Jason Gillman1, Patrick Janulis2, Roy Gulick3, Carole L Wallis4, Baiba Berzins2, Roger Bedimo5, Kimberly Smith6, Michael Aboud6, Babafemi Taiwo2. 1. Prism Health North Texas, Dallas, TX 75208, USA. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. 3. Division of Infectious Diseases, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA. 4. BARC-SA/Lancet Laboratories, Richmond, Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa. 5. VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas, TX 75216, USA. 6. ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To expand understanding of the virological potency of initial dolutegravir plus lamivudine dual therapy (dolutegravir/lamivudine), we compared the viral decay seen in the pilot ACTG A5353 study with the decay observed with dolutegravir plus two NRTIs in the SPRING-1 and SINGLE studies, while also exploring the impact of baseline viral load (VL). METHODS: Change in VL from baseline was calculated for timepoints shared by A5353 (n = 120, including 37 participants with pretreatment VL >100000 copies/mL), SPRING-1 (n = 51) and SINGLE (n = 417). The 95% CIs of change from baseline were determined for each observed week, using the mean log10-transformed VL, and compared between the dolutegravir/lamivudine and triple therapy groups using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for non-inferiority (δ = 0.5). To assess the impact of baseline VL on viral decay, we examined a bi-exponential non-linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: The mean VL change from baseline to week 24 was -2.9 log10 copies/mL for dolutegravir/lamivudine versus -3.0 log10 copies/mL for dolutegravir-based three-drug therapy (P < 0.001). In the decay model, baseline VL >100000 copies/mL was associated with a slower initial decay rate (d1). A faster initial decay rate was seen with dolutegravir/lamivudine, which was partially offset when baseline VL was >100000 copies/mL as indicated by a significant interaction between baseline VL and drug therapy group. The secondary decay rate (d2) was not significantly different from zero, with no significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: Viral decay with dolutegravir/lamivudine was comparable to viral decay with dolutegravir-based triple therapy, even in individuals with higher pretreatment VL (>100000 copies/mL).
OBJECTIVES: To expand understanding of the virological potency of initial dolutegravir plus lamivudine dual therapy (dolutegravir/lamivudine), we compared the viral decay seen in the pilot ACTG A5353 study with the decay observed with dolutegravir plus two NRTIs in the SPRING-1 and SINGLE studies, while also exploring the impact of baseline viral load (VL). METHODS: Change in VL from baseline was calculated for timepoints shared by A5353 (n = 120, including 37 participants with pretreatment VL >100000 copies/mL), SPRING-1 (n = 51) and SINGLE (n = 417). The 95% CIs of change from baseline were determined for each observed week, using the mean log10-transformed VL, and compared between the dolutegravir/lamivudine and triple therapy groups using the Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for non-inferiority (δ = 0.5). To assess the impact of baseline VL on viral decay, we examined a bi-exponential non-linear mixed-effect model. RESULTS: The mean VL change from baseline to week 24 was -2.9 log10 copies/mL for dolutegravir/lamivudine versus -3.0 log10 copies/mL for dolutegravir-based three-drug therapy (P < 0.001). In the decay model, baseline VL >100000 copies/mL was associated with a slower initial decay rate (d1). A faster initial decay rate was seen with dolutegravir/lamivudine, which was partially offset when baseline VL was >100000 copies/mL as indicated by a significant interaction between baseline VL and drug therapy group. The secondary decay rate (d2) was not significantly different from zero, with no significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: Viral decay with dolutegravir/lamivudine was comparable to viral decay with dolutegravir-based triple therapy, even in individuals with higher pretreatment VL (>100000 copies/mL).
Authors: Jan van Lunzen; Franco Maggiolo; José R Arribas; Aza Rakhmanova; Patrick Yeni; Benjamin Young; Jürgen K Rockstroh; Steve Almond; Ivy Song; Cindy Brothers; Sherene Min Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Adriana Andrade; Susan L Rosenkranz; Anthony R Cillo; Darlene Lu; Eric S Daar; Jeffrey M Jacobson; Michael Lederman; Edward P Acosta; Thomas Campbell; Judith Feinberg; Charles Flexner; John W Mellors; Daniel R Kuritzkes Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: M A Polis; I A Sidorov; C Yoder; S Jankelevich; J Metcalf; B U Mueller; M A Dimitrov; P Pizzo; R Yarchoan; D S Dimitrov Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-11-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sherene Min; Louis Sloan; Edwin DeJesus; Trevor Hawkins; Lewis McCurdy; Ivy Song; Richard Stroder; Shuguang Chen; Mark Underwood; Tamio Fujiwara; Stephen Piscitelli; Jay Lalezari Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Babafemi Taiwo; Lu Zheng; Sebastien Gallien; Roy M Matining; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Cara C Wilson; Baiba I Berzins; Edward P Acosta; Barbara Bastow; Peter S Kim; Joseph J Eron Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-11-13 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Sharon L Walmsley; Antonio Antela; Nathan Clumeck; Dan Duiculescu; Andrea Eberhard; Felix Gutiérrez; Laurent Hocqueloux; Franco Maggiolo; Uriel Sandkovsky; Catherine Granier; Keith Pappa; Brian Wynne; Sherene Min; Garrett Nichols Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patrick Ryscavage; Sean Kelly; Jonathan Z Li; P Richard Harrigan; Babafemi Taiwo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.191