Final 192-Week Efficacy and Safety Results of the ADVANCE Trial, Comparing 3 First-line Antiretroviral Regimens.

Background: ADVANCE compared 3 World Health Organization-recommended first-line regimens in participants with HIV who were antiretroviral naive. Methods: This randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial enrolled participants living with HIV with no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months to 1 of the following arms: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) / emtricitabine (FTC) + dolutegravir (DTG) (2 tablets), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) / FTC + DTG (2 tablets), or a fixed-dose combination of TDF / FTC / efavirenz (EFV) (1 tablet). We report the final safety and efficacy data up to 192 weeks. Results: Repeat consent from the original 351 participants randomized to each arm was obtained from 230 participants (66%) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 209 (60%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 183 (52%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm. At 192 weeks, 213 (61%) of the original 351 participants in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 195 (56%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 172 (49%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm had confirmed RNA <50 copies/mL, with low virologic failure in all groups and no significant integrase inhibitor mutations in any arm. Mean weight gain was 8.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 5.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 3.2 kg (SD, 8.1) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm at 192 weeks from baseline and was greatest among women, those taking TAF, and those with lower baseline CD4 counts. The weight trajectory slowed after week 96. There were few clinical events and minor laboratory changes and differences among arms after 96 weeks. There were no significant differences in treatment-emergent hypertension or pregnancy outcomes by arm. Conclusions: High viral suppression was seen across arms, with no resistance to DTG. Weight gain continued but slowed after 96 weeks, with few clinical events or laboratory changes.

Integration of point-of-care screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension into the COVID-19 vaccine programme in Johannesburg, South Africa.

BACKGROUND: South Africa grapples with a substantial burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly type 2 diabetes (diabetes) and hypertension. However, these conditions are often underdiagnosed and poorly managed, further exacerbated by the strained primary healthcare (PHC) system and the disruptive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Integrating NCD screening with large-scale healthcare initiatives, such as COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, offers a potential solution, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We investigated the feasibility and effectiveness of this integration. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted at four government health facilities in Johannesburg, South Africa. NCD screening was incorporated into the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Participants underwent COVID-19 rapid tests, blood glucose checks, blood pressure assessments, and anthropometric measurements. Those with elevated blood glucose or blood pressure values received referrals for diagnostic confirmation at local PHC centers. RESULTS: Among 1,376 participants screened, the overall diabetes prevalence was 4.1%, combining previously diagnosed cases and newly identified elevated blood glucose levels. Similarly, the hypertension prevalence was 19.4%, comprising pre-existing diagnoses and newly detected elevated blood pressure cases. Notably, 46.1% of participants displayed waist circumferences indicative of metabolic syndrome, more prevalent among females. Impressively, 7.8% of all participants screened were potentially newly diagnosed with diabetes or hypertension. Approximately 50% of individuals with elevated blood glucose or blood pressure successfully linked to follow-up care within four weeks. CONCLUSION: Our study underscores the value of utilizing even brief healthcare interactions as opportunities for screening additional health conditions, thereby aiding the identification of previously undiagnosed cases. Integrating NCD screenings into routine healthcare visits holds promise, especially in resource-constrained settings. Nonetheless, concerted efforts to strengthen care linkage are crucial for holistic NCD management and control. These findings provide actionable insights for addressing the NCD challenge and improving healthcare delivery in LMICs.

The cost of adding rapid screening for diabetes, hypertension, and COVID-19 to COVID-19 vaccination queues in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are responsible for 51% of total mortality in South Africa, with a rising burden of hypertension (HTN) and diabetes mellitus (DM). Incorporating NCD and COVID-19 screening into mass activities such as COVID-19 vaccination programs could offer significant long-term benefits for early detection interventions. However, there is limited knowledge of the associated costs and resources required. We evaluated the cost of integrating NCD screening and COVID-19 antigen rapid diagnostic testing (Ag-RDT) into a COVID-19 vaccination program. Methods: We conducted a prospective cost analysis at three public sector primary healthcare clinics and one academic hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa, conducting vaccinations. Participants were assessed for eligibility and recruited during May-Dec 2022. Costs were estimated from the provider perspective using a bottom-up micro-costing approach and reported in 2022 USD. Results: Of the 1,376 enrolled participants, 240 opted in to undergo a COVID-19 Ag-RDT, and none tested positive for COVID-19. 138 (10.1%) had elevated blood pressure, with 96 (70%) having no prior HTN diagnosis. 22 (1.6%) were screen-positive for DM, with 12 (55%) having no prior diagnosis. The mean and median costs per person screened for NCDs were $2.53 (SD: 3.62) and $1.70 (IQR: $1.38-$2.49), respectively. The average provider cost per person found to have elevated blood glucose levels and blood pressure was $157.99 and $25.19, respectively. Finding a new case of DM and HTN was $289.65 and $36.21, respectively. For DM and DM + HTN screen-positive participants, diagnostic tests were the main cost driver, while staff costs were the main cost driver for - and HTN screen-positive and screen-negative participants. The mean and median cost per Ag-RDT was $6.13 (SD: 0.87) and $5.95 (IQR: $5.55-$6.25), with costs driven mainly by test kit costs. Conclusions: We show the cost of finding new cases of DM and HTN in a vaccine queue, which is an essential first step in understanding the feasibility and resource requirements for such initiatives. However, there is a need for comparative economic analyses that include linkage to care and retention data to fully understand this cost and determine whether opportunistic screening should be added to general mass health activities.

Cost and cost-effectiveness of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral regimens: an economic evaluation of a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV programmes world-wide currently make decisions regarding new antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens with less side-effects and higher resistance barriers, which may improve adherence and viral suppression. Economic evaluation helps inform these decisions. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation of three ART regimens included in the ADVANCE trial from the provider's perspective: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC)+dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC+DTG, compared with TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV). We used top-down and bottom-up cost analysis with resource utilization based on trial data and adjusted to emulate routine care. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of each regimen as cost per person virally suppressed or retained and per life-year saved, at 48 and 96 weeks. RESULTS: Though the DTG-based trial arms were 2% more costly than TDF/FTC/EFV, both had slightly lower cost-per-outcome ($9783 and $9929/patient virally suppressed for TDF/FTC+DTG and TAF/FTC+DTG, respectively) than TDF/FTC/EFV ($10 365). The trial cost per additional virally suppressed patient, compared with TDF/FTC/EFV, was lower in the TDF/FTC+DTG arm ($2967) compared with TAF/FTC+DTG ($3430). In routine care, cost per virally suppressed patient was estimated as similar between TDF/FTC+DTG ($426) and TDF/FTC/EFV ($424) but more costly under TAF/FTC+DTG. Similar results were seen in the cost per additional person retained across scenarios. When modelled over 20 years, TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective than TAF/FTC+DTG ($10 341 vs $41 958/life-year saved). CONCLUSION: TDF/FTC+DTG had similar costs per outcome as TDF/FTC/EFV in the routine care scenario but TDF/FTC+DTG was more cost-effective when modelled over 20 years.

Weight gain stopping/switch rules for antiretroviral clinical trials.

Obesity develops in a substantial number of people initiating and maintaining modern antiretroviral therapy. The comorbidities associated with obesity make significant weight gain and metabolic changes a major consideration in clinical trials studying different regimens' potency and safety. It is as yet unclear what role individual antiretrovirals or classes play in weight gain but the issue is a complex one for clinical trial design, especially when deciding when "too much" weight has been gained, in a context where we do not yet know if switching to alternative regimens will slow, halt or reverse weight gain or metabolic changes. In addition, clinician and trial participant opinion on acceptable weight gain may differ. We offer preliminary guidance for discussion for future antiretroviral clinical trial design.

Dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (ADVANCE): week 96 results from a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: ADVANCE compared the efficacy and safety of two antiretroviral first-line combinations (dolutegravir combined with emtricitabine and either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide), with a third regimen (efavirenz combined with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) previously recommended by WHO. Here, we report the 96-week data for the study. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, was done at two research sites in Johannesburg, South Africa, after participant recruitment from 11 public health clinics also in Johannesburg. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older with HIV-1 infection, who weighed at least 40 kg, had no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months, with a creatinine clearance of more than 60 mL/min (>80 mL per min in individuals aged <19 years), and a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 500 copies per mL or higher. Individuals who were pregnant or had tuberculosis were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by study staff using a computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by age (12 and <19 years and ≥19 years). Participants were randomly assigned to once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg. 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 had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at the week 96 visit, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -10%. Safety data, including clinical, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and laboratory data, are also reported. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122262. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2017, and May 14, 2018, we screened 1453 individuals, of whom 1053 were enrolled: 351 participants were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group. All participants received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the primary analysis. At week 96, 276 (79%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 275 (78%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 258 (74%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group had achieved a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL. Non-inferiority was established in all three comparisons. The proportion of patients with protocol-defined virological failure at week 96 was low in all treatment groups. Participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group had fewer changes in bone density than the two other treatment groups. Mean weight gain was substantial (7·1 kg [SD 7·4] in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group; 4·3 kg [6·7] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 2·3 kg [7·0] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group), and was greater among women than men. Ten (3%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events, of which liver dysfunction (n=4) and rash (n=4) were most common. INTERPRETATION: Medium-term and long-term metabolic and clinical consequences of the considerable increase in bodyweight observed in participants given these antiretroviral regimens and the trajectory of this weight gain over time, especially among women, require further study. FUNDING: USAID, Unitaid, South African Medical Research Council, ViiV Healthcare.

Dolutegravir plus Two Different Prodrugs of Tenofovir to Treat HIV.

BACKGROUND: Two drugs under consideration for inclusion in antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF). There are limited data on their use in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a 96-week, phase 3, investigator-led, open-label, randomized trial in South Africa, in which we compared a triple-therapy combination of emtricitabine (FTC) and DTG plus either of two tenofovir prodrugs - TAF (TAF-based group) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (TDF-based group) - against the local standard-of-care regimen of TDF-FTC-efavirenz (standard-care group). Inclusion criteria included an age of 12 years or older, no receipt of ART in the previous 6 months, a creatinine clearance of more than 60 ml per minute (>80 ml per minute in patients younger than 19 years of age), and an HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of 500 copies or more per milliliter. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with a 48-week HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter (as determined with the Snapshot algorithm from the Food and Drug Administration; noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points). We report the primary (48-week) efficacy and safety data. RESULTS: A total of 1053 patients underwent randomization from February 2017 through May 2018. More than 99% of the patients were black, and 59% were female. The mean age was 32 years, and the mean CD4 count was 337 cells per cubic millimeter. At week 48, the percentage of patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter was 84% in the TAF-based group, 85% in the TDF-based group, and 79% in the standard-care group, findings that indicate that the DTG-containing regimens were noninferior to the standard-care regimen. The number of patients who discontinued the trial regimen was higher in the standard-care group than in the other two groups. In the per-protocol population, the standard-care regimen had equivalent potency to the other two regimens. The TAF-based regimen had less effect on bone density and renal function than the other regimens. Weight increase (both lean and fat mass) was greatest in the TAF-based group and among female patients (mean increase, 6.4 kg in the TAF-based group, 3.2 kg in the TDF-based group, and 1.7 kg in the standard-care group). No resistance to integrase inhibitors was identified in patients receiving the DTG-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DTG combined with either of two tenofovir prodrugs (TAF and TDF) showed noninferior efficacy to treatment with the standard-care regimen. There was significantly more weight gain with the DTG-containing regimens, especially in combination with TAF, than with the standard-care regimen. (ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03122262.).