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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rogatto, Felipe, Bouee, Stephane, Jeanbat, Vivianne, Piontkowsky, David, Aragao, Filipa, Bosse, Matthew
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