Week 96 analysis of rilpivirine or efavirenz in HIV-1-infected patients with baseline viral load ≤ 100 000 copies/mL in the pooled ECHO and THRIVE phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials.

OBJECTIVES: These 96-week, ECHO/THRIVE pooled analyses evaluated data for antiretroviral treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected adults with viral load (VL) ≤ 100 000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL receiving rilpivirine or efavirenz. METHODS: ECHO and THRIVE were phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials. Patients received rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (qd) or efavirenz 600 mg qd, with a fixed (ECHO) or investigator-chosen (THRIVE) nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (N[t]RTI) background regimen. Response rate (the percentage of patients with VL < 50 copies/mL, using an intent-to-treat-population, time-to-loss-of-virological-response algorithm), virological failure (VF), resistance development, safety and tolerability were evaluated. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the rilpivirine (n = 368) and efavirenz (n = 329) groups. At week 96, response rates [84% for rilpivirine vs. 80% for efavirenz; difference 4.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.7% to 9.7%] and incidences of VF for the resistance analysis (VFres) (8% for rilpivirine vs. 6% for efavirenz; P = 0.46) were similar in the two groups. Among patients with VFres , a comparable proportion in each group developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). Among those with VFres , more patients in the rilpivirine group than in the efavirenz group developed N[t]RTI RAMs, mostly M184I/V. The mean (95% CI) CD4 cell count increased from baseline to week 96 by 224 (208-240) cells/µL in the rilpivirine group and by 206 (188-225) cells/µL in the efavirenz group. Treatment-related grade 2-4 overall adverse events, any rash and dizziness were less frequent for rilpivirine than for efavirenz (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Rilpivirine demonstrated antiviral efficacy similar to that of efavirenz in antiretroviral treatment-naïve adults with baseline VL ≤ 100 000 copies/mL over 96 weeks. Frequencies of VFres and emergent NNRTI RAMs in each group were similar. More patients with VFres in the rilpivirine group than in the efavirenz group developed N[t]RTI RAMs (mostly M184I/V). Rilpivirine had a more favourable safety/tolerability profile than efavirenz.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz in HIV-1-infected subjects receiving emtricitabine/tenofovir DF: pooled 96-week data from ECHO and THRIVE Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Week 96 efficacy and safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV) was compared to efavirenz (EFV) in subset of 1,096 subjects who received emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) in pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies. METHODS: ECHO and THRIVE are double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 studies of RPV versus EFV plus 2 NRTIs in antiretroviral-naïve adult subjects. The primary and secondary endpoints were the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ mL using an intent-to-treat, time to loss of virologic response (ITT-TLOVR) analysis at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. Safety, tolerability, immunologic response, adherence level, and other measures were also evaluated. RESULTS: At week 48, noninferior efficacy of RPV+FTC/TDF over EFV+FTC/TDF was established, and at week 96 RPV+FTC/TDF remained noninferior (77% overall response rate in both groups). Through week 96, rates of virologic failure were higher in the RPV+FTC/ TDF group, with low and similar rates of virologic failure and resistance mutations occurring during the second year of follow-up. Treatment with RPV+FTC/TDF was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and grade 2-4 adverse events including dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmares, rash, and lipid abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled ECHO and THRIVE studies demonstrated noninferiority of RPV+FTC/TDF in achieving virologic response with safety and tolerability advantages over EFV+FTC/TDF through 96 weeks. Higher rates of virologic failure in the RPV+FTC/TDF group were balanced with higher rates of discontinuations due to adverse events in the EFV+FTC/TDF group.

Neurological and psychiatric tolerability of rilpivirine (TMC278) vs. efavirenz in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the neuropsychiatric safety and tolerability of rilpivirine (TMC278) vs. efavirenz in a preplanned pooled analysis of data from the ECHO and THRIVE studies which compared the safety and efficacy of the two drugs in HIV-1 infected treatment naïve adults. METHODS: ECHO and THRIVE were randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 96-week, international, phase 3 trials comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of rilpivirine 25 mg vs. efavirenz 600 mg once daily in combination with two background nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Safety and tolerability analyses were conducted when all patients had received at least 48 weeks of treatment or discontinued earlier. Differences between treatments in the incidence of neurological and psychiatric adverse events (AEs) of interest were assessed in preplanned statistical analyses using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: At the time of the week 48 analysis, the cumulative incidences in the rilpivirine vs. efavirenz groups of any grade 2-4 treatment-related AEs and of discontinuation because of AEs were 16% vs. 31% (P<0.0001) and 3% vs. 8% (P=0.0005), respectively. The incidence of treatment-related neuropsychiatric AEs was 27% vs. 48%, respectively (P<0.0001). The incidence of treatment-related neurological AEs of interest was 17% vs. 38% (P<0.0001), and that of treatment-related psychiatric AEs of interest was 15% vs. 23% (P=0.0002). Dizziness and abnormal dreams/nightmares occurred significantly less frequently with rilpivirine vs. efavirenz (P<0.01). In both groups, patients with prior neuropsychiatric history tended to report more neuropsychiatric AEs but rates remained lower for rilpivirine than for efavirenz. CONCLUSIONS: Rilpivirine was associated with fewer neurological and psychiatric AEs of interest than efavirenz over 48 weeks in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected adults.

Effect of gender and race on the week 48 findings in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients enrolled in the randomized, phase III trials ECHO and THRIVE.

OBJECTIVES: A week 48 efficacy and safety analysis with respect to gender and race was conducted using pooled data from the phase III, double-blind, double-dummy efficacy comparison in treatment-naïve, HIV-infected subjects of TMC278 and efavirenz (ECHO) and TMC278 against HIV, in a once-daily regimen versus efavirenz (THRIVE) trials. METHODS: Treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected adults were randomized to receive rilpivirine (RPV; TMC278) 25 mg once a day (qd), or efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg qd, plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (ECHO) or tenofovir/emtricitabine, zidovudine/lamivudine or abacavir/lamivudine (THRIVE). RESULTS: A total of 1368 participants (76% male and 61% White, of those with available race data) were randomized and treated. No gender-related differences in response rate (percentage of patients with HIV-1 viral load < 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, using an intent-to-treat, time-to-loss-of-virological-response algorithm) were observed (RPV: men, 85%; women, 83%; EFV: men, 82%; women, 83%). Response rates were lower in Black compared with Asian and White participants (RPV: 75% vs. 95% and 85%, respectively; EFV: 74% vs. 93% and 83%, respectively); this finding was mostly a result of higher discontinuation and virological failure rates in Black patients. Safety findings were generally similar across race and gender subgroups. However, nausea occurred more commonly in women than in men in both treatment groups. In men, diarrhoea was more frequent in the EFV group, and abnormal dreams/nightmares were more frequent in men in both the EFV and RPV groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall response rates were high for both RPV and EFV. No gender differences were observed. However, response rates were lower among Black patients, regardless of treatment group. Gender appeared to influence the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and abnormal dreams/nightmares for both treatments.