Paul E Sax1, David Wohl2, Michael T Yin3, Frank Post4, Edwin DeJesus5, Michael Saag6, Anton Pozniak7, Melanie Thompson8, Daniel Podzamczer9, Jean Michel Molina10, Shinichi Oka11, Ellen Koenig12, Benoit Trottier13, Jaime Andrade-Villanueva14, Gordon Crofoot15, Joseph M Custodio16, Andrew Plummer16, Lijie Zhong16, Huyen Cao16, Hal Martin16, Christian Callebaut16, Andrew K Cheng16, Marshall W Fordyce16, Scott McCallister16. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases and Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: psax@partners.org. 2. Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of HIV Medicine, King's College, Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 5. Orlando Immunology Center, Orlando, FL, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 8. AIDS Research Consortium of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, USA. 9. HIV Unit, Infectious Disease Service. Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Spain. 10. Hôpital Saint Louis, Paris, France. 11. AIDS Clinical Center, National Center for Global Health and Medicine, Tokyo, Japan. 12. Instituto Dominicano de Estudios Virologicos (IDEV), Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. 13. Clinique Medicale L'Actuale in Montreal, Montreal, Canada. 14. Unidad de VIH del Hospital Civil de Guadalajara, CUCS, U de G Guadalajara, Mexico. 15. Gordon Crofoot Research, Houston, TX, USA. 16. Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. METHODS: In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infected patients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. FINDINGS:We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 givenE/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in thetenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2·0%, 95% CI -0·7 to 4·7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·08 vs 0·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change -3 vs 20; p<0·0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change -1·30 vs -2·86; p<0·0001) and hip (-0·66 vs -2·95; p<0·0001) at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate can cause renal and bone toxic effects related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug with a 90% reduction in plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimens can have improved renal and bone safety compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens. METHODS: In these two controlled, double-blind phase 3 studies, we recruited treatment-naive HIV-infectedpatients with an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 mL per min or higher from 178 outpatient centres in 16 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, and 10 mg tenofovir alafenamide (E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide) or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size 4) and was stratified by HIV-1 RNA, CD4 count, and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in the primary intention-to-treat efficacy and safety analyses. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 as defined by the the US Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) snapshot algorithm (pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 12%) and pre-specified renal and bone endpoints at 48 weeks. These studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT01780506 and NCT01797445. FINDINGS: We recruited patients from Jan 22, 2013, to Nov 4, 2013 (2175 screened and 1744 randomly assigned), and gave treatment to 1733 patients (866 given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide and 867 given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with 800 (92%) of 866 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 784 (90%) of 867 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group having plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 2·0%, 95% CI -0·7 to 4·7). Patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide had significantly smaller mean serum creatinine increases than those given E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (0·08 vs 0·12 mg/dL; p<0·0001), significantly less proteinuria (median % change -3 vs 20; p<0·0001), and a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at spine (mean % change -1·30 vs -2·86; p<0·0001) and hip (-0·66 vs -2·95; p<0·0001) at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Through 48 weeks, more than 90% of patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide or E/C/F/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had virological success. Renal and bone effects were significantly reduced in patients given E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide. Although these studies do not have the power to assess clinical safety events such as renal failure and fractures, our data suggest that E/C/F/tenofovir alafenamide will have a favourable long-term renal and bone safety profile. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.
Authors: Julie B Dumond; Kuo H Yang; Racheal Kendrick; Y Sunila Reddy; Angela D M Kashuba; Luigi Troiani; Arlene S Bridges; Susan A Fiscus; Alan Forrest; Myron S Cohen Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: David V Glidden; Kathleen Mulligan; Vanessa McMahan; Peter L Anderson; Juan Guanira; Suwat Chariyalertsak; Susan P Buchbinder; Linda Gail Bekker; Mauro Schechter; Beatriz Grinsztejn; Robert M Grant Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Andrea L Cathcart; Henry Lik-Yuen Chan; Neeru Bhardwaj; Yang Liu; Patrick Marcellin; Calvin Q Pan; Maria Buti; Stephanie Cox; Bandita Parhy; Eric Zhou; Ross Martin; Silvia Chang; Lanjia Lin; John F Flaherty; Kathryn M Kitrinos; Anuj Gaggar; Namiki Izumi; Young-Suk Lim Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2018-09-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Charles R Swanepoel; Mohamed G Atta; Vivette D D'Agati; Michelle M Estrella; Agnes B Fogo; Saraladevi Naicker; Frank A Post; Nicola Wearne; Cheryl A Winkler; Michael Cheung; David C Wheeler; Wolfgang C Winkelmayer; Christina M Wyatt Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: James M Mikula; Maura M Manion; Frank Maldarelli; Lucila M Suarez; Jaha F Norman-Wheeler; Alex G Ober; Robin L Dewar; Jeffrey B Kopp; H Clifford Lane; Alice K Pau Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2016-03-08