Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and safety and dolutegravir and lamivudine in treatment naive HIV patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Compare the efficacy and safety of the 2-drug antiretroviral therapy regimen dolutegravir + lamivudine (DTG + 3TC) with traditional 3-drug regimens in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1.

Design

Data from double-blind, randomized controlled trials of at least 48 weeks' duration in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 identified by systematic review were evaluated using a Bayesian network meta-analysis methodology.

Methods

The primary outcome was virologic suppression at Week 48 for 3-drug regimens versus DTG + 3TC (also analyzed in patient subgroup with baseline viral load >100 000 RNA copies/ml). Secondary outcomes included CD4 cell count change from baseline and safety (adverse events, serious adverse events, and drug-related adverse events) at Week 48.

Results

The network contains 14 unique regimens from 14 randomized controlled trials based on data from 10 043 patients. The proportional difference for viral suppression at 48 weeks for DTG + 3TC versus the other 13 regimens included in the network ranged from -2.7% (-11.0, 5.6%) versus DTG + tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (FTC) to 7.3% (0.6, 13.8%) versus efavirenz + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/FTC. DTG + 3TC was found to be significantly better than efavirenz + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/FTC and similar to all other regimens analysed in terms of viral suppression at 48 weeks. With regard to other outcomes (CD4, adverse event, serious adverse event, drug-related adverse events) at 48 weeks, DTG+3TC was broadly similar to all regimens analysed.

Conclusion

This network meta-analysis demonstrates similar efficacy and safety outcomes over 48 weeks with DTG + 3TC compared with traditional 3-drug antiretroviral therapy regimens.

SUBMITTER: Radford M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6686958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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 criteria, four patients had ?100,000 copies/mL at baseline. Median baseline CD4+ T-cell count was 507 per cubic millimetre (IQR: 296-517). A rapid decline in pVL was observed (median VL decay from baseline to week 12 was 2.74 logs). All patients were suppressed at week 8 onwards up to week 24. At week 48, 90% (18/20) reached the primary endpoint of a pVL <50 copies/mL. Median change in CD4 cell count between baseline and week 48 was 267 cells/mm3 (IQR: 180-462). No major tolerability/toxicity issues were observed. Nineteen patients completed 48 weeks of the study, and one patient (with undetectable VL at last visit) committed suicide. One patient presented a low-level protocol-defined confirmed virological failure at week 36, being the only observed failure. This patient had pVL <50 copies/mL at the end-of-study visit without having changed the two-drug regimen. Observed failure rate was 5%. This is the first report of integrase strand transfer inhibitor/lamivudine dual regimen in ARV-naive patients.This novel dual regimen of dolutegravir and lamivudine warrants further clinical research and consideration as a potential therapeutic option for ARV-therapy-naive patients.NCT02211482.

Project description:BackgroundNetwork meta-analyses (NMAs) provide comparative treatment effects estimates in the absence of head-to-head randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This NMA compared the efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) with other recommended or commonly used core antiretroviral agents.MethodsA systematic review identified phase 3/4 RCTs in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1 receiving core agents: ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), or integrase strand inhibitors (INSTIs). Efficacy (virologic suppression [VS], CD4+ cell count change from baseline) and safety (adverse events [AEs], discontinuations, discontinuation due to AEs, lipid changes) were analyzed at Week 48 using Bayesian NMA methodology, which allowed calculation of probabilistic results. Subgroup analyses were conducted for VS (baseline viral load [VL] ≤/> 100,000copies/mL, ≤/> 500,000copies/mL; baseline CD4+ ≤/>200cells/μL). Results were adjusted for the nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) combined with the core agent (except subgroup analyses).ResultsThe NMA included 36 studies; 2 additional studies were included in subgroup analyses only. Odds of achieving VS with DTG were statistically superior to PIs (odds ratios [ORs] 1.78-2.59) and NNRTIs (ORs 1.51-1.86), and similar but numerically higher than other INSTIs. CD4+ count increase was significantly greater with DTG than PIs (difference: 23.63-31.47 cells/μL) and efavirenz (difference: 34.54 cells/μL), and similar to other core agents. INSTIs were more likely to result in patients achieving VS versus PIs (probability: 76-100%) and NNRTIs (probability: 50-100%), and a greater CD4+ count increase versus PIs (probability: 72-100%) and NNRTIs (probability: 60-100%). DTG was more likely to result in patients achieving VS (probability: 94-100%), and a greater CD4+ count increase (probability: 53-100%) versus other core agents, including INSTIs (probability: 94-97% and 53-93%, respectively). Safety outcomes with DTG were generally similar to other core agents. In patients with baseline VL > 100,000copies/mL or ≤ 200 CD4+cells/μL (18 studies), odds of achieving VS with DTG were superior or similar to other core agents.ConclusionINSTI core agents had superior efficacy and similar safety to PIs and NNRTIs at Week 48 in treatment-naïve patients with HIV-1, with DTG being among the most efficacious, including in patients with baseline VL > 100,000copies/mL or ≤ 200 CD4+cells/μL, who can be difficult to treat.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The anti-retroviral combination of abacavir/lamivudine plus rilpivirine (ABC/3TC/RPV) is not recommended by international guidelines as the first-line regimen. However, it is potent, well-tolerated, and affordable, especially in resource-limited settings. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of ABC/3TC/RPV as an initial regimen for treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected patients. METHODS:A retrospective study was conducted in the largest HIV care centre in Singapore, with data collected June 2011 to September 2017. All treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected adults prescribed ABC/3TC as part of their initial anti-retroviral therapy regimen were included. The third drug was a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) such as RPV or efavirenz (EFV), or boosted protease-inhibitor (PI). Patients were followed up for 48 weeks. The primary end-point was the percentage of patients achieving virologic suppression, analysed using on-treatment analysis. Secondary outcomes included CD4-count change, treatment discontinuation and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS:170 patients were included in the study, 66 patients in the RPV group, 104 patients in the comparator group (EFV or boosted PI). 96% (n?=?24) in the RPV group and 87% (n?=?26) in the comparator group achieved viral suppression at 48 weeks (p?=?0.28). Median (interquartile range) time to viral suppression was similar: 17 (14-24) weeks in the RPV group, and 21 (13-26) weeks in the comparator group. There were no statistically significant differences in the CD4 count between the two groups. 14% (n?=?9) of patients on RPV discontinued treatment before 48 weeks, compared to 30% (n?=?31) from the comparator group (p?=?0.053). Of these, 23 discontinuations were due to drug adverse effects, and only 1 attributed to RPV (p?<?0.01). One patient in each group had virologic failure. CONCLUSION:RPV is effective, safe and considerably more tolerable than compared to NNRTI or boosted PI in ABC/3TC-containing regimens for treatment-naïve patients. It offers an affordable and attractive option, especially in resource-limited settings.