Correction to: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in HIV­1-Infected Patients Treated with Darunavir.

In the original publication of the article, Table 2 has been published incorrectly.

Evaluation of Cardiovascular Disease Risk in HIV-1-Infected Patients Treated with Darunavir.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk associated with darunavir treatment and examined the demographic/clinical characteristics of darunavir users based on data from Janssen-sponsored clinical trials, post-marketing pharmacovigilance databases, and administrative claims databases. METHODS: First, selected CVD events [myocardial infarction, stroke, sudden death, invasive cardiovascular procedures (coronary artery angioplasty or bypass, or carotid endarterectomy)] were analyzed in 19 Janssen-sponsored phase 2-4 studies (incidence rates estimated from pooled data; 95% confidence intervals derived from Poisson distribution). Second, analyses were conducted to identify spontaneously reported CVD events in post-marketing pharmacovigilance databases and evaluate disproportional reporting of CVD events for darunavir (using Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean scores). Third, baseline demographic/clinical characteristics of human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1)-infected patients in general and new users of darunavir and atazanavir were explored using three US administrative claims databases. RESULTS: Among 19 Janssen-sponsored clinical trials (treatment durations ≤ 6 years), the CVD event rate (95% CI) per 1000 person-years (pooled population; n = 5713) was 6.15 (2.91-11.89), and was lower for patients who used once-daily darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg [0.71 (0.16-3.05); n = 1326] versus twice-daily darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg [9.21 (4.94-16.04); n = 3058]. Trend analysis of post-marketing pharmacovigilance data showed that cumulative CVD event reporting rates for darunavir users (any dose) generally declined over time. Spontaneously reported CVD events were not disproportionately reported with darunavir versus other protease inhibitors. Compared with the general HIV-1-infected population and atazanavir users, higher proportions of darunavir users were male, older, and had comorbidities associated with CVD risk based on results from US administrative claims databases. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review of Janssen-sponsored clinical trial, post-marketing, and epidemiological data does not suggest that CVD should be considered an important risk for users of darunavir.

Change in vitamin D levels and risk of severe vitamin D deficiency over 48 weeks among HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive adults receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz in a Phase III trial (ECHO).

BACKGROUND: This analysis assessed changes in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D; the precursor form of active vitamin D) in antiretroviral-naive adults receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz over 48 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial (ECHO). METHODS: ECHO included 690 patients randomized 1:1 to receive rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (n=346) or efavirenz 600 mg once daily (n=344), plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine. 25(OH)D was measured in stored serum samples collected at baseline, and weeks 24 and 48. Proportions of patients with optimal/sufficient (≥30 ng/ml), insufficient (21-29 ng/ml), deficient (10-20 ng/ml) and severely deficient (<10 ng/ml) 25(OH)D levels were determined. Data are presented for patients with paired baseline and week 48 25(OH)D data (rilpivirine, n=292; efavirenz, n=290). RESULTS: After 48 weeks, mean 25(OH)D levels remained largely unchanged from baseline with rilpivirine (-0.2 ng/ml; P=0.57 versus no change), but were significantly reduced with efavirenz (-2.5 ng/ml; P<0.0001 versus no change). When adjusting for season of randomization and the combined variable of race (Black/African American, White/Caucasian, Asian, other race) and ethnicity (Hispanic or Latino and not Hispanic or not Latino), the conclusion about the treatment difference between the rilpivirine and efavirenz treatment groups remained valid. At baseline the proportion of patients with severe 25(OH)D deficiency was similar in both groups (5%) but was significantly lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz at week 48 (5% versus 9%, respectively; P=0.032). Furthermore, of the patients with 25(OH)D insufficiency/deficiency at baseline, the proportion who developed severe 25(OH)D deficiency at week 48 was significantly lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz (2% versus 8%, respectively; P=0.0079). CONCLUSIONS: Rilpivirine had little effect on 25(OH)D, whereas efavirenz resulted in a significant reduction in 25(OH)D levels and an increase in the risk of severe 25(OH)D deficiency.

96-Week resistance analyses of rilpivirine in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults from the ECHO and THRIVE Phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: In the ECHO/THRIVE 96-week efficacy analysis, the response rate was 78% with rilpivirine (RPV) and efavirenz (EFV) plus two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. METHODS: For resistance analyses, virological failures (VFs) were genotyped and/or phenotyped at baseline and failure. RESULTS: In the overall 96-week resistance analyses, the proportion of VFs was higher with RPV (96/686, 14%) versus EFV (52/682, 8%), but similar within weeks 48-96 (22/686, 3% versus 16/682, 2%). In genotyped VFs, treatment-emergent non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were as common with RPV (46/86, 53%) versus EFV (20/42, 48%), but nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs were more common with RPV (48/86, 56%) than EFV (11/42, 26%). In RPV VFs, E138K+M184I remained the most frequent combination. Among RPV VFs with phenotypic RPV resistance, cross-resistance was observed with nevirapine (16/35, 46%), EFV (30/35, 86%) and etravirine (32/35, 91%). Among patients with baseline viral load (VL)≤100,000 copies/ml, there were fewer VFs (RPV: 28/368, 8%; EFV: 20/329, 6%), fewer VFs with treatment-emergent NNRTI RAMs (RPV: 10/27, 37%; EFV: 6/17, 35%), and less phenotypic resistance to RPV and other NNRTIs, than in patients with baseline VL>100,000 copies/ml (VFs: 68/318, 21% [RPV], 32/353, 9% [EFV]; NNRTI RAMs: 36/59, 61% [RPV], 14/32, 56% [EFV]). Among RPV VFs with baseline VL≤100,000 copies/ml observed within weeks 48-96, only 1/7 had phenotypic resistance to RPV. CONCLUSIONS: During the second year of treatment in ECHO/THRIVE, few VFs with emerging NNRTI RAMs (no new RPV RAMs) occurred.

Clinical perspective on drug-drug interactions with the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor rilpivirine.

Rilpivirine (TMC278) is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor approved in combination with other antiretrovirals for the treatment of HIV-1 infection in treatment-naive adults (Edurant(®) 25 mg once daily; Complera(®) [USA]/Eviplera(®) [EU] once daily single-tablet regimen). Rilpivirine should be administered with a meal to optimize bioavailability. Its solubility is pH dependent. Rilpivirine is primarily excreted via the feces with negligible renal elimination. Rilpivirine is predominantly metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4. There is no clinically relevant effect of age, gender, bodyweight, race, estimated glomerular filtration rate, or hepatitis B/C coinfection status on rilpivirine pharmacokinetics in adults. Drug-drug interactions were investigated with cytochrome P450 3A substrates, inducers and inhibitors, drugs altering intragastric pH, antiretrovirals, and other often coadministered drugs. Rilpivirine 25 mg once daily does not have a clinically relevant effect on exposure of coadministered drugs. Coadministration with cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors (ketoconazole, ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors, telaprevir) results in increased rilpivirine plasma concentrations, but these are not considered clinically relevant; no dose adjustments are required. Coadministration of rilpivirine with cytochrome P450 3A inducers (e.g. rifampin, rifabutin) or compounds increasing gastric pH (e.g. omeprazole, famotidine) results in decreased rilpivirine plasma concentrations, which may increase the risk of virologic failure and resistance development. Therefore, strong cytochrome P450 3A inducers and proton-pump inhibitors are contraindicated. Histamine-2 receptor antagonists and antacids can be coadministered with rilpivirine, provided doses are temporally separated. No dose adjustments are required when rilpivirine is coadministered with: acetaminophen, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (sildenafil, etc.), atorvastatin (and other statins), oral contraceptives (ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone), chlorzoxazone (cytochrome P450 2E1 substrate), methadone, digoxin, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, didanosine and other nuceos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and HIV integrase inhibitors (raltegravir, dolutegravir, GSK1265744).

Impact of food and different meal types on the pharmacokinetics of rilpivirine.

The objective of the study was to determine the impact of food and different meal types on the pharmacokinetics of rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. In this open-label, randomized, crossover study, healthy volunteers received a single, oral 75 mg dose of rilpivirine either with a normal-fat breakfast (reference), under fasting conditions, with a high-fat breakfast, or with a protein-rich nutritional drink. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non-compartmental methods and analyzed using a linear mixed-effects model. Safety was assessed throughout. The least-squares mean ratio for area under the plasma concentration-time curve to last timepoint was 0.57 (90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.72) under fasting conditions compared to dosing with a normal-fat breakfast. With a high-fat breakfast or only a protein-rich nutritional drink, the corresponding values were 0.92 (90% CI: 0.80-1.07) and 0.50 (90% CI: 0.41-0.61), respectively, compared to dosing with a normal-fat breakfast. Under all conditions, rilpivirine was generally safe and well tolerated. Administration of rilpivirine under fasting conditions or with only a protein-rich nutritional drink substantially lowered the oral bioavailability when compared to administration with a normal-fat breakfast. Rilpivirine bioavailability was similar when administered with a high-fat or normal-fat breakfast. Rilpivirine should always be taken with a meal to ensure adequate bioavailability.

Pre-existing mutations in the rilpivirine Phase III trials ECHO and THRIVE: prevalence and impact on virological response.

BACKGROUND: Rilpivirine (RPV), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), was approved for HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive adults based on data from two Phase III trials. In the screening population, the prevalence of 49 NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) and the impact of allowed NNRTI RAMs on virological response to an RPV- or efavirenz (EFV)-containing regimen were analysed. METHODS: ECHO and THRIVE were global, Phase III, doubleblind, double-dummy, randomized trials in antiretroviral treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults to determine whether RPV 25 mg once daily had non-inferior efficacy versus EFV 600 mg once daily, both given with tenofovir/emtricitabine (ECHO) or tenofovir/emtricitabine, zidovudine/lamivudine or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The prevalence of 49 NNRTI RAMs, including the predefined list of 39 NNRTI RAMs used to exclude patients with potential resistance to RPV or EFV, was investigated at screening by population sequencing (including mixtures) using the virco(®)TYPE HIV-1 genotyping assay. RESULTS: Of the 1,796 screened patients in whom genotypic resistance results were available, 372 (21%) had NNRTI RAMs. Of 527 screening failures, 148 (28%) were due to the presence of NNRTI RAMs. The presence of allowed NNRTI RAMs was associated with comparable response rates to the overall population (RPV 84.3% versus EFV 82.3%, intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virological-response): V90I (82.4% and 100% for RPV and EFV, respectively), V106I (85.7% and 93.3%), V179I (87.7% and 94.0%) and V189I (100.0% and 88.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the ECHO and THRIVE screened population suggests that transmitted NNRTI resistance is prevalent in treatment-naive patients but prevalence of the 15 RPV RAMs remains low. The four allowed NNRTI RAMs present at baseline did not affect RPV response at week 48.

Week 96 efficacy and safety of rilpivirine in treatment-naive, HIV-1 patients in two Phase III randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: In the week 48 primary analysis of ECHO and THRIVE, rilpivirine demonstrated noninferior efficacy and more favourable tolerability versus efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults. Pooled 96-week results are presented. METHODS: Patients (N = 1368) received rilpivirine 25 mg once-daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d., with two background nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in two randomized, double-blind, double-dummy Phase III trials. RESULTS: At week 96, response rate (% confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml; intent-to-treat, time-to-loss-of-virologic response) was 78% in both groups. Responses were similar for both treatments by background regimen, sex, race, and in patients with more than 95% adherence (M-MASRI) or baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less. Responses were lower and virologic failure higher for rilpivirine versus efavirenz in patients with 95% or less adherence or baseline viral load more than 100,000 copies/ml. Beyond week 48, the incidence of virologic failure was comparable (3 versus 2%) between treatment groups, rilpivirine resistance-associated mutations were consistent with those observed in year 1, there were few adverse events in both groups and no new safety concerns. Over 96 weeks, discontinuations due to adverse events (4 versus 9%), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events (17 versus 33%), rash (4 versus 15%), dizziness (8 versus 27%) and abnormal dreams/nightmares (8 versus 13%), and grade 2-4 lipid abnormalities were lower with rilpivirine than efavirenz. Only 2 and 4% of patients in the rilpivirine and efavirenz treatment groups, respectively, reported at least possibly treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events during the second year of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Rilpivirine 25 mg q.d. and efavirenz 600 mg q.d. had comparable responses at week 96. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures but improved tolerability versus efavirenz. The majority of virologic failures occurred in the first 48 weeks.

Efficacy and safety of rilpivirine in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients with hepatitis B virus/hepatitis C virus coinfection enrolled in the Phase III randomized, double-blind ECHO and THRIVE trials.

OBJECTIVES: The efficacy and hepatic safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors rilpivirine (TMC278) and efavirenz were compared in treatment-naive, HIV-infected adults with concurrent hepatitis B virus (HBV) and/or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in the pooled week 48 analysis of the Phase III, double-blind, randomized ECHO (NCT00540449) and THRIVE (NCT00543725) trials. METHODS: Patients received 25 mg of rilpivirine once daily or 600 mg of efavirenz once daily, plus two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. At screening, patients had alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase levels ≤5× the upper limit of normal. HBV and HCV status was determined at baseline by HBV surface antigen, HCV antibody and HCV RNA testing. RESULTS: HBV/HCV coinfection status was known for 670 patients in the rilpivirine group and 665 in the efavirenz group. At baseline, 49 rilpivirine and 63 efavirenz patients [112/1335 (8.4%)] were coinfected with either HBV [55/1357 (4.1%)] or HCV [57/1333 (4.3%)]. The safety analysis included all available data, including beyond week 48. Eight patients seroconverted during the study (rilpivirine: five; efavirenz: three). A higher proportion of patients achieved viral load <50 copies/mL (intent to treat, time to loss of virological response) in the subgroup without HBV/HCV coinfection (rilpivirine: 85.0%; efavirenz: 82.6%) than in the coinfected subgroup (rilpivirine: 73.5%; efavirenz: 79.4%) (rilpivirine, P = 0.04 and efavirenz, P = 0.49, Fisher's exact test). The incidence of hepatic adverse events (AEs) was low in both groups in the overall population (rilpivirine: 5.5% versus efavirenz: 6.6%) and was higher in HBV/HCV-coinfected patients than in those not coinfected (26.7% versus 4.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic AEs were more common and response rates lower in HBV/HCV-coinfected patients treated with rilpivirine or efavirenz than in those who were not coinfected.

Efficacy and safety of rilpivirine (TMC278) versus efavirenz at 48 weeks in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: pooled results from the phase 3 double-blind randomized ECHO and THRIVE Trials.

BACKGROUND: Pooled analysis of phase 3, double-blind, double-dummy ECHO and THRIVE trials comparing rilpivirine (TMC278) and efavirenz. METHODS: Treatment-naive HIV-1-infected adults were randomized 1:1 to rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily, with background tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) (ECHO) or TDF/FTC, zidovudine/lamivudine, or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). The primary endpoint was confirmed response [viral load <50 copies per milliliter; intent-to-treat time-to-loss-of-virologic-response (ITT-TLOVR) algorithm] at week 48. The pooled data set enabled analyses of subgroups and predictors of response/virologic failure. RESULTS: Confirmed responses were 84% (rilpivirine) and 82% (efavirenz). The difference in response rates (95% confidence interval) was 2.0% (-2.0% to 6.0%). The incidence of virologic failure was 9% (rilpivirine) versus 5% (efavirenz). Responses in ITT-TLOVR and ITT-snapshot analyses were consistent. Responses were similar for rilpivirine and efavirenz by background regimen, gender, race and clade. Suboptimal adherence and higher baseline viral load resulted in lower responses, higher virologic failure, and development of resistance in both groups; the effects on virologic failure were more apparent with rilpivirine. CD4 cell count increased over time in both groups. Rilpivirine compared with efavirenz gave smaller incidences of adverse events leading to discontinuation (3% vs. 8%, respectively), treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events (16% vs. 31%), rash (3% vs. 14%), dizziness (8% vs. 26%), abnormal dreams/nightmares (8% vs. 13%), and grade 2-4 lipid abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: At week 48, rilpivirine 25 mg once daily and efavirenz 600 mg once daily had comparable response rates. Rilpivirine had more virologic failures and improved tolerability versus efavirenz.

Long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of rilpivirine (RPV, TMC278) in HIV type 1-infected antiretroviral-naive patients: week 192 results from a phase IIb randomized trial.

TMC278-C204 (NCT00110305), a 96-week trial of the nonnucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV, TMC278) in 368 HIV-1-infected, treatment-naive patients, was extended to investigate long-term safety and efficacy. Week 192 analysis results are presented. This was a long-term follow-up of a Phase IIb, randomized trial. No significant RPV dose-response relationships with respect to the primary endpoint (composite ITT-TLOVR algorithm) were observed at week 48 or 96. All RPV-treated patients were switched to open-label 75 mg qd at week 96 and then to 25 mg qd, the Phase III dose, at approximately week 144 as it gave the best benefit-risk balance. All control patients continued receiving open-label efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg qd. At week 192, 59% of RPV- and 61% of EFV-treated patients maintained confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml (ITT-TLOVR algorithm). The mean changes from baseline in CD4 cell count were similar in both groups (RPV: 210 cells/mm(3) vs. EFV: 225 cells/mm(3)). No new safety concerns were noted between week 48 and 192. In the week 192 analysis, RPV compared with EFV was associated with a lower overall incidence of grade 2-4 adverse events (AEs) at least possibly related to treatment, including rash (p<0.001) and neurologic AEs (p<0.05 Fisher's exact test, post hoc analyses) Incidences of serious AEs, grade 3 or 4 AEs, and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups. Increases in total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides were significantly lower with RPV than with EFV. RPV continued to show sustained efficacy similar to EFV at week 192 with a generally more favorable safety profile.

Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of HIV-1 isolates obtained from patients on rilpivirine therapy experiencing virologic failure in the phase 3 ECHO and THRIVE studies: 48-week analysis.

Genotypic and phenotypic characterization was performed of HIV-1 isolates from treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients experiencing virologic failure (VF) during treatment with the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTIs) rilpivirine or efavirenz in the pooled phase 3 studies ECHO and THRIVE. Among 686 patients receiving rilpivirine, 72 (10%) experienced VF versus 39 of 682 (6%) receiving efavirenz. In patients with low baseline viral load (VL) ≤100,000 copies per milliliter, the proportions of rilpivirine VFs (19 of 368) and efavirenz VFs (16 of 330) were the same (5%). In patients with high baseline VL >100,000 copies per milliliter, the proportion of VFs was higher with rilpivirine (53 of 318; 17%) than efavirenz (23 of 352; 7%). The rate of rilpivirine VF was comparable between HIV-1 subtype B-infected (11%) and nonsubtype B-infected (8%) patients. The absolute number of VFs with treatment-emergent NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) was higher for rilpivirine (most commonly E138K or K101E) than efavirenz (most commonly K103N), but relative proportions were similar [63% (39 of 62) vs. 54% (15 of 28), respectively]. More rilpivirine VFs had treatment-emergent nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs than efavirenz VFs [68% (42 of 62) versus 32% (9 of 28), respectively], most commonly M184I and M184V. The proportion of rilpivirine VFs with RAMs in patients with low baseline VL was lower than in those with high baseline VL [38% (6 of 16) versus 72% (33 of 46) for NNRTI RAMs and 44% (7 of 16) versus 76% (35 of 46) for nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs, respectively]. In summary, VF and treatment-emergent reverse transcriptase RAMs were similar at low baseline VL but more frequent at high baseline VL in rilpivirine-treated than in efavirenz-treated patients. The frequent emergence of E138K, especially in combination with M184I, in rilpivirine VFs is a unique finding of these trials.

Pharmacokinetics and short-term safety and tolerability of etravirine in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, weight-based dose selection and short-term safety and tolerability of etravirine in HIV-1-infected children and adolescents. DESIGN: Phase I, nonrandomized, open-label study in two stages. METHODS: Children and adolescents aged at least 6 years to 17 years or less on a stable lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral regimen with HIV-1 RNA plasma viral load less than 50 copies/ml were enrolled. In both stages, etravirine (4 mg/kg twice daily in stage I, 5.2 mg/kg twice daily in stage II), added to the existing antiretroviral regimen, was administered for 7 days followed by a morning dose and 12-h pharmacokinetic assessment on day 8. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined using noncompartmental analysis. Data were compared with those previously established in HIV-1-infected adults on a similar etravirine (200 mg twice daily) combination antiretroviral regimen. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited to each stage; 19 and 20 had evaluable pharmacokinetics in stages I and II, respectively. Mean (SD) maximum plasma concentrations in stages I and II were 495 (453) and 757 ng/ml (680), respectively; area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 12 h was 4050 (3602) and 6141 ng h/ml (5586), respectively. Statistical/qualitative comparisons showed comparable exposures with adults in stage II; however, the upper 90% confidence interval fell outside the predefined range. Plasma viral load remained undetectable on day 8 in all patients, and etravirine was well tolerated at both doses. CONCLUSION: Etravirine 5.2 mg/kg was well tolerated in this study and this dose was selected for further investigation in clinical trials.

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.

BACKGROUND: 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). METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: Tibotec.

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.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: Rilpivirine showed non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz, with a higher virological-failure rate, but a more favourable safety and tolerability profile. FUNDING: Tibotec.

Efficacy and safety of TMC278 in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 patients: week 96 results of a phase IIb randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: TMC278 is a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor highly active against wild-type and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 in vitro. The week 96 analysis of TMC278-C204, a large dose-ranging study of TMC278 in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients, is presented. DESIGN: Phase IIb randomized trial. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-eight patients were randomized and treated with three blinded once-daily TMC278 doses 25, 75 or 150 mg, or an open-label, active control, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, all with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. The primary analysis was at week 48. RESULTS: No TMC278 dose-response relationship for efficacy and safety was observed. TMC278 demonstrated potent antiviral efficacy comparable with efavirenz over 48 weeks that was sustained to week 96 (76.9-80.0% and 71.4-76.3% of TMC278-treated patients with confirmed viral load <50 copies/ml, respectively; time-to-loss of virological-response algorithm). Median increases from baseline in CD4 cell count with TMC278 at week 96 (138.0-149.0 cells/microl) were higher than at week 48 (108.0-123.0 cells/microl). All TMC278 doses were well tolerated. The incidences of the most commonly reported grade 2-4 adverse events at least possibly related to study medication, including nausea, dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmare, dyspepsia, asthenia, rash, somnolence and vertigo, were low and lower with TMC278 than with efavirenz. Incidences of serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events and discontinuations due to adverse events were similar among groups. CONCLUSION: All TMC278 doses demonstrated potent and sustained efficacy comparable with efavirenz in treatment-naive patients over 96 weeks. TMC278 was well tolerated with lower incidences of neurological and psychiatric adverse events, rash and lower lipid elevations than those with efavirenz. TMC278 25 mg once daily was selected for further clinical development.

TMC278, a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), active against wild-type and NNRTI-resistant HIV-1.

Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) have proven efficacy against human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). However, in the setting of incomplete viral suppression, efavirenz and nevirapine select for resistant viruses. The diarylpyrimidine etravirine has demonstrated durable efficacy for patients infected with NNRTI-resistant HIV-1. A screening strategy used to test NNRTI candidates from the same series as etravirine identified TMC278 (rilpivirine). TMC278 is an NNRTI showing subnanomolar 50% effective concentrations (EC50 values) against wild-type HIV-1 group M isolates (0.07 to 1.01 nM) and nanomolar EC50 values against group O isolates (2.88 to 8.45 nM). Sensitivity to TMC278 was not affected by the presence of most single NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs), including those at positions 100, 103, 106, 138, 179, 188, 190, 221, 230, and 236. The HIV-1 site-directed mutant with Y181C was sensitive to TMC278, whereas that with K101P or Y181I/V was resistant. In vitro, considerable cross-resistance between TMC278 and etravirine was observed. Sensitivity to TMC278 was observed for 62% of efavirenz- and/or nevirapine-resistant HIV-1 recombinant clinical isolates. TMC278 inhibited viral replication at concentrations at which first-generation NNRTIs could not suppress replication. The rates of selection of TMC278-resistant strains were comparable among HIV-1 group M subtypes. NNRTI RAMs emerging in HIV-1 under selective pressure from TMC278 included combinations of V90I, L100I, K101E, V106A/I, V108I, E138G/K/Q/R, V179F/I, Y181C/I, V189I, G190E, H221Y, F227C, and M230I/L. E138R was identified as a new NNRTI RAM. These in vitro analyses demonstrate that TMC278 is a potent next-generation NNRTI, with a high genetic barrier to resistance development.

Anemia, blood loss, and blood transfusions in North American children in the intensive care unit.

RATIONALE: Minimizing exposure of children to blood products is desirable. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to understand anemia development, blood loss, and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, 6-month observational study in 30 PICUs. Data were collected on consecutive children (<18 yr old) in the PICU for 48 hours or more. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Anemia development, blood loss, and RBC transfusions were measured. A total of 977 children were enrolled. Most (74%) children were anemic in the PICU (33% on admission, 41% developed anemia). Blood draws accounted for 73% of daily blood loss; median loss was 5.0 ml/day. Forty-nine percent of children received transfusions; 74% of first transfusions were on Days 1-2. After adjusting for age and illness severity, compared with nontransfused children, children who underwent transfusion had significantly longer days of mechanical ventilation (2.1 d, P < 0.001) and PICU stay (1.8 d, P = 0.03), and had increased mortality (odds ratio [OR], 11.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-90.9; P = 0.02), nosocomial infections (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.0; P = 0.004), and cardiorespiratory dysfunction (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5-3.0; P < 0.001). High blood loss per kilogram body weight from blood draws (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.2; P = 0.01) was associated with RBC transfusion more than 48 hours after admission. The most common indication for transfusion was low hemoglobin (42%). Pretransfusion hemoglobin values varied greatly (mean, 9.7 +/- 2.7 g/dl). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill children are at significant risk for developing anemia and receiving blood transfusions. Transfusion in the PICU was associated with worse outcomes. It is imperative to minimize blood loss from blood draws and to set clear transfusion thresholds.

The increased incidence of pure red cell aplasia with an Eprex formulation in uncoated rubber stopper syringes.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of pure red cell aplasia (PRCA) in chronic kidney disease patients treated with epoetins increased substantially in 1998, was shown to be antibody mediated, and was associated predominantly with subcutaneous administration of Eprex. A technical investigation identified organic compounds leached from uncoated rubber stoppers in prefilled syringes containing polysorbate 80 as the most probable cause of the increased immunogenicity. METHODS: This study investigated whether the incidence of PRCA was higher for exposure to the product form containing leachates than for leachate-free product forms. Antibody-mediated PRCA cases were classified according to indication, product form, and route of administration. Exposure estimates were obtained by country, indication, route of administration, and product form. RESULTS: For 2001 to 2003, the PRCA incidence rate for patients with subcutaneous exposure to Eprex in prefilled syringes with polysorbate 80 and uncoated rubber stoppers (leachates present) was 4.61/10,000 patient years (95% CI 3.88-5.43) versus 0.26/10,000 patient years (95% CI 0.007-1.44) for syringes with coated stoppers (leachates absent). The rate difference was 4.35/10,000 patient years (95% CI 3.44-5.26; P < 0.0001); the rate ratio was 17 (95% CI 3.14-707). A substantial rate difference remained in sensitivity analyses that adjusted for exposure to multiple product forms. CONCLUSION: The epidemiologic data, together with the chemical and immunologic data, support the hypothesis that leachates from uncoated rubber syringe stoppers caused the increased incidence of PRCA associated with Eprex. Currently, all Eprex prefilled syringes contain fluoro-resin coated stoppers, which has contributed to decreased incidence of PRCA with continued surveillance.