Efficacy of raltegravir versus efavirenz when combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients: week-192 overall and subgroup analyses from STARTMRK.

We compared 4 years of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine and either raltegravir or efavirenz from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Through 192 weeks, raltegravir produced durable and consistent viral suppression and immune restoration compared with efavirenz irrespective of baseline demographic and prognostic factors, including in patients with high viral loads.

Long-term treatment with raltegravir or efavirenz combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine for treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients: 156-week results from STARTMRK.

BACKGROUND: We compared 3 years of antiretroviral therapy with raltegravir or efavirenz as part of a combination regimen in the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies/mL and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind, noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Outcomes included viral suppression, adverse events, and changes from baseline metabolic parameters. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans were obtained on a convenience sample of patients at prespecified time points to assess changes in body fat composition. RESULTS: At week 156 counting noncompleters as failures, 212 (75.4%) of 281 versus 192 (68.1%) of 282 had vRNA levels <50 copies/mL in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 7.3% (-0.2, 14.7), noninferiority P < .001]. Mean changes from baseline CD4 count were 332 and 295 cells/mm³ in the raltegravir and efavirenz arms, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 37 (4, 69)]. Consistent virologic and immunologic efficacy was maintained across prespecified demographic and baseline prognostic subgroups for both treatment groups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (49% vs 80%; P < .001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients, with discontinuations due to adverse events in 5% and 7%, respectively. Elevations in fasting lipid levels (including LDL- and HDL-cholesterol) were consistently lower in the raltegravir than efavirenz group (P < .005). Fat gain was 19% in 25 raltegravir recipients and 31% in 32 efavirenz recipients at week 156. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir produced durable viral suppression and immune restoration that was at least equivalent to efavirenz through 156 weeks of therapy. Both regimens were well tolerated, but raltegravir was associated with fewer drug-related clinical adverse events and smaller elevations in lipid levels. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00369941.

Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. METHODS: The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. FINDINGS: 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol -12.6%vs 1.0%, non-HDL cholesterol -15.0%vs 2.6%, and triglycerides -42.2%vs 6.2%. At week 24, 293 (84.4%, 95% CI 80.2-88.1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -11.2 to -1.3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION: Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. FUNDING: Merck.

Antibody persistence ten years after first and second doses of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, and immunogenicity and safety of second and third doses in older adults.

In a study of older adults, first and second doses of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PN23) induced IgG increases for all 8 vaccine serotypes tested. Participants (N=143, mean age 76 years) were re-enrolled to study antibody levels after ten years, and safety and immunogenicity of another PN23 dose. Ten years after first or second doses, mean IgG concentrations exceeded vaccine-naïve levels for 7 of 8 serotypes tested. Second and third doses administered at this time were generally well tolerated and were immunogenic, inducing similar postvaccination levels. Immunogenicity is preserved after multiple PN23 doses without evidence of a lower than expected immune response (i.e., without hyporesponsiveness).

Durable efficacy and safety of raltegravir versus efavirenz when combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: final 5-year results from STARTMRK.

BACKGROUND: STARTMRK, a phase III noninferiority trial of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based therapy in treatment-naive patients, remained blinded until its conclusion at 5 years. We now report the final study results. METHODS: Previously untreated patients without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were eligible for a randomized study of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus either raltegravir or efavirenz. Yearly analyses were planned, with primary and secondary end points stipulated at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients with viral RNA (vRNA) levels <50 copies per milliliter counting noncompleters as failures (NC=F). Changes from baseline CD4 count were computed using an observed-failure approach to missing data. No formal hypotheses were formulated for testing at week 240. RESULTS: Overall, 71 of 281 raltegravir recipients (25%) and 98 of 282 efavirenz recipients (35%) discontinued the study; discontinuations due to adverse events occurred in 14 (5%) and 28 (10%) patients in the respective groups. In the primary NC=F efficacy analysis at week 240, 198 of 279 (71.0%) raltegravir recipients and 171 of 279 (61.3%) efavirenz recipients had vRNA levels <50 copies per milliliter, yielding a treatment difference {Δ [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 9.5 (1.7 to 17.3)}. Generally comparable between-treatment differences were seen in both the protocol-stipulated sensitivity analyses and the prespecified subgroup analyses. The mean (95% CI) increments in baseline CD4 counts at week 240 were 374 and 312 cells per cubic millimeter in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ(95% CI) = 62 (22 to 102)]. Overall, significantly fewer raltegravir than efavirenz recipients experienced neuropsychiatric side effects (39.1% vs 64.2%, P < 0.001) or drug-related clinical adverse events (52.0% vs 80.1%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis of combination therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients at week 240, vRNA suppression rates and increases in baseline CD4 counts were significantly higher in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients. Over the entire study, fewer patients experienced neuropsychiatric and drug-related adverse events in the raltegravir group than in the efavirenz group. Based on better virologic and immunologic outcomes after 240 weeks, raltegravir/tenofovir/emtricitabine seemed to have superior efficacy compared with efavirenz/tenofovir/emtricitabine.