Deep sequencing analysis of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline and time of failure in patients receiving rilpivirine in the phase III studies ECHO and THRIVE.

Minority variants (1.0-25.0%) were evaluated by deep sequencing (DS) at baseline and virological failure (VF) in a selection of antiretroviral treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients from the rilpivirine ECHO/THRIVE phase III studies. Linkage between frequently emerging resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) was determined. DS (llIumina®) and population sequencing (PS) results were available at baseline for 47 VFs and time of failure for 48 VFs; and at baseline for 49 responders matched for baseline characteristics. Minority mutations were accurately detected at frequencies down to 1.2% of the HIV-1 quasispecies. No baseline minority rilpivirine RAMs were detected in VFs; one responder carried 1.9% F227C. Baseline minority mutations associated with resistance to other non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) were detected in 8/47 VFs (17.0%) and 7/49 responders (14.3%). Baseline minority nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) RAMs M184V and L210W were each detected in one VF (none in responders). At failure, two patients without NNRTI RAMs by PS carried minority rilpivirine RAMs K101E and/or E138K; and five additional patients carried other minority NNRTI RAMs V90I, V106I, V179I, V189I, and Y188H. Overall at failure, minority NNRTI RAMs and NRTI RAMs were found in 29/48 (60.4%) and 16/48 VFs (33.3%), respectively. Linkage analysis showed that E138K and K101E were usually not observed on the same viral genome. In conclusion, baseline minority rilpivirine RAMs and other NNRTI/NRTI RAMs were uncommon in the rilpivirine arm of the ECHO and THRIVE studies. DS at failure showed emerging NNRTI resistant minority variants in seven rilpivirine VFs who had no detectable NNRTI RAMs by PS.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). METHODS: We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. FINDINGS: From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. FUNDING: Tibotec.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. FINDINGS: 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was -0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 5.2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11%vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2-4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0.0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. INTERPRETATION: Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Tibotec.

TMC278, a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), active against wild-type and NNRTI-resistant HIV-1.

Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) have proven efficacy against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). However, in the setting of incomplete viral suppression, efavirenz and nevirapine select for resistant viruses. The diarylpyrimidine etravirine has demonstrated durable efficacy for patients infected with NNRTI-resistant HIV-1. A screening strategy used to test NNRTI candidates from the same series as etravirine identified TMC278 (rilpivirine). TMC278 is an NNRTI showing subnanomolar 50% effective concentrations (EC50 values) against wild-type HIV-1 group M isolates (0.07 to 1.01 nM) and nanomolar EC50 values against group O isolates (2.88 to 8.45 nM). Sensitivity to TMC278 was not affected by the presence of most single NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs), including those at positions 100, 103, 106, 138, 179, 188, 190, 221, 230, and 236. The HIV-1 site-directed mutant with Y181C was sensitive to TMC278, whereas that with K101P or Y181I/V was resistant. In vitro, considerable cross-resistance between TMC278 and etravirine was observed. Sensitivity to TMC278 was observed for 62% of efavirenz- and/or nevirapine-resistant HIV-1 recombinant clinical isolates. TMC278 inhibited viral replication at concentrations at which first-generation NNRTIs could not suppress replication. The rates of selection of TMC278-resistant strains were comparable among HIV-1 group M subtypes. NNRTI RAMs emerging in HIV-1 under selective pressure from TMC278 included combinations of V90I, L100I, K101E, V106A/I, V108I, E138G/K/Q/R, V179F/I, Y181C/I, V189I, G190E, H221Y, F227C, and M230I/L. E138R was identified as a new NNRTI RAM. These in vitro analyses demonstrate that TMC278 is a potent next-generation NNRTI, with a high genetic barrier to resistance development.

Compilation and prevalence of mutations associated with resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) are an important component of antiretroviral therapy for HIV type-1 (HIV-1)-infected patients. Development of NNRTI resistance can lead to treatment failure and is conferred by the presence of specific resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in the reverse transcriptase. In addition to the widely used list of NNRTI RAMs provided by the International AIDS Society-USA HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutation Group, which were identified on the basis of clinical experience with the approved NNRTIs, a more comprehensive list of NNRTI RAMs is needed to guide the study of baseline and emerging resistance to new NNRTIs. METHODS: We conducted an extensive review of the existing literature on NNRTI resistance, together with several in vitro and in vivo studies on the mechanism of HIV-1 resistance to approved NNRTIs and to NNRTIs formerly or currently in clinical development. RESULTS: In total, 44 NNRTI RAMs were identified. These included V90I, A98G, L100I, K1O1E/P/Q, K103H/N/S/T, V106A/I/M, V108I, E138G/K/Q, V179D/E/F/G/I, Y181C/I/V, Y188C/H/L, V189I, G190A/C/E/Q/S, H221Y, P225H, F227C/L, M230I/L, P236L, K238N/T and Y318F. These NNRTI RAMs were observed, either alone or in combination with others, ranging in frequency from 0.02% to 56.96% in a panel of 101,679 NNRTI-resistant isolates submitted to Virco BVBA (Mechelen, Belgium) for routine clinical resistance testing. Phenotypical data from site-directed mutants helped to establish the contribution of each mutation to NNRTI resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The list of 44 NNRTI RAMs compiled in this study provides a comprehensive overview of mutations that play a role in HIV-1 NNRTI resistance and can be used to guide further in vitro and in vivo research on the mechanisms of HIV-1 NNRTI resistance.

Prevalence in the USA of rilpivirine resistance-associated mutations in clinical samples and effects on phenotypic susceptibility to rilpivirine and etravirine.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of rilpivirine resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in the USA, and their effect on phenotypic susceptibility to rilpivirine and etravirine, was evaluated in clinical samples from HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: In total, 15,991 samples submitted to Monogram Biosciences (South San Francisco, CA, USA) for routine resistance testing between January 2010 and June 2011 were assessed for the presence of known rilpivirine RAMs K101E/P, E138A/G/K/Q/R, V179L, Y181C/I/V, Y188L, H221Y, F227C and M230I/L; non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) RAMs K103N, L100I and L100I+K103N; and the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) RAMs M184I/V and their combinations with rilpivirine RAMs. Phenotypic susceptibility (PhenoSenseGT(®) assay; Monogram Biosciences) was evaluated, with reduced susceptibility defined as fold change (FC) in 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50)>2.0 for rilpivirine and FC>2.9 for etravirine. RESULTS: Of the 15,991 samples, 17% harboured ≥1 rilpivirine RAMs. The prevalence of most rilpivirine RAMs and combinations of NNRTI RAMs of interest was low (≤3%), except for Y181C (7%). Rilpivirine RAMs were often associated with reduced rilpivirine phenotypic susceptibility. Median FC values >2.0 were observed for clinical isolates with rilpivirine RAMs K101P, E138Q/R, Y181C/I/V, Y188L or M230L, and for the combination of E138K with M184I/V, and K101E with M184I. Most rilpivirine FC values >2.0 were associated with etravirine FC values >2.9 for individual rilpivirine RAMs and those combined with M184I/V. There was no relationship between the presence of K103N and rilpivirine FC. However, the L100I+K103N combination (without rilpivirine RAMs), at <2% prevalence, was associated with a rilpivirine FC>2.0. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 15,991 US clinical samples from HIV-1-infected patients, the frequency of most known rilpivirine RAMs apart from Y181C was low.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine (RPV, TMC278) in HIV type 1-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: week 192 results from a phase IIb randomized trial.

TMC278-C204 (NCT00110305), a 96-week trial of the nonnucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV, TMC278) in 368 HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive patients, was extended to investigate long-term safety and efficacy. Week 192 analysis results are presented. This was a long-term follow-up of a Phase IIb, randomized trial. No significant RPV dose-response relationships with respect to the primary endpoint (composite ITT-TLOVR algorithm) were observed at week 48 or 96. All RPV-treated patients were switched to open-label 75 mg qd at week 96 and then to 25 mg qd, the Phase III dose, at approximately week 144 as it gave the best benefit-risk balance. All control patients continued receiving open-label efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg qd. At week 192, 59% of RPV- and 61% of EFV-treated patients maintained confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml (ITT-TLOVR algorithm). The mean changes from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar in both groups (RPV: 210 cells/mm(3) vs. EFV: 225 cells/mm(3)). No new safety concerns were noted between week 48 and 192. In the week 192 analysis, RPV compared with EFV was associated with a lower overall incidence of grade 2-4 adverse events (AEs) at least possibly related to treatment, including rash (p<0.001) and neurologic AEs (p<0.05 Fisher's exact test, post hoc analyses) Incidences of serious AEs, grade 3 or 4 AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups. Increases in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides were significantly lower with RPV than with EFV. RPV continued to show sustained efficacy similar to EFV at week 192 with a generally more favorable safety profile.

Efficacy and safety of rilpivirine (TMC278) versus efavirenz at 48 weeks in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: pooled results from the phase 3 double-blind randomized ECHO and THRIVE Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pooled analysis of phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy ECHO and THRIVE trials comparing rilpivirine (TMC278) and efavirenz. METHODS: Treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults were randomized 1:1 to rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, with background tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) (ECHO) or TDF/FTC, zidovudine/lamivudine, or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The primary endpoint was confirmed response [viral load <50 copies per milliliter; intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virologic-response (ITT-TLOVR) algorithm] at week 48. The pooled data set enabled analyses of subgroups and predictors of response/virologic failure. RESULTS: Confirmed responses were 84% (rilpivirine) and 82% (efavirenz). The difference in response rates (95% confidence interval) was 2.0% (-2.0% to 6.0%). The incidence of virologic failure was 9% (rilpivirine) versus 5% (efavirenz). Responses in ITT-TLOVR and ITT-snapshot analyses were consistent. Responses were similar for rilpivirine and efavirenz by background regimen, gender, race and clade. Suboptimal adherence and higher baseline viral load resulted in lower responses, higher virologic failure, and development of resistance in both groups; the effects on virologic failure were more apparent with rilpivirine. CD4 cell count increased over time in both groups. Rilpivirine compared with efavirenz gave smaller incidences of adverse events leading to discontinuation (3% vs. 8%, respectively), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events (16% vs. 31%), rash (3% vs. 14%), dizziness (8% vs. 26%), abnormal dreams/nightmares (8% vs. 13%), and grade 2-4 lipid abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: At week 48, rilpivirine 25 mg once daily and efavirenz 600 mg once daily had comparable response rates. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures and improved tolerability versus efavirenz.

Efficacy and safety of TMC278 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 patients: week 96 results of a phase IIb randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: TMC278 is a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor highly active against wild-type and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 in vitro. The week 96 analysis of TMC278-C204, a large dose-ranging study of TMC278 in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients, is presented. DESIGN: Phase IIb randomized trial. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized and treated with three blinded once-daily TMC278 doses 25, 75 or 150 mg, or an open-label, active control, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, all with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The primary analysis was at week 48. RESULTS: No TMC278 dose-response relationship for efficacy and safety was observed. TMC278 demonstrated potent antiviral efficacy comparable with efavirenz over 48 weeks that was sustained to week 96 (76.9-80.0% and 71.4-76.3% of TMC278-treated patients with confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml, respectively; time-to-loss of virological-response algorithm). Median increases from baseline in CD4 cell count with TMC278 at week 96 (138.0-149.0 cells/microl) were higher than at week 48 (108.0-123.0 cells/microl). All TMC278 doses were well tolerated. The incidences of the most commonly reported grade 2-4 adverse events at least possibly related to study medication, including nausea, dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmare, dyspepsia, asthenia, rash, somnolence and vertigo, were low and lower with TMC278 than with efavirenz. Incidences of serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: All TMC278 doses demonstrated potent and sustained efficacy comparable with efavirenz in treatment-naive patients over 96 weeks. TMC278 was well tolerated with lower incidences of neurological and psychiatric adverse events, rash and lower lipid elevations than those with efavirenz. TMC278 25 mg once daily was selected for further clinical development.