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.

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.

Elbasvir/Grazoprevir for Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection and Inherited Blood Disorders: A Phase III Study.

Direct-acting antiviral agents have not been studied exclusively in patients with inherited blood disorders and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The objective of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III C-EDGE IBLD study was to assess the safety and efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in patients with inherited bleeding disorders and HCV infection. One hundred fifty-nine adults with HCV infection and sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, or hemophilia A/B or von Willebrand disease were enrolled at 31 study sites in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, Israel, and Thailand. Patients were given an oral, once-daily, fixed-dose combination of EBR/GZR 50 mg/100 mg for 12 weeks and randomized to the immediate-treatment group (ITG) or deferred-treatment group (DTG; placebo followed by active treatment). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients in the ITG with unquantifiable HCV RNA 12 weeks posttreatment (sustained virological response 12 weeks after completion of study treatment; SVR12) and the comparison of safety in the ITG and DTG. In the ITG, 100 of 107 patients (93.5%) achieved SVR12, 6 relapsed, and 1 was lost to follow-up. SVR12 was achieved in 94.7% (18 of 19), 97.6% (40 of 41), and 89.4% (42 of 47) of patients with sickle cell disease, ß-thalassemia, and hemophilia A/B or von Willebrand disease, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported by 2.8% (n = 3) and 11.5% (n = 6) of patients in the ITG and DTG, respectively. Hemoglobin levels and international normalized ratio values were similar in patients receiving EBR/GZR and placebo; among patients with hemoglobinopathies, change in mean hemoglobin levels was similar in those receiving EBR/GZR compared to those receiving placebo. CONCLUSION: These results add to the expanding pool of data available for EBR/GZR, indicating a high level of efficacy and favorable tolerability in patients with HCV infection. (Hepatology 2017;66:736-745).

Efficacy of elbasvir and grazoprevir in participants with hepatitis C virus genotype 4 infection: A pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this integrated analysis was to assess the efficacy of the once-daily combination of elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 100 mg, with and without ribavirin in HCV genotype 4 (GT4)-infected participants enrolled in the Phase 2/3 clinical programme with elbasvir/grazoprevir. METHODS: Treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced participants 18 years of age or older with chronic HCV GT4 infection and baseline HCV RNA ≥10 000 IU/mL were included in the analysis. The analysis population was the full analysis set (FAS; all participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication) and a total of 155 HCV GT4 participants were evaluated. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12; HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantitation at 12 weeks after the completion of study therapy). RESULTS: Overall, among GT4-infected participants treated with 12 or 16 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir ± ribavirin, the SVR12 efficacy rates were 96.4% (107/111) in treatment-naïve participants and 88.6% (39/44) in treatment-experienced participants. The SVR12 rates were 96.0% (97/101) in treatment-naïve participants treated with 12 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir and 100% (8/8) in treatment-experienced participants treated with 16 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir plus ribavirin. Efficacy was not impacted by GT4 subtype. CONCLUSIONS: The regimens of 12 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir without ribavirin, and 16 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir plus ribavirin, were efficacious in HCV GT4-infected treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced participants respectively. Baseline NS5A resistance-associated substitutions did not impact the efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir in GT4-infected participants.

Elbasvir-Grazoprevir to Treat Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Persons Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in persons who inject drugs (PWID). Objective: To evaluate elbasvir-grazoprevir in treating HCV infection in PWID. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105688). Setting: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Patients: 301 treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection who were at least 80% adherent to visits for opioid agonist therapy (OAT). Intervention: The immediate-treatment group (ITG) received elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks; the deferred-treatment group (DTG) received placebo for 12 weeks, no treatment for 4 weeks, then open-label elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks. Measurements: The primary outcome was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), evaluated separately in the ITG and DTG. Other outcomes included SVR24, viral recurrence or reinfection, and adverse events. Results: The SVR12 was 91.5% (95% CI, 86.8% to 95.0%) in the ITG and 89.5% (95% CI, 81.5% to 94.8%) in the active phase of the DTG. Drug use at baseline and during treatment did not affect SVR12 or adherence to HCV therapy. Among 18 patients with posttreatment viral recurrence through 24-week follow-up, 6 had probable reinfection. If the probable reinfections were assumed to be responses, SVR12 was 94.0% (CI, 89.8% to 96.9%) in the ITG. One patient in the ITG (1 of 201) and 1 in the placebo-phase DTG (1 of 100) discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Limitation: These findings may not be generalizable to PWID who are not receiving OAT, nor do they apply to persons with genotype 3 infection, a common strain in PWID. Conclusion: Patients with HCV infection who were receiving OAT and treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir had high rates of SVR12, regardless of ongoing drug use. These results support the removal of drug use as a barrier to interferon-free HCV treatment for patients receiving OAT. Primary Funding Source: Merck & Co.

Efficacy and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin: A phase III randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Direct-acting antiviral agents have improved treatment outcomes for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; however, head-to-head comparisons are limited. The C-EDGE Head-2-Head Study compared the safety and efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) with sofosbuvir plus pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SOF/PR) in patients with HCV infection. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, phase III trial. Two hundred fifty-seven patients with HCV genotype (GT)1 or 4 infection and baseline viral load >10,000IU/ml were randomized to receive 12weeks of EBR/GZR 50mg/100mg once daily (n=129) or sofosbuvir (400mg once daily) plus PR (n=128). Primary efficacy objective was sustained virologic response 12weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12, HCV RNA <15IU/ml). The primary safety objective was the proportion of patients experiencing a tier 1 safety event. RESULTS: The majority of patients were non-cirrhotic (83.1%), treatment-naïve (74.9%) and had HCV GT1b infection (82.0%). SVR12 rates were 99.2% (128/129) and 90.5% (114/126) in the EBR/GZR and SOF/PR groups, respectively. The estimated adjusted difference in SVR12 was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.6-15.3%). Because the lower bound of the 1-sided 1-sample exact test was greater than -10% and greater than zero, both non-inferiority and superiority of EBR/GZR vs. SOF/PR were established. The frequency of tier 1 safety events was lower among patients receiving EBR/GZR than SOF/PR (0.8% vs. 27.8%, between group difference, 27.0% [95% CI, -35.5% to -19.6%; p<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: EBR/GZR has a superior efficacy and safety profile in patients with HCV GT1 or 4 infection compared with SOF/PR. LAY SUMMARY: The combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12weeks was highly effective in treating patients with chronic hepatitis C, genotypes 1 or 4 infection. This regimen was more effective than sofosbuvir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin for 12weeks, and was notably superior in patients regarded as difficult to treat, including those with previous treatment failure, cirrhosis, or a high baseline viral load. The combination of elbasvir/grazoprevir also demonstrated a superior safety and tolerability profile based on fewer serious adverse events, no serious drug-related adverse events, and no treatment discontinuations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT02358044.

Grazoprevir plus elbasvir in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (the C-SURFER study): a combination phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease increases the risk of death and renal graft failure, yet patients with hepatitis C and chronic kidney disease have few treatment options. This study assesses an all-oral, ribavirin-free regimen in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease. METHODS: In this phase 3 randomised study of safety and observational study of efficacy, patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and chronic kidney disease (stage 4-5 with or without haemodialysis dependence) were randomly assigned to receive grazoprevir (100 mg, NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and elbasvir (50 mg, NS5A inhibitor; immediate treatment group) or placebo (deferred treatment group) once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice response system. An additional cohort of patients who were not randomised received the same regimen open-label and underwent intensive pharmacokinetic sampling. The primary efficacy outcome was a non-randomised comparison of sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) after the end of therapy for the combined immediate treatment group and the pharmacokinetic population with a historical control. The primary safety outcome was a randomised comparison between the immediate treatment group and the deferred treatment group. After 4 weeks of follow-up (study week 16), unmasking occurred and patients in the deferred treatment group received grazoprevir and elbasvir. The primary efficacy hypothesis was tested at a two-sided significance level (type I error) of 0·05 using an exact test for a binomial proportion. Safety event rates were compared between immediate treatment and deferred treatment groups using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with baseline dialysis status as the strata. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092350. FINDINGS: 224 patients were randomly assigned to the immediate treatment group with grazoprevir and elbasvir (n=111) or the deferred treatment group (n=113), and 11 were assigned to the intensive pharmacokinetic population. Overall, 179 (76%) were haemodialysis-dependent, 122 (52%) had HCV genotype 1a infection, 189 (80%) were HCV treatment-naive, 14 (6%) were cirrhotic, and 108 (46%) were African American. Of the 122 patients receiving grazoprevir and elbasvir, six were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis for non-virological reasons (death, lost-to-follow-up [n=2], non-compliance, patient withdrawal, and withdrawal by physician for violent behaviour). No patients in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population and five (4%) in the deferred treatment group discontinued because of an adverse event. Most common adverse events were headache, nausea, and fatigue, occurring at similar frequencies in patients receiving active and placebo drugs. SVR12 in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population was 99% (95% CI 95·3-100·0; 115/116), with one relapse 12 weeks after end of treatment when compared with a historical control of 45%, based on meta-analyses of interferon-based regimens used in clinical trials of patients infected with HCV who are on haemodialysis. INTERPRETATION: Once-daily grazoprevir and elbasvir for 12 weeks had a low rate of adverse events and was effective in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

Grazoprevir-Elbasvir Combination Therapy for Treatment-Naive Cirrhotic and Noncirrhotic Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1, 4, or 6 Infection: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Novel interferon- and ribavirin-free regimens are needed to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of grazoprevir (NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and elbasvir (NS5A inhibitor) in treatment-naive patients. DESIGN: Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105467). SETTING: 60 centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Scandinavia, and Asia. PATIENTS: Cirrhotic and noncirrhotic treatment-naive adults with genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection. INTERVENTION: Oral, once-daily, fixed-dose grazoprevir 100 mg/elbasvir 50 mg for 12 weeks, stratified by fibrosis and genotype. Patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to immediate or deferred therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients in the immediate-treatment group achieving unquantifiable HCV RNA 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12); adverse events in both groups. RESULTS: Among 421 participants, 194 (46%) were women, 157 (37%) were nonwhite, 382 (91%) had genotype 1 infection, and 92 (22%) had cirrhosis. Of 316 patients receiving immediate treatment, 299 of 316 (95% [95% CI, 92% to 97%]) achieved SVR12, including 144 of 157 (92% [CI, 86% to 96%]) with genotype 1a, 129 of 131 (99% [CI, 95% to 100%]) with genotype 1b, 18 of 18 (100% [CI, 82% to 100%]) with genotype 4, 8 of 10 (80% [CI, 44% to 98%]) with genotype 6, 68 of 70 (97% [CI, 90% to 100%]) with cirrhosis, and 231 of 246 (94% [CI, 90% to 97%]) without cirrhosis. Virologic failure occurred in 13 patients (4%), including 1 case of breakthrough infection and 12 relapses, and was associated with baseline NS5A polymorphisms and emergent NS3 or NS5A variants or both. Serious adverse events occurred in 9 (2.8%) and 3 (2.9%) patients in the active and placebo groups, respectively (difference <0.05 percentage point [CI, -5.4 to 3.1 percentage points]); none were considered drug related. The most common adverse events in the active group were headache (17%), fatigue (16%), and nausea (9%). LIMITATION: The study lacked an active-comparator control group and included relatively few genotype 4 and 6 infections. CONCLUSION: Grazoprevir-elbasvir achieved high SVR12 rates in treatment-naive cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection. This once-daily, all-oral, fixed-combination regimen represents a potent new therapeutic option for chronic HCV infection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Merck & Co.

Acute Kidney Injury After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Guided by Intravascular Ultrasound.

Purpose We investigated the impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on reducing the incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods Ninety-nine patients were enrolled in this prospective cohort who were not randomly assigned to angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention or intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. The patients were hospitalized at the Vietnam National Heart Institute - Bach Mai Hospital between 2019 and 2020. Acute kidney injury incidence during hospitalization was the primary endpoint. Results A total of 99 patients were divided into two groups: the intravascular ultrasound-guided group (33 participants) and the angiography-guided group (66 participants). The mean ± SD contrast volume of each group was 95.2 ± 37.1 mL and 133.0 ± 36.0 mL for the ultrasound-guided and angiography-guided groups, with P < 0.0001. Intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (IVUS-guided PCI) was associated with reduced acute kidney injury incidence during hospitalization: 0.0% vs. 12.12% and P = 0.049. Conclusions Intravascular ultrasound is a safe imaging tool that guides percutaneous coronary intervention and significantly reduces the rate of acute kidney injury compared to angiography alone. Patients who have a high chance of experiencing acute kidney injury benefit from using intravascular ultrasound.

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.

Efficacy of raltegravir versus efavirenz when combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients: week-192 overall and subgroup analyses from STARTMRK.

We compared 4 years of antiretroviral therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine and either raltegravir or efavirenz from the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. Through 192 weeks, raltegravir produced durable and consistent viral suppression and immune restoration compared with efavirenz irrespective of baseline demographic and prognostic factors, including in patients with high viral loads.

A nucleoside- and ritonavir-sparing regimen containing atazanavir plus raltegravir in antiretroviral treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients: SPARTAN study results.

BACKGROUND: Nucleoside and ritonavir (RTV) toxicities have led to increased interest in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and RTV-sparing antiretroviral regimens. SPARTAN was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, noncomparative pilot study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and resistance profile of an investigational NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen (experimental atazanavir [ATV] dose 300 mg bid + raltegravir [RAL] 400 mg bid [ATV+RAL]). The reference regimen consisted of ATV 300 mg/RTV 100 mg qd + tenofovir (TDF) 300 mg/emtricitabine (FTC) 200 mg qd (ATV/r+TDF/FTC). METHODS: Treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA ≥5,000 copies/mL were randomized 2:1 to receive twice-daily ATV+RAL (n=63) or once-daily ATV/r+TDF/FTC (n=31). Efficacy at 24 weeks was determined by confirmed virologic response (CVR; HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL) with noncom-pleters counted as failures based on all treated subjects. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with CVR HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 74.6% (47/63) in the ATV+RAL arm and 63.3% (19/30) in the ATV/r+TDF/FTC arm. Systemic exposure to ATV in the ATV+RAL regimen was higher than historically observed with ATV/r+TDF/ FTC. Incidence of Grade 4 hyperbilirubinemia was higher on ATV+RAL (20.6%; 13/63) than on ATV/r+TDF/FTC (0%). The criteria for resistance testing (virologic failure [VF]: HIV-RNA ≥400 copies/mL) was met in 6/63 patients on ATV+RAL, and 1/30 on ATV/r+TDF/FTC; 4 VFs on ATV+RAL developed RAL resistance. CONCLUSIONS: ATV+RAL, an experimental NRTI- and RTV-sparing regimen, achieved virologic suppression rates comparable to current standards of care for treatment-naïve patients. The overall profile did not appear optimal for further clinical development given its development of resistance to RAL and higher rates of hyperbilirubinemia with twice-daily ATV compared with ATV/RTV.

Long-term treatment with raltegravir or efavirenz combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine for treatment-naive human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients: 156-week results from STARTMRK.

BACKGROUND: We compared 3 years of antiretroviral therapy with raltegravir or efavirenz as part of a combination regimen in the ongoing STARTMRK study of treatment-naive patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). METHODS: Eligible patients with HIV-1 RNA (vRNA) levels >5000 copies/mL and without baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine were randomized in a double-blind, noninferiority study to receive raltegravir or efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine. Outcomes included viral suppression, adverse events, and changes from baseline metabolic parameters. Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans were obtained on a convenience sample of patients at prespecified time points to assess changes in body fat composition. RESULTS: At week 156 counting noncompleters as failures, 212 (75.4%) of 281 versus 192 (68.1%) of 282 had vRNA levels <50 copies/mL in the raltegravir and efavirenz groups, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 7.3% (-0.2, 14.7), noninferiority P < .001]. Mean changes from baseline CD4 count were 332 and 295 cells/mm³ in the raltegravir and efavirenz arms, respectively [Δ (95% CI) = 37 (4, 69)]. Consistent virologic and immunologic efficacy was maintained across prespecified demographic and baseline prognostic subgroups for both treatment groups. Fewer drug-related clinical adverse events (49% vs 80%; P < .001) occurred in raltegravir than efavirenz recipients, with discontinuations due to adverse events in 5% and 7%, respectively. Elevations in fasting lipid levels (including LDL- and HDL-cholesterol) were consistently lower in the raltegravir than efavirenz group (P < .005). Fat gain was 19% in 25 raltegravir recipients and 31% in 32 efavirenz recipients at week 156. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with tenofovir/emtricitabine in treatment-naive patients, raltegravir produced durable viral suppression and immune restoration that was at least equivalent to efavirenz through 156 weeks of therapy. Both regimens were well tolerated, but raltegravir was associated with fewer drug-related clinical adverse events and smaller elevations in lipid levels. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT00369941.

Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: To reduce lipid abnormalities and other side-effects associated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one or more components of their regimen. We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy. METHODS: The SWITCHMRK 1 and 2 studies were multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, phase 3, randomised controlled trials. HIV-infected patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had documented viral RNA (vRNA) concentration below the limit of assay quantification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen. 707 eligible patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice daily; n=354), while continuing background therapy consisting of at least two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Primary endpoints were the mean percentage change in serum lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12; the proportion of patients with vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 (with all treated patients who did not complete the study counted as failures) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12% for each study; and the frequency of adverse events up to 24 weeks. Analyses were done according to protocol. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00443703 and NCT00443729. FINDINGS: 702 patients received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the efficacy and safety analyses for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352). Percentage changes in lipid concentrations from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater (p<0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combined results for total cholesterol -12.6%vs 1.0%, non-HDL cholesterol -15.0%vs 2.6%, and triglycerides -42.2%vs 6.2%. At week 24, 293 (84.4%, 95% CI 80.2-88.1) of 347 patients in the raltegravir group had vRNA concentration less than 50 copies per mL compared with 319 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -11.2 to -1.3). Clinical and laboratory adverse events occurred at similar frequencies in the treatment groups. There were no serious drug-related adverse events or deaths. The only drug-related clinical adverse event of moderate to severe intensity reported in 1% or more of either treatment group was diarrhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the raltegravir group. The studies were terminated at week 24 because of lower than expected virological efficacy in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group. INTERPRETATION: Although switching to raltegravir was associated with greater reductions in serum lipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir. FUNDING: Merck.

Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS: In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Subgroup and resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS: We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. RESULTS: Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Long-term efficacy and safety of Raltegravir combined with optimized background therapy in treatment-experienced patients with drug-resistant HIV infection: week 96 results of the BENCHMRK 1 and 2 Phase III trials.

BENCHMRK-1 and -2 are ongoing double-blind phase III studies of raltegravir in patients experiencing failure of antiretroviral therapy with triple-class drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus infection. At week 96 (combined data), raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) plus optimized background therapy was generally well tolerated, with superior and durable antiretroviral and immunological efficacy, compared with optimized background therapy alone.

Safety and efficacy of raltegravir-based versus efavirenz-based combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: a multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of raltegravir with optimum background therapy is effective and well tolerated in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. We compared the safety and efficacy of raltegravir with efavirenz as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Patients from 67 study centres on five continents were enrolled between Sept 14, 2006, and June 5, 2008. Eligible patients were infected with HIV-1, had viral RNA (vRNA) concentration of more than 5000 copies per mL, and no baseline resistance to efavirenz, tenofovir, or emtricitabine. Patients were randomly allocated by interactive voice response system in a 1:1 ratio (double-blind) to receive 400 mg oral raltegravir twice daily or 600 mg oral efavirenz once daily, in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of a vRNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The primary analysis was per protocol. The margin of non-inferiority was 12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00369941. FINDINGS: 566 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment, of whom 281 received raltegravir, 282 received efavirenz, and three were never treated. At baseline, 297 (53%) patients had more than 100 000 vRNA copies per mL and 267 (47%) had CD4 counts of 200 cells per microL or less. The main analysis (with non-completion counted as failure) showed that 86.1% (n=241 patients) of the raltegravir group and 81.9% (n=230) of the efavirenz group achieved the primary endpoint (difference 4.2%, 95% CI -1.9 to 10.3). The time to achieve such viral suppression was shorter for patients on raltegravir than on efavirenz (log-rank test p<0.0001). Significantly fewer drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in patients on raltegravir (n=124 [44.1%]) than those on efavirenz (n=217 [77.0%]; difference -32.8%, 95% CI -40.2 to -25.0, p<0.0001). Serious drug-related clinical adverse events occurred in less than 2% of patients in each drug group. INTERPRETATION: Raltegravir-based combination treatment had rapid and potent antiretroviral activity, which was non-inferior to that of efavirenz at week 48. Raltegravir is a well tolerated alternative to efavirenz as part of a combination regimen against HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: Merck.

Brand-Specific Enhanced Safety Surveillance of GSK's Quadrivalent Seasonal Influenza Vaccine in Belgium, Germany and Spain for the 2018/2019 Season.

INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza causes numerous deaths worldwide each year. Annual vaccination for disease prevention is crucial. Seasonal vaccines are updated each year to closely match circulating strains. OBJECTIVE: To comply with European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidance, an enhanced safety study was conducted to rapidly collect and assess adverse events (AEs) within 7 days following vaccination with GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4) in 2018/2019. METHODS: A customised AE reporting card (AERC) and standardised electronic data reporting application were used in Belgium, Germany and Spain in adult and paediatric subjects in this study. RESULTS: In 2018, 1060 subjects vaccinated with one dose of GSK's IIV4 were enrolled (all subjects in Belgium and Germany were adults, and 75% and 25% of subjects in Spain were children and adults, respectively). In Spain, 139 eligible children later received a second dose. Overall 1035 subjects completed the study. After dose 1 and dose 2, 98.3% and 100% of subjects, respectively, returned the completed AERC. Over the study period, 43.0% (456/1060 post dose 1) and 23.7% (33/139 post dose 2) of subjects reported at least one AE within 7 days after immunisation. The most frequently reported categories of AEs were General and Administration Site (e.g. injection site pain, swelling, erythema) and Respiratory Disorders (e.g. rhinorrhoea, cough, nasal congestion). There were no deaths and no serious AEs deemed related to GSK's IIV4. CONCLUSION: In compliance with EMA guidance, this study design allowed for near real-time assessment of AEs. No safety signals were detected at any point during the study period. The study supports and confirms the acceptable safety profile of GSK's IIV4. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03688620.

Effects of omeprazole on plasma levels of raltegravir.

Raltegravir, a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase inhibitor, has pH-dependent solubility. Raltegravir plasma concentration increases with omeprazole coadministration in healthy subjects; this is likely secondary to an increase in bioavailability attributable to increased gastric pH. Increased gastric pH has been reported in HIV-1-infected individuals, and the effects of omeprazole in this intended population may be diminished. Further investigation is necessary.