Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effect of Ivermectin 600 µg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin, dosed at 600 µg/kg, daily for 6 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants age ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days, were enrolled from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Participants were randomized to ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n=602), daily vs. placebo daily (n=604) for 6 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, median (interquartile range) age was 48 (38-58) years; 713 (59%) were women; and 1008 (84%) reported ≥2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Median time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [CrI], posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (0.92-1.13; P[HR>1]=0.68). In those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (HR 1.0, 0.6- 1.5; P[HR<1]=0.53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 .

Brief Report: Efficacy and Safety of Oral Islatravir Once Daily in Combination With Doravirine Through 96 Weeks for Treatment-Naive Adults With HIV-1 Infection Receiving Initial Treatment With Islatravir, Doravirine, and Lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: Islatravir (MK-8591) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for treatment and prevention of HIV-1. We present efficacy and safety data for islatravir and doravirine (DOR) through 96 weeks of the phase 2b trial (NCT03272347). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging trial, participants initially received islatravir (0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg) with doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (3TC, 300 mg) or a fixed-dose combination of doravirine, 3TC, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) daily. Beginning at week 24, participants receiving islatravir stopped 3TC if HIV-1 RNA from the prior visit was <50 copies per milliliter and continued taking the assigned islatravir dose (still blinded) with doravirine. All islatravir groups transitioned to open-label use of 0.75 mg between weeks 60 and 84. Efficacy end points at week 96 included the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA of <50 copies per milliliter (FDA Snapshot). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one treatment-naive participants received the study drugs and were included in the analyses. Through week 96, HIV-1 RNA<50 copies per milliliter was maintained in 86.2% (25/29), 90.0% (27/30), and 67.7% (21/31) of participants in the 0.25-, 0.75-, and 2.25-mg islatravir groups, respectively, 81.1% (73/90) of the combined islatravir group, and 80.6% (25/31) of the DOR/3TC/TDF group. One participant in the 2.25-mg islatravir group had Protocol-Defined Virologic Failure after week 48. Drug-related AE rates were higher for DOR/3TC/TDF participants (22.6%) compared with islatravir (combined 7.8%). Two participants (2.2%) receiving islatravir with doravirine and one (3.2%) receiving DOR/3TC/TDF discontinued because of an AE. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine maintained viral suppression through week 96 and were well tolerated regardless of dose.

Islatravir in combination with doravirine for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection receiving initial treatment with islatravir, doravirine, and lamivudine: a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: Islatravir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for the treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of islatravir-based regimens for the treatment of HIV-1. METHODS: We did a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, comparator-controlled, dose-ranging trial at 24 clinics or hospitals in four countries (Chile, France, the UK, and the USA). Treatment-naive adults (≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell counts of at least 200 cells per mL, and a calculated creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min (all within 60 days before study treatment) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of four via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral treatment with one of three doses of islatravir (0·25 mg, 0·75 mg, or 2·25 mg) plus doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (300 mg) or to doravirine (100 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) once daily with placebo (part 1). Treatment groups were stratified according to screening HIV-1 RNA concentration (≤100 000 copies per mL or >100 000 copies per mL). After at least 24 weeks of treatment, participants taking islatravir who achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL switched to a two-drug regimen of islatravir and doravirine (part 2). All participants and study investigators were masked to treatment in part 1; in part 2, the islatravir dose was masked to all participants and investigators, but the other drugs were given open label. The primary efficacy outcomes were the proportions of participants with an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL at weeks 24 and 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach). The primary safety outcomes were the number of participants experiencing adverse events and the number of participants discontinuing study drug owing to adverse events. All participants who received at least one dose of any study drug were included in the analyses. This trial is ongoing, but closed to enrolment of new participants; herein, we report study findings through 48 weeks of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03272347. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2017, and April 25, 2019, 121 participants (mean age 31 years [SD 10·9], 112 [93%] male, 92 [76%] white, 27 [22%] with HIV-1 RNA concentration >100 000 copies per mL) were randomly assigned: 29 to the 0·25 mg, 30 to the 0·75 mg, and 31 to the 2·25 mg islatravir groups, and 31 to the doravirine, lamivudine, and TDF group. At week 24, 26 (90%) of 29 participants in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 30 (100%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 27 (87%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group achieved HIV-1 RNA concentrations lower than 50 copies per mL compared with 27 (87%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 2·8%, 95% CI -14·9 to 20·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 12·9%, -1·6 to 27·5, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and 0·3%, -17·9 to 18·5, for the 2·25 mg islatravir group). At week 48, these data were 26 (90%) of 29 in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 27 (90%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 24 (77%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group compared with 26 (84%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 6·1%, 95% CI -12·4 to 24·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 6·2%, -12·2 to 24·6, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and -6·1%, -27·1 to 14·8, for the 2·75 mg islatravir group). 66 (73%) of participants in the islatravir groups combined and 24 (77%) of those in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group reported at least one adverse event. Two participants in the 2·25 mg islatravir group and one participant in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group discontinued owing to an adverse event. No deaths were reported up to week 48. INTERPRETATION: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine showed antiviral efficacy and were well tolerated regardless of dose. Doravirine in combination with islatravir has the potential to be a potent two-drug regimen that warrants further clinical development. FUNDING: Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.

Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) Versus Efavirenz/Emtricitabine/TDF in Treatment-naive Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection: Week 96 Results of the Randomized, Double-blind, Phase 3 DRIVE-AHEAD Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine (DOR) is a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor. In the phase 3 DRIVE-AHEAD trial in treatment-naive adults with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, DOR demonstrated noninferior efficacy compared with efavirenz (EFV) and superior profiles for neuropsychiatric tolerability and lipids at 48 weeks. We present data through week 96. METHODS: DRIVE-AHEAD is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial in antiretroviral treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/mL. Participants were randomized to a daily fixed-dose tablet of DOR (100 mg), lamivudine (3TC; 300 mg) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) (DOR/3TC/TDF) or EFV (600 mg), emtricitabine (FTC; 200 mg) and TDF (300 mg) (EFV/FTC/TDF). The efficacy end point of interest at week 96 was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL (Food and Drug Administration Snapshot Approach) with a predefined noninferiority margin of 10% to support week 48 results. Safety end points of interest included prespecified neuropsychiatric adverse events and the mean change in fasting lipids at week 96. RESULTS: Of 734 participants randomized, 728 received study drugs and were included in analyses. At week 96, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL was achieved by 77.5% of DOR/3TC/TDF vs 73.6% of EFV/FTC/TDF participants, with a treatment difference of 3.8% (95% confidence interval, -2.4% to 10%). Virologic failure rates were low and similar across treatment arms, with no additional resistance to DOR observed between weeks 48 and 96. Prespecified neuropsychiatric adverse events and rash were less frequent in DOR/3TC/TDF than in EFV/FTC/TDF participants through week 96. At week 96, fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels increased in the EFV/FTC/TDF group but not in the DOR/3TC/TDF group; the mean changes from baseline in total cholesterol/HDL-C ratio were similar. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02403674.

Efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir in treatment-naive Chinese adults with hepatitis C virus infection: A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: In China, clinical experience with direct-acting antiviral treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is still emerging. C-CORAL is a phase 3, multinational, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in participants with HCV infection from the Asia-Pacific region and Russia. Here, we report the data from participants enrolled in China. METHODS: Treatment-naive participants with chronic HCV genotype (GT) 1, GT4, or GT6 infection were randomly assigned to receive 50 mg EBR/100 mg GZR for 12 weeks (immediate-treatment group, ITG) or placebo followed by deferred treatment with EBR/GZR (deferred-treatment group, DTG). The primary efficacy end-point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completing treatment (SVR12), and the primary safety end-point was a comparison of safety between participants receiving EBR/GZR and placebo (NCT02251990; Protocol PN-5172-067). RESULTS: A total of 152 participants in China were randomly assigned (ITG, n = 115; DTG, n = 37). SVR12 was achieved in 96.7% (146/151) participants overall and in 97.3% (142/146) of those with GT1b infection. Four participants relapsed (GT1b, n = 3; GT6a, n = 1). Drug-related AEs were reported in 25 (21.7%) and 9 (24.3%) participants receiving EBR/GZR and placebo, respectively; no drug-related serious adverse events (AEs) occurred. Two (1.7%) participants receiving EBR/GZR had late hepatic transaminase elevations. Patient-reported outcomes indicate improved quality of life at follow-up week 4 in participants receiving EBR/GZR compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: EBR/GZR administered for 12 weeks represents a highly effective and safe treatment option for Chinese individuals with HCV GT1 infection.

Efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir for 8 or 12 weeks for hepatitis C virus genotype 4 infection: A randomized study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 4 infection is prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, particularly in Egypt. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir administered for 8 and 12 weeks in participants with HCV GT4 infection. METHODS: In this partially randomized, open-label multicentre study conducted in France (NCT03111108; Protocol MK5172-096), treatment-naive participants with GT4 infection and F0-F2 fibrosis were randomized 2:1 to elbasvir (50 mg)/grazoprevir (100 mg) for 8 or 12 weeks. Treatment-naive participants with F3-F4 fibrosis and all treatment-experienced participants (F0-F4) were assigned to elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response (SVR) 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen participants were enrolled. Among treatment-naive participants with F0-F2 fibrosis, SVR was achieved by 94% (50/53) and 96% (26/27) of those receiving elbasvir/grazoprevir for 8 or 12 weeks, respectively, and four participants relapsed. In the 12-week arm, 95% (35/37) achieved SVR and two participants relapsed. NS5A resistance-associated substitutions were present at baseline and virologic failure in five of the participants with relapse. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 42% (n = 22) and 50% (n = 32) of participants receiving 8 and 12 weeks of treatment, respectively. No participant discontinued treatment owing to an adverse event. CONCLUSION: These data confirm the efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir administered for 12 weeks in treatment-experienced individuals with HCV GT4 infection and those with advanced fibrosis. Treatment-naive individuals with mild fibrosis can be treated effectively with an 8-week regimen.

Doravirine versus ritonavir-boosted darunavir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 (DRIVE-FORWARD): 96-week results of a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine is a novel, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that has shown non-inferior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted darunavir, with a superior lipid profile, in adults with HIV who were treatment naive at week 48 in the phase 3 DRIVE-FORWARD trial. Here we present the 96-week data for the study. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, double-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 study was undertaken at 125 clinical centres in 15 countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) infected with HIV-1 who were naive to antiretroviral therapy, with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 1000 copies per mL or higher at screening, and no known resistance to any of the study drugs. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive voice and web response system, stratified by baseline HIV-1 RNA concentration and background nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy, to doravirine (100 mg per day) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (100 mg ritonavir and 800 mg darunavir per day), both with investigator-selected nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir and lamivudine. Participants and investigators were masked to treatment assignment until week 96. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who achieved this concentration by week 96, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, regardless of whether it was their randomly assigned treatment. We used a US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and a margin of 10 percentage points to define the non-inferiority of doravirine to ritonavir-boosted darunavir at 96 weeks. Key safety endpoints were change in fasting serum lipid concentrations, the incidence of adverse events, and time to discontinuation due to an adverse event, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02275780, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2014, and Oct 20, 2015, 1027 individuals were screened, of whom 769 participants were randomly assigned to doravirine (n=385) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=384), and 383 in both groups were given at least one dose of their allocated treatment. Most participants were male (645 [84%] of 766) and white (560 [73%]), with a mean age of 35·2 years (SD 10·6). 292 participants in the doravirine group and 273 in the darunavir group completed 96 weeks of treatment. At week 96, a higher proportion of the doravirine group (277 [73%] of 383) achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL than did of the darunavir group (248 [66%] of 383; difference 7·1%, 95% CI 0·5-13·7). Responses were similar regardless of baseline characteristics. Treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug occurred in two (1%) of 383 participants in the doravirine group and one (<1%) of 383 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group. Significant differences were seen between treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in LDL cholesterol (-14·6 mg/dL, 95% CI -18·2 to -11·0) and non-HDL cholesterol (-18·4 mg/dL, -22·5 to -14·3). Frequencies of adverse events were similar between groups. No significant treatment difference (log-rank nominal p=0·063) through week 96 was observed in time to discontinuation due to an adverse event. The most common adverse events (week 0-96) were diarrhoea (65 [17%] in the doravirine group vs 91 [24%] in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group), nausea (45 [12%] vs 52 [14%]), headache (57 [15%] vs 46 [12%]), and upper respiratory tract infection (51 [13%] vs 30 [8%]). Two participants, one in each group, died during treatment; neither death was considered to be related to study medication. INTERPRETATION: These results through 96 weeks support the efficacy and safety results reported previously for doravirine at 48 weeks, supporting the use of doravirine for the long-term treatment of adults with previously untreated HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Merck.

Efficacy and safety of a two-drug direct-acting antiviral agent regimen ruzasvir 180 mg and uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks in adults with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.

Ruzasvir (MK-8408, an NS5A inhibitor) and uprifosbuvir (MK-3682, a nonstructural protein 5B nucleotide inhibitor) are highly potent direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. A phase III clinical trial evaluating the two-drug combination of ruzasvir 60 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg suggested suboptimal efficacy in certain HCV genotypes (C-BREEZE 1; NCT02759315). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ruzasvir in combination with uprifosbuvir administered at a higher dose than that assessed in the earlier study (C-BREEZE 2: NCT02956629/Merck protocol PN041). Treatment-naïve or interferon (with or without ribavirin)-experienced participants with or without compensated cirrhosis were enrolled. All participants received ruzasvir 180 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg once daily for 12 weeks. The primary objectives were the proportion of participants with HCV RNA <15 lU/mL at 12 weeks after the end of study therapy (SVR12), and safety and tolerability of the study drug. Overall, 282 participants were enrolled. SVR12 (n/N) was 91.3% (42/46) in participants infected with HCV genotype (GT) 1a; GT1b, 96.7% (29/30); GT2, 91.5% (43/47); GT3, 73.8% (45/61); GT4, 98.2% (55/56); GT5, 100.0% (18/18); and GT6, 90.9% (20/22). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 61.3% of participants; drug-related AEs were reported by 33.3%. The most frequent (≥5% of participants) drug-related AEs in all participants were fatigue (7.8%) and headache (7.4%). In conclusion, the two-drug combination of ruzasvir 180 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks was highly effective and well tolerated in participants infected with HCV GT1, GT2, GT4, GT5 and GT6, with a lower efficacy in GT3-infected persons.

Switching to Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) Maintains HIV-1 Virologic Suppression Through 48 Weeks: Results of the DRIVE-SHIFT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine is a novel, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor with demonstrated efficacy in treatment-naive adults with HIV-1. METHODS: In this open-label, active-controlled, noninferiority trial, adults with HIV-1 virologically suppressed for ≥6 months on 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus a boosted protease inhibitor, boosted elvitegravir, or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor were randomized (2:1) to switch to once-daily, single-tablet doravirine 100 mg with lamivudine 300 mg and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (DOR/3TC/TDF) or to continue their current therapy (Baseline Regimen) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (defined by the FDA Snapshot approach), with the primary comparison between DOR/3TC/TDF at week 48 and Baseline Regimen at week 24 and a secondary comparison between the groups at week 24 (noninferiority margin, -8%). RESULTS: Six hundred seventy participants (447 DOR/3TC/TDF, 223 Baseline Regimen) were treated and included in the analyses. At week 24, 93.7% on DOR/3TC/TDF vs 94.6% on Baseline Regimen had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL [difference -0.9 (-4.7 to 3.0)]. At week 48, 90.8% on DOR/3TC/TDF had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL, demonstrating noninferiority vs Baseline Regimen at week 24 [difference -3.8 (-7.9 to 0.3)]. In participants on ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor at entry, mean reductions in fasting LDL-C and non-HDL-C at week 24 were significantly greater for DOR/3TC/TDF vs Baseline Regimen (P < 0.0001). Adverse events occurred in 68.9% on DOR/3TC/TDF and 52.5% on Baseline Regimen by week 24, leading to treatment discontinuation in 2.5% and 0.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to once-daily DOR/3TC/TDF is a generally well-tolerated option for maintaining viral suppression in patients considering a change in therapy. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02397096.

Recommendations for analytical antiretroviral treatment interruptions in HIV research trials-report of a consensus meeting.

Analytical antiretroviral treatment interruption (ATI) is an important feature of HIV research, seeking to achieve sustained viral suppression in the absence of antiretroviral therapy (ART) when the goal is to measure effects of novel therapeutic interventions on time to viral load rebound or altered viral setpoint. Trials with ATIs also intend to determine host, virological, and immunological markers that are predictive of sustained viral control off ART. Although ATI is increasingly incorporated into proof-of-concept trials, no consensus has been reached on strategies to maximise its utility and minimise its risks. In addition, differences in ATI trial designs hinder the ability to compare efficacy and safety of interventions across trials. Therefore, we held a meeting of stakeholders from many interest groups, including scientists, clinicians, ethicists, social scientists, regulators, people living with HIV, and advocacy groups, to discuss the main challenges concerning ATI studies and to formulate recommendations with an emphasis on strategies for risk mitigation and monitoring, ART resumption criteria, and ethical considerations. In this Review, we present the major points of discussion and consensus views achieved with the goal of informing the conduct of ATIs to maximise the knowledge gained and minimise the risk to participants in clinical HIV research.

Evaluation of Neural Tube Defects (NTDs) After Exposure to Raltegravir During Pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of neural tube defects (NTDs) after exposure to raltegravir during pregnancy. METHODS: Exposures to raltegravir during pregnancy reported cumulatively through May 31, 2018, to the company safety database were reviewed to identify cases of NTDs. This database includes all reports of pregnancy from Merck-sponsored clinical trials, spontaneous postmarketing reports, and non-interventional data sources, including the Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry (APR). Reports were classified as prospective (before knowledge of pregnancy outcome) or retrospective (after knowledge of pregnancy outcome). We also reviewed data from 2 ongoing pregnancy cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 2426 pregnancies with reported outcomes were identified among women exposed to raltegravir: 1238 from the Merck database and 1188 from United Kingdom/Ireland and French pregnancy cohorts. Among all 2426 reports, 1991 were prospective. No cases of NTDs were identified among the prospective pregnancy reports, of which 767 were first trimester, including 456 in the periconception period (at or within 28 days after conception). Among the 435 retrospective reports, 3 NTD cases per APR criteria were identified (anencephaly, and 2 meningomyelocele), of which only one (meningomyelocele) was among exposures in the periconception period. Given the inherent limitations and bias of retrospective reports, it is not appropriate to calculate an incidence rate. CONCLUSIONS: Prospectively collected pregnancy outcome data do not suggest an association between raltegravir exposure in the periconception period and NTDs. The current data support the updated DHHS and EACS treatment guidelines for use of raltegravir as a preferred integrase inhibitor in all stages of pregnancy.

Efficacy and safety of ruzasvir 60 mg and uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks in adults with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 infection.

In clinical trials, the three-drug regimen of ruzasvir (RZR) 60 mg, uprifosbuvir (UPR) 450 mg and grazoprevir 100 mg, with or without ribavirin, has demonstrated promising efficacy and excellent tolerability across a wide range of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected individuals. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of the two-drug combination of RZR 60 mg plus UPR 450 mg administered for 12 weeks in participants with HCV genotype (GT) 1-6 infection. In this open-label clinical trial, treatment-naive or -experienced and cirrhotic or noncirrhotic participants with chronic HCV GT1-6 infection received RZR 60 mg plus UPR 450 mg orally once daily for 12 weeks (NCT02759315/protocol PN035). The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). One hundred and sixty participants were enrolled. SVR12 rates were 96% (52 of 54) in participants with GT1a infection; 100% (15 of 15) in those with GT1b infection; 97% (28 of 29) in those with GT2 infection; 77% (30 of 39) in those with GT3 infection; 90% (18 of 20) in those with GT4 infection; and 67% (2 of 3) in those with GT6 infection. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) reported by >5% of participants were fatigue (n = 10, 6.3%) and diarrhoea (n = 9, 5.6%). Five participants reported a total of 11 serious AEs, none considered drug-related. One participant experienced on-treatment alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations that resolved without intervention. Data from the present study indicate that the combination of RZR 60 mg plus UPR 450 mg once daily for 12 weeks was well tolerated overall but was effective only for certain genotypes.

Safety and efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir in Asian participants with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 4 infection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Estimates suggest that in Asia, more than 31 million individuals have hepatitis C virus infection. The present analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir in Asian participants enrolled in the elbasvir/grazoprevir phase 2/3 clinical trials. METHODS: This is an integrated analysis of data from 12 international phase 2/3 clinical trials. Asian participants with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 or 4 infection who received elbasvir 50 mg/grazoprevir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks or elbasvir/grazoprevir plus ribavirin for 16 weeks were included in this analysis. The primary end point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after completion of therapy (SVR12). RESULTS: Seven hundred eighty Asian participants from 15 countries were included in this analysis. SVR12 was achieved by 756/780 (96.9%) of all participants, including 748/772 (96.9%) of those who received elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks and 8/8 (100%) of those who received elbasvir/grazoprevir plus ribavirin for 16 weeks. In the genotype 1b-infected population, the SVR12 rate was 691/709 (97.5%), and there was no impact of age, high baseline viral load, or presence of cirrhosis. The most frequently reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis (8.0%), upper respiratory tract infection (5.4%), and diarrhea (5.2%). Twenty participants receiving elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks reported a total of 25 serious adverse events, and 7 (0.9%) discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. CONCLUSION: Elbasvir/grazoprevir administered for 12 weeks is an effective and generally well-tolerated treatment option for Asian individuals with hepatitis C virus genotype 1b infection.

Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate is Non-inferior to Efavirenz/Emtricitabine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Treatment-naive Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Infection: Week 48 Results of the DRIVE-AHEAD Trial.

Background: Doravirine (DOR), a novel non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is active against wild-type Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-1 and the most common NNRTI-resistant variants, and has a favorable and unique in vitro resistance profile. Methods: DRIVE-AHEAD is a phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Antiretroviral treatment-naive adults with ≥1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL were randomized (1:1) to once-daily, fixed-dose DOR at 100 mg, lamivudine at 300 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) at 300 mg (DOR/3TC/TDF) or to efavirenz at 600 mg, emtricitabine at 200 mg, and TDF at 300 mg (EFV/FTC/TDF) for 96 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at week 48 (Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach; non-inferiority margin 10%). Results: Of the 734 participants randomized, 728 were treated (364 per group) and included in the analyses. At week 48, 84.3% (307/364) of DOR/3TC/TDF recipients and 80.8% (294/364) of EFV/FTC/TDF recipients achieved <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL (difference 3.5%, 95% CI, -2.0, 9.0). DOR/3TC/TDF recipients had significantly lower rates of dizziness (8.8% vs 37.1%), sleep disorders/disturbances (12.1% vs 25.2%), and altered sensorium (4.4% vs 8.2%) than EFV/FTC/TDF recipients. Mean changes in fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) were significantly different between DOR/3TC/TDF and EFV/FTC/TDF (-1.6 vs +8.7 mg/dL and -3.8 vs +13.3 mg/dL, respectively). Conclusions: In HIV-1 treatment-naive adults, DOR/3TC/TDF demonstrated non-inferior efficacy to EFV/FTC/TDF at week 48 and was well tolerated, with significantly fewer neuropsychiatric events and minimal changes in LDL-C and non-HDL-C compared with EFV/FTC/TDF. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02403674.

Efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir in participants with hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection from the Asia-Pacific region and Russia: Final results from the randomized C-CORAL study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although treatment with direct-acting antivirals has dramatically improved morbidity and mortality attributable to chronic hepatitis C virus infection, universal access to these medicines has been slow in the Asia-Pacific region and Russia. This study evaluated efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir in participants with hepatitis C virus infection from Asia-Pacific countries and Russia (C-CORAL). METHODS: C-CORAL was a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study (NCT02251990). Treatment-naive, HIV-negative, cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic participants with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection were randomized to elbasvir 50 mg/grazoprevir 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks (immediate-treatment group) or placebo followed by deferred treatment with elbasvir/grazoprevir (deferred-treatment group). The primary efficacy outcome was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks, and the primary safety outcome was a comparison between the immediate-treatment group and placebo phase of the deferred-treatment group. RESULTS: A total of 489 participants were randomized (immediate-treatment group, n = 366; deferred-treatment group, n = 123). Sustained virologic response at 12 weeks in the combined immediate/deferred-treatment groups was 94.4% (459/486; 95% confidence interval = 92.4-96.5%). Sustained virologic response at 12 weeks was 98.2% in participants with genotype 1b, 91.9% with genotype 1a, and 66.7% with genotype 6 infection. Similar rates of adverse events and drug-related adverse events were seen in the immediate-treatment group versus placebo phase of the deferred-treatment group (51.0% vs 50.4% and 21.4% vs 21.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks represents an effective and well-tolerated treatment option for treatment-naive people with genotype 1 infection from Asia-Pacific countries and Russia.

Raltegravir 1200 mg Once Daily vs 400 mg Twice Daily, With Emtricitabine and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate, for Previously Untreated HIV-1 Infection: Week 96 Results From ONCEMRK, a Randomized, Double-Blind, Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir 1200mg (2×600mg tablets) once daily (QD) demonstrated noninferior efficacy and similar safety to raltegravir 400mg twice daily (BID) at week 48 of the ONCEMRK trial. Here, we report the week 96 results from this study. METHODS: ONCEMRK is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, noninferiority trial comparing raltegravir 1200mg QD with raltegravir 400mg BID in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults. Participants were assigned (2:1) to raltegravir 2×600mg QD or 400mg BID, both with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) for 96 weeks. Randomization was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA and hepatitis B/C status. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per milliliter (Food and Drug Administration Snapshot approach); the noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: Of the 797 participants who received study therapy (84.6% were men, 59.3% were white, and mean age was 35.9 years), 694 completed 96 weeks of treatment (87.6% QD; 84.4% BID), with few discontinuations because of lack of efficacy (1.1% for both groups) or adverse events (1.3% QD; 2.3% BID). At week 96, 81.5% (433/531) of QD recipients and 80.1% (213/266) of BID recipients achieved HIV-1 RNA <40 copies per milliliter (difference 1.4%, 95% confidence interval: -4.4 to 7.3). CD4 T-cell counts increased >260 cells/mm from baseline in both groups. Resistance to raltegravir was infrequent, occurring in 0.8% of each treatment group through week 96. Adverse event rates were similar for the 2 regimens. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults receiving FTC/TDF, raltegravir 1200mg QD demonstrated noninferior efficacy to raltegravir 400mg BID that was durable to week 96, with a safety profile similar to raltegravir 400mg BID.

Elbasvir/grazoprevir in black adults with hepatitis C virus infection: a pooled analysis of phase 2/3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: Although direct-acting antiviral regimens have dramatically improved the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, there is some evidence that black race may be an independent predictor of treatment failure. We report a retrospective analysis of black participants receiving elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in nine phase 2/3 clinical trials. METHODS: Black participants with chronic HCV genotype 1 or 4 (GT1 or GT4) infection who received EBR 50 mg/GZR 100 mg once daily for 12 weeks, or in combination with ribavirin for 16 weeks, were included. The primary end point was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after completion of therapy (SVR12, HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL). RESULTS: Compared with nonblack participants (n = 1310), black participants (n = 332) were more likely to have chronic kidney disease stage 4/5 (9.2% vs. 31.0%, respectively), while other comorbidities were similar between the groups. In black and nonblack participants receiving EBR/GZR for 12 weeks, SVR12 rates were 93.7% (282/301) and 94.2% (1072/1138) in those with GT1 infection, and 93.8% (15/16) and 94.6% (88/93) in those with GT4 infection. SVR12 was 100.0% (15/15) in black participants and 97.5% (77/79) in nonblack participants with GT1 infection receiving EBR/GZR plus ribavirin for 16 weeks. Rates of drug-related adverse events (AEs) were 30% vs. 36.6%, and serious AEs were 7.6% vs. 3.4% in black and nonblack participants, respectively. CONCLUSION: EBR/GZR showed high efficacy in black participants with HCV GT1 or GT4 infection and was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that reported overall in phase 2/3 clinical trials.