Factors Associated with Health Care Providers' Preference for Forgoing an Oral Lead-In Phase When Initiating Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir and Rilpivirine in the SOLAR Clinical Trial.

Cabotegravir and rilpivirine long-acting (LA) antiretroviral therapy (ART) demonstrated similar safety and efficacy in maintaining viral suppression among participants switching from daily oral to LA ART in the Extension Phase of the FLAIR trial. The Phase IIIb SOLAR study comparing efficacy and safety of daily oral versus LA ART every 2 months allowed participants and health care providers (HCPs) to choose an oral lead-in (OLI) before LA initiation or proceed by immediately starting with injections (SWI). We conducted an online survey among SOLAR HCPs (n = 110) in 13 countries to assess reasons for choosing OLI versus SWI. Logistic regression was used to identify factors influencing this decision. Thirty-two percent of HCPs reported a future preference to use OLI, whereas 54% reported a future preference for SWI. HCPs had greater odds of reporting future intentions for SWI if they were from Continental Europe versus North America [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 3.83, p < 0.05], from sites with a greater number of participants who initiated LA ART without OLI (aOR: 1.56, p < 0.01), and those who reported comfort with the medication safety profile (aOR: 6.39, p < 0.01). HCPs who participated in LA ART trials before SOLAR had decreased odds of reporting a preference for SWI compared to those with no prior LA ART trial experience (aOR: 0.11; p < 0.01). Results indicated higher intentions to SWI over OLI among HCPs initiating participants on LA ART. A major factor associated with SWI was provider comfort with safety data, reinforcing the role of continued training regarding an SWI approach.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of switching to long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine versus continuing fixed-dose bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide in virologically suppressed adults with HIV, 12-month results (SOLAR): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Cabotegravir plus rilpivirine is the only approved complete long-acting regimen for the maintenance of HIV-1 virological suppression dosed every 2 months. The SOLAR study aimed to compare long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine every 2 months with continued once-daily bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide for the maintenance of HIV-1 virological suppression in adults living with HIV. METHODS: SOLAR is a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3b, non-inferiority study. The study was done in 118 centres across 14 countries. Participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL were randomly assigned (2:1), stratified by sex at birth and BMI, to either long-acting cabotegravir (600 mg) plus rilpivirine (900 mg) dosed intramuscularly every 2 months or to continue daily oral bictegravir (50 mg), emtricitabine (200 mg), and tenofovir alafenamide (25 mg). Participants randomly assigned to long-acting therapy had a choice to receive cabotegravir (30 mg) plus rilpivirine (25 mg) once daily as an optional oral lead-in for approximately 1 month. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with virological non-response (HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies per mL; the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot algorithm, 4% non-inferiority margin; modified intention-to-treat exposed population) at month 11 (long-acting start with injections group) and month 12 (long-acting with oral lead-in group and bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide group). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04542070, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: 837 participants were screened between Nov 9, 2020, and May 31, 2021, and 687 were randomly assigned to switch treatment or continue existing treatment. Of 670 participants (modified intention-to-treat exposed population), 447 (67%) switched to long-acting therapy (274 [61%] of 447 start with injections; 173 [39%] of 447 with oral lead-in) and 223 (33%) continued bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide. Baseline characteristics were similar; median age was 37 years (range 18-74), 118 (18%) of 670 were female sex at birth, 207 (31%) of 670 were non-White, and median BMI was 25·9 kg/m2 (IQR 23·3-29·5). At month 11-12, long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy versus bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies per mL, five [1%] of 447 vs one [<1%] of 223), with an adjusted treatment difference of 0·7 (95% CI -0·7 to 2·0). Excluding injection site reactions, adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups. No treatment-related deaths occurred. More long-acting group participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal (25 [6%] of 454 vs two [1%] of 227). Injection site reactions were reported by 316 (70%) of 454 long-acting participants; most (98%) were grade 1 or 2. INTERPRETATION: These data support the use of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine dosed every 2 months as a complete antiretroviral regimen that has similar efficacy to a commonly used integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based first-line regimen, while addressing unmet psychosocial issues associated with daily oral treatment. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare.

Safety and efficacy of a 36-week induction regimen of abacavir/lamivudine and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in HIV-infected patients.

PURPOSE: The ARIES study assessed safety and efficacy of an induction regimen with atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/RTV) + abacavir/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) followed by simplification to ATV + ABC/3TC in antiretroviral-naïve patients. METHODS: This report includes a noncomparative analysis of all patients in the induction phase of the ARIES study through 36 weeks (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00440947). This open-label study included 515 antiretroviral-naïve,HLA-B*5701-negative patients receiving a regimen of ATV 300 mg, RTV 100 mg, and ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg once daily for 36 weeks; eligible patients were then randomized to continue the induction regimen or simplify to ATV 400 mg plus ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg once daily. RESULTS: Eighty-six percent (442/515) of patients completed 36 weeks on study; 80% (410/515) achieved HIV RNA <50 copies/mL (84% and 76% of patients with baseline HIV RNA of < and >or=100,000 copies/mL achieved this endpoint). Virologic failure (VF) was uncommon (3%); treatment-emergent major protease inhibitor and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutations were detected in 0/15 and 4/15 patients, respectively. Median CD4+ cell increase was 171 (range, -176 to 718) cells/mm(3). Hyperbilirubinemia (13%), diarrhea (4%), nausea (2%), and rash (2%) were the most frequent drug-related Grade 2-4 adverse events. Few adverse events (3%) led to study discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Induction with ATV/RTV + ABC/3TC once daily provides an efficacious and well-tolerated regimen for the initial treatment of HIV.

High sensitivity of human leukocyte antigen-b*5701 as a marker for immunologically confirmed abacavir hypersensitivity in white and black patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B*5701 is highly associated with a hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) to abacavir (ABC), variable sensitivities have been reported when clinical data alone have been used to define an ABC HSR. This study evaluated the sensitivity of detection of the HLA-B*5701 allele as a marker of ABC HSRs in both white and black patients, using skin patch testing to supplement clinical diagnosis. METHODS: White and black patients, identified through chart review, were classified as having received a diagnosis of an ABC HSR based on clinical findings only (a clinically suspected ABC HSR) or based on clinical findings and a positive skin patch test result (an immunologically confirmed [IC] ABC HSR). Control subjects were racially matched subjects who tolerated ABC for >/=12 weeks without experiencing an ABC HSR. Patients and control subjects were tested for the presence of HLA-B*5701. Sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratios for the detection of HLA-B*5701 as a marker for an ABC HSR were calculated for white and black participants. RESULTS: Forty-two (32.3%) of 130 white patients and 5 (7.2%) of 69 black patients who met the criteria for clinically suspected HSRs had IC HSRs. All 42 white patients with IC HSRs were HLA-B*5701 positive (sensitivity, 100%; odds ratio, 1945; 95% confidence interval, 110-34,352). Among all white patients with clinically suspected HSRs, sensitivity was 44% (57 of 130 patients tested positive for HLA-B*5701); specificity among white control subjects was 96%. Five of 5 black patients with IC HSRs were HLA-B*5701 positive (sensitivity, 100%; odds ratio, 900; 95% confidence interval, 38-21,045). Among black patients with clinically suspected HSRs, the sensitivity was 14% (10 of 69 tested positive for HLA-B*5701); specificity among black control subjects was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Although IC ABC HSRs are uncommon in black persons, the 100% sensitivity of HLA-B*5701 as a marker for IC ABC HSRs in both US white and black patients suggests similar implications of the association between HLA-B*5701 positivity and risk of ABC HSRs in both races.

Short-term safety and tolerability of a once-daily fixed-dose abacavir-lamivudine combination versus twice-daily dosing of abacavir and lamivudine as separate components: findings from the ALOHA study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the short-term (12 wks) safety and tolerability of a once-daily, fixed-dose abacavir-lamivudine combination versus twice-daily dosing of the separate components, both with background antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN: Phase IIIB, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, multicenter study. SETTING: One hundred forty-six human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics. PATIENTS: Six hundred eighty antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients with HIV type 1 RNA greater than 1000 copies/ml at baseline. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 manner to receive either abacavir 600 mg-lamivudine 300 mg once/day or abacavir 300 mg twice/day and lamivudine 150 mg twice/day. Subjects were stratified based on choice of third or fourth antiretroviral drug (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI], NNRTI, or protease inhibitor), assigned before randomization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point was occurrence of grades 2-4 adverse events and serious adverse events; abacavir hypersensitivity reactions were considered serious adverse events. Baseline characteristics were similar between the once-daily (455 patients) and twice-daily (225 patients) groups. The rates of all grades 2-4 adverse events were similar: once-daily 33% (150 patients), twice-daily 31% (69). A slightly larger proportion of patients in the twice-daily group experienced drug-related grades 2-4 adverse events: once-daily 10% (47), twice-daily 16% (36). Rates of all serious adverse events (once-daily 11% [49], twice-daily 10% [22]) and drug-related serious adverse events (once-daily 5% [21], twice-daily 8% [17]) were similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was 5.3% (once-daily 4.4% [20], twice-daily 7.1% [16]), with a higher rate for the NNRTI stratum of the twice-daily group (8.6% [10]) than in any other stratum (once-daily, NNRTI 4.3% [10]; twice-daily, protease inhibitor 5.6% [6]; once-daily, protease inhibitor 4.6% [10]). CONCLUSION: In the short-term, the rates of adverse events in the once-daily and twice-daily groups appeared to be similar. The rate of suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction in the once-daily group was lower than the rate in the twice-daily group.

The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir-ritonavir is a preferred protease inhibitor co-formulation for initial HIV-1 treatment. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir has shown similar efficacy and safety to lopinavir-ritonavir when each is combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We compared the two treatments directly in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS: This open-label, non-inferiority study included 878 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients randomised to receive either fosamprenavir-ritonavir 700 mg/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily, each with the co-formulation of abacavir-lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL at week 48 and treatment discontinuations because of an adverse event. The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed to at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00085943. FINDINGS: At week 48, non-inferiority of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to lopinavir-ritonavir (95% CI around the treatment difference -4.84 to 7.05) was shown, with 315 of 434 (73%) patients in the fosamprenavir-ritonavir group and 317 of 444 (71%) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL. Treatment discontinuations due to an adverse event were few and occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups (fosamprenavir-ritonavir 53, 12%; lopinavir-ritonavir 43, 10%). Diarrhoea, nausea, and abacavir hypersensitivity were the most frequent drug-related grade 2-4 adverse events. Treatment-emergent drug resistance was rare; no patient had virus that developed reduced susceptibility to fosamprenavir-ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir. INTERPRETATION: Fosamprenavir-ritonavir twice daily in treatment-naive patients provides similar antiviral efficacy, safety, tolerability, and emergence of resistance as lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine.

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter trial of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir for initial HIV treatment.

BACKGROUND: Abacavir sulfate/lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and tenofovir DF/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) are widely used nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for initial HIV-1 treatment. This is the first completed, randomized clinical trial to directly compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of these agents, each in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS: Six hundred and eighty-eight antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were randomized in this double-blind, placebo-matched, multicenter, noninferiority study to receive a once-daily regimen of either ABC/3TC 600 mg/300 mg or TDF/FTC 300 mg/200 mg, both with lopinavir/ritonavir 800 mg/200 mg. Primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/ml at week 48 (missing = failure, switch included analysis) and the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events over 96 weeks. RESULTS: At week 48, 68% in the ABC/3TC group vs. 67% in the TDF/FTC group achieved an HIV-1 RNA below 50 copies/ml (intent-to-treat exposed missing = failure, 95% confidence interval on the difference -6.63 to 7.40, P = 0.913), demonstrating the noninferiority of ABC/3TC to TDF/FTC at week 48. Noninferiority of the two regimens was sustained at week 96 (60% vs. 58%, respectively, 95% confidence interval -5.41 to 9.32, P = 0.603). In addition, efficacy of both regimens was similar in patients with baseline HIV-1 RNA >or= 100 000 copies/ml or CD4 cell counts below 50 cells/microl. Median CD4 recovery (ABC/3TC vs. TDF/FTC, cells/microl) was +250 vs. +247 by week 96. Premature study discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 6% of patients in both groups. Protocol-defined virologic failure occurred in 14% of patients in both groups. CONCLUSION: Both ABC/3TC and TDF/FTC provided comparable antiviral efficacy, safety, and tolerability when each was combined with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive patients.

First large, multicenter, open-label study utilizing HLA-B*5701 screening for abacavir hypersensitivity in North America.

A hypersensitivity reaction is associated with abacavir in approximately 2-8% of exposed patients. The frequency of the HLA-B*5701 allele varies across racial groups and significantly correlates with risk of hypersensitivity. Studies in Europe and Western Australia demonstrated that prospective screening can significantly reduce the rate of hypersensitivity by avoiding the use of abacavir in patients carrying the HLA-B*5701 allele. Prospective HLA-B*5701 screening in a large, racially diverse North American population resulted in less than 1% of individuals diagnosed with a suspected abacavir hypersensitivity reaction (ABC HSR) and no positive skin patch test through 30 weeks among HLA-B*5701-negative individuals.