Dolutegravir monotherapy: an option for highly adherent HIV1-infected naive patients with relatively low zenith HIV-RNA? (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2016
Dolutegravir is a powerful, well-tolerated integrase inhibitor with a high genetic barrier to resistance and may thus constitute the backbone of lightened regimens. This was a monocentric, retrospective study. HIV-1-infected patients receiving dolutegravir as monotherapy (mDGV) or dual therapy (dDGV) were systematically identified. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who maintained undetectable (<50 copies/mL) plasma HIV RNA [plasma viral load (PVL)]. We identified 21 patients on mDGV (50 mg/day) and 31 on dDGV (50 or 100 mg/day, with atazanavir ± ritonavir, n = 12; rilpivirine, n = 11; maraviroc, n = 3; lamivudine, n = 3; darunavir/ritonavir, n = 1; or abacavir, n = 1). All of the patients were treatment experienced and 48% had experienced at least one virological failure. The baseline characteristics were as follows (for the mDGV/dDGV patients, respectively): 5%/29% had a history of AIDS; the median (IQR) highest PVL was 4.5 (4.3-5.5)/5.3 (4.7-5.6) log copies/m...
The Lancet, 2013
Background Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profi le. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. Methods SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratifi ed by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤100 000 copies per mL or >100 000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. Findings 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted diff erence 2•5%; 95% CI-2•2 to 7•1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drugrelated serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs fi ve [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic eff ects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. Interpretation The non-inferior effi cacy and similar safety profi le of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fi xed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an eff ective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients.
Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2017
A proof-of-concept study was designed to evaluate the antiviral efficacy, safety and tolerability of a two-drug regimen with dolutegravir 50 mg once daily (QD) plus lamivudine 300 mg once daily as initial highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) among antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients. PADDLE is a pilot study including 20 treatment-naive adults. To be selected, participants had no IAS-USA-defined resistance, HIV-1 RNA ≤100,000 copies/mL at screening and negative HBsAg. Plasma viral load (pVL) was measured at baseline; days 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28; weeks 6, 8 and 12; and thereafter every 12 weeks up to 96 weeks. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL in an intention to treat (ITT)-exposed analysis at 48 weeks (the FDA snapshot algorithm). Median HIV-1 RNA at entry was 24,128 copies/mL (interquartile range (IQR): 11,686-36,794). Albeit as per protocol, all patients had pVL ≤100,000 copies/mL at screening as required by inclusion criter...
The Lancet
Background Effective two-drug regimens could decrease long-term drug exposure and toxicity with HIV-1 antiretroviral therapy (ART). We therefore aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a two-drug regimen compared with a threedrug region for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in ART-naive adults Methods We conducted two identically designed, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trials: GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2. Both studies were done at 192 centres in 21 countries. We included participants (≥18 years) with HIV-1 infection and a screening HIV-1 RNA of 500 000 copies per mL or less, and who were naive to ART. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to receive a once-daily two-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) or a once-daily three-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg) and emtricitabine (200 mg). Both regimen drugs were administered orally. We masked participants and investigators to treatment assignment: dolutegravir was administered as single-entity tablets (similar to its commercial formulation, except with a different film colour), and lamivudine tablets and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine tablets were over-encapsulated to visually match each other. Primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48 in the intention-to-treat-exposed population, using the Snapshot algorithm and a non-inferiority margin of-10%. Safety analyses were done on the safety population. GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02831673 and NCT02831764, respectively.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Objectives To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of dolutegravir (DTG)/lamivudine (3TC) among treatment-naive and virologically suppressed treatment-experienced individuals in the multicentre cohort of the Spanish HIV/AIDS Research Network (CoRIS) during the years 2018–2021. Methods We used multivariable regression models to compare viral suppression (VS) [HIV RNA viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL] and the change in CD4 cell counts at 24 and 48 (±12) weeks after initiation with dolutegravir/lamivudine or other first-line ART regimens. Results We included 2160 treatment-naive subjects, among whom 401 (18.6%) started with dolutegravir/lamivudine. The remaining subjects started bictegravir (BIC)/emtricitabine (FTC)/tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) (n = 949, 43.9%), DTG + FTC/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (n = 282, 13.1%), DTG/3TC/abacavir (ABC) (n = 255, 11.8%), darunavir (DRV)/cobicistat(COBI)/FTC/TAF (n = 147, 6.8%) and elvitegravir (EVG)/COBI/FTC/TAF (n = 126, 5.8%). At 24 an...
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Background Dolutegravir (DTG) and boosted darunavir (bDRV) are potent antiretrovirals with a high resistance barrier and might be valuable switch options for people with HIV (PWH). Methods DUALIS, a randomized, open-label, phase 3b, noninferiority clinical trial, compared the switch to DTG + bDRV (2DR) with continuation of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (2NRTI) + bDRV (3DR). PWH with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL taking 2NRTI + bDRV (3DR) for ≥24 weeks (1 accepted blip <200 copies/mL) were randomized to either switch to DTG 50 mg + DRV 800 mg (boosted with 100 mg of ritonavir) or continue taking 3DR. The primary end point (PE) was the proportion of HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at week (W) 48. Change in NRTI backbone was not classified as failure. The estimated sample size for PE analysis was 292; the noninferiority margin was ≤–10.0%. Results In total, 263 subjects were randomized and treated (2DR n = 131, 3DR n = 132; 90.1% male; 89.7% Caucasian; median age [interquartile ...
einstein (São Paulo), 2023
Objective: To compare viral suppression in treatment-naïve adults starting antiretroviral therapy with dolutegravir (50mg)- and efavirenz (600mg)-based regimens. Methods: We analyzed secondary data from Brazilian health information systems of people living with human immunodeficiency virus who started antiretroviral therapy between 2015 and 2017 in Minas Gerais, Brazil. The outcome was viral suppression, defined as the achievement of the first viral load <50 copies/mL within 12 months after initiating antiretroviral therapy. This outcome was also compared with viral load <1,000 copies/mL and analyzed in two scenarios: intention-to-treat versus per-protocol. Time to viral suppression and adjusted odds ratio accompanied by 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Results: Of the 2,599 participants enrolled, 77.5% were men, and the median age was 34 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis, viral suppression was 58.1% for efavirenz and 76.7% for dolutegravir. People living with HIV on dolutegravir-based regimen were more likely to achieve viral suppression (aOR: 2.44; 95%CI: 2.01-2.95) and had a shorter median time to viral suppression (p<0.0001). Antiretroviral therapy initiation within <120 days, baseline CD4⁺T-cells ≥200 cells/mm3, and viral load <100,000 copies/mL had higher odds of viral suppression. According to the per-protocol analysis, viral suppression ≥90% was observed by considering viral load <1,000 copies/mL. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that viral suppression improved after introducing dolutegravir, although the proportion of patients with viral load <50 copies/mL was lower than expected. Improved access to routine viral load examinations and continuous surveillance of the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy should be considered.
The Lancet HIV
Background WHO guidelines recommend dolutegravir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) for second-line HIV therapy, with NRTI switching from first-line tenofovir to zidovudine. We aimed to examine whether dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir, the best-in-class protease inhibitor drug, and whether maintaining tenofovir in second-line therapy is non-inferior to switching to zidovudine. Methods In this prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non-inferiority trial (NADIA), participants with confirmed HIV first-line treatment failure (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies per mL) were recruited at seven clinical sites in Kenya, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. Following a 2 × 2 factorial design and stratified by site and screening HIV-1 RNA concentration, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive a 96-week regimen containing either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (800 mg of darunavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir once daily) in combination with either tenofovir (300 mg once daily) plus lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or zidovudine (300 mg twice daily) plus lamivudine (150 mg twice daily). The NRTI drugs allocated by randomisation were administered orally in fixed-dose combination pills; other drugs were administered orally as separate pills. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 48 weeks. Here, we report the main secondary outcome: the proportion of participants with a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 400 copies per mL at 96 weeks (non-inferiority margin 12%). We analysed this outcome and safety outcomes in the intention-to-treat population, which excluded only those who were randomly assigned in error and withdrawn before receiving trial drugs. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988452, and is complete. Findings Between July 30 and Dec 18, 2019, we screened 783 patients and enrolled 465. One participant was randomly assigned in error and immediately withdrawn. The remaining 464 participants were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir (n=235) or ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n=229) and to receive lamivudine plus either tenofovir (n=233) or zidovudine (n=231). At week 96, 211 (90%) of 235 participants in the dolutegravir group and 199 (87%) of 229 participants in the darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 2•9, 95% CI −3•0 to 8•7), indicating non-inferiority. Nine (4%) participants (all in the dolutegravir group) developed dolutegravir resistance; no participants developed darunavir resistance (p=0•0023). In the other randomised comparison, 214 (92%) of 233 patients in the tenofovir group and 196 (85%) of 231 patients in the zidovudine group had HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL (percentage point difference 7•0, 95% CI 1•2 to 12•8), showing non-inferiority and indicating the superiority of tenofovir (p=0•019). The proportions of participants with any grade 3-4 adverse event were similar between the dolutegravir (26 [11%]) and darunavir (28 [12%]) groups and between the tenofovir (22 [9%]) and zidovudine (32 [14%]) groups. There were no deaths related to study medication. Interpretation Dolutegravir-based and darunavir-based regimens maintain good viral suppression during 96 weeks; dolutegravir is non-inferior to darunavir but is at greater risk of resistance in second-line therapy. Tenofovir should be continued in second-line therapy, rather than being switched to zidovudine. Funding Janssen.