Long-Acting HIV Drugs for Treatment and Prevention

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Antiretroviral drugs have revolutionized the treatment and prevention of HIV infection; however, adherence is critical for sustained efficacy. Current HIV treatment consists of three-drug regimens, and current HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) consists of a two-drug regimen; both generally require adherence to once-daily dosing. Long-acting formulations are useful in the treatment and prevention of other conditions (e.g., contraceptives, antipsychotics) and help promote adherence. Newer long-acting formulations of approved and investigational antiretroviral drugs in existing and newer mechanistic classes are under study for HIV treatment and prevention, including some phase III trials. Although long-acting antiretroviral drugs hold promise, some clinical challenges exist, including managing side effects, drug-drug interactions, pregnancy, and long-lasting drug concentrations that could lead to the development of drug resistance. This review aims to summarize currently available information on long-acting antiretroviral drugs for HIV treatment and prevention.

Related collections

Most cited references 53

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir and rilpivirine in adults with HIV-1 infection (LATTE-2): 96-week results of a randomised, open-label, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial

David Margolis, Juan González-García, Hans-Jürgen Stellbrink … (2017)

Cabotegravir and rilpivirine are antiretroviral drugs in development as long-acting injectable formulations. The LATTE-2 study evaluated long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine for maintenance of HIV-1 viral suppression through 96 weeks.

0 comments Cited 168 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial.

Jean-Michel Molina, Pedro Cahn, Beatriz Grinsztejn … (2011)

Efavirenz with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine is a preferred antiretroviral regimen for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Rilpivirine, a new non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, has shown similar antiviral efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial with two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine versus efavirenz, each combined with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. We did a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled trial, in patients infected with HIV-1 who were treatment-naive. The patients were aged 18 years or older with a plasma viral load at screening of 5000 copies per mL or greater, and viral sensitivity to all study drugs. Our trial was done at 112 sites across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned by a computer-generated interactive web response system to receive either once-daily 25 mg rilpivirine or once-daily 600 mg efavirenz, each with tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate and emtricitabine. Our primary objective was to show non-inferiority (12% margin) of rilpivirine to efavirenz in terms of the percentage of patients with confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL intention-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response [ITT-TLOVR] algorithm) at week 48. Our primary analysis was by intention-to-treat. We also used logistic regression to adjust for baseline viral load. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00540449. 346 patients were randomly assigned to receive rilpivirine and 344 to receive efavirenz and received at least one dose of study drug, with 287 (83%) and 285 (83%) in the respective groups having a confirmed response at week 48. The point estimate from a logistic regression model for the percentage difference in response was -0.4 (95% CI -5.9 to 5.2), confirming non-inferiority with a 12% margin (primary endpoint). The incidence of virological failures was 13% (rilpivirine) versus 6% (efavirenz; 11%vs 4% by ITT-TLOVR). Grade 2-4 adverse events (55 [16%] on rilpivirine vs 108 [31%] on efavirenz, p<0.0001), discontinuations due to adverse events (eight [2%] on rilpivirine vs 27 [8%] on efavirenz), rash, dizziness, and abnormal dreams or nightmares were more common with efavirenz. Increases in plasma lipids were significantly lower with rilpivirine. Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. Tibotec. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 98 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Katia Boven, Jaime Andrade Villanueva, Herta Crauwels … (2011)

The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs). We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00543725. From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001). Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1. Tibotec. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0 comments Cited 82 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: Annual Review of Medicine

Abbreviated Title: Annu. Rev. Med.

Publisher: Annual Reviews

ISSN (Print): 0066-4219

ISSN (Electronic): 1545-326X

Publication date Created: January 27 2019

Publication date (Print): January 27 2019

Volume: 70

Issue: 1

Pages: 137-150

Affiliations

[1 ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY 10065, USA;

[2 ]Divisions of Clinical Pharmacology and Infectious Diseases, Long Acting/Extended Release Antiretroviral Resource Program, School of Medicine and Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287-5554, USA;

Article

DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-041217-013717

PubMed ID: 30355266

SO-VID: efd5383d-9f5c-4d24-948e-a8e55166eb4f

History

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine,Cell biology,Immunology,Human biology,Microbiology & Virology,Life sciences

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine, Cell biology, Immunology, Human biology, Microbiology & Virology, Life sciences

Long-Acting HIV Drugs for Treatment and Prevention

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Annual Reviews HIV/AIDS: Public Health and Society

Most cited references 53

Long-acting intramuscular cabotegravir and rilpivirine in adults with HIV-1 infection (LATTE-2): 96-week results of a randomised, open-label, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with tenofovir and emtricitabine in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (ECHO): a phase 3 randomised double-blind active-controlled trial.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 614

Cited by 32

Most referenced authors 1,116