Quebec-based Parents' Attitudes Towards Childhood Multilingualism: Evaluative Dimensions and Potential Predictors.

This is the first large-scale, quantitative study of the evaluative dimensions and potential predictors of Quebec-based parents' attitudes towards childhood multilingualism. Such attitudes are assumed to constitute a determinant of parental language choices, and thereby influence children's multilingual development. The newly-developed Attitudes towards Childhood Multilingualism Questionnaire was used to gather data from 825 participants raising an infant/toddler aged 0-4 years with multiple languages in the home. The results revealed three separate dimensions: status and solidarity (the same dimensions found in attitudes towards individual languages) as well as cognitive development (not previously attested as a separate dimension). Participants' approach to promoting multilingualism (specifically, whether they used the one-person-one-language-approach) and the combination of languages transmitted (specifically, whether this included a heritage language) correlated significantly with parental attitudes towards childhood multilingualism. Parents' linguistic background and location within Quebec were not significant predictors of attitudes. The paper discusses implications and directions for further research.

Resistance Analysis of Bictegravir-Emtricitabine-Tenofovir Alafenamide in HIV-1 Treatment-Naive Patients through 48 Weeks.

In clinical studies GS-US-380-1489 (study 1489) and GS-US-380-1490 (study 1490), bictegravir-emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (B-F-TAF), dolutegravir-abacavir-lamivudine (DTG-ABC-3TC), and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (DTG+F-TAF) treatment achieved high rates of virologic suppression in HIV-1 treatment-naive participants through week 48. Preexisting primary drug resistance was present at levels of 1.3% integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance (INSTI-R), 2.7% nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance (NRTI-R), 14.1% nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance (NNRTI-R), and 3.5% protease inhibitor resistance (PI-R) in the 1,274 participants from these studies. These mutations did not affect treatment outcomes. Resistance analyses in 13 virologic failures found no emergent resistance to study drugs.

Switching to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide maintained HIV-1 RNA suppression in participants with archived antiretroviral resistance including M184V/I.

OBJECTIVES: Studies 1878 and 1844 demonstrated non-inferior efficacy of switching suppressed HIV-1-infected adults to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF) versus continuing boosted PI-based triple regimens or dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine (DTG/ABC/3TC). Here, detailed analyses of pre-existing resistance in the two BIC/FTC/TAF switch studies and efficacy at week 48 are described. METHODS: Pre-existing resistance was assessed from historical genotypes (documented resistance to study drugs was excluded) and by retrospective baseline proviral archive DNA genotyping from whole blood. Outcomes were based on HIV-1 RNA at week 48 with missing values imputed using the last on-treatment observation carried forward method. RESULTS: Cumulative pre-existing resistance data from historical and proviral genotypes were obtained for 95% (543/570) of participants who switched to BIC/FTC/TAF. Altogether, 40% (217/543) had one or more pre-existing primary resistance substitutions in protease, reverse transcriptase and/or integrase. Pre-switch NRTI resistance was detected in 16% (89/543) of BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants, with M184V or M184I detected by proviral genotyping in 10% (54/543). At week 48, 98% (561/570) of all BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants versus 98% (213/217) with pre-existing resistance and 96% (52/54) with archived M184V/I had HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL. No BIC/FTC/TAF-treated participants developed treatment-emergent resistance to study drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-existing resistance substitutions, notably M184V/I, were unexpectedly common among suppressed participants who switched to BIC/FTC/TAF. High rates of virological suppression were maintained in the overall study population and in those with pre-existing resistance, including M184V/I, for up to 48 weeks of BIC/FTC/TAF treatment with no resistance development. These results indicate that BIC/FTC/TAF is an effective treatment option for suppressed patients, including those with evidence of archived NRTI resistance.

Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (GS-US-380-1489): a double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended components of initial antiretroviral therapy with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bictegravir is a novel, potent INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bictegravir coformulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination versus coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. METHODS: We did this double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial at 122 outpatient centres in nine countries in Europe, Latin America, and North America. We enrolled HIV-1 infected adults (aged ≥18 years) who were previously untreated (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL); HLA-B*5701-negative; had no hepatitis B virus infection; screening genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine, tenofovir, lamivudine, and abacavir; and an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or more. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size of four), to receive coformulated bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg, with matching placebo, once daily for 144 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 copies per mL, >100 000 to ≤400 000 copies per mL, or >400 000 copies per mL), CD4 count (<50 cells per µL, 50-199 cells per µL, or ≥200 cells per µL), and region (USA or ex-USA). Investigators, participants, and study staff giving treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, as defined by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. All participants who received one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607930. FINDINGS: Between Nov 13, 2015, and July 14, 2016, we randomly assigned 631 participants to receive coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315), of whom 314 and 315 patients, respectively, received at least one dose of study drug. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL was achieved in 92·4% of patients (n=290 of 314) in the bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group and 93·0% of patients (n=293 of 315) in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference -0·6%, 95·002% CI -4·8 to 3·6; p=0·78), demonstrating non-inferiority of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. No individual developed treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug. Incidence and severity of adverse events was mostly similar between groups except for nausea, which occurred less frequently in patients given bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than in those given dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (10% [n=32] vs 23% [n=72]; p<0·0001). Adverse events related to study drug were less common with bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than with dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (26% [n=82] vs 40% [n=127]), the difference being driven by a higher incidence of drug-related nausea in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (5% [n=17] vs 17% [n=55]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: At 48 weeks, coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide achieved virological suppression in 92% of previously untreated adults and was non-inferior to coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with no treatment-emergent resistance. Bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was safe and well tolerated with better gastrointestinal tolerability than dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine. Because coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide does not require HLA B*5701 testing and provides guideline-recommended treatment for individuals co-infected with HIV and hepatitis B, this regimen might lend itself to rapid or same-day initiation of therapy in the clinical setting. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Coformulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (GS-US-380-1490): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) coadministered with two nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are recommended as first-line treatment for HIV, and coformulated fixed-dose combinations are preferred to facilitate adherence. We report 48-week results from a study comparing initial HIV-1 treatment with bictegravir-a novel INSTI with a high in-vitro barrier to resistance and low potential as a perpetrator or victim of clinically relevant drug interactions-coformulated with the NRTI combination emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination to dolutegravir administered with coformulated emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 126 outpatient centres in 10 countries in Australia, Europe, Latin America, and North America. Participants were previously untreated adults (HIV-1 RNA ≥500 copies per mL) with estimated glomerular filtration rate of at least 30 mL/min. Chronic hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C co-infection was allowed. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive oral fixed-dose combination bictegravir 50 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or dolutegravir 50 mg with coformulated emtricitabine 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, with matching placebo, once a day for 144 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received at least one dose of study drug were included in primary efficacy and safety analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of -12%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02607956. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2015, and July 15, 2016, 742 participants were screened for eligibility, of whom 657 were randomly assigned to treatment (327 with bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide fixed-dose combination [bictegravir group] and 330 with dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide [dolutegravir group]). 320 participants who received the bictegravir regimen and 325 participants who received the dolutegravir regimen were included in the primary efficacy analyses. At week 48, HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL was achieved in 286 (89%) of 320 participants in the bictegravir group and 302 (93%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group (difference -3·5%, 95·002% CI -7·9 to 1·0, p=0·12), showing non-inferiority of the bictegravir regimen to the dolutegravir regimen. No treatment-emergent resistance to any study drug was observed. Incidence and severity of adverse events were similar between groups, and few participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events (5 [2%] of 320 in the bictegravir group and 1 [<1%] 325 in the dolutegravir group). Study drug-related adverse events were less common in the bictegravir group than in the dolutegravir group (57 [18%] of 320 vs 83 [26%] of 325, p=0·022). INTERPRETATION: At 48 weeks, virological suppression with the bictegravir regimen was achieved and was non-inferior to the dolutegravir regimen in previously untreated adults. There was no emergent resistance to either regimen. The fixed-dose combination of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was safe and well tolerated compared with the dolutegravir regimen. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences Inc.

Co-formulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir versus co-formulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, analysis of results after 48 weeks.

BACKGROUND: The integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A4 inhibitor cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in a single tablet given once daily. We compared the efficacy and safety of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF with standard of care-co-formulated efavirenz (EFV)/FTC/TDF-as initial treatment for HIV infection. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, treatment-naive patients from outpatient clinics in North America were randomly assigned by computer-generated allocation sequence with a block size of four in a 1:1 ratio to receive EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF or EFV/FTC/TDF, once daily, plus matching placebo. Patients and study staff involved in giving study treatment, assessing outcomes, and collecting and analysing data were masked to treatment allocation. Eligibility criteria included screening HIV RNA concentration of 5000 copies per mL or more, and susceptibility to efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir. The primary endpoint was HIV RNA concentration of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01095796. FINDINGS: 700 patients were randomly assigned and treated (348 with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF, 352 with EFV/FTC/TDF). EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF was non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF; 305/348 (87·6%) versus 296/352 (84·1%) of patients had HIV RNA concentrations of fewer than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (difference 3·6%, 95% CI -1·6% to 8·8%). Proportions of patients discontinuing drugs for adverse events did not differ substantially (13/348 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group vs 18/352 in the EFV/FTC/TDF group). Nausea was more common with EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF than with EFV/FTC/TDF (72/348 vs 48/352) and dizziness (23/348 vs 86/352), abnormal dreams (53/348 vs 95/352), insomnia (30/348 vs 49/352), and rash (22/348 vs 43/352) were less common. Serum creatinine concentration increased more by week 48 in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF group than in the EFV/FTC/TDF group (median 13 µmol/L, IQR 5 to 20 vs 1 µmol/L, -6 to 8; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: If regulatory approval is given, EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF would be the only single-tablet, once-daily, integrase-inhibitor-based regimen for initial treatment of HIV infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Comparative cell-mediated immunogenicity of DNA/DNA, DNA/adenovirus type 5 (Ad5), or Ad5/Ad5 HIV-1 clade B gag vaccine prime-boost regimens.

BACKGROUND: We report composite results from the Merck phase I program of near-consensus clade B human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 gag vaccines. METHODS: Healthy HIV-uninfected adults were enrolled in 6 blinded placebo-controlled studies evaluating the immunogenicity of (1) a 4-dose regimen of a DNA vaccine, (2) a 3-dose priming regimen of the DNA vaccine with a booster dose of an adenovirus type 5 (Ad5)-vectored vaccine, or (3) a 3-dose regimen of the Ad5 vaccine. The DNA plasmid was provided with or without an aluminum phosphate or CRL1005 adjuvant. The primary end point was the unfractionated HIV-1 gag-specific interferon gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) response 4 weeks after the final dose. RESULTS: Overall, 254 (83%) of 307 subjects randomized to the vaccine groups were evaluable. Adjuvants did not enhance immunogenicity of the DNA vaccine. Postboost ELISpot responder frequencies were higher for Ad5-containing regimens than for the DNA/DNA regimen (33%) but were similar for DNA/Ad5 (55%) and Ad5/Ad5 (50%). DNA/DNA elicited mainly a CD4 response, whereas Ad5/Ad5 elicited mainly a CD8 response; DNA/Ad5 generated CD4 and CD8 responses comparable to those of DNA/DNA and Ad5/Ad5, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The DNA vaccine alone or as a priming regimen for the Ad5 vaccine did not increase unfractionated ELISpot responses compared with the Ad5 vaccine alone. Qualitative T cell responses to different vaccine regimens deserve further study.

Safety, Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Formulation of Liver-Distributed Farnesoid X-Receptor Agonist TERN-101 in Healthy Volunteers.

TERN-101 is a nonsteroidal farnesoid X-receptor agonist being developed for the treatment of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We assessed the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of TERN-101 capsule and tablet formulations in healthy volunteers. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 38 participants were enrolled and randomized to receive placebo or 25-, 75-, or 150-mg TERN-101 capsules orally once daily for 7 days. In a separate open-label PK and formulation-bridging study, 16 participants received single doses of TERN-101 tablets (5 and 25 mg) or capsules (25 mg). TERN-101 was overall well-tolerated in this healthy volunteer population; no pruritus was reported. TERN-101 capsule administration over 7 days resulted in decreases in serum 7α-hydroxy-4-cholesten-3-one that were sustained for 24 hours after the last dose (maximum suppression 91% from baseline), indicating target engagement in the liver. TERN-101 capsules exhibited less than dose-proportional PK. Relative to capsules, TERN-101 tablets showed increased bioavailability, with 24-hour plasma exposure of the 5-mg tablet similar to that of the 25-mg capsule. There was no significant effect of food on exposure. The overall safety, PK, and PD profiles of TERN-101 support its further evaluation for the treatment of NASH.

Switching to Fixed-Dose Bictegravir, Emtricitabine, and Tenofovir Alafenamide (B/F/TAF) in Virologically Suppressed HIV-1 Infected Women: A Randomized, Open-Label, Multicenter, Active-Controlled, Phase 3, Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Bictegravir, coformulated with emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination (B/F/TAF), is recommended for treatment of HIV-1-infection. Multiple studies of B/F/TAF in treatment-naive and virologically suppressed cohorts have shown high efficacy and tolerability with no treatment-emergent resistance through 48 weeks. Participants in these studies have been predominantly men. We report 48-week results from a phase 3 study evaluating switching to B/F/TAF, specifically in a globally distributed trial population of women. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled, noninferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02652624), women living with HIV who were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL) on a regimen containing either TAF or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were randomly assigned (1:1) to switch to B/F/TAF (50/200/25 mg) or stay on baseline regimen (SBR) once daily for 48 weeks. Primary endpoint was proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (U.S. Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm); prespecified noninferiority margin was 4%. FINDINGS: We randomized 472 participants and treated 470 (234 B/F/TAF, 236 SBR). Switching to B/F/TAF was noninferior to SBR for the primary outcome, as 1.7% (4/234) vs 1.7% (4/236) had HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/mL at week 48 (difference 0.0%, 95.001% confidence interval: -2.9% to 2.9%). No individual receiving B/F/TAF developed treatment-emergent resistance. Both treatments were well-tolerated; no participant discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Fixed-dose combination B/F/TAF provides a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV in women. This study contributes important data on safety, tolerability, and outcomes of antiretroviral therapy among women living with HIV.

HIV seroconversion without infection after receipt of adenovirus-vectored HIV type 1 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: We analyzed human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) seroresponses from 3 phase I HIV-1 vaccine trials to assess the frequency of vaccine-induced seroconversion. METHODS: HIV-1 and HIV-2 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed during trials of adenovirus type 5 (Ad5)-vectored clade B HIV-1 monovalent gag and trivalent gag/pol/nef vaccines given to HIV-seronegative adults. Doses were administered at day 1, week 4, and week 26. Results were analyzed by vaccine formulation and dose and were stratified by baseline Ad5 titer. ELISA-positive samples were reflexively tested by Western blotting. RESULTS: Overall, 165 (41%) of 406 evaluable vaccine recipients had positive ELISA results but negative PCR results by week 78. Seroconversion rates were directly related to vaccine dose, were inversely related to baseline Ad5 titer, and were unaffected by vaccine valency. One hundred (89%) of 113 evaluable patients with low baseline Ad5 antibody titers (or=1 dose of vaccine with >or=1 x 10(10) gag-containing Ad5 particles per dose experienced seroconversion. Of 163 vaccine recipients who had positive ELISA results and available Western blot results, 150 (92%) had indeterminate results of Western blot, typically involving bands at p24, p40, and/or p55. Thirteen uninfected patients (8%) had equivocally positive Western blot results, usually because of an additional weak glycoprotein 41 band. Env-specific enzyme immunoassay results were falsely positive for 2 uninfected vaccine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Positive ELISA results were similarly common for monovalent and trivalent vaccine recipients. Vaccine dose and baseline Ad5 immunity were major determinants of vaccine-induced seroconversion rates. Corresponding Western blots characteristically showed bands directed only at Gag proteins, which helped to distinguish HIV-uninfected vaccine recipients who experienced seroconversion from true HIV-infected patients. If available, an enzyme immunoassay exclusively targeting proteins not expressed by the vaccine should be the screening test of first choice for vaccine recipients.

Safety and immunogenicity of a replication-incompetent adenovirus type 5 HIV-1 clade B gag/pol/nef vaccine in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: The safety and immunogenicity of the MRK adenovirus type 5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clade B gag/pol/nef vaccine, a replication-incompetent adenovirus type 5-vectored vaccine designed to elicit cell-mediated immunity against conserved human immunodeficiency virus proteins, was assessed in a phase 1 trial. METHODS: Healthy adults not infected with human immunodeficiency virus were enrolled in a multicenter, dose-escalating, blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate a 3-dose homologous prime-boost regimen of the trivalent MRK adenovirus type 5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 vaccine containing from 3 x 10(6) to 1 x 10(11) viral particles per 1-mL dose administered on day 1, during week 4 and during week 26. Adverse events were recorded for 29 days after each intradeltoid injection. The primary immunogenicity end point was the proportion of study participants with a positive unfractionated Gag-, Pol-, or Nef-specific interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot response measured 4 weeks after administration of the last dose. RESULTS: Of 259 randomized individuals, 257 (99%) received > or = 1 dose of vaccine or placebo and were included in the safety analyses. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot results were available for 217 study participants (84%) at week 30. No serious vaccine-related adverse events occurred. No study participant discontinued participation because of vaccine-related adverse events. The frequency of injection-site reactions was dose dependent. Vaccine doses of > or = 3 x 10(9) viral particles elicited positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot responses to > or = 1 vaccine component in > 60% of recipients. High baseline antibody titers against adenovirus type 5 diminished enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot responses at all doses except the 3 x 10(10) viral particle dose. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccine was generally well tolerated and induced cell-mediated immune responses against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 peptides in most healthy adults. Despite these findings, vaccination in a proof-of-concept trial with use of this vaccine was discontinued because of lack of efficacy.

Patient-Reported Symptoms Over 48 Weeks Among Participants in Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Non-inferiority Trials of Adults with HIV on Co-formulated Bictegravir, Emtricitabine, and Tenofovir Alafenamide versus Co-formulated Abacavir, Dolutegravir, and Lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended for first-line antiretroviral therapy in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Co-formulated bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (B/F/TAF), a novel, INSTI-based regimen, is currently approved in the US and EU for the treatment of HIV-1 infection and recommended as first-line treatment in current guidelines. In our current analysis, we aimed to determine changes in patient-reported symptoms over time among HIV-1-infected adults who initiated or switched to B/F/TAF versus another INSTI-based regimen, co-formulated abacavir, dolutegravir, and lamivudine (ABC/DTG/3TC). METHODS: A planned secondary analysis of patient-reported outcomes was conducted for two double-blind, randomized, phase III studies in HIV-1-infected adults comparing B/F/TAF with ABC/DTG/3TC: one in treatment-naïve individuals (GS-US-380-1489, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02607930) and the other in virologically suppressed participants (GS-US-380-1844, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02603120). In both studies, the HIV symptoms distress module (HIV-SI) was administered at baseline (BL) and weeks 4, 12, and 48. Responses to each of the 20 items were dichotomized as bothersome or not bothersome. Treatment differences were assessed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models (adjusted for BL HIV-SI count, age, sex, BL Veterans Aging Cohort Study [VACS] Index, medical history of serious mental illness, BL Short Form [SF]-36 Physical Component Summary [PCS], BL SF-36 Mental Component Summary [MCS], and, for virologically suppressed participants only, years since HIV diagnosis). We conducted longitudinal modeling of bothersome symptoms using a generalized mixed model including treatment, time, time-by-treatment, and additional covariates from the adjusted logistic regression model as described above. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) was administered at the same frequency as the HIV-SI, and the total score was dichotomized as good or poor sleep quality. Similar models to those used for HIV-SI were applied, using BL sleep quality and BL SF-36 MCS as covariates. Statistical significance was assessed using p < 0.05. RESULTS: Across both studies, bothersome symptoms were reported by fewer participants on B/F/TAF than those on ABC/DTG/3TC. In treatment-naïve adults, fatigue/loss of energy, nausea/vomiting, dizzy/lightheadedness, and difficulty sleeping were reported significantly less with B/F/TAF at two or more time points. Fatigue and nausea were also significantly less common for those receiving B/F/TAF in longitudinal models. In virologically suppressed participants, nausea/vomiting, sad/down/depressed, nervous/anxious, and poor sleep quality (from the PSQI) were reported significantly less with B/F/TAF at two or more time points, as well as in longitudinal models. CONCLUSIONS: B/F/TAF was associated with lower prevalence of bothersome symptoms than ABC/DTG/3TC in both treatment-naïve and virologically suppressed adults.

Repeat testing of low-level HIV-1 RNA: assay performance and implementation in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the performance of HIV-1 RNA repeat testing of stored samples in cases of low-level viremia during clinical trials. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective analysis of randomized clinical trial samples and reference standards. METHODS: To evaluate assay variability of the Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 Test, v2.0, three separate sources of samples were utilized: the World Health Organization (WHO) HIV reference standard (assayed using 50 independent measurements at six viral loads <200 copies/ml), retrospective analysis of four to six aliquots of plasma samples from four clinical trial participants, and prospective repeat testing of 120 samples from participants in randomized trials with low-level viremia. RESULTS: The TaqMan assay on the WHO HIV-1 RNA standards at viral loads <200 copies/ml performed within the expected variability according to assay specifications. However, standards with low viral loads of 36 and 18 copies/ml reported values of ≥ 50 copies/ml in 66 and 18% of tests, respectively. In participants treated with antiretrovirals who had unexpected viremia of 50-200 copies/ml after achieving <50 copies/ml, retesting of multiple aliquots of stored plasma found <50 copies/ml in nearly all cases upon retesting (14/15; 93%). Repeat testing was prospectively implemented in four clinical trials for all samples with virologic rebound of 50-200 copies/ml (n = 120 samples from 92 participants) from which 42% (50/120) had a retest result of less than 50 copies/ml and 58% (70/120) retested ≥ 50 copies/ml. CONCLUSION: The TaqMan HIV-1 RNA assay shows variability around 50 copies/ml that affects clinical trial results and may impact clinical practice. In participants with a history of viral load suppression, unexpected low-level viremia may be because of assay variability rather than low drug adherence or true virologic failure. Retesting a stored aliquot of the same sample may differentiate between assay variability and virologic failure as the source of viremia. This retesting strategy could save time, money, and anxiety for patients and their providers, as well as decrease follow-up clinic visits without increasing the risk of virologic failure and resistance development.

Switching to fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from dolutegravir plus abacavir and lamivudine in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1: 48 week results of a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Bictegravir, co-formulated with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, has shown good efficacy and tolerability, and similar bone, renal, and lipid profiles to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, in treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection, without development of treatment-emergent resistance. Here, we report 48-week results of a phase 3 study investigating switching to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 96 outpatient centres in nine countries. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older and on a regimen of 50 mg dolutegravir, 600 mg abacavir, and 300 mg lamivudine (fixed-dose combination or multi-tablet regimen); had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL/min or higher; and had been virologically suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) for 3 months or more before screening. We randomly assigned participants (1:1), using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to switch to co-formulated bictegravir (50 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg; herein known as the bictegravir group), or to remain on dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (herein known as the dolutegravir group), once daily for 48 weeks. The investigators, participants, study staff, and individuals assessing outcomes were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher at week 48 (according to the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm); the prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4%. The primary efficacy and safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is ongoing but not actively recruiting participants and is in the open-label extension phase, wherein participants are given the option to receive bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide for an additional 96 weeks. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02603120. FINDINGS: Between Nov 11, 2015, and July 6, 2016, 567 participants were randomly assigned and 563 were treated (282 received bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 281 received dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine). Switching to the bictegravir regimen was non-inferior to remaining on dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine for the primary outcome: three (1%) of 282 in the bictegravir group had HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher at week 48 versus one (<1%) of 281 participants in the dolutegravir group (difference 0·7%, 95·002% CI -1·0 to 2·8; p=0·62). Treatment-related adverse events were recorded in 23 (8%) participants in the bictegravir group and 44 (16%) in the dolutegravir group. Treatment was discontinued because of adverse events in six (2%) participants in the bictegravir group and in two (1%) participants in the dolutegravir group. INTERPRETATION: The fixed-dose combination of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide might provide a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Efficacy and safety of switching to fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1: 48 week results of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Switching from therapy based on a boosted protease inhibitor to bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide could avoid drug interactions and unwanted side-effects in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection, while maintaining a high barrier to resistance and providing a simplified once-daily, single-tablet regimen. Here, we report 48 week results of a phase 3 study investigating this switch. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial, adults with HIV-1 infection were enrolled at 121 outpatient centres in ten countries. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, had an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or higher, had been virologically suppressed (plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) for 6 months or more before screening, and were on a regimen consisting of boosted atazanavir or darunavir plus either emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir and lamivudine. We randomly assigned participants (1:1), using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, to switch to co-formulated once-daily bictegravir (50 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg), herein known as the bictegravir group, or to remain on their baseline boosted protease inhibitor regimen, herein known as the boosted protease inhibitor group, for 48 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or abacavir at screening. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher at week 48 (by US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 4%. Efficacy and safety analyses included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is ongoing but not actively recruiting patients and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02603107. FINDINGS: Between Dec 2, 2015, and July 15, 2016, 578 participants were randomly assigned and 577 were treated (290 in the bictegravir group and 287 in the boosted protease inhibitor group). At week 48, five participants (2%) in the bictegravir group and five (2%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group had plasma HIV-1 RNA of 50 copies per mL or higher (difference 0·0%, 95·002% CI -2·5 to 2·5), thus switching to the bictegravir regimen was non-inferior to continued boosted protease inhibitor therapy. The overall incidence and severity of adverse events was similar between groups, although headache occurred more frequently in the bictegravir group than in the boosted protease inhibitor group. 233 (80%) participants in the bictegravir group and 226 (79%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group had an adverse event. Only two (1%) participants in the bictegravir group and one (<1%) in the boosted protease inhibitor group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. 54 participants (19%) in the bictegravir group had drug-related adverse events compared with six (2%) in the protease inhibitor group. INTERPRETATION: Fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide might be a safe and efficacious alternative to continued boosted protease inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Antiviral Activity, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of Bictegravir as 10-Day Monotherapy in HIV-1-Infected Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of short-term monotherapy with bictegravir (BIC), a novel, potent HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI). DESIGN: Phase 1b, randomized, double-blinded, adaptive, sequential cohort, placebo-controlled study. METHODS: HIV-infected adults not taking antiretroviral therapy were randomized to receive BIC (5, 25, 50, or 100 mg) or placebo once daily for 10 days. Primary endpoint was time-weighted average change from baseline to day 11 (DAVG11) for plasma HIV-1 RNA. HIV-1 RNA, adverse events (AEs), and laboratory assessments were evaluated through day 17. RESULTS: Twenty participants were enrolled (n = 4/group). Mean DAVG11 ranged from -0.92 to -1.61 across BIC doses versus -0.01 for placebo. Significant reductions in plasma HIV-1 RNA from baseline at day 11 were observed for all BIC doses compared with placebo (P < 0.001); mean decreases were 1.45-2.43 log10 copies/mL. Increased BIC exposures correlated with increased reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA from baseline on day 11. Three participants on BIC (50 or 100 mg) achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL by end of study. Median Tmax ranged from 1.0 to 1.8 hours (day 1, postdose) and 1.3-2.7 hours (day 10), with median t1/2 ranging from 15.9 to 20.9 hours. No participant developed primary INSTI-R substitution through day 17. BIC was well tolerated, with no discontinuations because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: BIC is a novel, potent, unboosted INSTI that demonstrated rapid, dose-dependent declines in HIV-1 RNA after 10 days of monotherapy. BIC was well tolerated, and displayed rapid absorption and a half-life supportive of once-daily therapy in HIV-infected subjects.

Bictegravir versus dolutegravir, each with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: All recent treatment guidelines recommend integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) as components of initial HIV therapy. Bictegravir, a novel, once-daily, unboosted INSTI, showed potent activity in a 10 day monotherapy study and has a high in-vitro resistance barrier. On the basis of these results, we did a phase 2 trial comparing bictegravir with dolutegravir. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial, we recruited previously untreated adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 infections from 22 outpatient centres in the USA. Eligible patients had HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 counts of at least 200 cells per µL, estimated glomerular filtration rates of at least 70 mL per min, and HIV-1 genotypes showing sensitivity to emtricitabine and tenofovir. We excluded patients if they were hepatitis B-co-infected or hepatitis C-co-infected, had new AIDS-defining conditions within 30 days of screening, or were pregnant. We randomly allocated participants (2:1) to receive oral once-daily 75 mg bictegravir or 50 mg dolutegravir with matching placebo plus the fixed-dose combination of 200 mg emtricitabine and 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide for 48 weeks. We randomly allocated participants via an interactive web system, stratified by HIV-1 RNA concentration. Investigators, patients, study staff giving treatment, collecting data, and assessing outcomes, and the funder were masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of less than 50 copies per mL at week 24 according to the US Food and Drug Administration-defined snapshot algorithm. We included all participants receiving one dose of study drug in analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02397694. FINDINGS: Between March 23, 2015, and May 21, 2015, we screened 125 patients, randomly allocating and giving study drug to 98 (65 received bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and 33 received dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide). At week 24, 63 (96·9%) of 65 in the bictegravir group had HIV-1 RNA loads of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 31 (93·9%) of 33 in the dolutegravir group (weighted difference 2·9%, 95% CI -8·5 to 14·2; p=0·50). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 55 (85%) of 65 participants in the bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group versus 22 (67%) of 33 in the dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide group. The most common adverse events were diarrhoea (eight [12%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33) and nausea (five [8%] of 65 vs four [12%] of 33). One participant taking bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide discontinued because of a drug-related adverse event (urticaria) after week 24. No treatment-related serious adverse events or deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Bictegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide both showed high efficacy up to 24 weeks. Both treatments were well tolerated. Administration of bictegravir, a novel, potent, once-daily INSTI designed to improve on existing INSTI options with the backbone of emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide, might provide an advantage to patients. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Switching from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide is a prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90% compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, thereby decreasing bone and renal risks. The coformulation of rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide has recently been approved, and we aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to this regimen compared with remaining on coformulated efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were enrolled at 120 hospitals and outpatient clinics in eight countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to continue a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz (600 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with plasma HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 (assessed by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02345226. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 27, 2015, 875 participants were randomly assigned and treated (438 with rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide and 437 with efavirenz, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Viral suppression at week 48 was maintained in 394 (90%) of 438 participants assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide regimen and 402 (92%) of 437 assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen (difference -2·0%, 95·001% CI -5·9 to 1·8), demonstrating non-inferiority. 56 (13%) of 438 in participants in the rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group experienced treatment-related adverse events compared with 45 (10%) of 437 in the efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide from efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide coformulated with rilpivirine and emtricitabine in virally suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide, a tenofovir prodrug, results in 90% lower tenofovir plasma concentrations than does tenofovir disproxil fumarate, thereby minimising bone and renal risks. We investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to a single-tablet regimen containing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with remaining on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, non-inferiority trial, HIV-1-infected adults were screened and enrolled at 119 hospitals in 11 countries in North America and Europe. Participants were virally suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) on rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for at least 6 months before enrolment and had creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single-tablet regimen of either rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg) or to remain on a single-tablet regimen of rilpivirine (25 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg), with matching placebo, once daily for 96 weeks. Investigators, participants, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. All participants who received one dose of study drug and were on the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate regimen before screening were included in primary efficacy analyses. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with less than 50 copies per mL of plasma HIV-1 RNA at week 48 (by the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm), with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 8%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between Jan 26, 2015, and Aug 25, 2015, 630 participants were randomised (316 to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 314 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group). At week 48, 296 (94%) of 316 participants on tenofovir alafenamide and 294 (94%) of 313 on tenofovir disoproxil fumarate had maintained less than 50 copies per mL HIV-1 RNA (difference -0·3%, 95·001% CI -4·2 to 3·7), showing non-inferiority of tenofovir alafenamide to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Numbers of adverse events were similar between groups. 20 (6%) of 316 participants had study-drug related adverse events in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with 37 (12%) of 314 in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group; none of these were serious. INTERPRETATION: Switching to rilpivirine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to continuing rilpivirine, emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in maintaining viral suppression and was well tolerated at 48 weeks. These findings support guidelines recommending tenofovir alafenamide-based regimens, including coformulation with rilpivirine and emtricitabine, as initial and ongoing treatment for HIV-1 infection. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.