Rilpivirine vs. efavirenz-based single-tablet regimens in treatment-naive adults: week 96 efficacy and safety from a randomized phase 3b study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare efficacy, safety, tolerability, and patient-reported outcomes between two single-tablet regimens, rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (RPV/FTC/TDF) and efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF), in HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults. DESIGN: This was a phase 3b, 96-week, randomized, open-label, international, noninferiority trial. METHODS: A total of 799 participants were randomized (1 : 1) to receive RPV/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF. The primary efficacy endpoint evaluated proportions of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml using the Snapshot algorithm. Additional assessments included CD4 cell counts, genotypic/phenotypic resistance, adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life questionnaires. RESULTS: At week 96, trial completion rates were 80.2% (316/394; RPV/FTC/TDF) and 74.0% (290/392; EFV/FTC/TDF). Overall, RPV/FTC/TDF was noninferior to EFV/FTC/TDF [HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml: 77.9 vs. 72.4%, respectively; difference -5.5; 95%CI (-0.6, 11.5); P = 0.076]. RPV/FTC/TDF was significantly more efficacious compared with EFV/FTC/TDF in participants with baseline HIV-1 RNA equal to or less than 100 000 copies/ml (78.8 vs. 71.2%; P = 0.046) and in those with CD4 cell count greater than 200 cells/µl (80.6 vs. 73.0%; P = 0.018). There was no significant between-group difference in the CD4 cell count increase (278 ±â€Š189 vs. 259 ±â€Š191 cells/µl; P = 0.17). Few participants developed resistance after week 48 (1.0% RPV/FTC/TDF; 0.3% EFV/FTC/TDF). Compared with EFV/FTC/TDF, RPV/FTC/TDF was associated with fewer adverse event-related discontinuations (3.0 vs. 11.0%; P<0.001), significantly fewer adverse events due to central nervous system issues and rash, greater improvements in patient-reported symptoms, and significant improvements in the SF-12v2 quality of life questionnaire mental health composite score (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: In treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected participants, 96-week RPV/FTC/TDF treatment demonstrated noninferior efficacy and better tolerability than EFV/FTC/TDF.

An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI) are the standard of care for naïve HIV-infected individuals due to their favourable efficacy and safety profile. The newest INSTIs, elvitegravir and dolutegravir, have not been evaluated in a head to head study; however, both have been compared to efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) in phase III trials. Elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (E/C/F/TDF) was compared to EFV/FTC/TDF for 144 weeks in Gilead Study 102 (GS-102), while dolutegravir (DTG) with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination (ABC/3TC) was compared to EFV/FTC/TDF for 96 weeks in the SINGLE study. The objective of this analysis is to perform an indirect comparison at 48 and 96 weeks of E/C/F/TDF to DTG+ABC/3TC by using the two trials evaluating each of these regimens compared to EFV/FTC/TDF. METHODS: An indirect comparison was performed by using Bucher's methodology to calculate risk differences based on the two phase III clinical trials described above. RESULTS: At week 48 (snapshot analysis), 88% of the patients on E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC had HIV RNA <50 c/mL, while 84% and 81% of patients on EFV/FTC/TDF were suppressed in GS-102 and SINGLE, respectively. At week 96, 84% of patients receiving E/C/F/TDF compared with 80% of patients receiving DTG+ABC/3TC remained suppressed, while 82% and 72% on EFV/FTC/TDF maintained HIV RNA <50 c/mL in GS-102 and SINGLE. At week 144 80% of patients on E/C/F/TDF remained suppressed (vs. 75% of the patients on EFV/FTC/TDF). RESULTS of indirect comparison showed a risk difference of HIV RNA <50 copies per mL between E/C/F/TDF compared with DTG+ABC/3TC of -4% (CI 95%=-11 to 3) for the ITT 48 weeks (p=0.3) and -5% (95% CI=-13 to 3) for the ITT 96 weeks (p=0.2). In regards to safety, there was no significant difference between E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC for any adverse event (AE) (p=0.3), serious AEs (0.13), drug related AEs (0.7), or drug-related serious AEs (0.6). CONCLUSIONS: In GS-102 and SINGLE, 88% of the patients on E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC were virologically suppressed at week 48. At week 96, these proportions were 84% for E/C/F/TDF and 80% for DTG+ABC/3TC. The indirect efficacy comparisons between EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC at week 48 and 96 revealed no statistically significant differences.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL: week 96 pooled ECHO/THRIVE subanalysis.

The once daily, single-tablet regimen (STR) combining rilpivirine (RPV), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) provides a simplified treatment option for antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA (BLVL) of ≤100,000 copies/mL. The aim of this analysis is to compare long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of RPV+FTC/TDF vs. efavirenz (EFV)+FTC/TDF as individual components in subjects with BLVL ≤100,000 copies/mL. Week 96 efficacy and safety data from subjects with BLVL ≤100,000 copies/mL, who received daily RPV 25 mg or EFV 600 mg with FTC/TDF in the phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, registrational trials ECHO and THRIVE, were analyzed. Virologic response was evaluated by intent-to-treat, time to loss of virological response (ITT-TLOVR), and Snapshot algorithms. Through Week 96, RPV+FTC/TDF demonstrated non-inferior efficacy to EFV+FTC/TDF (84% vs. 81%, respectively; ITT-TLOVR) in 543 subjects with BLVL ≤100,000 copies/mL, and overall rates of virologic failure (VF) were 5.9% vs. 2.4%, respectively. Resistance development was lower in Year 2 than Year 1. Subjects in both arms with suboptimal adherence (≤95%) had lower virologic responses (63% vs. 62%, respectively). Treatment with RPV+FTC/TDF was associated with significantly fewer treatment-related adverse events (AEs), grade 2-4 AEs, neurological and psychiatric AEs (including dizziness and abnormal dreams/nightmares), and rash. Additionally, grade 2-4 treatment-emergent laboratory abnormalities and grade 1-3 lipid abnormalities were significantly less common with RPV+FTC/TDF than EFV+FTC/TDF. RPV+FTC/TDF demonstrated non-inferior efficacy to EFV+FTC/TDF in ART-naïve subjects with BLVL ≤100,000 copies/mL and was associated with a higher rate of VF but a more favorable safety and tolerability profile through Week 96.