Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI"— Presentation transcript:

1 Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
ARV-trial.com Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI QDMRK SPRING-2 ONCEMRK GS-US GS-US 1

2 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Design Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double-blind W48 W144 > 18 years, ARV-naïve HIV RNA > 500 c/mL Any CD4 cell count HLA B*5701 negative eGFR ≥ 50 mL/min HBs Ag negative No resistance to FTC/3TC, TDF or ABC N = 314 BIC/F/TAF QD DTG/ABC/3TC placebo QD DTG/ABC/3TC QD BIC/F/TAF placebo QD N = 315 * Randomisation was stratified by HIV RNA (< c/mL, c/mL or > c/mL), CD4 (< 50/mm3, /mm3 or ≥ 200/mm3) at screening and geographic region (USA vs non-USA) BIC/F/TAF: 50/200/25 mg, as STR Objective Non inferiority of BIC/F/TAF at W48: % HIV RNA < 50 c/mL by intention to treat, snapshot analysis (lower margin of the 2-sided % CI for the difference= -12%, 95% power) GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107): ; Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63 2

3 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Baseline characteristics and patient disposition BIC/F/TAF N = 314 DTG/ABC/3TC N = 315 Median age, years 31 32 Female, % 9 10 HIV RNA (log10 c/mL), median 4.42 4.51 HIV RNA > c/mL, % 17 16 CD4 cell count (/mm3), median 443 450 CD4 < 200/mm3, % 11 Discontinuations at W48 W48-W96 Total discontinuations, N (%) 19 (6%) 17 (5.8%) 16 (5%) 15 (5%) For lack of efficacy, N For adverse event, N 4 1 Lost to follow-up, N 8 6 Non-compliance / Other, N 1 / 9 1 / 8 1 / 5 2 / 6 GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107): ; Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63 3

4 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Virologic outcome at week 48 BIC/F/TAF DTG/ABC/3TC 92.4 1.0 6.7 93.0 2.5 4.4 20 40 60 80 100 HIV RNA < 50 c/mL ≥ 50 c/mL No data % DTG/ABC/3TC BIC/F/TAF ‒ 12% + 12% 3.6 - 4.8 - 0.6 Difference (95 % CI) Met criteria for resistance testing (HIV RNA ≥ 200 c/mL) BIC/F/TAF: 1 vs DTG/ABC/3TC: 4 No resistance emergence Mean CD4 increase at W48 BIC/F/TAF: + 233/mm3 DTG/ABC/3TC: + 229/mm3 HIV RNA < 50 c/mL (per-protocol) BIC/F/TAF: 99.3% DTG/ABC/3TC: 98.6% GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107): 4

5 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
HIV RNA < 50 c/mL at W48 according to baseline CD4 and HIV RNA, ITT-E snapshot > > 200 ≤ 200 HIV RNA, c/ml CD4/mm3 20 40 60 80 100 93 94 87 90 83 81 % N= 261 265 53 50 278 283 36 32 BIC/F/TAF DTG/ABC/3TC GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107):

6 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Adverse events at W48 BIC/F/TAF N = 314 DTG/ABC/3TC N = 315 Adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation, N 4 * Adverse event ≥ 5% in either group, % Diarrhea Headache Nausea Nasopharyngitis Cough Upper respiratory tract infection Fatigue Syphilis Insomnia Arthralgia Vomiting Bronchitis Abdominal pain 12.7 11.5 10.2 7.3 6.4 13.0 ** Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities, % CK elevation LDL-cholesterol elevation Amylase Neutropenia 3.5 2.3 1.9 1.6 2.2 3.2 * Nausea, rash ; thrombocytopenia ; chronic pancreatitis, steatorrhea ; depression ** p < 0.001 GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107): 6

7 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Renal parameters, bone mineral density and lipid changes at W48 BIC/F/TAF N = 314 DTG/ABC/3TC N = 315 Median change in eGFR (Cockroft-Gault), mL/min - 10.5 - 10.8 Median percent changes in quantitative proteinuria, % Urine albumin: creatinine Retinol binding protein : creatinine Beta2-microglobulin : creatinine 6 20 - 18 Mean % changes in bone mineral density, % Hip Spine - 0.6 - 0.78 - 0.83 - 1.02 Mean changes in fasting lipids, mg/dL Total cholesterol LDL cholesterol HDL cholesterol Triglycerides 13 7 5 9 11 4 3 None of the differences between groups were significant No discontinuations due to renal adverse events and no proximal tubulopathy in either arm GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107): 7

8 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
Steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters of BIC/F/TAF (N = 17) Bictegravir FTC TAF AUCtau (hr*ng/mL) Mean (% CV ; min-max (33.5 ; ) (29.8 ; ) 206.0 (51.2 ; ) Cmax (ng/mL) Mean (% CV ; min-max) (27.5 ; ) 1 868 (34.5 ; ) 225.5 (68.3 ; ) Ctau (ng/mL) * * (40.7 ; ) 80.9 (37.1 ; ) - Tmax (h) Median (Q1-Q3) 1.53 ( ) 1.50 ( ) 0.53 ( ) t1/2 (h) 15.93 ( ) 6.66 ( ) 0.42 ( ) * BIC mean Ctau about 14 times higher than the protein adjusted effective concentration (162 ng/mL) against wild type HIV-1 virus GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107):

9 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Summary of week 48 results Initial HIV-1 therapy with BIC/F/TAF was non inferior to DTG/ABC/3TC at W48 by snapshot algorithm 92.4% of patients on BIC/F/TAF and 93.0% of patients on DTG/ABC/3TC had HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL Sensitivity analyses confirmed non inferiority No treatment emergent resistance BIC/F/TAF was well tolerated, with no adverse events leading to discontinuation Nausea was reported significantly more frequently in patients treated with DTG/ABC/3TC (p < 0.001) Gastrointestinal, neuropsychiatric, and sleep-related symptoms were reported more frequently in patients treated with DTG/ABC/3TC Changes from baseline in bone mineral density, lipid parameters and renal markers were comparable between treatment arms GS-US Gallant J. Lancet Nov 4;390(10107): 9

10 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
Virologic outcome at week 96, ITT snapshot BIC/F/TAF (N = 314) DTG/3TC/ABC (N = 315) HIV RNA < 50 c/mL ≥ 50 c/mL No virologic data 87.9 0.6 89.8 2.2 11.5 7.9 % 100 80 60 40 20 Difference (95 % CI) -12 % 12 % DTG/3TC/ABC BIC/F/TAF - 1.9 3.1 - 6.9 Secondary endpoints at week 96 BIC/F/TAF DTG/3TC/ABC HIV RNA < 50 c/mL (sensitivity analyses) Per protocol 99.6% 98.9% Missing = failure 87.9% 90,8% Missing = excluded 99.3% Virologic failure with confirmed HIV RNA > 200 c/mL N assessed for resistance N with emergence of resistance 5 Mean change in CD4 at W96 + 287/mm3 + 288/mm3 GS-US Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63

11 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
Adverse events at W96 Discontinuation for adverse event BIC/F/TAF (N = 314) DTG/3TC/ABC (N = 315) 5 (1.6%) Nausea, rash (D4) Thrombocytopenia (D50) Chronic pancreatitis (D134) Depression (D248) Renal failure (D621) Adverse events all grades (%) BIC/F/TAF (N = 314) DTG/3TC/ABC (N = 315) Nausea 11 * 24 * Headache 13 16 Diarrhea 15 Fatigue 9 11 Insomnia 7 10 * p < 0.001 GS-US Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63

12 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
Laboratory parameters (W96) BIC/F/TAF (N = 314) DTG/3TC/ABC (N = 315) p CK grade 3-4, % 6 5 - LDL-cholesterol grade 3-4, % 3 4 Median change in eGFR CG, mL/min - 7.8 - 9.6 0.01 Median % change in urine albumine:creatinine ratio - 0.3 + 5.2 0.25 Median % change in urine retinol binding protein:creatinine ratio + 21.2 + 22.1 0.91 Median % change in urine beta-2-microglobulin:creatinine ratio - 30.8 - 29.4 0.96 Bone DXA: mean % change in BMD between D0 and W96 BIC/F/TAF (N = 314) DTG/3TC/ABC (N = 315) p Spine, % - 0.71 - 0.22 0.14 Hip, % - 1.13 - 1.26 0.59 GS-US Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63

13 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
Mean changes in fasting lipids at W96, mg/dL Total cholesterol: HDL-cholesterol Ratio p = 0.003 0.5 -0.5 -1 3.7 -0.2 - 0.1 Total cholesterol LDL- cholesterol HDL- Triglycerides p = 0.002 p < 0.001 p = 0.17 p = 0.28 15 10 20 30 87,9 8 17 7 4 5 6 Mean baseline value, mg/dL 162 159 101 42 96 93 BIC/FTC/TAF DTG/ABC/3TC % of patients on lipid-lowering agents at baseline 3.8 % 2.2 % % of patients initiating lipid-lowering agents during study 4.1% GS-US Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63

14 Study GS-US-380-1489: BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD
ARV-trial.com Study GS-US : BIC/F/TAF QD vs DTG/ABC/3TC QD Summary of week 96 results Initial HIV-1 therapy with BIC/F/TAF was non inferior to DTG/ABC/3TC at W96 by snapshot algorithm 87.9% of patients on BIC/F/TAF and 89.8% of patients on DTG/ABC/3TC had HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL No treatment emergent resistance BIC/F/TAF was well tolerated, with no adverse events leading to discontinuation Nausea was reported significantly more frequently in patients treated with DTG/ABC/3TC (p < 0.001) Gastrointestinal, neuropsychiatric, and sleep-related symptoms were reported more frequently in patients treated with DTG/ABC/3TC Decrease in eGFR was significantly higher on DTG/ABC/3TC Increase in total-cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol was significantly higher on BIC/F/TAF, but the proportion of participants initiating lipid-lowering agents was not different between arms GS-US Wohl DA Lancet HIV 2019 ; 6:e355-63 14


Download ppt "Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google