Safety and efficacy of doravirine as first-line therapy in adults with HIV-1: week 192 results from the open-label extensions of the DRIVE-FORWARD and DRIVE-AHEAD phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: In two phase 3 trials for first-line therapy in adults with HIV-1, doravirine showed non-inferior efficacy, a favourable safety profile, and a superior lipid profile to darunavir and efavirenz through to 48 and 96 weeks. Here we report 192-week results from both studies. METHODS: DRIVE-FORWARD and DRIVE-AHEAD are multicentre, double-blind, randomised, active comparator-controlled, phase 3 trials of first-line antiretroviral treatment in adults with HIV-1. Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) were naive to antiretroviral therapy, had plasma HIV-1 RNA 1000 copies per mL or more at screening, had no known resistance to any of the trial drugs, and had creatinine clearance 50 mL per min or more. DRIVE-FORWARD was conducted at 125 sites in 15 countries and compared doravirine (100 mg) with ritonavir-boosted darunavir (ritonavir [100 mg] and darunavir [800 mg]), each administered orally once daily with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate [300 mg] and emtricitabine [200 mg] or abacavir sulfate [600 mg] and lamivudine [300 mg]). DRIVE-AHEAD was conducted at 126 sites in 23 countries and compared doravirine (100 mg), lamivudine (300 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) with that of efavirenz (600 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), all administered orally once daily. DRIVE-FORWARD enrolment was between Dec 1, 2014, and June 1, 2020, and DRIVE-AHEAD enrolment was between June 10, 2015, and Aug 10, 2020. After the 96-week double-blind phase, eligible participants could enter an open-label extension and either continue doravirine or switch from comparator to doravirine for an additional 96 weeks. Efficacy (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) and safety assessments (adverse events and changes in laboratory parameters) were pooled. The DRIVE-FORWARD and DRIVE-AHEAD trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02275780 and NCT02403674. FINDINGS: Of 1494 participants treated in the double-blind phase (1261 [84%] male and 233 [16%] female), 550 continued doravirine and 502 switched to doravirine in the extension. Using the FDA snapshot approach, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL was maintained in 457 (83%) of 550 participants who continued doravirine and 404 (80%) of 502 participants who switched to doravirine. Protocol-defined virological failure and development of resistance were low, occurring mainly before week 96. Two (<1%) of 550 participants who continued doravirine reported serious drug-related adverse events, and three (1%) who continued doravirine and one (<1%) of 502 who switched to doravirine discontinued due to drug-related adverse events. Participants continuing or switching to doravirine showed generally favourable lipid profiles, little weight gain, and small decreases in estimated glomerular filtration rates, with no discontinuations due to increased creatinine or renal adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Favourable efficacy and safety profiles for doravirine at week 96 were maintained through to week 192 in participants who continued or switched to doravirine, supporting use of doravirine for long-term first-line HIV-1 treatment and for virologically suppressed adults switching therapy. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Fixed-Dose Combination Tablets in Adolescents Living With HIV: Results Through Week 96 from IMPAACT 2014.

BACKGROUND: IMPAACT 2014 study is a phase I/II, multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized study of doravirine (DOR) co-formulated with lamivudine (3TC) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) as fixed-dose combination (DOR FDC) in adolescents with HIV-1. We report the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of DOR FDC through 96 weeks. METHODS: Participants were adolescents aged 12 to <18 years who weighed at least 45 kg and who were either antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve or virologically suppressed without documented resistance mutations to DOR/3TC/TDF. The efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL assessed at weeks 48 and 96 using the observed failure approach. Safety and tolerability outcomes were incidence of adverse events (AEs) and treatment discontinuations. RESULTS: A total of 45 adolescents, median age 15 (range, 12-17) years, 58% females, were enrolled and 2 (4.4%) participants were ARV naïve. Of the 45 participants, 42 (93.3%) completed the study and 41 (91.1%) completed the study treatment. At week 48, 41/42 (97.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 87.4-99.9) and week 96, 37/40 (92.5%; 95% CI, 79.6-98.4) participants had achieved or maintained HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL. There were no treatment-related discontinuations due to AEs and no drug-related AEs ≥grade 3 or deaths. CONCLUSIONS: We found once-daily dosing of DOR FDC to be safe and well tolerated for maintaining viral suppression through 96 weeks in adolescents living with HIV-1.

Pharmacokinetics, Tolerability, and Safety of Doravirine and Doravirine/Lamivudine/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Fixed-Dose Combination Tablets in Adolescents Living With HIV: Week 24 Results From IMPAACT 2014.

BACKGROUND: We studied the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of 100-mg doravirine and doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate fixed-dose combination (100/300/300 mg DOR FDC) treatment in adolescents with HIV-1. METHODS: Adolescents ages 12 to younger than 18 years were enrolled in 2 sequential cohorts. Cohort 1 evaluated intensive PK and short-term safety of 100-mg single-dose doravirine in adolescents ≥35 kg. Cohort 2 participants either initiated treatment with DOR FDC (antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve) or switched to DOR FDC from a previous ARV regimen (virologically suppressed). The first 10 Cohort 2 participants had intensive PK evaluations, and safety, sparse PK, and HIV RNA were assessed through week 24. RESULTS: Fifty-five adolescents, median age 15.0 years and baseline weight 51.5 kg, were enrolled. Nine participants completed Cohort 1 PK assessments (8 of the 9 participants weighed ≥45 kg) and 45 initiated study drug in Cohort 2. The doravirine geometric mean (GM) AUC 0-∞ was 34.8 µM∙hour, and the GM C 24 was 514 nM after a single dose, with a predicted steady-state GM C 24,ss,pred of 690 nM. Cohort 2 enrolled adolescents weighing ≥45 kg. Plasma concentrations of doravirine, tenofovir, and lamivudine achieved by Cohort 2 participants were similar to those reported in adults. No drug-related serious or grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred. Forty-two of 45 participants (93.3%; 95% CI: [81.7, 98.6]) achieved or maintained HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Doravirine and DOR FDC achieved target PK in adolescents with HIV-1. DOR FDC was well-tolerated and maintained excellent virologic efficacy through 24 weeks, offering a favorable option for adolescents.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of once-daily versus twice-daily raltegravir in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients.

QDMRK was a phase III clinical trial of raltegravir given once daily (QD) (800-mg dose) versus twice daily (BID) (400 mg per dose), each in combination with once-daily coformulated tenofovir-emtricitabine, in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. Pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analyses were conducted using a 2-step approach: individual non-model-based PK parameters from observed sparse concentration data were determined, followed by statistical analysis of potential relationships between PK and efficacy response parameters after 48 weeks of treatment. Sparse PK sampling was performed for all patients (QD, n = 380; BID, n = 384); selected sites performed an intensive PK evaluation at week 4 (QD, n = 22; BID, n = 20). In the intensive PK subgroup, daily exposures (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h [AUC(0-24)]) were similar between the two regimens, but patients on 800 mg QD experienced ~4-fold-higher maximum drug concentration in plasma (C(max)) values and ~6-fold-lower trough drug concentration (C(trough)) values than those on 400 mg BID. Geometric mean (GM) C(trough) values were similarly lower in the sparse PK analysis. With BID dosing, there was no indication of any significant PK/PD association over the range of tested PK parameters. With QD dosing, C(trough) values correlated with the likelihood of virologic response. Failure to achieve an HIV RNA level of <50 copies/ml appeared predominantly at high baseline HIV RNA levels in both treatment arms and was associated with lower values of GM C(trough) in the 800-mg-QD arm, though other possible drivers of efficacy, such as time above a threshold concentration, could not be evaluated due to the sparse sampling scheme. Together, these findings emphasize the importance of the shape of the plasma concentration-versus-time curve for long-term efficacy.

Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. METHODS: In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823. FINDINGS: From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100,000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per µL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5·7%, 95% CI -10·7 to -0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. INTERPRETATION: Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. FUNDING: Merck.

Sustained antiretroviral effect of raltegravir after 96 weeks of combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir vs efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy after 96 weeks in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection. METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of raltegravir (100, 200, 400, or 600 mg twice a day) vs efavirenz (600 mg every day), both with tenofovir/lamivudine (TDF/3TC), for 48 weeks, after which raltegravir arms were combined and all dosed at 400 mg twice a day. Eligible patients had HIV-1 RNA > or =5000 copies per milliliter and CD4 T cells > or =100 cells per microliter. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomized and treated; 160 received raltegravir and 38 received efavirenz. At week 96, 84% of patients in both groups achieved HIV-1 RNA <400 copies per milliliter; 83% in the raltegravir group and 84% in the efavirenz group achieved <50 copies per milliliter (noncompleter = failure). Both groups showed similar increases in CD4 T cells (221 vs 232 cells/uL, respectively). An additional 2 patients (1 in each group) met the protocol definition of virologic failure between weeks 48 and 96; no known resistance mutations were observed in the raltegravir recipient; the efavirenz recipient had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations. Investigator reported drug-related clinical adverse events (AEs) were less frequent with raltegravir (51%) than efavirenz (74%). Drug-related AEs occurring in >10% of patients in either group were nausea in both groups and dizziness and headache in the efavirenz group. Laboratory AEs remained infrequent. Raltegravir had no adverse effect on total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or on triglycerides. Neuropsychiatric AEs remained less frequent with raltegravir (34%) than efavirenz (58%). There were no drug-related serious AEs in patients receiving raltegravir. CONCLUSIONS: In antiretroviral therapy-naive patients, raltegravir with TDF/3TC had potent antiretroviral activity, which was similar to efavirenz/TDF/3TC and was sustained to week 96. Raltegravir was generally well tolerated; drug-related AEs were less frequent in patients treated with raltegravir compared with efavirenz.