manchester General Hospital, Manchester, UK iGilead Sciences, Foster City, California, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of the two single-tablet regimens (STRs), rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EFV/FTC/TDF), in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults. DESIGN: This is a phase 3b, randomized, open-label, multicenter, international, 96-week study. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at week 48 by the Snapshot algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 786 participants were randomized. RPV/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF (85.8 vs. 81.6%) at week 48 for HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml [difference 4.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.1 to 9.2%]. A statistically significant difference in efficacy favoring RPV/FTC/TDF was demonstrated for participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA 100000 copies/ml or less [(n=510) 88.8% RPV/FTC/TDF vs. 81.6% EFV/FTC/TDF (difference 7.2%, 95% CI 1.1-13.4%)]. In participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA more than 100000 copies/ml (n=276), RPV/FTC/TDF demonstrated noninferior efficacy compared with EFV/FTC/TDF (79.9 vs. 81.7%, respectively, difference -1.8%, 95% CI -11.1 to 7.5%). In the RPV/FTC/TDF arm, more virologic failure was observed as baseline HIV-1 RNA levels increased. There were more participants with emergent resistance in the RPV/FTC/TDF arm than in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (4 vs. 1%, respectively). There were fewer discontinuations because of adverse events with RPV/FTC/TDF (2.5%) than with EFV/FTC/TDF (8.7%). CONCLUSION: In treatment-naive participants, RPV/FTC/TDF demonstrated noninferior efficacy and improved tolerability compared with EFV/FTC/TDF, as well as a statistically significant difference in efficacy for participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA 100000 copies/ml or less at week 48.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of the two single-tablet regimens (STRs), rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (EFV/FTC/TDF), in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults. DESIGN: This is a phase 3b, randomized, open-label, multicenter, international, 96-week study. METHODS:Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml at week 48 by the Snapshot algorithm. RESULTS: A total of 786 participants were randomized. RPV/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF (85.8 vs. 81.6%) at week 48 for HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml [difference 4.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.1 to 9.2%]. A statistically significant difference in efficacy favoring RPV/FTC/TDF was demonstrated for participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA 100000 copies/ml or less [(n=510) 88.8% RPV/FTC/TDF vs. 81.6% EFV/FTC/TDF (difference 7.2%, 95% CI 1.1-13.4%)]. In participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA more than 100000 copies/ml (n=276), RPV/FTC/TDF demonstrated noninferior efficacy compared with EFV/FTC/TDF (79.9 vs. 81.7%, respectively, difference -1.8%, 95% CI -11.1 to 7.5%). In the RPV/FTC/TDF arm, more virologic failure was observed as baseline HIV-1 RNA levels increased. There were more participants with emergent resistance in the RPV/FTC/TDF arm than in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (4 vs. 1%, respectively). There were fewer discontinuations because of adverse events with RPV/FTC/TDF (2.5%) than with EFV/FTC/TDF (8.7%). CONCLUSION: In treatment-naive participants, RPV/FTC/TDF demonstrated noninferior efficacy and improved tolerability compared with EFV/FTC/TDF, as well as a statistically significant difference in efficacy for participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA 100000 copies/ml or less at week 48.
Authors: Dhwanil A Dalwadi; Seongcheol Kim; Shahnawaz M Amdani; Zhenglan Chen; Ren-Qi Huang; John A Schetz Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 7.658
Authors: Michael S Saag; Andrew O Westfall; Stephen R Cole; William C Mathews; Daniel R Drozd; Kenneth H Mayer; Greer A Burkholder; Mari Kitahata; Eric M Maiese Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Insiya Z Mukadam; Jatin Machhi; Jonathan Herskovitz; Mahmudul Hasan; Maxim D Oleynikov; Wilson R Blomberg; Denis Svechkarev; Aaron M Mohs; You Zhou; Prasanta Dash; JoEllyn McMillan; Santhi Gorantla; Jered Garrison; Howard E Gendelman; Bhavesh D Kevadiya Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2019-12-07 Impact factor: 12.479
Authors: Ricky Hsu; Jennifer Fusco; Cassidy Henegar; Karam Mounzer; Michael Wohlfeiler; Vani Vannappagari; Michael Aboud; Lloyd Curtis; Gregory Fusco Journal: Ther Adv Drug Saf Date: 2018-10-29