Ritonavir-boosted darunavir combined with raltegravir or tenofovir-emtricitabine in antiretroviral-naive adults infected with HIV-1: 96 week results from the NEAT001/ANRS143 randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV-1 infection includes two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NtRTIs), but these drugs have limitations. We assessed the 96 week efficacy and safety of an NtRTI-sparing regimen. METHODS: Between August, 2010, and September, 2011, we enrolled treatment-naive adults into this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in treatment-naive adults in 15 European countries. The composite primary outcome was change to randomised treatment before week 32 because of insufficient virological response, no virological response by week 32, HIV-1 RNA concentration 50 copies per mL or higher at any time after week 32; death from any cause; any new or recurrent AIDS event; or any serious non-AIDS event. Patients were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral treatment with 400 mg raltegravir twice daily plus 800 mg darunavir and 100 mg ritonavir once daily (NtRTI-sparing regimen) or tenofovir-emtricitabine in a 245 mg and 200 mg fixed-dose combination once daily, plus 800 mg darunavir and 100 mg ritonavir once daily (standard regimen). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01066962. FINDINGS: Of 805 patients enrolled, 401 received the NtRTI-sparing regimen and 404 the standard regimen, with median follow-up of 123 weeks (IQR 112-133). Treatment failure was seen in 77 (19%) in the NtRTI-sparing group and 61 (15%) in the standard group. Kaplan-Meier estimated proportions of treatment failure by week 96 were 17·8% and 13·8%, respectively (difference 4·0%, 95% CI -0·8 to 8·8). The frequency of serious or treatment-modifying adverse events were similar (10·2 vs 8·3 per 100 person-years and 3·9 vs 4·2 per 100 person-years, respectively). INTERPRETATION: Our NtRTI-sparing regimen was non-inferior to standard treatment and represents a treatment option for patients with CD4 cell counts higher than 200 cells per µL. FUNDING: European Union Sixth Framework Programme, Inserm-ANRS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck Laboratories.

INVESTIGATING THE EFFICACY OF CLINICAL TRIAL MONITORING STRATEGIES: Design and Implementation of the Cluster Randomized START Monitoring Substudy.

BACKGROUND: Trial monitoring protects participant safety and study integrity. While monitors commonly go on-site to verify source data, there is little evidence that this practice is efficient or effective. An ongoing international HIV treatment trial (START) provides an opportunity to explore the usefulness of different monitoring approaches. METHODS: All START sites are centrally monitored and required to follow a local monitoring plan requiring specific quality assurance activities. Additionally, sites were randomized (1:1) to receive, or not receive, annual on-site monitoring. The study will determine if on-site monitoring increases the identification of major protocol deviations (eligibility or consent violations, improper study drug use, primary or serious event underreporting, data alteration or fraud). RESULTS: The START study completed enrollment in December 2013, with planned follow-up through December 2016. The monitoring study is ongoing at 196 sites in 34 countries. Results are expected when the START study concludes in December 2016.

Acceptance rate of clinical study endpoints and adequacy of source documentation: experience from clinical study endpoint review in NEAT001/ANRS143.

INTRODUCTION: NEAT001/ANRS143 was an open-label, randomized, non-inferiority study comparing raltegravir+darunavir/r(RGV+DRV/r) vs. tenofovir/emtricitabine+darunavir/r (TDF/FTC+DRV/r) in HIV-infected antiretroviral naïve adults. Primary efficacy outcome was a composite of virological and clinical events by week 96. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical trial units collected and translated supporting documentation (SD) related to the investigator-reported events. A coordinator checked events and SD for consistency and completeness. The Endpoint Review Committee (ERC) determined if clinical events met pre-defined diagnostic criteria in categories "confirmed" or "probable". The ERC of 12 experienced, independent clinicians served in groups of three conducting individual reviews in writing, blinded to treatment arm. Differences of opinion were adjudicated in a second review by direct dialogue between reviewers. "Confirmed" events required adequate SD like laboratory, radiographic or pathology diagnostic reports. "Probable" events were typically based on clinical criteria. RESULTS: Of the 164 serious and 3,964 adverse events reported in the study, 133 qualified for endpoint review, for a total of 153 adjudications: CONCLUSIONS: Blinded endpoint review prevented unacceptably high false positive event rates documenting that real-time ascertainment of clinical endpoints is crucial for appropriateness of the overall results. Non-confirmed events jeopardize the statistical power in this and probably all kinds of clinical studies. The rejection rate was not indicative of poor study conduct - on the contrary over-reporting prevented missing events, which would have adversely impacted the trial. Adequacy of SD and investigator training on possible differences in event criteria in daily pragmatic clinical management compared to protocol defined criteria is essential.