A prospective randomized trial on abacavir/lamivudine plus darunavir/ritonavir or raltegravir in HIV-positive drug-naïve patients with CD4<200 cells/uL (the PRADAR study).

BACKGROUND: Very few data are available on treatment in HIV Late presenter population that still represents a clinical challenge.
METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized open-label, 2 arm, phase-3 trial comparing the 48-week virological response of two different regimens: abacavir/lamivudine + darunavir/r vs abacavir/lamivudine + raltegravir in antiretroviral naive with CD4+ counts < 200/mm3 and a viral load (VL)<500,000 copies/mL. The primary Endpoint was the proportion of patients with undetectable viremia (VL<50 copies/mL) after 48 weeks. The planned sample size for this trial was 350 patients.
RESULTS: In 3 years, 53 patients were screened and 46 enrolled: 22 randomized to raltegravir and 24 to darunavir/r; 7 patients were excluded, 4 because of a VL >500,000 copies/mL and 3 for HLAB5701 positivity. The snapshot analysis at 48 weeks showed a virologic success of 77.3% in raltegravir and 66.7% in darunavir/r. Time to starting treatment was 34.5 days in raltegravir and 53 days in darunavir/r. At the as treated analysis, the median CD4 counts at 48 weeks was 297 cells/μL in raltegravir and 239 cells/μL in darunavir/r. No difference in total cholesterol, while triglycerides were higher in the darunavir/r arm. No statistical analyses were performed due to the low number of patients enrolled.
CONCLUSIONS: Late presenter patients are frequent but very difficult to enroll in clinical trials, especially in western countries. These regimens and the conditions of many patients could not allow the test and treat strategy. The rate of virologic success was higher than 65% in both arms with a median CD4 cell count >200/μL at week 48. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUDRACT number: 2011-005973-21.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes

Introduction

Nowadays, late presentation represents one of the major obstacles to HIV eradication. Indeed, after more than 30 years since the beginning of the epidemic, around 40% of new diagnoses worldwide still occur in subjects with less than 200 CD4+/uL [1,2]. Reasons for late presentation range from perception of not being at risk for HIV infection, access to services, stigma and discrimination and are difficult to be addressed [3]. Concerning antiretroviral treatment, patients presenting with an advanced HIV disease, especially if they are symptomatic or with a diagnosis of one or more opportunistic infections, are usually excluded from randomized clinical trials and only a few studies have investigated antiretroviral regimens in these patients [4-6]. Actually, since most studies enrolled a small number of these patients, guidelines do not give any specific treatment indications on how to treat this population. The first question was when to start treatment in these patients especially in presence of an opportunistic infection and some randomized clinical trial have shown that, with the exception of cryptococcal and tuberculosis meningitis, it is better, from a prognostic point of view, to start treatment earlier [7-11]. The second question, since clinicians perceive advanced patients as more fragile, was with how many drugs treatment should be started. Recently, 2 trials have been conducted in the attempt to understand if 4 drugs could achieve better results than 3. Indeed, no intensification approach either with maraviroc or with raltegravir reached a higher rate of suppression than triple therapy [12,13]. The third question concerns which third drug should be used in triple combinations. An underpowered study showed that among protease inhibitors, darunavir/r reached better virological results than atazanavir/r in advanced naïve patients [14]. Concerning integrase inhibitors, the most widely studied in this population, even if not in specific trials, is raltegravir, since either StartmRk or ACTG 5257 enrolled a not negligible percentage of advanced subjects [15,16]. Concerning the backbone, no specific data are available. Aim of the present study, which was designed as a large open label trial, was to evaluate the virological efficacy of two drug regimens: abacavir/lamivudine plus either raltegravir (RAL) 400 mg twice a day or darunavir/r (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once a day in subjects with a diagnosis of HIV infection, CD4 count <200 cells/uL, and HIV-RNA <500,000 cp/mL.

Methods

A prospective, multicenter, randomized open-label, 2 arm, phase-3 trial comparing the 48-week virological response of two different regimens: abacavir/lamivudine + DRV/r vs abacavir/lamivudine + RAL in antiretroviral naive HIV+ individuals, HLA B5701 negative, presenting for care with CD4+ cell count < 200/mm3 and a viral load (VL)<500,000 copies/mL. Primary Endpoint: Proportion of patients with undetectable viremia (VL <50 copies/mL) after 48 weeks, secondary Endpoints: Change in CD4+ cell count from baseline through week 48 and time to virological rebound. Abacavir/lamivudine was chosen even if resulted inferior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate /emtricitabine in the ACTG5202, since no data were available in combination either with raltegravir or darunavir [17]. Considering the results of the ACTG 5202 we decided to include only patients with a baseline viral load <500,000 copies/mL.

Inclusion criteria

Males or females antiretroviral-naive aged 19–65 years HIV-1 antibody seropositive, with a CD4+ cell count <200 cells/uL, an HIV RNA level <500,000 copies/mL and able to provide written informed consent. All patients should be HLA B57 or HLA B5701 negative and they should not have resistance to any study drug at randomization. Patients with an opportunistic infection were included as long as this was diagnosed more than 2 weeks prior to screening. Patients must had met the following laboratory criteria: neutrophil count > 1,000 cells/mm3, haemoglobin > 9.0 grams/dl (men and women), platelet count ≥ 75,000 cells/mm3, alkaline phosphatase < 3.0 the upper limit of normal, ALT and AST < 3.9 times the upper limit of normal, total bilirubin > 1.5 times the upper limit of normal. Female patients of childbearing potential must be willing to use a reliable form of contraception, which will include a medically approved form of barrier contraception.

Exclusion Criteria

Patients with the following characteristics were excluded: a positive HLA B57 or B5701, chronic B hepatitis, the presence of genotypic mutations for any of the study drugs, an opportunistic infection diagnosed less than 2 weeks before screening, an HIV RNA level >500,000 copies/mL, pregnant or breastfeeding, with a current drug, alcohol or substance abuse. Finally, patients receiving any investigational drug or anti-neoplastic radiotherapy/chemotherapy other than local skin radiotherapy within 12 weeks of starting medication were excluded.

Planned sample size

As this was a non-inferiority trial, we wanted to calculate the difference in the proportions of patients experiencing the primary outcome in the two treatment arms and calculated a 95% confidence interval for this. Non-inferiority of the RAL arm should have been demonstrated if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was greater than -12%. In case non-inferiority would have been met, analyses for superiority would have been performed.

The planned sample size for this trial was 350 patients. Assuming an underlying response rate of 80% in each of the arms at week 48, this sample size (175 patients per arm) would have provided 80% power to demonstrate non-inferiority of the RAL arm compared to the DRV/r arm (alpha = 0.025) with a non-inferiority margin of 12%. Unfortunately, we could not reach the number of patients planned.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive results are presented as means ± standard deviation (SD), medians with interquartile range (IQR), and percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Inferential statistics using either parametric or non-parametric tests are used, as appropriate. Chi-square or Fisher’s exact test are used to analyze categorical variables. Paired T-test and Wilcoxon signed rank test are used to analyze within participant differences at different time points. Analysis was performed with SPPS for windows 17.0.

Ethical issues

The study was approved by the ethical committee of the coordinating centers and those of all participant centers.

Results

Between February 2012 and February 2016, 53 patients were screened and 46, after having signed the informed consent, were randomly allocated in the two groups (22 with RAL and 24 with DRV/r). 7 patients were excluded, 4 because of a VL >500,000 copies/mL and 3 for HLAB5701 positivity (Fig 1).

Fig 1

Patients’ disposition of the study.

53 patients were screened in the present study: 46 patients were randomly allocated in the two groups (22 with RAL and 24 with DRV/r) and 7 patients were excluded (4 because of a VL >500000 copies/mL and 3 for HLAB5701 positivity).

Baseline characteristics were fairly balanced between groups (Table 1), although patients in the RAL group were younger and with a slightly more advanced CDC stage. Opportunistic infections and pathologies were oral-esophageal candidiasis (5 in RAL and 6 in DRV/r); Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (1 in RAL and 3 in DRV/r) and neuro-toxoplasmosis (one in each group). Kaposi Sarcoma, cryptococcal meningitis, lymphoma and wasting syndrome (one each) were diagnosed only in the RAL group, while Cytomegalovirus disseminated disease (2 cases) only in the DRV/r group. Two patients in the DRV/r group were diagnosed with two opportunist infections (Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia and Cytomegalovirus disseminated disease). Although the median time between HIV diagnosis and cART start was similar between groups (34.5 days for RAL and 53 days for DRV/r), in the latter case, we observed a much greater interquartile range due to a few patients whose therapy was delayed.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of patients according to the third agent.

	raltegravir	Darunavir/ritonavir
Gender, male/female, number (%)	19/3 (86.4/13.6)	19/5 (79.2/20.8)
Age, years, median (IQR)	41 (32.5–45.5)	35 (30–46)
Risk factor for HIV, number (%)
MSM	9 (41.0)	11 (45.9)
Heterosexual contacts	11 (50.0)	10 (41.8)
IVDU	1 (4.5)	1 (4.1)
Other	1 (4.5)	1 (4.1)
Unknown	0	1 (4.1)
CDC stage, number (%)
A	10 (45.5)	15 (62.5)
B	5 (22.7)	3 (12.5)
C	7 (31.8)	6 (25.0)
HIV-RNA, copies/ml, Median (IQR)	89731 (54319–153675)	112250 (71316–275554)
CD4, cells/mcL, median (IQR)	108 (44–172)	107 (35–170)
CD8, cells/mcL, median (IQR)	629 (352–992)	771 (562–1068)

Note: MSM, men who have sex with men; IVDU, intravenous drug users; CDC, Center for Diseases Control

Beside antiretroviral therapy, due to their advanced status, patients received other concomitant therapies. In the DRV/r group concomitant therapies ranged from 0 to 14, while in the RAL group the range was from 0 to 15. Most commonly used drugs (> 3 patients) were antibiotics (15 cases in each group); antifungals (7 in DRV/r and 5 in RAL); antivirals (6 in DRV/r and 4 in RAL); non -steroids anti-inflammatory drugs (3 in DRV/r and 10 in RAL); steroids (3 in DRV/r and 5 in RAL); vitamins (7 in DRV/r and 8 in RAL); gastro-enteric drugs (5 in DRV/r and 9 in RAL and CNS drugs (5 in DRV/r and 6 in RAL).

According to a snapshot algorithm, on the ITT population, after 48 weeks the proportion of treatment success was 77.3% in the RAL group and 66.7% in the DRV/r group. The 95% Confidence interval for the difference between these proportions was from -15.4% to 36.4%. No difference was found considering the rate of suppression below 200 copies/mL. Virologic failure was observed in 22.7% of patients treated with RAL and 29.2% of those receiving DRV/r while only one patient on DRV/r (4.2%) did not have data in window. According to the as treated analysis virologic response was faster in the RAL group being the proportion of subjects below a 50 copies/ml threshold 0f 22% at 4 weeks, 70% at 24 weeks and 94.1% at 48 weeks; the same figures in the DRV/r group were 4.8%; 40% and 84.2%

At the end of follow up, the median CD4+ cell count raised to 297 cell/uL (IQR 218–454) in the RAL arm and to 239 cell/uL (IQR 182–458) in the DRV/r group. The increment was slightly higher in the RAL arm (189 vs 112 cells/uL). On the contrary, the median CD8+ cell count raised less in the RAL arm (w48 value 809 cells/uL; IQR 662–1476) than in the DRV/r arm (w48 value 1172 cells/uL; IQR 857–1485). Consequently, these differences influenced the dynamics of the CD4+/CD8+ ratio that increased slightly more in the RAL arm. At baseline the median CD4+/CD8+ ratio was 0.12 (IQR 0.08–0.17) for DRV/r and 0.15 (IQR 0.06–0.22) for RAL while the same values were respectively 0.30 (IQR 0.18–0.37) and 0.34 (IQR 0.19–0.64) at 48 weeks.

We did not find clinically significant changes, from baseline to week 48, in hematological exams, hepatic markers, LDH and CPK, nor grade 3–4 laboratory abnormalities for any considered parameter. Renal function remained stable over time with creatinine levels increasing from 0.8 (IQR 0.0.74–0.89) to 0.9 (IQR 0.83–0.96) in the DRV/r arm and from 0.8 (IQR 0.0.68–0.96) to 0.9 (IQR 0.75–0.92) in the RAL arm. Changes in lipids were also small, with limited median increments in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. However, especially for LDL cholesterol and triglycerides the increment was slightly more evident in the DRV/r arm (Fig 2). In the DRV/r arm a desired level of LDL cholesterol < 130 mg/dl was observed only in 5/15 patients at week 48, while the same proportion in the RAL arm was 10/16 (P = 0.023). Similarly, a desired triglycerides level < 170 mg/dl was observed in 10/16 DRV/r patients and in 12/17 RAL patients (P = 0.902).

Fig 2

Lipid values in the RAL and DRV/r patients.

Lipid values, expressed as mg/dl. A desired level of LDL cholesterol < 130 mg/dl was observed only in 5/15 patients at week 48 in the DRV/r arm, while the same proportion in the RAL arm was 10/16 (P = 0.023). A desired triglycerides level < 170 mg/dl was observed in 10/16 DRV/r patients and in 12/17 RAL patients (P = NS).

Two patients (one in each group) stopped treatment because of adverse events: acute renal failure in the RAL arm and allergic reaction in the DRVr/r group.

Beside these two cases, several other patients reported adverse events not leading to treatment discontinuation during the treatment period. In the DRV/r arm 19/24 patients reported between 1 and 7 adverse events, in the RAL arm 11/22 patients reported between 1 and 4 adverse events (Table 2). Finally, a pregnancy was observed in the RAL arm, but the woman continued the study and gave birth to a healthy child.

Table 2

Adverse events reported in more than 2 patients (number and percent).

Adverse event	raltegravir	Darunavir/ritonavir
Rash/dermatitis	4 (18%)	6 (25%)
Diarrhea	1 (4.5%)	4 (16%)
Pneumonia/bronchitis	5 (22%)	3 (12%)
Oral candidiasis	2 (9%)	2 (8%)
Sore throat	1 (4.5%)	3 (12%)
Herpes	2 (9%)	3 (12%)
Flu-like syndrome	2 (9%)	1 (4%)

Discussion

The first evidence from the present study is that it is very complicated to conduct clinical trial in advanced HIV-infected patients especially in western countries where many therapeutic options are available. Indeed, due to the low number of subjects enrolled we did not feel confident in performing any comparative analysis between RAL and DRV/r in regards to virologic or immunologic response. Actually, even if the use of abacavir/lamivudine could represent a limit for a rapid enrollment due to the test for HLAB5701 and the threshold of viral load <500,000 copies/mL, we did not expect to have such a low number of patients included in 3 years. Actually, Italy, due to the early day HIV epidemiology i.e. former drug users and heterosexual contacts, is among the countries with a higher rate of late presentation—around 56% of new diagnosis–[18] and the inclusion criteria, as shown by our results, played only a minor role in limiting the number of enrollments. Thus, we decide not to modify our inclusion criteria and/or increase the number of participating clinical centers. Possible reasons for this low rate of enrollment could be: firstly, the study started when, after the results of ACTG 5202, abacavir was perceived by clinicians as less potent from a virological point of view than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [17], secondly, clinicians had some doubts in randomizing advanced patients. Actually, this was not a problem only of our study, since this happens also in other countries with high rate of late presentation as Spain, where only small studies in this population were conducted, also changing the end-points from virological success to immunological changes [5,6]. More importantly, our results show that even when patients are enrolled they are difficult to be treated. First, the level of suppression reached in both arms is very far from that we are recently used to obtain in non-advanced subjects i.e. almost 90% [19]. DRV/r and RAL were chosen since they were both recommended first line treatment and there were no data in combination with abacavir/lamivudine at the time the trial was designed. Concerning RAL the rate of suppression at 48 weeks in the STARTMRK trial in naïve subjects, 47% with a CD4 count<200 cells/uL, in combination with a TDF/FTC backbone was 86% [15]. During the period of enrollment more data became available on RAL use in advanced patients and the results could have had a negative impact on clinicians regarding enrolling patients in the study. Indeed, the SHIELD study, a pilot study on 35 naïve subjects receiving abacavir/lamivudine + RAL showed a level of suppression of 91% [20], while a subgroup analysis of the SPRING-2 trial showed a rate of virologic success in subjects with <200 CD4 cells/uL of 68% for RAL and 78% for dolutegravir [21]. RAL-containing HAART was also tested in the NEAT001 trial as an initial dual regimen combined with DRV/r [22]. The RAL-containing arm did not perform as well as the standard-of-care arm containing darunavir/ritonavir plus two N(n)RTI in the subgroup of patients with a CD4 cell count <200/μL. As well in the Gemini 1 and 2 trials, a lower response in the DTG plus 3TC group than in the three-drug regimen group was observed in the subgroup of participants with baseline CD4+ count ≤200 cells/μL [23]. Concerning DRV/r in naïve subjects the rate of suppression at 48 weeks in the FLAMINGO trial was 83% [24]. These levels of suppression are related to the whole population since when we examine the subgroups with viral load>100,000 copies/mL or CD4<200 cells/uL the percentages of subjects who reached an undetectable viral load are lower; for example, DRV/r among late presenters in the IMEA 040 DATA trial showed an 80% rate of suppression [14].

Even if our data could not be compared to large randomized trial, it is evident that the virological results are mainly due to the characteristics of the patients rather than to the drug chosen. It is possible that more recent combination will lead to better results. Actually, in a subgroup analysis of the GS1490, dolutegravir and bictegravir obtained, in combination with tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC) a higher rate of success: 100 and 95%, respectively [19]. Second, the time before treatment was started. The START trial showed how relevant for the single patients is to start antiretroviral therapy as soon as possible in order to avoid AIDS events [25]. In the most recent time, the period between diagnosis and treatment has become even shorter since in the attempt to increase adherence some groups have started to evaluate a test and treat approach [26,27]. Patients enrolled in our study started treatment after more than one month. The reasons for this delay were related first to the clinical conditions of the subjects since our patients presented a variety of opportunistic infections and in some cases, more than one. Indeed, in patients presenting with opportunistic infections as in this study, many trials have been conducted on the correct timing to start antiretroviral therapy balancing efficacy and IRIS. ACTG 5164 showed that in Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia is better to start after a median of 12 days, while 2 randomized trials conducted in cryptococcal meningitis showed that starting earlier could increase mortality [7,10,11]. Concerning tuberculosis (TB) starting early could be relevant for mortality only in presence of a CD4+ cell count <50 cells/uL, while in TB meningitis starting earlier led to a greater incidence of side effect without no survival benefit [8,9]. Second, the regimens studied. Indeed, the use of abacavir due to the HLA B5701 test represents per se a delay and the association of raltegravir and abacavir/lamivudine, with a low genetic barrier to resistance requires the results of baseline genotyping tests. Actually, the LAPTOP study comparing in late presenters bictegravir/tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine and darunavir/cobicistat/ tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine, both regimens with a high genetic barrier and without abacavir will allow us to understand which is the time to starting treatment in this specific population [28]. The information will be very relevant in clinical practice since subjects who will be included in the LAPTOP will be even more difficult to treat than that of this study since we have included symptomatic and asymptomatic with a CD4 count <200 cells/uL, while to be enrolled in the LAPTOP subjects should have AIDS with any CD4 cell count or severe bacterial infection, but with a CD4 cell count < 200/μl within 30 days prior to study entry or be asymptomatic with CD4 cell count < 100/μL within 30 days prior to study entry and an entry HIV viral load > 1000 copies/mL or currently receiving treatment for opportunistic infection. Another finding that indicates the difficult management of these patients is the high number of concomitant medications. Indeed, while in non-advanced naïve patients we still discuss on the role of a single tablet regimen compared to more pills, the picture in late presenters is completely different [29]. Moreover, this high number of co-medications and the complex clinical picture could explain the onset of side effects that are really difficult to ascribe to a single antiretroviral drug.

Third, there was no real surprise concerning lipid profile and viro-immunological effects. As expected, on the basis of the results of ACTG 5257, RAL showed a better profile than DRV/r and also a better immunological profile since subjects receiving RAL showed a higher CD4 cell increase and a higher decrease of CD8 cells. This last datum confirms the effect of RAL on CD4/CD8 ratio as shown in the STARTMRK [30].

In conclusion, despite the low number of patients enrolled our study has confirmed how difficult is to treat patients with advanced HIV disease. Actually, all the rules that we are using in non-immunocompromised naïve patients as early treatment or simple regimens are difficult to apply in patients with late presentation, especially if diagnosed with opportunistic infections. Actually, more data are needed and we hope that a large prospective trial as the LAPTOP will answer some unsolved questions.

CONSORT 2010 checklist.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

RTLP_vers 1.2 def.

Original Protocol.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

19 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-14981

A Prospective Randomized trial on Abacavir/lamivudine plus DArunavir/ritonavir or Raltegravir in HIV-positive drug-naïve patients with CD4<200 cells/uL (the PRADAR Study)

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mussini,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

In addition to addressing the comments from the reviewers, please could you review the following:

1.  In the abstract it is stated 'the test and treat strategy is rarely applicable'; is this related to the study design and the use of ABC/3TC or RTG and do you think this strategy will become more applicable with modern ART and the strategy of the LAPTOP study? This should be revised.

2.  In the discussion section, please consider mentioning the LAPTOP study and how the approach differs from your study.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 02 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alan Winston

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2) We note that your study protocol contains a confidentiality notice. As detailed in PLOS Editorial Policy, study protocols must be published alongside papers reporting clinical trials in the event of acceptance. Please note that, should your paper be accepted, all content including the protocol will be published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license, which means that it will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. In order to publish any previously copyrighted material, PLOS ONE requires permission from the original copyright holder of the content to publish it under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Before we proceed with your submission, please provide written permission to publish the protocol under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license. You may provide a written statement from the copyright owners (if they are not the authors of the manuscript) or forward your email correspondence indicating that you have been granted this permission. Additionally, please send a clean copy of the protocol with the confidentiality notice removed.

3)  Thank you for submitting your clinical trial to PLOS ONE and for providing the name of the registry and the registration number. The information in the registry entry suggests that your trial was registered after patient recruitment began. PLOS ONE strongly encourages authors to register all trials before recruiting the first participant in a study.

As per the journal’s editorial policy, please include in the Methods section of your paper:

a) your reasons for your delay in registering this study (after enrolment of participants started);

b) confirmation that all related trials are registered by stating: “The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this drug/intervention are registered”.

Please also ensure you report the date at which the ethics committee approved the study as well as the complete date range for patient recruitment and follow-up in the Methods section of your manuscript.

4)  Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[Funding for this study was provided by ViiV Healthcare, the authors are solely

responsible for final content and interpretation.

Supported in part by a research grant from Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the

authors and do not necessarily represent those of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Supported in part by a research grant by Janssen. The opinions expressed in this

paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of Janssen.].

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5) Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[The authors have declared that no competing interests exists].

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: ViiV Healthcare, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp and Janssen.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states these commercial funders, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There are only a few randomized clinical trials on antiretroviral head-to-head comparison between protease-inhibitor (PI) versus integrase-inhibitor (INSTI) based combination triple therapy. PRADAR was a multicentre, national (Italian), open label study and an attempt to fill this important data gap. The study design radically addressed the open question, whether standard combination ART should better contain an INSTI, or “best practice-PI”. Because the chosen study population was moreover the difficult-to-treat HIV-late presenters, with very low first measured CD4-cell counts (<200/µL), the study finally failed by trying to reach “a bridge too far”. Though the attempt was heroic, this report’s conclusions should not be in vain, as this may guide future RCTs to answer the yet open question.

The main problem of this study was the patient recruitment underperformance, reflected by the fact that only 46 individuals were randomized in three years – far from trial’s goal of 350. There are different reasons for this failure: apart from the challenging study population, that may often be deterred from a trial participation due to many reasons, there was another game changer occurring in the middle of the recruitment time – the publication of the START-study, as discussed. All antiretroviral therapy guidelines were subsequently changed to prompt treatment initiation; this diminished indirectly the potential study population.

The study addresses a major important study question - better INSTI or PI for late presenters? It anticipated the study question long before other major trials, i.e. currently under investigation (see NCT03696160). Though the report did not fully succeed, it should not hide its’ light under the bushel. Therefore, I consider the report on PRADAR as valuable and worth reading. Nevertheless, I recommend to consider the following minor issues:

1. Discussion, page 18/30, line 3, following, you wrote: “Indeed, due to the low number of subjects enrolled it was not possible to perform any comparative analysis between RAL and DRV/r.” – But you have performed comparisons! And you had interesting findings, e.g. on clinical adverse events and cholesterol differences between groups. – Please clarify.

2. Discussion, page 19/30, first lines/first para – please consider to discuss the following facts: in NEAT001-randomized clinical trial (NCT01066962), the raltegravir-containing arm did not perform as well as the standard-of-care arm containing darunavir/ritonavir plus two nucleosidal reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in the subgroup of patients with a CD4 cell count <200/µL. Similar findings were detected in patients with another actual dual regimen in naives: NCT02831764 & NCT02831673.

3. Discussion, page 19/30, lines 14 & following – see above remarks on START study findings release while PRADAR study recruitment.

4. Discussion, page 20/30, second para – you showed differences in week 48-outcomes of complete HIV-RNA suppression (<50 copies/mL) between arms, i.e. the primary end point (94.3 vs. 84.2%). Please consider to argue on the differences concerning the 50 copies/mL-threshold for PI vs. INSTI drug classes and to display as well the results for a 200 copies/mL-threshold, as the ACTG recommended this different limit of detection for studies on protease inhibitors.

5. Figure 1, page 27/30: please consider to include the reasons for 7 screening failures.

Reviewer #2: Good work by the authors. I agree it is difficult study to recruit to in the current environment. many other options are available and perceived as superior to the combinations you are trying to test.

in Your abstract ( in the last line) you stated: the rate of virologic success is similar to that described in the literature and very far from results of the recent trials in naïve patients.

this statement needs to be revisited in my view and quantified.

in the last line of your introduction: >500000 should be <500000.

Reviewer #3: • The paper by Mussini et al. reports on a randomized clinical tria which failed t recruit the goal of 350 patients with advanced HIV infection in order to compare an antiretroviral therapy consititing of either ABC/3TC+DRV/r or ABC/3TC+RAL. In total, onl 46 patients were included, n=22 in the RAL arm and n=24 in the DRV/r arm Thus, the study fails to provide sound and scientifically valid data to make any meaningful conclusions in terms of virological response or other endpoints. Little to nowthing can be said about these combinations for patients presenting late. Same The main conclussion of the authors is that late presenter are frequent but difficult to enroll in clincial trials.

• It is unfortunate that the study failed. At the same time, there is no report in the manuscript about how the study team at least tried to increase patient recruitment during study (proticol changes, increasing the number of study sites etc.)

• The time of recruitment is unclear. In the abstract, the authors state 3 years, in the discussion they state that they did nt expect to have such a low number of patients in 5 years.

Reviewer #4: A two arm non-inferiority randomized study was conducted to compare 48-week virological response of abacavir/lamivudine + darunavir/r vs abacavir/lamivudine + raltegravir in antiretroviral naive late presenter HIV patients. The target sample size was 350; although, due to slow accrual only 46 patients were enrolled. At 48 weeks a virologic success of 77.3% in raltegravir and 66.7% in darunavir/r was observed. Too few patients were enrolled to effectively constructed confidence bounds to test non-inferiority.

Minor revisions:

1- Specify the "parametric or non-parametric tests" that were used.

2- Cite the statistical software used for the analysis.

3- Table 1: In addition to frequencies, provide corresponding percentages for gender, risk factors and CDC stage. For age, HIV RNA, CD4 and CD8 provide the first and third quartiles.

4- Provide confidence intervals for the percentage estimates in the following sentence. “According to a snapshot algorithm, on the ITT population, after 48 weeks the proportion of treatment success was 77.3% in the RAL group and 66.7% in the DRV/r group.”

5- Instead of calculating the IQR, provide the first and third quartiles since they are more informative.

6- Provide numerical p-values rather than “NS.”

7- Include a table summarizing the adverse events by treatment arm. Include percentages corresponding to the frequencies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Elbushra Herieka

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

13 Aug 2019

Reviewer #1:

1. Discussion, page 18/30, line 3, following, you wrote: “Indeed, due to the low number of subjects enrolled it was not possible to perform any comparative analysis between RAL and DRV/r.” – But you have performed comparisons! And you had interesting findings, e.g. on clinical adverse events and cholesterol differences between groups. – Please clarify.

Answer: we agree with the reviewer and added a sentence in the discussion.

2. Discussion, page 19/30, first lines/first para – please consider to discuss the following facts: in NEAT001-randomized clinical trial (NCT01066962), the raltegravir-containing arm did not perform as well as the standard-of-care arm containing darunavir/ritonavir plus two nucleosidal reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in the subgroup of patients with a CD4 cell count <200/µL. Similar findings were detected in patients with another actual dual regimen in naives: NCT02831764 & NCT02831673.

Answer: we agree with the reviewer and added a paragraph in the discussion.

3. Discussion, page 19/30, lines 14 & following – see above remarks on START study findings release while PRADAR study recruitment.

Answer: we agree with the reviewer and added a sentence in the discussion.

4. Discussion, page 20/30, second para – you showed differences in week 48-outcomes of complete HIV-RNA suppression (<50 copies/mL) between arms, i.e. the primary end point (94.3 vs. 84.2%). Please consider to argue on the differences concerning the 50 copies/mL-threshold for PI vs. INSTI drug classes and to display as well the results for a 200 copies/mL-threshold, as the ACTG recommended this different limit of detection for studies on protease inhibitors.

Actually, no difference compared to <50 copies/mL was found considering a threshold of 200 copies/mL.

5. Figure 1, page 27/30: please consider to include the reasons for 7 screening failures.

We added the reason as footnotes to Figure 1.

Reviewer #2:

1. in Your abstract ( in the last line) you stated: the rate of virologic success is similar to that described in the literature and very far from results of the recent trials in naïve patients. this statement needs to be revisited in my view and quantified.

Answer: we agree with the reviewer and changed the last sentence since it was very vague.

2. in the last line of your introduction: >500000 should be <500000.

Answer: we have corrected the mistake, thanks.

Reviewer #3:

1. It is unfortunate that the study failed. At the same time, there is no report in the manuscript about how the study team at least tried to increase patient recruitment during study (protocol changes, increasing the number of study sites etc.)

Answer: We thank the reviewer and added a sentence in the discussion.

2. The time of recruitment is unclear. In the abstract, the authors state 3 years, in the discussion they state that they did nt expect to have such a low number of patients in 5 years.

Answer: we have corrected the mistake, thanks: the correct recruitment duration was 3 years.

Reviewer #4

1- Specify the "parametric or non-parametric tests" that were used.

The tests are already specified just one sentence after that reported by the reviewer

2- Cite the statistical software used for the analysis.

Done

3- Table 1: In addition to frequencies, provide corresponding percentages for gender, risk factors and CDC stage. For age, HIV RNA, CD4 and CD8 provide the first and third quartiles.

done

4- Provide confidence intervals for the percentage estimates in the following sentence. “According to a snapshot algorithm, on the ITT population, after 48 weeks the proportion of treatment success

was 77.3% in the RAL group and 66.7% in the DRV/r group.”

done

5- Instead of calculating the IQR, provide the first and third quartiles since they are more informative.

done

6- Provide numerical p-values rather than “NS.”

done

7- Include a table summarizing the adverse events by treatment arm. Include percentages corresponding to the frequencies.

done

Submitted filename: Response to Review Comments, Cristina Mussini et al..doc

Click here for additional data file.

5 Sep 2019

A Prospective Randomized trial on Abacavir/lamivudine plus DArunavir/ritonavir or Raltegravir in HIV-positive drug-naïve patients with CD4<200 cells/uL (the PRADAR Study)

PONE-D-19-14981R1

Dear Dr. Mussini,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Alan Winston

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

19 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-14981R1

A Prospective Randomized trial on Abacavir/lamivudine plus DArunavir/ritonavir or Raltegravir in HIV-positive drug-naïve patients with CD4<200 cells/uL (the PRADAR Study)

Dear Dr. Mussini:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Alan Winston

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE