Efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in DUET-1: 24-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral agents active against drug-resistant HIV-1 are needed for treatment-experienced patients. The aim of this trial was to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of TMC125 (etravirine), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). METHODS: DUET-1 is a continuing, multinational randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Treatment-experienced adult patients with virological failure on stable antiretroviral therapy, documented genotypic evidence of NNRTI resistance, viral load over 5000 copies per mL, and three or more primary protease inhibitor mutations were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg TMC125 or placebo twice daily. All patients also received darunavir with low-dose ritonavir and investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Enfuvirtide use was optional. The primary endpoint was a confirmed viral load below 50 copies per mL at week 24 (FDA time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00254046. FINDINGS: 612 patients were randomised and treated (304 in the TMC125 group, 308 in the placebo group). By week 24, 42 (14%) patients in the TMC125 group and 56 (18%) in the placebo group had discontinued, mainly due to virological failure. At week 24, 170 (56%) patients in the TMC125 group and 119 (39%) patients in the placebo group achieved a confirmed viral load of less than 50 copies per mL (difference in response rates 17%; 95% CI 9-25; p=0.005). Most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity. The type and incidence of adverse events, including neuropsychiatric events, seen with TMC125 were generally comparable with placebo, with the exception of rash (61 [20%] patients on TMC125 vs 30 [10%] on placebo) and diarrhoea (36 [12%] patients on TMC125 vs 63 [20%] on placebo). INTERPRETATION: In treatment-experienced patients with NNRTI resistance, treatment with TMC125 achieved better virological suppression at week 24 than did placebo. The safety and tolerability profile of TMC125 was generally comparable with placebo.

Impact of regulatory assessment on clinical studies in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the recent expansion of clinical studies allocated to Brazil, the delay of local regulatory deadlines directly impacts their completion. OBJECTIVE: This article examines the allocation process of clinical studies to Brazil in comparison with other countries, as well as the financial impact of studies not completed due to interruption caused by the delay in the regulatory process. METHOD: The allocation processes of studies were compared in nine countries with similar stages of economic development and countries in Latin America using the websites http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-rankings-table and http://worldpopulationreview.com and clinicaltrials.gov, comprising 185 countries. The 46 studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry underwent an analysis of the regulatory review process. RESULTS: 46 studies sponsored by the industry and submitted in the country between June 2007 and June 2013 were analyzed; 18 (39%) were discontinued due to the delay in obtaining the necessary approvals. For the approved studies, patient recruitment began an average of 11 months after the other countries. It is estimated that 530 Brazilians patients did not have the opportunity to participate in these studies. Financial losses were to the order of 14.6 million dollars for the country, including patient, medication and supplies costs, and expenses. CONCLUSION: Brazil has enormous potential for the realization of clinical studies. Researchers, associations of disabled people and patients with chronic diseases, sponsors and the authorities must work together to develop an approval process that is efficient, predictable and, most of all, transparent. The current regulatory environment must and can be improved and optimized in order to result in tangible benefits for patients, society and the country's scientific development.

Impact of regulatory assessment on clinical studies in Brazil / Impacto da avaliação regulatória em estudos clínicos no Brasil

SUMMARY Introduction: Despite the recent expansion of clinical studies allocated to Brazil, the delay of local regulatory deadlines directly impacts their completion. Objective: This article examines the allocation process of clinical studies to Brazil in comparison with other countries, as well as the financial impact of studies not completed due to interruption caused by the delay in the regulatory process. Method: The allocation processes of studies were compared in nine countries with similar stages of economic development and countries in Latin America using the websites http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-rankings-table and http://worldpopulationreview.com and clinicaltrials.gov, comprising 185 countries. The 46 studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry underwent an analysis of the regulatory review process. Results: 46 studies sponsored by the industry and submitted in the country between June 2007 and June 2013 were analyzed; 18 (39%) were discontinued due to the delay in obtaining the necessary approvals. For the approved studies, patient recruitment began an average of 11 months after the other countries. It is estimated that 530 Brazilians patients did not have the opportunity to participate in these studies. Financial losses were to the order of 14.6 million dollars for the country, including patient, medication and supplies costs, and expenses. Conclusion: Brazil has enormous potential for the realization of clinical studies. Researchers, associations of disabled people and patients with chronic diseases, sponsors and the authorities must work together to develop an approval process that is efficient, predictable and, most of all, transparent. The current regulatory environment must and can be improved and optimized in order to result in tangible benefits for patients, society and the country’s scientific development.

RESUMO Introdução: apesar da recente expansão de estudos clínicos alocados para o Brasil, a demora dos prazos regulatórios locais impacta diretamente em sua realização. Objetivo: este artigo analisa o processo de alocação de estudos clínicos para o Brasil em comparação a outros países, bem como o impacto financeiro dos estudos não realizados em decorrência da interrupção pela demora no processo regulatório. Método: foram comparados os processos de alocação de estudos em nove países com estágios semelhantes de desenvolvimento econômico e países da América Latina através dos siteshttp://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table, http://worldpopulationreview.com e clinicaltrials.gov, que engloba 185 países. Os 46 estudos patrocinados pela indústria farmacêutica tiveram o processo de avaliação regulatória analisado. Resultados: foram analisados 46 estudos patrocinados pela indústria submetidos no país entre junho de 2007 e junho de 2013; 18 (39%) foram descontinuados pelo atraso na obtenção das aprovações necessárias. Para os estudos aprovados, o recrutamento de pacientes começou, em média, aos 11 meses após os demais países. Estima-se que 530 pacientes brasileiros não tiveram a oportunidade de participar desses estudos. As perdas financeiras foram da ordem de 14,6 milhões de dólares para o país, incluindo custos com paciente, medicação, suprimentos e despesas administrativas. Conclusão: o Brasil tem um enorme potencial para a realização de estudos clínicos. Investigadores, associações de deficientes e pacientes portadores de doenças crônicas, patrocinadores e autoridades devem trabalhar juntos para desenvolver um processo de aprovação eficiente, previsível e antes de tudo transparente. O atual ambiente regulatório deve e pode ser melhorado e aperfeiçoado, caso contrário não resultará em benefícios tangíveis para o paciente, para a sociedade e a evolução médico-científica do país.