Cargando…
An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine
BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI) are the standard of care for naïve HIV-infected individuals due to their favourable efficacy and safety profile. The newest INSTIs, elvitegravir and dolutegravir, have not been evaluated in a head to head study; however, both have been compare...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
International AIDS Society
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25397523 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19779 |
_version_ | 1782343495065796608 |
---|---|
author | Rogatto, Felipe Bouee, Stephane Jeanbat, Vivianne Piontkowsky, David Aragao, Filipa Bosse, Matthew |
author_facet | Rogatto, Felipe Bouee, Stephane Jeanbat, Vivianne Piontkowsky, David Aragao, Filipa Bosse, Matthew |
author_sort | Rogatto, Felipe |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI) are the standard of care for naïve HIV-infected individuals due to their favourable efficacy and safety profile. The newest INSTIs, elvitegravir and dolutegravir, have not been evaluated in a head to head study; however, both have been compared to efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) in phase III trials. Elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (E/C/F/TDF) was compared to EFV/FTC/TDF for 144 weeks in Gilead Study 102 (GS-102), while dolutegravir (DTG) with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination (ABC/3TC) was compared to EFV/FTC/TDF for 96 weeks in the SINGLE study. The objective of this analysis is to perform an indirect comparison at 48 and 96 weeks of E/C/F/TDF to DTG+ABC/3TC by using the two trials evaluating each of these regimens compared to EFV/FTC/TDF. METHODS: An indirect comparison was performed by using Bucher's methodology to calculate risk differences based on the two phase III clinical trials described above. RESULTS: At week 48 (snapshot analysis), 88% of the patients on E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC had HIV RNA <50 c/mL, while 84% and 81% of patients on EFV/FTC/TDF were suppressed in GS-102 and SINGLE, respectively. At week 96, 84% of patients receiving E/C/F/TDF compared with 80% of patients receiving DTG+ABC/3TC remained suppressed, while 82% and 72% on EFV/FTC/TDF maintained HIV RNA <50 c/mL in GS-102 and SINGLE. At week 144 80% of patients on E/C/F/TDF remained suppressed (vs. 75% of the patients on EFV/FTC/TDF). Results of indirect comparison showed a risk difference of HIV RNA <50 copies per mL between E/C/F/TDF compared with DTG+ABC/3TC of −4% (CI 95%=−11 to 3) for the ITT 48 weeks (p=0.3) and −5% (95% CI=−13 to 3) for the ITT 96 weeks (p=0.2). In regards to safety, there was no significant difference between E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC for any adverse event (AE) (p=0.3), serious AEs (0.13), drug related AEs (0.7), or drug-related serious AEs (0.6). CONCLUSIONS: In GS-102 and SINGLE, 88% of the patients on E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC were virologically suppressed at week 48. At week 96, these proportions were 84% for E/C/F/TDF and 80% for DTG+ABC/3TC. The indirect efficacy comparisons between EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC at week 48 and 96 revealed no statistically significant differences. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4225386 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | International AIDS Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-42253862014-11-13 An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine Rogatto, Felipe Bouee, Stephane Jeanbat, Vivianne Piontkowsky, David Aragao, Filipa Bosse, Matthew J Int AIDS Soc Poster Sessions – Abstract P247 BACKGROUND: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI) are the standard of care for naïve HIV-infected individuals due to their favourable efficacy and safety profile. The newest INSTIs, elvitegravir and dolutegravir, have not been evaluated in a head to head study; however, both have been compared to efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) in phase III trials. Elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF (E/C/F/TDF) was compared to EFV/FTC/TDF for 144 weeks in Gilead Study 102 (GS-102), while dolutegravir (DTG) with the abacavir/lamivudine fixed-dose combination (ABC/3TC) was compared to EFV/FTC/TDF for 96 weeks in the SINGLE study. The objective of this analysis is to perform an indirect comparison at 48 and 96 weeks of E/C/F/TDF to DTG+ABC/3TC by using the two trials evaluating each of these regimens compared to EFV/FTC/TDF. METHODS: An indirect comparison was performed by using Bucher's methodology to calculate risk differences based on the two phase III clinical trials described above. RESULTS: At week 48 (snapshot analysis), 88% of the patients on E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC had HIV RNA <50 c/mL, while 84% and 81% of patients on EFV/FTC/TDF were suppressed in GS-102 and SINGLE, respectively. At week 96, 84% of patients receiving E/C/F/TDF compared with 80% of patients receiving DTG+ABC/3TC remained suppressed, while 82% and 72% on EFV/FTC/TDF maintained HIV RNA <50 c/mL in GS-102 and SINGLE. At week 144 80% of patients on E/C/F/TDF remained suppressed (vs. 75% of the patients on EFV/FTC/TDF). Results of indirect comparison showed a risk difference of HIV RNA <50 copies per mL between E/C/F/TDF compared with DTG+ABC/3TC of −4% (CI 95%=−11 to 3) for the ITT 48 weeks (p=0.3) and −5% (95% CI=−13 to 3) for the ITT 96 weeks (p=0.2). In regards to safety, there was no significant difference between E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC for any adverse event (AE) (p=0.3), serious AEs (0.13), drug related AEs (0.7), or drug-related serious AEs (0.6). CONCLUSIONS: In GS-102 and SINGLE, 88% of the patients on E/C/F/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC were virologically suppressed at week 48. At week 96, these proportions were 84% for E/C/F/TDF and 80% for DTG+ABC/3TC. The indirect efficacy comparisons between EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF and DTG+ABC/3TC at week 48 and 96 revealed no statistically significant differences. International AIDS Society 2014-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4225386/ /pubmed/25397523 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19779 Text en © 2014 Rogatto F et al; licensee International AIDS Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Poster Sessions – Abstract P247 Rogatto, Felipe Bouee, Stephane Jeanbat, Vivianne Piontkowsky, David Aragao, Filipa Bosse, Matthew An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
title | An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
title_full | An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
title_fullStr | An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
title_full_unstemmed | An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
title_short | An indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
title_sort | indirect comparison of efficacy and safety of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir and dolutegravir + abacavir/lamivudine |
topic | Poster Sessions – Abstract P247 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225386/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25397523 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19779 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rogattofelipe anindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT boueestephane anindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT jeanbatvivianne anindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT piontkowskydavid anindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT aragaofilipa anindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT bossematthew anindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT rogattofelipe indirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT boueestephane indirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT jeanbatvivianne indirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT piontkowskydavid indirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT aragaofilipa indirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine AT bossematthew indirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafetyofelvitegravircobicistatemtricitabinetenofoviranddolutegravirabacavirlamivudine |