Efficacy, Safety, and Durability of Long-Acting Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine in Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection: 5-Year Results From the LATTE-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: In the Long-Acting Antiretroviral Treatment Enabling Trial 2 (LATTE-2) phase 2b study, long-acting (LA) injectable cabotegravir + rilpivirine dosed every 8 weeks (Q8W) or every 4 weeks (Q4W) demonstrated comparable efficacy with daily oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) through 96 weeks in ART-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). Here we report efficacy, tolerability, and safety of cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA over approximately 5 years. METHODS: After 20 weeks of oral cabotegravir + abacavir/lamivudine, participants were randomized to cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA Q8W or Q4W or continue oral ART through the 96-week maintenance period. In the extension period through week 256, participants continued their current LA regimen (randomized Q8W/Q4W groups) or switched from oral ART to Q8W or Q4W LA therapy (extension-switch groups). Endpoints assessed included proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (Snapshot algorithm) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: At week 256, 186 of 230 (81%) participants in randomized Q8W/Q4W groups and 41 of 44 (93%) participants in extension-switch groups had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL. No protocol-defined virologic failures occurred after week 48. Injection wsite reactions infrequently resulted in discontinuation (4 [2%] and 1 [2%] participants in randomized Q8W/Q4W and extension-switch groups, respectively). Three participants in randomized Q8W/Q4W groups experienced drug-related serious AEs, including 1 fatal serious AE (Q4W group); none occurred in extension-switch groups. Of 25 participants with AEs leading to withdrawal, 20 were in the randomized Q4W group; no AE leading to withdrawal occurred in >1 participant. CONCLUSIONS: Cabotegravir + rilpivirine LA exhibited long-term efficacy and tolerability, demonstrating its durability as maintenance therapy for HIV-1 infection.Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02120352.

Heart Failure and Shared Decision-Making: Patients Open to Medication-Related Cost Discussions.

BACKGROUND: Discussions of medication costs between patients and clinicians are infrequent and often suboptimal. In the context of recently introduced drugs that are effective but expensive, patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction provide an ideal population to understand the perspectives of patients with chronic illness on medication cost and cost discussions. METHODS: To explore patients' perspectives on discussing out-of-pocket medication costs with clinicians, 49 adults, aged 44 to 70 years, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction were recruited from outpatient heart failure clinics. Descriptive qualitative analysis was performed on open-ended text data. RESULTS: Participants who had prior medication-related cost discussions described their experience as generally positive, but about half of the participants had never had a cost discussion with their clinician. Most participants were open to cost discussions with clinicians and preferred that the clinician initiate discussions regarding medication cost. Importantly, these preferences held constant across reported levels of financial burden. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a substantial willingness on the part of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to incorporate cost discussions into their care and identify important aspects of these discussions for clinicians to consider when engaging in conversations where cost is relevant. Improving understanding about how to integrate patient preferences regarding cost discussions into clinical encounters is an important priority for advancing patient-centered care.

Discussing Out-of-Pocket Costs With Patients: Shared Decision Making for Sacubitril-Valsartan in Heart Failure.

Background "Financial toxicity" is a concern for patients, but little is known about how patients consider out-of-pocket cost in decisions. Sacubitril-valsartan provides a contemporary scenario to understand financial toxicity. It is guideline recommended for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, yet out-of-pocket costs can be considerable. Methods and Results Structured interviews were conducted with 49 patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction at heart failure clinics and inpatient services. Patient opinions of the drug and its value were solicited after description of benefits using graphical displays. Descriptive quantitative analysis of closed-ended responses was conducted, and qualitative descriptive analysis of text data was performed. Of participants, 92% (45/49) said that they would definitely or probably switch to sacubitril-valsartan if their physician recommended it and out-of-pocket cost was $5 more per month than their current medication. Only 43% (21/49) would do so if out-of-pocket cost was $100 more per month ( P<0.001). At least 40% across all income categories would be unlikely to take sacubitril-valsartan at $100 more per month. Participants exhibited heterogeneous approaches to cost in decision making and varied on their use and interpretation of probabilistic information. Few (20%) participants stated physicians had initiated a conversation about cost in the past year. Conclusions Out-of-pocket cost variation reflective of contemporary cost sharing substantially influenced stated willingness to take sacubitril-valsartan, a guideline-recommended therapy with mortality benefit. These findings suggest a need for cost transparency to promote shared decision making. They also demonstrate the complexity of cost discussion and need to study how to incorporate out-of-pocket cost into clinical decisions.

Virologic and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor-based therapy in highly pretreated HIV-1-infected patients.

PURPOSE: To assess the virologic and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor (PI) regimen of highly pretreated patients infected with HIV-1 and to examine the role of PI resistance and concentration of serum saquinavir. METHOD: In an open-label prospective study, lopinavir/ritonavir, saquinavir-sgc, lamivudine, and other nucleoside analogues were offered to highly pretreated patients who had advanced HIV-1 infection and who had failed at least 2 previous highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens including at least 1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The relationship between baseline drug resistance and steady-state saquinavir serum levels and early (week 4) and sustained (week 48) virologic response was documented. RESULTS: 35 advanced HIV-1 patients were enrolled. The boosted double-PI regimen was well tolerated. Twenty-two (63%) of the 35 patients had a > 0.8 log(10) decrease in HIV viral load at week 4. After 48 weeks of follow-up, the 22 patients who remained on the study therapy had an average decrease in viral load of 1 log(10) and had a median increase in CD4 cells of 60 cell/microL. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that genotypic resistance to both PIs and the week-3 trough concentrations of saquinavir were associated with virologic outcome at week 4. The presence of > or = 6 lopinavir mutations [odds ratio (OR) 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.79] and the 48V mutation (OR 0.01; 95%CI <0.01 to 0.88) was independently associated with lower odds of achieving an early response, whereas a higher saquinavir concentration at week 3 (OR 8.36; 95% CI 1.28 to 54.70) was associated with greater odds of an early response. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that baseline PI resistance and saquinavir concentration were associated with virologic response and should be considered when planning salvage therapy.

Cabotegravir plus rilpivirine, once a day, after induction with cabotegravir plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (LATTE): a randomised, phase 2b, dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: In phase 1 trials, the HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor cabotegravir (GSK1265744) was well tolerated, both alone, and in combination with the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor rilpivirine. We assessed cabotegravir plus rilpivirine, as a two-drug oral antiretroviral regimen, for the maintenance of viral suppression in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected individuals. METHODS: In the phase 2b Long-Acting antireTroviral Treatment Enabling (LATTE) trial, a multicentre study done in Canada and the USA, antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected adults (aged ≥18 years) were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to oral cabotegravir 10 mg once a day, 30 mg once a day, 60 mg once a day, or oral efavirenz 600 mg once a day with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for 24 weeks of induction. Patients who were virologically suppressed by week 24 received a two-drug maintenance regimen consisting of their randomly allocated cabotegravir dose plus oral rilpivirine 25 mg or continued efavirenz plus NRTIs for an additional 72 weeks. Patients and investigators were masked to doses of cabotegravir received for 96 weeks, but not to the assignment of cabotegravir or efavirenz. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies per mL of HIV-1 RNA (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm) at week 48. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01641809. FINDINGS: Of 243 patients randomly allocated and treated, 156 (86%) of 181 patients in the cabotegravir groups (52 [87%] of 60, 51 [85%] of 60, and 53 [87%] of 61 patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) and 46 (74%) of 62 in the efavirenz group had fewer than 50 copies per mL of HIV-1 RNA after induction therapy. After patients in the cabotegravir groups were changed over from dual NRTIs to rilpivirine at week 24, 149 (82%; 95% CI 77-88) patients in the cabotegravir groups (48 [80%; 70-90], 48 [80%; 70-90], and 53 [87%; 78-95] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) versus 44 (71%; 60-82) in the efavirenz group were virologically suppressed at week 48, and 137 (76%; 69-82) receiving cabotegravir (41 [68%; 57-80], 45 [75%; 64-86], and 51 [84%; 74-93] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) versus 39 (63%; 51-75) in the efavirenz group were virologically suppressed at week 96. Treatment-related adverse events were reported by 93 (51%) cabotegravir-treated patients (28 [47%], 32 [53%], and 33 [54%] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) and 42 (68%) efavirenz-treated patients. Six (3%) patients in the cabotegravir groups (one [2%], one [2%], and four [7%] patients in the 10 mg, 30 mg, and 60 mg groups, respectively) withdrew because of treatment-emergent adverse events compared with nine (15%) in the efavirenz group. INTERPRETATION: Cabotegravir plus dual NRTI therapy had potent antiviral activity during the induction phase. As a two-drug maintenance therapy, cabotegravir plus rilpivirine provided antiviral activity similar to efavirenz plus dual NRTIs until the end of week 96. Combined efficacy and safety results lend support to our selection of oral cabotegravir 30 mg once a day for further assessment. LATTE precedes studies of the assessment of longacting injectable formulations of both drugs as a two-drug regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Janssen Research and Development.