Final 192-week efficacy and safety results of the ADVANCE trial, comparing 3 first-line antiretroviral regimens

BACKGROUND: ADVANCE compared 3 World Health Organization-recommended first-line regimens in participants with HIV who were antiretroviral naive. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial enrolled participants living with HIV with no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months to 1 of the following arms: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) / emtricitabine (FTC) + dolutegravir (DTG) (2 tablets), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) / FTC + DTG (2 tablets), or a fixed-dose combination of TDF / FTC / efavirenz (EFV) (1 tablet). We report the final safety and efficacy data up to 192 weeks. RESULTS: Repeat consent from the original 351 participants randomized to each arm was obtained from 230 participants (66%) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 209 (60%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 183 (52%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm. At 192 weeks, 213 (61%) of the original 351 participants in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 195 (56%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 172 (49%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm had confirmed RNA <50 copies/mL, with low virologic failure in all groups and no significant integrase inhibitor mutations in any arm. Mean weight gain was 8.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 5.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 3.2 kg (SD, 8.1) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm at 192 weeks from baseline and was greatest among women, those taking TAF, and those with lower baseline CD4 counts. The weight trajectory slowed after week 96. There were few clinical events and minor laboratory changes and differences among arms after 96 weeks. There were no significant differences in treatment-emergent hypertension or pregnancy outcomes by arm. CONCLUSIONS: High viral suppression was seen across arms, with no resistance to DTG. Weight gain continued but slowed after 96 weeks, with few clinical events or laboratory changes

Final 192-Week Efficacy and Safety Results of the ADVANCE Trial, Comparing 3 First-line Antiretroviral Regimens

Background. ADVANCE compared 3 World Health Organization–recommended first-line regimens in participants with HIV who were antiretroviral naive. Methods. This randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial enrolled participants living with HIV with no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months to 1 of the following arms: tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)/emtricitabine (FTC) + dolutegravir (DTG) (2 tablets), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/FTC + DTG (2 tablets), or a fixed-dose combination of TDF/FTC/efavirenz (EFV) (1 tablet). We report the final safety and efficacy data up to 192 weeks. Results. Repeat consent from the original 351 participants randomized to each arm was obtained from 230 participants (66%) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 209 (60%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 183 (52%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm. At 192 weeks, 213 (61%) of the original 351 participants in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 195 (56%) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 172 (49%) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm had confirmed RNA <50 copies/mL, with low virologic failure in all groups and no significant integrase inhibitor mutations in any arm. Mean weight gain was 8.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TAF/FTC + DTG arm, 5.9 kg (SD, 7.1) in the TDF/FTC + DTG arm, and 3.2 kg (SD, 8.1) in the TDF/FTC/EFV arm at 192 weeks from baseline and was greatest among women, those taking TAF, and those with lower baseline CD4 counts. The weight trajectory slowed after week 96. There were few clinical events and minor laboratory changes and differences among arms after 96 weeks. There were no significant differences in treatment-emergent hypertension or pregnancy outcomes by arm. Conclusions. High viral suppression was seen across arms, with no resistance to DTG. Weight gain continued but slowed after 96 weeks, with few clinical events or laboratory changes

Understanding the potential impact of different drug properties on SARS-CoV-2 transmission and disease burden : a modelling analysis

Q1Q1Background The unprecedented public health impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated a rapid search for potential therapeutics, with some key successes. However, the potential impact of different treatments, and consequently research and procurement priorities, have not been clear. Methods and Findings develop a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, COVID-19 disease and clinical care to explore the potential public-health impact of a range of different potential therapeutics, under a range of different scenarios varying: i) healthcare capacity, ii) epidemic trajectories; and iii) drug efficacy in the absence of supportive care. In each case, the outcome of interest was the number of COVID-19 deaths averted in scenarios with the therapeutic compared to scenarios without. We find the impact of drugs like dexamethasone (which are delivered to the most critically-ill in hospital and whose therapeutic benefit is expected to depend on the availability of supportive care such as oxygen and mechanical ventilation) is likely to be limited in settings where healthcare capacity is lowest or where uncontrolled epidemics result in hospitals being overwhelmed. As such, it may avert 22% of deaths in highincome countries but only 8% in low-income countries (assuming R=1.35). Therapeutics for different patient populations (those not in hospital, early in the course of infection) and types of benefit (reducing disease severity or infectiousness, preventing hospitalisation) could have much greater benefits, particularly in resource-poor settings facing large epidemics. Conclusions There is a global asymmetry in who is likely to benefit from advances in the treatment of COVID-19 to date, which have been focussed on hospitalised-patients and predicated on an assumption of adequate access to supportive care. Therapeutics that can feasibly be delivered to those earlier in the course of infection that reduce the need for healthcare or reduce infectiousness could have significant impact, and research into their efficacy and means of delivery should be a priorityRevista Internacional - Indexad

Public attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2: a mixed-methods study

Background: human challenge studies involve the deliberate exposure of healthy volunteers to an infectious micro-organism in a highly controlled and monitored way. They are used to understand infectious diseases and have contributed to the development of vaccines. In early 2020, the UK started exploring the feasibility of establishing a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2. Given the significant public interest and the complexity of the potential risks and benefits, it is vital that public views are considered in the design and approval of any such study and that investigators and ethics boards remain accountable to the public. Methods: mixed methods study comprising online surveys conducted with 2,441 UK adults and in-depth virtual focus groups with 57 UK adults during October 2020 to explore the public's attitudes to a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 taking place in the UK. Results: there was overall agreement across the surveys and focus groups that a human challenge study with SARS-CoV-2 should take place in the UK. Transparency of information, trust and the necessity to provide clear information on potential risks to study human challenge study participants were important. The perceived risks of taking part included the risk of developing long-term effects from COVID, impact on personal commitments and mental health implications of isolation. There were a number of practical realities to taking part that would influence a volunteer's ability to participate (e.g. Wi-Fi, access to exercise, outside space and work, family and pet commitments). Conclusions: the results identified practical considerations for teams designing human challenge studies. Recommendations were grouped: 1) messaging to potential study participants, 2) review of the protocol and organisation of the study, and 3) more broadly, making the study more inclusive and relevant. This study highlights the value of public consultation in research, particularly in fields attracting public interest and scrutiny .</p

Dolutegravir plus Two Different Prodrugs of Tenofovir to Treat HIV

BACKGROUND: Two drugs under consideration for inclusion in antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF). There are limited data on their use in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a 96-week, phase 3, investigator-led, open-label, randomized trial in South Africa, in which we compared a triple-therapy combination of emtricitabine (FTC) and DTG plus either of two tenofovir prodrugs - TAF (TAF-based group) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) (TDF-based group) - against the local standard-of-care regimen of TDF-FTC-efavirenz (standard-care group). Inclusion criteria included an age of 12 years or older, no receipt of ART in the previous 6 months, a creatinine clearance of more than 60 ml per minute (>80 ml per minute in patients younger than 19 years of age), and an HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of 500 copies or more per milliliter. The primary end point was the percentage of patients with a 48-week HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter (as determined with the Snapshot algorithm from the Food and Drug Administration; noninferiority margin, -10 percentage points). We report the primary (48-week) efficacy and safety data. RESULTS: A total of 1053 patients underwent randomization from February 2017 through May 2018. More than 99% of the patients were black, and 59% were female. The mean age was 32 years, and the mean CD4 count was 337 cells per cubic millimeter. At week 48, the percentage of patients with an HIV-1 RNA level of less than 50 copies per milliliter was 84% in the TAF-based group, 85% in the TDF-based group, and 79% in the standard-care group, findings that indicate that the DTG-containing regimens were noninferior to the standard-care regimen. The number of patients who discontinued the trial regimen was higher in the standard-care group than in the other two groups. In the per-protocol population, the standard-care regimen had equivalent potency to the other two regimens. The TAF-based regimen had less effect on bone density and renal function than the other regimens. Weight increase (both lean and fat mass) was greatest in the TAF-based group and among female patients (mean increase, 6.4 kg in the TAF-based group, 3.2 kg in the TDF-based group, and 1.7 kg in the standard-care group). No resistance to integrase inhibitors was identified in patients receiving the DTG-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DTG combined with either of two tenofovir prodrugs (TAF and TDF) showed noninferior efficacy to treatment with the standard-care regimen. There was significantly more weight gain with the DTG-containing regimens, especially in combination with TAF, than with the standard-care regimen. (ADVANCE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03122262.)

Comparing prospective incident severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 infection rates during successive waves of Delta and Omicron in Johannesburg, South Africa

In high-risk individuals in Johannesburg, during the Delta coronavirus disease 2019 wave, 22% (125/561) were positive, with 33% symptomatic (2 hospitalizations; 1 death). During Omicron, 56% (232/411) were infected, with 24% symptomatic (no hospitalizations or deaths). The remarkable speed of infection of Omicron over Delta poses challenges to conventional severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 control measures

Dolutegravir with emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus efavirenz, emtricitabine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection (ADVANCE): week 96 results from a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

Background: ADVANCE compared the efficacy and safety of two antiretroviral first-line combinations (dolutegravir combined with emtricitabine and either tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or tenofovir alafenamide), with a third regimen (efavirenz combined with emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) previously recommended by WHO. Here, we report the 96-week data for the study. Methods: This randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 trial, was done at two research sites in Johannesburg, South Africa, after participant recruitment from 11 public health clinics also in Johannesburg. Eligible participants were aged 12 years or older with HIV-1 infection, who weighed at least 40 kg, had no antiretroviral exposure in the previous 6 months, with a creatinine clearance of more than 60 mL/min (>80 mL per min in individuals aged <19 years), and a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of 500 copies per mL or higher. Individuals who were pregnant or had tuberculosis were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by study staff using a computerised randomisation system. Randomisation was stratified by age (12 and <19 years and ≥19 years). Participants were randomly assigned to once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; once-daily oral fixed-dose combination tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg and emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and efavirenz 600 mg. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at week 48, which has been reported previously. Here, we report the key secondary efficacy endpoint of the proportion of participants who had a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL at the week 96 visit, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of any study drug, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of −10%. Safety data, including clinical, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and laboratory data, are also reported. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03122262. Findings: Between Jan 17, 2017, and May 14, 2018, we screened 1453 individuals, of whom 1053 were enrolled: 351 participants were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group. All participants received at least one dose of study medication and were included in the primary analysis. At week 96, 276 (79%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 275 (78%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 258 (74%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group had achieved a plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration of less than 50 copies per mL. Non-inferiority was established in all three comparisons. The proportion of patients with protocol-defined virological failure at week 96 was low in all treatment groups. Participants in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group had fewer changes in bone density than the two other treatment groups. Mean weight gain was substantial (7·1 kg [SD 7·4] in the tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group; 4·3 kg [6·7] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 2·3 kg [7·0] in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group), and was greater among women than men. Ten (3%) of 351 participants in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz group discontinued due to treatment-related adverse events, of which liver dysfunction (n=4) and rash (n=4) were most common. Interpretation: Medium-term and long-term metabolic and clinical consequences of the considerable increase in bodyweight observed in participants given these antiretroviral regimens and the trajectory of this weight gain over time, especially among women, require further study. Funding: USAID, Unitaid, South African Medical Research Council, ViiV Healthcare