Adaption of an ongoing clinical trial to quickly respond to gaps in changing international recommendations: the experience of D2EFT.

A rapidly changing landscape of antiretrovirals and their procurement at scale has permitted the evaluation of new optimised second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries. D2EFT is an open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority phase IIIB/IV trial in people living with HIV-1 (PWH) whose first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based ART is failing. At inception, it compared a standard of care of boosted darunavir with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) to the novel NRTI-sparing regimen of boosted darunavir with dolutegravir. Implemented in 2017, participating sites were across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Around the time of implementation, the World Health Organization updated its treatment guidelines and recommended scaling up tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-lamivudine-dolutegravir (TLD). This situation pushed D2EFT investigators to consider the impact of the roll-out of TLD on the D2EFT research question. The protocol team agreed it was important to study TLD in second-line when an NNRTI regimen was failing, and focused on options to expedite the work by studying the question within the existing trial and network. All key issues (statistical, programmatic and financial) were reviewed to assess the benefits and risks of adding a third arm to the ongoing study, as opposed to developing a new randomised clinical trial with the same control arm and within the same network. The development of a new trial was deemed to be longer than adding a third arm, and to create a challenging situation with two competing clinical trials at the same sites which would slow down recruitment and impair both trials. On the other hand, adding a third arm would be demanding in terms of operationalisation, increased sample size and statistical biases to control. The optimal strategy was deemed to be the addition of a third arm, arriving retrospectively at a simplified multi-arm multi-stage clinical trial design to achieve statistical validity. The D2EFT study maintains additional value in a quickly evolving second-line ART strategy allowed by the progress in global access to ART.

Dolutegravir-based Antiretroviral Therapy for Patients Coinfected With Tuberculosis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus: A Multicenter, Noncomparative, Open-label, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The concurrent treatment of tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is challenging, owing to drug interactions, overlapping toxicities, and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS). The efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) were assessed in adults with HIV and drug-susceptible tuberculosis. METHODS: International Study of Patients with HIV on Rifampicin ING is a noncomparative, active-control, randomized, open-label study in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive adults (CD4+ ≥50 cells/mm3). Participants on rifampicin-based tuberculosis treatment ≤8 weeks were randomized (3:2) to receive DTG (50 mg twice daily both during and 2 weeks after tuberculosis therapy, then 50 mg once daily) or efavirenz (EFV; 600 mg daily) with 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of DTG-arm participants with plasma HIV-1-RNA <50 copies/mL (responders) by the Food and Drug Administration Snapshot algorithm (intent-to-treat exposed population) at Week 48. The study was not powered to compare arms. RESULTS: For DTG (n = 69), the baseline HIV-1 RNA was >100 000 copies/mL in 64% of participants, with a median CD4+ count of 208 cells/mm3; for EFV (n = 44), 55% of participants had HIV-1 RNA >100 000 copies/mL, with a median CD4+ count of 202 cells/mm3. The Week 48 response rates were 75% (52/69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 65-86%) for DTG and 82% (36/44, 95% CI 70-93%) for EFV. The DTG nonresponses were driven by non-treatment related discontinuations (n = 10 lost to follow-up). There were no deaths or study drug switches. There were 2 discontinuations for toxicity (EFV). There were 3 protocol-defined virological failures (2 DTG, no acquired resistance; 1 EFV, emergent resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). The tuberculosis treatment success rate was high. Tuberculosis-associated IRIS was uncommon (4/arm), with no discontinuations for IRIS. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with HIV receiving rifampicin-based tuberculosis treatment, twice-daily DTG was effective and well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02178592.

Prevalence of pretreatment and acquired HIV-1 mutations associated with resistance to lamivudine or rilpivirine: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pretreatment and acquired drug resistance mutations (DRMs) can limit antiretroviral therapy effectiveness. METHODS: We review prevalence of DRMs with resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), focusing on lamivudine and rilpivirine, from 127 articles with >100,000 individuals with HIV-1 infection. RESULTS: Estimated global prevalence of pretreatment resistance to any NRTI was 4% and to any NNRTI was 6%. Most prevalent DRMs resistant to lamivudine or rilpivirine were at positions E138 (4%), V179 (1%) and M184 (1%). Estimated acquired DRM prevalence was 58% for any NRTIs and 67% for any NNRTIs, most frequently at positions M184 (58%) and Y181 (21%). CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests low risk of lamivudine- or rilpivirine-resistant mutations in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected individuals.

Dolutegravir versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir both with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection in whom first-line therapy has failed (DAWNING): an open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3b trial.

BACKGROUND: Doubts exist regarding optimal second-line treatment options for HIV-1-infected patients in resource-limited settings. We assessed safety and efficacy of dolutegravir compared with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in adults in whom previous first-line antiretroviral therapy with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) plus two NRTIs has failed. METHODS: DAWNING is a phase 3b, open-label, parallel-group, non-inferiority, active-controlled trial done at 58 sites in 13 countries. Eligible adults were aged at least 18 years and, during at least 6 months of treatment with a first-line treatment containing an NNRTI and two NRTIs, had virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies per mL). Participants were randomly assigned by a central randomisation system to receive oral dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg lopinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir once daily or 400 mg plus 100 mg twice daily), plus two investigator-selected NRTIs (at least one fully active based on resistance testing at screening). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving viral suppression (defined as plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48 using the snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of -12%. The primary analysis was done in an intention-to-treat-exposed (ITT-E) population of participants who received at least one dose of study medication, according to original group assignment. Safety was analysed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug, according to which drug was received. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02227238, and viiv-studyregister.com, number 200304. FINDINGS: Between Dec 11, 2014, and June 27, 2016, 968 adults were screened and 627 were randomly assigned to the dolutegravir group (n=312) or the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (n=315). Three patients in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group did not receive study medication and so 624 were included in the ITT-E population. At week 48, 261 (84%) of 312 participants in the dolutegravir group achieved viral suppression compared with 219 (70%) of 312 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (adjusted difference 13·8%; 95% CI 7·3-20·3). Non-inferiority was achieved on the basis of the 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference having a lower bound greater than -12% (prespecified non-inferiority margin). Because the lower bound of the 95% CI is greater than zero (7·3%), superiority of dolutegravir was also concluded (p<0·0001). The safety profile for dolutegravir was favourable compared with that of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. More grade 2-4 drug-related adverse events occurred with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir than dolutegravir (44 [14%] of 310 with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir vs 11 [4%] of 314 with dolutegravir), mainly driven by gastrointestinal disorders. INTERPRETATION: When administered with two NRTIs, dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks and can be considered a suitable option for second-line treatment. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare.

Short Communication: Dolutegravir-Based Regimens Are Active in Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor-Naive Patients with Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Resistance.

In the SAILING study, dolutegravir demonstrated superior virologic efficacy compared with raltegravir in treatment-experienced, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-naive patients with HIV-1 who harbored resistance to ≥2 antiretroviral drug classes. Significantly fewer dolutegravir-treated patients demonstrated virologic failure with treatment-emergent resistance than raltegravir-treated patients through 48 weeks. Investigator-selected background therapy (ISBT) included at least one fully active agent, selected on the basis of resistance analysis. Genotypic and phenotypic resistance testing were performed on baseline and time-of-failure samples from patients with protocol-defined virologic failure (PDVF). A post hoc analysis of SAILING (N = 715; 354 dolutegravir, 361 raltegravir) assessed efficacy in subpopulations defined by ISBT activity, resistance profiles, and treatment history. When ISBT contained only nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), PDVF occurred in 0% (0/32) of dolutegravir-treated patients and 21.9% (7/32) of raltegravir-treated patients (p = .005). In patients harboring M184 V whose ISBT contained lamivudine or emtricitabine plus a second NRTI, 0% (0/13) of dolutegravir- and 33.3% (4/12) of raltegravir-treated patients (p = .026) experienced PDVF. Among patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-containing ISBT, 6.0% (18/300) of dolutegravir-treated patients versus 11.8% (36/305) of raltegravir-treated patients (p = .012) experienced PDVF. Darunavir/ritonavir was part of ISBT in 130 dolutegravir-treated patients and 145 raltegravir-treated patients; 6 (4.6%) and 12 (8.3%), respectively, experienced PDVF (difference -3.7%; 95% confidence interval: -10.1% to 2.5%; p = .256). There was no or less virologic failure in treatment-experienced, INSTI-naive subjects receiving dolutegravir versus raltegravir, even when the ISBT was suboptimal or NRTI resistance was present at baseline. These findings are not explained by the use of PI/ritonavir-containing ISBT.

A retrospective clinical audit of general practices in Australia to determine the motivation for switch to dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine and clinical outcomes.

The most common reasons for switching HIV-1 therapy in patients with virologic suppression are treatment regimen simplification and resolving tolerability issues. Single-pill regimens that include an integrase inhibitor are recommended options. A retrospective clinical audit was performed to determine the motivations for switching to dolutegravir (DTG)/abacavir (ABC)/lamivudine (3TC) at high HIV-caseload general practice clinics in Australia. The most common reasons for switching from a prior suppressive therapy to DTG/ABC/3TC were simplification of regimen, resolving toxicity/intolerance and patient preference (73%, 13% and 12%, respectively). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the probability of patients remaining on DTG/ABC/3TC therapy at 12 months was 95.1%. Switching to DTG/ABC/3TC from a range of other regimens was associated with a discontinuation rate of 3.2%, with 2.5% of patients discontinuing due to adverse events and no patients discontinuing due to virologic failure. Switching to DTG/ABC/3TC was a viable treatment strategy in this cohort of Australian patients.

A randomized, double-blind study of gemfibrozil for the treatment of protease inhibitor-associated hypertriglyceridaemia.

BACKGROUND: Hypertriglyceridaemia is common in patients with HIV, especially those taking protease inhibitors or with lipodystrophy, frequently observed at levels associated with accelerated cardiac disease. This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of gemfibrozil for hypertriglyceridemia in patients with HIV infection. METHODS: A 16-week, randomized, double-blind, comparative study of low saturated fat diet versus low saturated fat diet with gemfibrozil 600 mg twice daily in patients with triglycerides > or = 3mmol/l receiving protease inhibitor therapy. Following a 4-week period of dietary intervention alone, patients were randomized to gemfibrozil or matching placebo. The primary outcome was the difference in mean change in fasting triglycerides at week 16 between the two groups. RESULTS: 37 men were randomized (17 gemfibrozil, 20 placebo) with median fasting triglycerides 5.6 mmol/l. Mean changes in triglycerides from week 4 to week 16 were -1.22 mmol/l and +0.35 mmol/l for the gemfibrozil and placebo groups respectively (between-group mean difference of 1.57 mmol/l; 95% confidence interval, -6.7 to 3.5; = 0.08). Only one patient treated had triglycerides return to a desirable range (< or = 2.00 mmol/l). No significant changes in the other metabolic parameters were observed. Gemfibrozil was well tolerated, did not appear to induce additional protease inhibitor toxicity, and did not induce changes in CD4 lymphocyte counts or HIV RNA load. CONCLUSIONS: Gemfibrozil is safe and demonstrated at most, modest efficacy for hypertriglyceridemia in HIV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitors. Given the level of response, however, it is unclear whether these reductions will confer clinical benefit, at least in the presence of continued protease inhibitor use.