Virologic outcomes with tenofovir-lamivudine-dolutegravir in adults failing PI-based second-line ART.

Background: In South African antiretroviral guidelines, selected patients failing second-line protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapy qualify for genotypic resistance testing - those with PI resistance receive darunavir-based third-line regimens; those without PI resistance continue current regimen with adherence support. The Western Cape province, from September 2020, implemented a strategy of tenofovir-lamivudine-dolutegravir (TLD) for patients, provided there was no tenofovir resistance, irrespective of PI resistance. Objectives: To evaluate virologic outcomes with TLD among adults failing second-line PI regimens with no tenofovir resistance. Method: An observational cohort study comparing outcomes in patients switched to TLD with those continuing the same PI or switched to darunavir-based regimens. Follow-up was until virologic suppression (HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL), or at the point of censoring. Results: One hundred and thirty-three patients switched to TLD, 101 to darunavir-based regimens, and 121 continued with the same PI. By 12 months, among patients with PI resistance, 42/47 (89%) in the TLD group had HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL compared to 91/99 (92%) in the darunavir group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.60). In patients without PI resistance, 66/86 (77%) in the TLD group had HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL compared to 42/120 (35%) in those continuing with the same PI (hazard ratio, 4.03; 95% confidence interval, 2.71-5.98). Two patients receiving TLD developed virologic failure with high-level dolutegravir resistance. Conclusion: Amongst patients failing second-line PI with no PI resistance, switching to TLD was associated with higher virologic suppression, likely due to improved adherence. Virologic outcomes were similar in patients with PI resistance switched to darunavir-based regimens or TLD.

Pharmacokinetics of Single-Dose Versus Double-Dose Dolutegravir After Switching From a Failing Efavirenz-Based Regimen.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir exposure is reduced after switching from efavirenz, which could select for dolutegravir resistance if switching occurs during virologic failure. METHODS: We measured serial dolutegravir trough concentrations after switching from efavirenz in a clinical trial, which randomized some participants to a supplemental dolutegravir dose or placebo for the first 14 days. Changes in dolutegravir trough concentrations between days 3, 7, 14, and 28 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the geometric mean ratio of dolutegravir trough concentrations on day 7 versus day 28. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants received double-dose dolutegravir (50 mg twice daily) and 11 standard dose for the first 14 days. Baseline characteristics were 77% female, median age 36 years, CD4 cell count 254 cells/mm3, and HIV-1 RNA 4.0 log10 copies/mL. The geometric mean ratio (90% CI) of dolutegravir trough concentrations on day 7 versus day 28 was 0.637 (0.485 to 0.837) in the standard-dose group and 1.654 (1.404 to 1.948) in the double-dose group. There was a prolonged induction effect at day 28 in participants with efavirenz slow metaboliser genotypes. One participant in the double-dose group had a dolutegravir trough concentration below the protein-binding adjusted concentration needed to inhibit 90% of HIV-1 (PA-IC90) at day 3. CONCLUSIONS: No participants on standard-dose dolutegravir had dolutegravir trough concentrations below the PA-IC90. Slow efavirenz metaboliser genotypes had higher baseline efavirenz concentrations and more pronounced and longer period of induction postswitch. These findings suggest that a 14-day lead-in supplemental dolutegravir dose may not be necessary when switching from a failing efavirenz-based first-line regimen.

Standard-dose versus double-dose dolutegravir in HIV-associated tuberculosis in South Africa (RADIANT-TB): a phase 2, non-comparative, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The drug-drug interaction between rifampicin and dolutegravir can be overcome by supplemental dolutegravir dosing, which is difficult to implement in high-burden settings. We aimed to test whether virological outcomes with standard-dose dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) are acceptable in people with HIV on rifampicin-based antituberculosis therapy. METHODS: RADIANT-TB was a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, non-comparative, placebo-controlled trial at a single site in Khayelitsha, Cape Town, South Africa. Participants were older than 18 years of age, with plasma HIV-1 RNA greater than 1000 copies per mL, CD4 count greater than 100 cells per µL, ART-naive or first-line ART interrupted, and on rifampicin-based antituberculosis therapy for less than 3 months. By use of permuted block (block size of 6) randomisation, participants were assigned (1:1) to receive either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, lamivudine, and dolutegravir plus supplemental 50 mg dolutegravir 12 h later or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, lamivudine, and dolutegravir plus matched placebo 12 h later. Participants received standard antituberculosis therapy (rifampicin, isoniazid, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol for the first 2 months followed by isoniazid and rifampicin for 4 months). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with virological suppression (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 24 analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03851588. FINDINGS: Between Nov 28, 2019, and July 23, 2021, 108 participants (38 female, median age 35 years [IQR 31-40]) were randomly assigned to supplemental dolutegravir (n=53) or placebo (n=55). Median baseline CD4 count was 188 cells per µL (IQR 145-316) and median HIV-1 RNA was 5·2 log10 copies per mL (4·6-5·7). At week 24, 43 (83%, 95% CI 70-92) of 52 participants in the supplemental dolutegravir arm and 44 (83%, 95% CI 70-92) of 53 participants in the placebo arm had virological suppression. No treatment-emergent dolutegravir resistance mutations were detected up to week 48 in the 19 participants with study-defined virological failure. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were similarly distributed between the study arms. The most frequent grade 3 and 4 adverse events were weight loss (4/108 [4%]), insomnia (3/108 [3%]), and pneumonia (3/108 [3%]). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that twice-daily dolutegravir might be unnecessary in people with HIV-associated tuberculosis. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust.

Initial Supplementary Dose of Dolutegravir in Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy: A Noncomparative, Double-Blind, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Dolutegravir concentrations are reduced by efavirenz induction effect necessitating twice-daily dolutegravir dosing when coadministered. Efavirenz induction persists for several weeks after stopping, which could potentially select for dolutegravir resistance if switching occurred with unsuppressed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA levels and standard dolutegravir dosing. We evaluated the need for a lead-in supplementary dolutegravir dose in adults failing first-line tenofovir-emtricitabine-efavirenz (TEE). METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial in Khayelitsha, South Africa. Eligible patients had virologic failure (2 consecutive HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/mL) on first-line TEE. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to tenofovir-lamivudine-dolutegravir (TLD) with a supplementary 50 mg dolutegravir dose or placebo taken 12 hours later for 14 days. Primary outcome was proportion with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24. This study was not powered to compare arms. RESULTS: One hundred thirty participants were randomized (65 to each arm). Median baseline HIV-1 RNA was 4.0 log10 copies/mL and 76% had baseline resistance to both tenofovir and lamivudine. One participant died and 2 were lost to follow-up. At week 24, 55 of 64 (86% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 75%-93%]) in the supplementary dolutegravir arm and 53 of 65 (82% [95% CI: 70%-90%]) in the placebo arm had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar in frequency between arms. None of 6 participants (3 in each arm) eligible for resistance testing by 24 weeks developed dolutegravir resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not support the need for initial dolutegravir dose adjustment in patients switching to TLD who failed first-line TEE. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03991013.

Recycling Tenofovir in Second-line Antiretroviral Treatment With Dolutegravir: Outcomes and Viral Load Trajectories to 72 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Recycling tenofovir and lamivudine/emtricitabine with dolutegravir (TLD) after failure of non-nucleoside transcriptase inhibitor first-line antiretroviral therapy is more tolerable and scalable than dolutegravir plus optimized nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Studies have demonstrated TLD's efficacy as second line, but long-term follow-up is limited. METHODS: ARTIST is a single arm, prospective, interventional study conducted in Khayelitsha, South Africa, which switched 62 adults with 2 viral loads >1000 copies/mL from tenofovir, lamivudine/emtricitabine, and an non-nucleoside transcriptase inhibitor to TLD. We report efficacy to 72 weeks and, in a post hoc analysis, evaluated viral load trajectories of individuals with viremic episodes. RESULTS: Virologic suppression was 86% [95% confidence interval (CI) 74 to 93], 74% (95% CI: 61 to 84), and 75% (95% CI: 63 to 86) <50 copies/mL and 95%, 84%, and 77% <400 copies/mL at week 24, 48, and 72, respectively, with 89% (50/56) resistant (Stanford score ≥15) to tenofovir and/or lamivudine preswitch. No participants developed integrase-inhibitor resistance. Of the 20 participants not suppressed at week 24 and/or 48, 2 developed virologic failure, 1 switched regimen (adverse event), 2 were lost to follow-up, 1 missed the visit, 1 transferred out, 9 resuppressed <50 copies/mL with enhanced adherence counseling, and 4 remained viremic (3 with <200 copies/mL) at week 72. CONCLUSIONS: Recycling NRTIs with dolutegravir was effective for most participants to 72 weeks. Most with viremia did not develop virologic failure and subsequently suppressed with enhanced adherence counseling or continued to have low-level viremia. No integrase-inhibitor resistance was detected despite low-level viremia in a minority of participants.