BACKGROUND: The single tablet regimen (STR) composed of elvitegravir (E), cobicistat (C), emtricitabine (F), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) (E/C/F/TAF) was compared to the STR composed of E, C, F, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (E/C/F/TDF) in 2 phase 3 studies in 1733 HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve adults. Superior efficacy of E/C/F/TAF compared to E/C/F/TDF was demonstrated at Week 144 with 84% treatment success compared to 80%, respectively, along with significantly better outcomes of bone and renal safety. OBJECTIVES: Analyze the emergence of HIV-1 resistance in treatment-naïve adults receiving E/C/F/TAF for 144 weeks. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an integrated resistance analysis of the 2 Phase 3 studies, comprising pretreatment HIV-1 sequencing for all participants (N = 1733) and post-baseline HIV-1 resistance analysis for participants with virologic failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies/mL). RESULTS:Primary resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were observed pre-treatment in 7.4% (NRTI-RAMs), 18.1% (NNRTI-RAMs), and 3.3% (PI-RAMs) of enrolled subjects. Baseline HIV-1 subtype or pre-existing RAMs did not affect E/C/F/TAF treatment response at week 144. Virologic failure resistance analyses were conducted for 28/866 (3.2%) and 30/867 (3.5%) patients in the E/C/F/TAF and E/C/F/TDF arms, respectively. Over the 3-year study, the rate of resistance emergence remained low at 1.4% in each group (12/866 in E/C/F/TAF; 12/867 in E/C/F/TDF). Resistant virus emerged in 24 patients who developed resistance to antiretrovirals in the regimens (E/C/F/TAF: M184V/I [1.3%], INSTI-RAMs [0.9%], K65R/N [0.2%]; E/C/F/TDF: M184V/I [1.0%], INSTI-RAMs [0.9%], K65R/N [0.5%]). CONCLUSIONS:Resistance emergence was rare (1.4%) with similar patterns of emergent mutations in both groups. M184V/I was the most prevalent RAM (1.2% overall).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The single tablet regimen (STR) composed of elvitegravir (E), cobicistat (C), emtricitabine (F), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) (E/C/F/TAF) was compared to the STR composed of E, C, F, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (E/C/F/TDF) in 2 phase 3 studies in 1733 HIV-1 infected treatment-naïve adults. Superior efficacy of E/C/F/TAF compared to E/C/F/TDF was demonstrated at Week 144 with 84% treatment success compared to 80%, respectively, along with significantly better outcomes of bone and renal safety. OBJECTIVES: Analyze the emergence of HIV-1 resistance in treatment-naïve adults receiving E/C/F/TAF for 144 weeks. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an integrated resistance analysis of the 2 Phase 3 studies, comprising pretreatment HIV-1 sequencing for all participants (N = 1733) and post-baseline HIV-1 resistance analysis for participants with virologic failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies/mL). RESULTS: Primary resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were observed pre-treatment in 7.4% (NRTI-RAMs), 18.1% (NNRTI-RAMs), and 3.3% (PI-RAMs) of enrolled subjects. Baseline HIV-1 subtype or pre-existing RAMs did not affect E/C/F/TAF treatment response at week 144. Virologic failure resistance analyses were conducted for 28/866 (3.2%) and 30/867 (3.5%) patients in the E/C/F/TAF and E/C/F/TDF arms, respectively. Over the 3-year study, the rate of resistance emergence remained low at 1.4% in each group (12/866 in E/C/F/TAF; 12/867 in E/C/F/TDF). Resistant virus emerged in 24 patients who developed resistance to antiretrovirals in the regimens (E/C/F/TAF: M184V/I [1.3%], INSTI-RAMs [0.9%], K65R/N [0.2%]; E/C/F/TDF: M184V/I [1.0%], INSTI-RAMs [0.9%], K65R/N [0.5%]). CONCLUSIONS: Resistance emergence was rare (1.4%) with similar patterns of emergent mutations in both groups. M184V/I was the most prevalent RAM (1.2% overall).
Authors: Nicolas Margot; Renee Ram; Michael Abram; Richard Haubrich; Christian Callebaut Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-03-24 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Erkki Lathouwers; Eric Y Wong; Kimberley Brown; Bryan Baugh; Anne Ghys; John Jezorwski; El Ghazi Mohsine; Erika Van Landuyt; Magda Opsomer; Sandra De Meyer Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2019-10-21 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Godefroid Mulakilwa Ali Musema; Pierre Zalagile Akilimali; Takaisi Kikuni Ntonbo Za Balega; Désiré Tshala-Katumbay; Paul-Samson Dikasa Lusamba Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Minchen Chien; Thomas K Anderson; Steffen Jockusch; Chuanjuan Tao; Shiv Kumar; Xiaoxu Li; James J Russo; Robert N Kirchdoerfer; Jingyue Ju Journal: bioRxiv Date: 2020-03-20
Authors: Minchen Chien; Thomas K Anderson; Steffen Jockusch; Chuanjuan Tao; Xiaoxu Li; Shiv Kumar; James J Russo; Robert N Kirchdoerfer; Jingyue Ju Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Pablo López; Grissell Tirado; Andrea Arias; Raphael Sánchez; Elliott R Rodríguez-López; Vanessa Rivera-Amill Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390