Dolutegravir plus boosted darunavir versus recommended standard-of-care antiretroviral regimens in people with HIV-1 for whom recommended first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy has failed (D(2)EFT): an open-label, randomised, ph
Randomised comparative data on efficacy and safety of second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) after failure of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) across diverse geographical settings are scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate optimal second-line ART for people with HIV.
D2EFT is a completed international, randomised, open-label, phase 3b/4 trial evaluating three second-line ART strategies in adults (aged ≥18 years) with HIV-1 for whom first-line NNRTI therapy has failed. The study was done at 28 sites across 14 countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It was originally designed to compare recommended standard of care (ritonavir-boosted darunavir [800 mg darunavir plus 100 mg ritonavir once daily] plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs; dosed once or twice daily]) with a novel nucleoside sparing regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) with ritonavir-boosted darunavir. The study was adapted during the first year to add a third arm of dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) with fixed tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (300 mg once daily) plus either lamivudine (300 mg once daily) or emtricitabine (200 mg once daily). Participants were randomly assigned with a computer-generated, blocked randomisation scheme (block size of two) stratified by site, previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate use, and HIV viral load. The trial was designed to evaluate non-inferiority of either interventional arm against standard of care for the primary outcome of virological suppression, as determined by HIV RNA load of less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 12%. Comparisons were made with a modified intention-to-treat population, including all participants randomly assigned but excluding administrative withdrawals. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03017872.
1190 individuals were screened; 828 participants were enrolled between Nov 1, 2017, and Dec 31, 2021. Two participants were unable to receive their assigned regimen for administrative reasons; and 826 participants were included in analyses. Median age was 39 years (IQR 33-46), and 450 (54%) participants were female. Baseline median CD4 count was 206 cells per μL (23-354) and median HIV RNA was 15 400 copies per mL (3600-65 986). The proportion of participants with HIV RNA of less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks was 194 (75%) of 257 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus two NRTIs group, 222 (84%) of 264 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus dolutegravir group, and 227 (78%) of 291 in the dolutegravir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine group. Compared with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus two NRTIs, the difference in virological suppression was 8·6% (95% CI 1·7 to 15·5; p=0·016) for dolutegravir plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir and 6·7% (-1·2 to 14·4; p=0·093) for dolutegravir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine. Six deaths occurred, none of which were related to treatment. 19 pregnancies (11 livebirths) occurred with no congenital defects.
In individuals experiencing failure of an NNRTI-based first-line ART, a switch to either dolutegravir plus ritonavir-boosted darunavir or dolutegravir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either lamivudine or emtricitabine, without universal access to genotyping, was non-inferior in achieving viral suppression compared with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus two NRTIs. These global data support the most recent WHO treatment guidelines.
UNITAID; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, USA; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; ViiV Healthcare; and Janssen.
D2EFT Study Group
《Lancet HIV》
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, phas
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.
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.
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.
The fixed-dose combination of bictegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide might provide a safe and efficacious option for ongoing treatment of HIV-1 infection.
Gilead Sciences.
Molina JM
，Ward D
，Brar I
，Mills A
，Stellbrink HJ
，López-Cortés L
，Ruane P
，Podzamczer D
，Brinson C
，Custodio J
，Liu H
，Andreatta K
，Martin H
，Cheng A
，Quirk E
... -
《Lancet HIV》
Efficacy and safety of dolutegravir or darunavir in combination with lamivudine plus either zidovudine or tenofovir for second-line treatment of HIV infection (NADIA): week 96 results from a prospective, multicentre, open-label, factorial, randomised, non
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.
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.
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.
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.
Janssen.
Paton NI
，Musaazi J
，Kityo C
，Walimbwa S
，Hoppe A
，Balyegisawa A
，Asienzo J
，Kaimal A
，Mirembe G
，Lugemwa A
，Ategeka G
，Borok M
，Mugerwa H
，Siika A
，Odongpiny ELA
，Castelnuovo B
，Kiragga A
，Kambugu A
，NADIA Trial Team
... -
《Lancet HIV》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
